It seems that the Bush Administration may be using top secret weather control technologies to repeatedly bombard Florida with hurricanes. Now he has the excuse to shower the state with millions of dollars in federal aid money, which he hopes will turn the Floridians in his favor for November. How clever.

No. my friend, you have it backwards;

Let me explain;

As Bush declared war in Iraq and pointed his sword forward- God (or the Gods, or whatever deity you choose) gave a message to the world – he exploded the Colombia Shuttle and blew it into pieces that ALL FELL ACROSS THE ENTIRE STATE OF TEXAS. Texas is Bush’s home state as your obviously know, but I’m trying to drive the point home.



Now, in the recent months- nearing election time and nearing crucial moments, we are given another strange warning – HURRICANES targeting Florida, one after the other consecutively. Florida belongs to Bush’s brother, Jeb Bush- which you obviously already knew as well, but again I’m trying to drive the point home. Are the heavens trying to warn someone/somebody/the world ??


Besides, why would Bush Sr (or Bush Admin) send such destructive force one of his relative's states, Jeb Bush's Florida ?

You have it backwards, Bush isnt sending this, Higher Forces or Gods are sending this at Bush... for things he is doing.

Cesspool time.

"Bad news. For the third time a hurricane is heading towards Florida. For the third time President Bush has done nothing to stop it."
- David Letterman

good god, that is one of the funniest thread titles ever. *raises flag to thread title*

Damn hurricanes, terror I tell ya...

Actually, by ignoring global warming, and withdrawing from the Kyoto treaty, the Bush administration is contributing to the increased severity of global weather.

I live in Central Florida. Conspiracy or not, we all really wish they would stop so that life can go on.

Ah, but the Military love hurricans, all the better for building bunkers, not to forget the "legislated control" in the form of Martial Law.

Ah, but the Military love hurricans, all the better for building bunkers, not to forget the "legislated control" in the form of Martial Law.

Uh oh, the military; I guess that ties in with the Navy's HARP weather experiment program in Alaska. *gulp*

- N

if any of you guys are actually serious(which im seriously assuming you're not), i will probably have to withdraw from human contact for 30 years before i can get over this stupidity. :m:

I say we all just move underground.

Oh... wait... hurricanes flood too you say? Well, the old people don't need to know that.

Very simply, Bush is trying to fix the problems with social security by killing off a bunch of people who are on it.

nope, you're wrong, its not Bush.

*I* have developed this weather-controlling device, and will continue to use it to my own nefarious purposes until such a time as $1 katrillion dollars are deposited in my off-shore bank account.





That said, weather is a very complicated chaotic system which is based largely on three factors: sunlight, atmospheric consistancy, and the earth's rotation. I would seriously doubt if any scientist today could predict weather accuratly more than a few days in advance, let alone build a device which can create weather weeks ahead of delivering it's destructive force.

River-wind, aren't you suppose to raise your little pinky to express "Evil" in sign language and continue your post with "Mwhahahaa---Mhwhahaa---Mwhaaaa...."

Actually river-wind, such a device does indeed exist ala the HAARP project (http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/index.html). It is designed specifically to heat a (user selected) section of the upper atmosphere, which can change the location of the jet stream and thus the weather. I'd doubt however, that you can specifically send any particular weather to a particular place with much certainty.

I'd guess though that the increase in hurricanes, along with global warming, is just a natural fluxuation in intensity. Did you see the article where some scientists are predicting 30 more years of increased hurricane activity?

Actually, by ignoring global warming, and withdrawing from the Kyoto treaty, the Bush administration is contributing to the increased severity of global weather.

Now this is the first legitamate thing anybody said in this thread.

Now this is the first legitamate thing anybody said in this thread.

No it's not. As a matter of fact, it's completely illegitimate. First I'm not sure that there is a demonstrable "degradation" of global weather. Second, finally and irrefuteably, there is nothing to indicate humanity is the cause of global warming. If you disagree then please divulge the analysis that demonstrates beyond a 95% confidence that humanity is the cause. Given that all the parameters of weather cannot be accounted for, you'll find yourself in a difficult spot.

IMO, attributing global warming to humanity's behavior is the biggest tin-foil hat conspiracy of which I'm aware.

In the long term view, the planet's weather cycles vary wildly. How are you gonna pretend to pick our input out from the fray? Freakin ridiculous.

It's not a testament to the innocence of man... it's more about our impotence. We can only guess as to the magnitude of our impact.

Actually if you are going to question about the Greenhouse effect and if man has contributed, you could work that out simply by looking at the overall emissions that *ARE* manmade in origin.

For instance before we started recording the weather, men were burning more fossil fuels like Coal, although man had been for centuries previously using coal, charcoal and
wood.

There is then the emissions from manufacturing, you'd be suprised the sort of stuff that can be vented into the air from the different chemicals used in fabrication and even just waste chemicals that are only apart of a process.

Not to forget the amount of gas created by waste production, every piece of rubbish(Garbage) you throw out gets placed into large landfill tips that slowly decompose and during the decomposition alot of gases are created that also aren't natural in origin.

The list could go on, and yes all these gases and chemicals do effect the natural balance of the atmosphere no matter what anyone else would have otherwise stated.

However please note I'm stating that there are considerable amounts of Manmade gases that "Must cause some effect" and not suggesting that global warming is the effect generated, but I would suggested that our pollution doesn't exactly "lower" the chances of it.

Absolutely. Wesmorris seems a bit over sure of his position. While there may not yet be proof positive to his requirements, I dare say we have learned enough about Greenhouse affects that we damn sure don't want to ignore the fact that our data shows indeed a build up of such gases.

Ir really doesn't matter if man is the primary cause or not. If he is then we can try to prolong the devastation it will cause, if not lthen we don't need to contribute even further to a problem which we yet don't have a handle on.

I find Wes's attitude on this damn dangerous.

PS: I am not a peacenik or Greene, just a citizen sufficiently aware of the Ozone hole, etc, that thinks we should be taking all this a bit more serious, at least until we are sure. Finding out the hard way that Wes is wrong is just to costly.

Absolutely. Wesmorris seems a bit over sure of his position. While there may not yet be proof positive to his requirements, I dare say we have learned enough about Greenhouse affects that we damn sure don't want to ignore the fact that our data shows indeed a build up of such gases.

Yeah I'm overly sure about not being able to assign a cause. That's silly Mac. You can't assign the cause. Big deal. That doesn't mean it isn't happening. The point is to be careful about what you jack with, given that we don't know shit.

Ir really doesn't matter if man is the primary cause or not.

Oh? But I thought that was the whole complaint. You said that the only legitimate comment in this thread was that the "degrading global climate is because bush doesn't care" (paraphrasing).

If he is then we can try to prolong the devastation it will cause, if not lthen we don't need to contribute even further to a problem which we yet don't have a handle on.

If there will be devastation, then there will be devastation. We should try to avoid it if possible, but jumping to conclusions about causes can make the situation worse. Why? Because any solution will be derived at addressing the cause, which may or may not have any effect whatsoever.

I find Wes's attitude on this damn dangerous.

As if. It's called science Mac, I'd think you'd have a clue. I'm not condoning revocation of evironmental laws, I'm merely saying that the cause of global warming cannot be established as humanity.. and your (and spider goat's) comments about Bush's position are full of shit.

PS: I am not a peacenik or Greene, just a citizen sufficiently aware of the Ozone hole, etc, that thinks we should be taking all this a bit more serious, at least until we are sure. Finding out the hard way that Wes is wrong is just to costly.

Putting words in my mouth are you? How am I wrong? Perhaps if you're going to accuse me of a "dangerous and wrong position" you could point out exactly WHY it's dangerous and wrong to point out what I percieve as your silly argument?

Did I say "global warming isn't happening"? It's clear that the planet is warming a bit, but why? You don't know do you? No you don't. YOu might suspect it, but you don't know. It's probably best to attempt to limit our impact on the evironment, but it's ultimately impossible to get rid of it... and there is no hard evidence saying that our input isn't contributing to a SLOWING of global warming.

For chrissake, this planet has been dramatically warmer and at one point (suspected around 7,000,000 years ago) was a goddamned ball of ICE. I think it's human arrogance to pretend we can effectively assess our over-all impact on global temperature at this point.

However please note I'm stating that there are considerable amounts of Manmade gases that "Must cause some effect" and not suggesting that global warming is the effect generated, but I would suggested that our pollution doesn't exactly "lower" the chances of it.But that just summed it up. There are plenty of good reasons for limiting pollution (death and dirt being the top two).... but global warming hasn't really been supported. Throwing it in there doesn't really do any good as any result is miniscule compared to Earth's natural weather patterns.

Wesmorris,

Don't be so god damn touchy. My comment was made as in comparison to the Bush administration creating hurricanes to wipe out Fla. :D

But while on the subject of Bush he has shown a complete lack of interest in EPA and more interested in helping Haliburton or getting prayer in school.

I think the issues of the enviornment even man's possible harmful affect on the planet, should be well ahead of any of those priorities of his.

We don't need to jump through our asses but we damn should get our heads out of our asses. As you indicated "I do not know" but the unfortunate part is "You don't either". So I think it is high time to start taking it serious and looking into it.

Hello? That none of us know whassup is exactly the point. I do believe it's being taken very seriously, but from the way you talk one might think there is no such thing as the EPA and the gajillion hoops corporations already jump through in an attempt to minimize their impact on the environment. In the long term, I'm quite sure that most corporations (will) realize that negatively impacting the environment hurts the corporation. In the long term, the it's not smart to kill off your customer/employee base. It's kind of hard to have sales when there's no one to work and no one to buy your goods.

Oh, and I'm generally touchy when someone calls me "overconfident and dangerous" and it's actually them who seems to be doing that. My position is realistic, whereas blaming the president for "degrading global climate" is simply fallacious.

And if you're just jazzing me then pardon, I didn't catch it. Seemed serious to me.

Hello? That none of us know whassup is exactly the point. I do believe it's being taken very seriously, but from the way you talk one might think there is no such thing as the EPA and the gajillion hoops corporations already jump through in an attempt to minimize their impact on the environment. In the long term, I'm quite sure that most corporations (will) realize that negatively impacting the environment hurts the corporation. In the long term, the it's not smart to kill off your customer/employee base. It's kind of hard to have sales when there's no one to work and no one to buy your goods.

Oh, and I'm generally touchy when someone calls me "overconfident and dangerous" and it's actually them who seems to be doing that. My position is realistic, whereas blaming the president for "degrading global climate" is simply fallacious.

And if you're just jazzing me then pardon, I didn't catch it. Seemed serious to me.

Only serious in the sense that your post seemed to be absolutest and anti-enviornment. I agree that rush to judgement and actions where no specific cause relationship can be shown is foolish. It cost jobs, etc. But frankly there are areas where known harm is occuring and the Bush Admin has in fact rolled back many of the previously imposed restrictions.

Only serious in the sense that your post seemed to be absolutest and anti-enviornment.

You read that into it. Read it again.

I agree that rush to judgement and actions where no specific cause relationship can be shown is foolish.

Which was my point. To my knowledge, that is no complete long term weather model. Without that, it's rather difficult to assign cause and effect. With the window of accurate prediction dimishing within days, I think it's ridiculous to pretend we know something large and definative about our impact. That's not to say it's impossible, it's just not here yet. There are a number of people concerned with the issue and working toward a solution. I do not think it wise to consider the "humans cause global warming" camp as legitimate until there is hard, irrefutable evidence to support their position. Note that regardless, as a precautionary method it's prudent to attempt to minimize impact, but not at the cost of people going hungry.

But frankly there are areas where known harm is occuring and the Bush Admin has in fact rolled back many of the previously imposed restrictions.

The comments were regarding the long term weather forecast (which you just agreed with me about). Which restrictions have been rolled back that have an impact on the weather? Did you just agree with me that we can't at all accurately correlate the environmental impact of humanity with the trends of large-scale weather? If so, you got served dawg. :rolleyes:

Yeah sorry I just couldn't stop myself. That is all.

Er, well.. almost all.

Please, if you want to be paranoid about something, there are any number of natural disasters to be paranoid about, and at least a few I'm aware of will change the climate more in a matter of hours than humanity has during their brief stint on this rock. Can you say "supervolcano (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&safe=off&q=yellowstone+supervolcano&spell=1)"?

You read that into it. Read it again.



Which was my point. To my knowledge, that is no complete long term weather model. Without that, it's rather difficult to assign cause and effect. With the window of accurate prediction dimishing within days, I think it's ridiculous to pretend we know something large and definative about our impact. That's not to say it's impossible, it's just not here yet. There are a number of people concerned with the issue and working toward a solution. I do not think it wise to consider the "humans cause global warming" camp as legitimate until there is hard, irrefutable evidence to support their position. Note that regardless, as a precautionary method it's prudent to attempt to minimize impact, but not at the cost of people going hungry.



The comments were regarding the long term weather forecast (which you just agreed with me about). Which restrictions have been rolled back that have an impact on the weather? Did you just agree with me that we can't at all accurately correlate the environmental impact of humanity with the trends of large-scale weather? If so, you got served dawg. :rolleyes:

Yeah sorry I just couldn't stop myself. That is all.

Er, well.. almost all.

Please, if you want to be paranoid about something, there are any number of natural disasters to be paranoid about, and at least a few I'm aware of will change the climate more in a matter of hours than humanity has during their brief stint on this rock. Can you say "supervolcano (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&safe=off&q=yellowstone+supervolcano&spell=1)"?

Can you spell "Astroid"? You see how serious they take that. We know it happens and there are a half dozen near misses per year. It is indeed just a matter of time before we get our asses kicked and have made no preperations what-so-ever.

And no we agree that the earth goes through rather large cycles but we have also seen mans impact on the enviornment. Cutting the rain forests (reducing oxygen production, etc and man made of stirred waste chemicals becoming embedded into the soil and making its way in to the food chain.

Have you looked at the fish industry lately? Far fewer fish and many with abnormal cancerous growths.? Pollution man it is a real issue. How many beaches are now closed to human swimming?

Do you actually believe that LA's "Fog" is natural? Hardly. You want jobs. Cut the unemployment and welfare and use the money to put people to work on clean up.

We only have temperature data going back a century or so. That's it. So as I understand it there's really no way to tell if the current upward trend is an actual change or just part of the normal cyclical trends we see all over the archeological record in the form of ice age delineations.

We could be better about our greenhouse emissions, sure. We should do better. But let's not get carried away.

And no we agree that the earth goes through rather large cycles but we have also seen mans impact on the enviornment. Cutting the rain forests (reducing oxygen production, etc and man made of stirred waste chemicals becoming embedded into the soil and making its way in to the food chain.Either address the issue or shut the hell up. Wesmorris said nothing about these things and only mentioned global warming and long term global weather patterns. Neither of these correlations have been substantially supported.

But I'm assuming you know this because you sudenly changed the subject. None of the things you listed are really in dispute, so what the hell is your point?

Either address the issue or shut the hell up. Wesmorris said nothing about these things and only mentioned global warming and long term global weather patterns. Neither of these correlations have been substantially supported.

But I'm assuming you know this because you sudenly changed the subject. None of the things you listed are really in dispute, so what the hell is your point?

Screw you big mouth. Just who the hell do you think you are to tell others to shut the hell up. You are a pathetic ignoramous.

Guys. Don't get into a slanging match over the conversation topic, its just a discussion not a reason to pull some varient of jihad. I know my butting in can enflame too however its kind of what I'm suppose to do and of course attempting to defuse the volatile situations that people get themselves into on this forum.

So ease up, Agree you disagree thats all you have to do not resort to petty squabbling.

pull some varient of jihadDon't give me any ideas:)

I'm just tired of him completely changing the topic everytime he realizes he was wrong... and then pretending to be right.

I didnt think controlling the weather was possible at all,or at least itd be pointless to try considering the butterfly effect in chaos theory,the whole point of the theory was to prove that all initial conditions fall into a chaos in comparrison to a *near* identical initial condition.
You litterly end up with two completely different outcomes even if the initial conditions are virtually identical.

Its cos of what that theory shows that makes time travel in single worldlines so stupid,as soon as you go in the past,it interupts with conditions of the moment,so that over time the distant future would be completely different than what it would have otherwise been,even if you didnt change anything,your arrival is an interuption.

There was a story called "A sound of thunder" short story about hunters using time travel to kill dinosaurs,but kill a butterfly and drastically alter the future.

Theres also a big budget film coming out of the same name,i look forward to that.

Can you spell "Astroid"?

Need I elaborate?

Need I elaborate?

Asteroid. :o

more like Hemorrhoid

Did I say "global warming isn't happening"? It's clear that the planet is warming a bit, but why? You don't know do you? No you don't. YOu might suspect it, but you don't know. It's probably best to attempt to limit our impact on the evironment, but it's ultimately impossible to get rid of it... and there is no hard evidence saying that our input isn't contributing to a SLOWING of global warming.


Pah! What a load of bullocks you are writing !!
There is plenty of evidence to suggest that we are INCREASING the rate of global warming. Read any f*cking scientific journal on the matter .
We are pumping out tons and tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. And there is enormous amounts of tree felling going on. The carbon dioxide in the atmosphere just isn't getting converted into oxygen, and unfortunately the carbon dioxide traps heat, in effect, leading to a general warming of the entire planet. This will have devastating and unpredicable consequences for the future. This is all proven science at work here. We have to work at the cause and find other solutions, soon. The corporations can't keep us going forever at this virtual suicide. I recommend you do some reading, how about some New Scientist?

For chrissake, this planet has been dramatically warmer and at one point (suspected around 7,000,000 years ago) was a goddamned ball of ICE. I think it's human arrogance to pretend we can effectively assess our over-all impact on global temperature at this point.

They have been measuring temperatures differences from the last hundred years. Worked out how fast the ice shelves have been retreating in the last 100 years compared to evidence that shows the rate of change over the last few ten thousand or even 100 thousand years. There is plenty evidence all around the world for this type of thing.

It is obvious that in the last 100 years human civilisation has reshaped the world far more than the effects of people living on the planet in the last 10 000 years.

Do some reading before you bleet on about something with such dangerous consequences!


Cheers.

Pah! What a load of bullocks you are writing !! There is plenty of evidence to suggest that we are INCREASING the rate of global warming. Read any f*cking scientific journal on the matter.

Right. So prove to me that the rate wouldn't have increased without humanity and I'll buy your assertion. Otherwise you're blowing smoke yourself. Gosh you should watch that. You might contribute to global warming.

We are pumping out tons and tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Sure. Are we the sole source of it? How do we compare in volume to other sources? Can we say definitively that it's enough to warm it up? Can we say definitively that the estimates of our contributions are realistic? Can we account directly that it is exactly the carbond dioxide that we contribute that is a problem?

And there is enormous amounts of tree felling going on.

In north america there are as many or more trees than there were in the 1920s.

The carbon dioxide in the atmosphere just isn't getting converted into oxygen, and unfortunately the carbon dioxide traps heat, in effect, leading to a general warming of the entire planet.

The problem with your theory is that it's basically impossible to say how much of it is because of humanity's input to the system. Further, there is some natural process that removes it from the atmosphere or the planet would be like venus. I can't remember what it is. I thought it was rain or something. There is plenty of rain. So maybe humanitie's contribution is as much as a number of volcanoes/year. Can you show how we are "maxing out" the undisturbed climate? Can you show how we are "beyond the limit" of the system's ability to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere?

This will have devastating and unpredicable consequences for the future.

How scientific of you.

This is all proven science at work here.

You're jumping to conclusions. Perhaps you can present your credentials so I can marvel at them? Are you so sure you're qualified to correct me as to what is "proven science"? You certainly seem confident. Egotistical even.

We have to work at the cause and find other solutions, soon.

Perhaps we should work on making sure we understand the system before we "find other solutions". The unfortunate reality is that the sustenance of billions of people depends in part on burning fossil fuels - for now. Of course like I said before, reducing potential impact is probably prudent for now, but not at the expense of collapsing entire economies to do it.

The corporations can't keep us going forever at this virtual suicide.

Ah, so you're a corporate conspiracy theorist? Impressive. I'm so tired of leftist asshats complaining about corporations. It's my guess that you're simply another hater who has determined capitalism is the end of man and the all corporations are bad and people in them should be flogged? How superior of you.

I recommend you do some reading, how about some New Scientist?

As I haven't found your post to be of much substance, your recommendation follows suit.

They have been measuring temperatures differences from the last hundred years. Worked out how fast the ice shelves have been retreating in the last 100 years compared to evidence that shows the rate of change over the last few ten thousand or even 100 thousand years. There is plenty evidence all around the world for this type of thing.

Show me 1 billion years worth of evidence on the topic and I'll maybe buy part of your argument. Otherwise I'd say your argument is entirely ego. Note that my objection is not to warming, but that the warming is certainly cause by humans and that it won't reverse without deliberate intervention at point x in the future. You can't show it, so you have no argument. Again I agree that precautionary measures should be undertaken due to our ignorance. I don't know if we'd agree on what measures should be taken. I do know however, that your assertions as to causality are shit. It is reasonable to have suspicion, but unreasonable to assert it as fact.

It is obvious that in the last 100 years human civilisation has reshaped the world far more than the effects of people living on the planet in the last 10 000 years.

Says your ego nostradomus. It's obvious to me that you don't know a damned thing about science or statistics. That doesn't mean it's true.

Do some reading before you bleet on about something with such dangerous consequences!

Don't be so condescending.

Cheers.

Cheers.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that we are INCREASING the rate of global warming. Read any f*cking scientific journal on the matter .Yes, please do read 'any fucking scientific journal on the matter'. You will see a debate of the topic. The magnitude of the effect we have is unknown.
They have models that show we are the main reason for increasing temperatures.
They have other models that show that all the pollutants we've put out wouldn't have had much of an effect. there was an article in Nature a while back calculating how much CO2 we release compared to that normally generated. If I recall correctly it wasn't even 1%. There have been other articles about how ocean water actually absorbs CO2.

I agree, we have an effect on the enviroment (obviously). I disagree that we should actually care. If we are only going to change the temperature by .5 degrees, we could really care less.

(And don't start on 'the glaciers will melt and flood us all'. The amount of above water level ice isn't enough.)

Right. So prove to me that the rate wouldn't have increased without humanity and I'll buy your assertion. Otherwise you're blowing smoke yourself. Gosh you should watch that. You might contribute to global warming.


That is a strange way to tackle this situation -- to proclaim that because the evidence is there that the warming is occuring AT A MUCH FASTER RATE than it has over the last 1000 or even 500 years in the last 100 years doesn't hint that humanities activities has exasperated this effect is to me, rather bizarre. If it is not humanities doing, then what else could it be that the earths average temperature is increasing at a much more rapid rate than ever recorded according to records. Does the increasing amount of Co2 in the atmosphere NOT account for this in your opinion? Please explain what other phenomena BESIDES human activites could account for this, before you tackle what current science is pointing at.

Sure. Are we the sole source of it? How do we compare in volume to other sources? Can we say definitively that it's enough to warm it up? Can we say definitively that the estimates of our contributions are realistic? Can we account directly that it is exactly the carbond dioxide that we contribute that is a problem?


We're not the sole source of Co2 in the atmosphere, but we are increasing it muchly with the global Co2 factory we have going here on earth. There is no evidence to suggest that volcanoes or underwater "bubbles" of Co2 have suddenly, in the last 100 years been filtering into the atmosphere, not sure what other ideas you have for this there.
I would say we can say our estimates of our contributions are realistic - there is good info on file, at a pretty good guess, of how many cars there are for example in our cities. We have good info on how polluted our cities get on a still day. We have good info on how much forestland, such as that in Brazil, is being cleared every year. We have good info on how many coal & oil powerhouses we have here on earth. Those "guestimates" we are making is based on good solid info.
To answer your last question - human understanding about the gases is actually quiet advanced - we understand how Carbon Dioxide traps more heat than Oxygen does. That can be demonstrated repeatedly in tests.


In north america there are as many or more trees than there were in the 1920s.


Good on 'yaz! The Aussie government doesn't care too much for the old growth Tasmanian forests unfortunately. And I'd say we have less trees in this country that we ever have.


The problem with your theory is that it's basically impossible to say how much of it is because of humanity's input to the system. Further, there is some natural process that removes it from the atmosphere or the planet would be like venus. I can't remember what it is. I thought it was rain or something. There is plenty of rain. So maybe humanitie's contribution is as much as a number of volcanoes/year. Can you show how we are "maxing out" the undisturbed climate? Can you show how we are "beyond the limit" of the system's ability to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere?


The natural processes that remove Co2 are the forests and the oceans, not rain afaik.
Please point to or explain evidence which shows that our contribution is as much as one volcanoe in a year?
Not sure how to interpret your last question, as we will never be beyond the limit -- every step we take in the right direction is what we need to be looking @, not merely ignoring it and covering it in mud.


You're jumping to conclusions. Perhaps you can present your credentials so I can marvel at them? Are you so sure you're qualified to correct me as to what is "proven science"? You certainly seem confident. Egotistical even.


My credentials are as much as armchair enthusiast, however I think that's enough with all the evidence surrounding us in every corner.
It seems you are diverting the attack to the arguer here, not the theory behind it.


Perhaps we should work on making sure we understand the system before we "find other solutions". The unfortunate reality is that the sustenance of billions of people depends in part on burning fossil fuels - for now. Of course like I said before, reducing potential impact is probably prudent for now, but not at the expense of collapsing entire economies to do it.


I don't believe that you agree with the idea that global warming with human assistance is taking place, and I think that's an issue and it's unsettling that people are willing to put 10 million dollars on teh betting table and think this way. Personally, I think that given small shifts in our way of thinking and handling this we will be taking steps in the right direction. We should be saying, at this relatively early age in this process that is taking place "well, lets set ourselves some targets -- in the next 20 years or so we want all automobiles to be non-reliant off our (limited) supply of fossil fuels. Remember that once oil supplies come to a hault - there won't be ANYTHING left for us to use, this will collapse the manufacturing industry COMPLETELY, no more appliances for you and me or your grandchildren! So is it not prudent to start considering these matters NOW, and to forget about blindly intruding into other countries that have done no wrong doing "for our precious economy" and consider some priorities!


Ah, so you're a corporate conspiracy theorist? Impressive. I'm so tired of leftist asshats complaining about corporations. It's my guess that you're simply another hater who has determined capitalism is the end of man and the all corporations are bad and people in them should be flogged? How superior of you.

I am sort of, to an extent. I beleive that the big corporations are robbing the smaller guys and there is loasds of uncompetitive behaviour going on with the large corporations. There is so much money embezzlement bullshit going on, I mean for one, let's just say you're a poor man software developer and you bring out a program to display slide shows quickly and easily. Nowadays you can get your little arse sued by the company that believes that you stole some companies millions of $ of research in how to create a drop-down box. Okay that example may be a little far fetched but it's pretty close.... The rich lawyers out there have merely set up a franchise there for themselves to protect their own interests and the interests of the big corporations. Nice.
A McDonalds in every village -- sweet!! Lovely, my face just lights up every time I see that great reminder of global homogeneousness.

Why do I get the feeling that you are somehow involved with large corporations yourself. Sounds like your not such a "little guy" to me. ;)

As I haven't found your post to be of much substance, your recommendation follows suit.


Did you find any graphs like this :
http://www.internat.naturvardsverket.se/documents/pollutants/climate/climate/svalbe.gif


Show me 1 billion years worth of evidence on the topic and I'll maybe buy part of your argument. Otherwise I'd say your argument is entirely ego. Note that my objection is not to warming, but that the warming is certainly cause by humans and that it won't reverse without deliberate intervention at point x in the future. You can't show it, so you have no argument. Again I agree that precautionary measures should be undertaken due to our ignorance. I don't know if we'd agree on what measures should be taken. I do know however, that your assertions as to causality are shit. It is reasonable to have suspicion, but unreasonable to assert it as fact.


SOunds like you're burying your head in the sand mate. 1 billion years of evidence would be a little hard to pull considering we don't even have 1 billion years of ice core to drill through..


Says your ego nostradomus. It's obvious to me that you don't know a damned thing about science or statistics. That doesn't mean it's true.


Attacks aside here, it seems to me that you are refuting the evidence that SCIENTISTS have been pulling out of their clackers... Pull another one !


Ciao

Lol!

That is a strange way to tackle this situation -- to proclaim that because the evidence is there that the warming is occuring AT A MUCH FASTER RATE than it has over the last 1000 or even 500 years in the last 100 years doesn't hint that humanities activities has exasperated this effect is to me, rather bizarre.

You haven't presented anything but a claim! ;) Can you understand now? Do you think that scientists don't have agendas? There are plenty of scientists claiming plenty of things, but I understand enough about statistics and science to know how easy it is to baffle people who don't with it. It just takes good PR.

Please read this (http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/004320.html). It's well put. My position is summarized perfectly in it. I was shocked to see it put so well with only a few minutes of searching.

If it is not humanities doing, then what else could it be that the earths average temperature is increasing at a much more rapid rate than ever recorded according to records.

The earth is approx. 4 billion years old and was perhaps more than once a solid ball of ice. Prior to the breaking apart of Pangea, the surfact temperature in the center (along with the intensity of weather) was likely extremely more insane than current climate offers. The point is that it's an old, violent planet. The typical violence offered by non-human events over the history of the planets simply dwarfs current apparent negative effects. The magnitude of such events makes humanity look pretty insignificant in comparison to the forces the earth/solar system offers us without our input.

Does the increasing amount of Co2 in the atmosphere NOT account for this in your opinion?

It probably does yeah, but that doesn't mean it isn't natural, or that it won't be correct itself without further directed effort regardless of environmental policy. Again, prevenative policy is probably best given our apparent ignorance as to the potential long term impact of humanity on its environment.

Please explain what other phenomena BESIDES human activites could account for this, before you tackle what current science is pointing at.

Volcanoes, animals, vents. That kind of thing.

We're not the sole source of Co2 in the atmosphere, but we are increasing it muchly with the global Co2 factory we have going here on earth.

You breath too much you dirty bastard. Hehe. Teasing. Pardon.

There is no evidence to suggest that volcanoes or underwater "bubbles" of Co2 have suddenly, in the last 100 years been filtering into the atmosphere, not sure what other ideas you have for this there.

I'm pretty sure you're wrong. Volcanoes have always contributed to the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as far as I know. I could be mistaken. I get the names of stuff wrong sometimes and I'm sometimes distracted when watching that stuff on the science channel. I'm pretty sure the reason offered that the earth recovered from the spiraling snowball effect was due to the greenhouse effect offered by the planet's volcanic activity, taking several hundred thousand years to build up enough gasses to warm up the "snowball earth (http://www-eps.harvard.edu/people/faculty/hoffman/snowball_paper.html)".

I would say we can say our estimates of our contributions are realistic - there is good info on file, at a pretty good guess, of how many cars there are for example in our cities.

So in your completely unscientific opinion, you're right? :) I mean for the purposes of casual conversation I might lend your claim credence, but for the purposes of making scientific claims I don't think you're making the cut. Hehe. Pardon, but seriously man.. think about what you're saying here. There might be good estimates, but how accurate are they? How can you even say for sure? You can't really I'd think... well, maybe in the last 20 years or so there might be good records (with satellites and all). Regardless, how it compares in volume to other earthly contributions is of paramount importance. If you don't know how much mother nature put out, you don't have a goddamned clue if we're doing it or if it's just a thing that seems to be happening for reasons we're not quite sure about.

We have good info on how polluted our cities get on a still day.

Certainly, but does that impact global warming? You mean air pollution? Are you sure it impacts global warming or are you just spewing environmentalist dogma? I don't say that to goad, but to ask you a serious and very important question regarding our ability to have a "scientific" conversation on this topic.

We have good info on how much forestland, such as that in Brazil, is being cleared every year.

The logging corporations there will catch a clue soon enough if they are clear cutting land, as they will soon find themselves with no product to sell. It's in the best interest of logging companies to ensure an adequate supply of trees. The investment in comparison to the potential loss makes it a "no brainer". American companies have learned that long ago, hence all our trees now.

We have good info on how many coal & oil powerhouses we have here on earth. Those "guestimates" we are making is based on good solid info.

You seem pretty certain but I have a sneaking feeling you're only saying that because it seems to make sense. I agree that it seems to make sense on the surface, but I'm not so sure you're correct. I'd like to see a 95% confidence on max human yearly CO2 input for the last hundred years, and then read the paper on how they can be so confident (given that there is no single database and I'd imagine many countries have fraudulent records).

To answer your last question - human understanding about the gases is actually quiet advanced - we understand how Carbon Dioxide traps more heat than Oxygen does. That can be demonstrated repeatedly in tests.

Gasses is one thing. Bournouli did that up a while back and it kicks ass, however.. global climate is much more involved that "gasses".

Good on 'yaz! The Aussie government doesn't care too much for the old growth Tasmanian forests unfortunately. And I'd say we have less trees in this country that we ever have.

I'm sure they'll get a clue. I'd guess as an industry finds itself on the brink of failure due to their stupidity, they'll remember "oh shit, seeds! that's the solution!". :)

The natural processes that remove Co2 are the forests and the oceans, not rain afaik.

Here is a pretty graphic to clear it up. Thanks for the correction.

http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/images/carboncycle.jpg

Not sure how to interpret your last question, as we will never be beyond the limit -- every step we take in the right direction is what we need to be looking @, not merely ignoring it and covering it in mud.

That sounds more like indoctrination that good sense. What is "the right direction"? What if 1,000,000 people starve to death because of resources redirected to stop global warming? I'm just trying hard to make the point that "the right direction" is not particularly clear.

My credentials are as much as armchair enthusiast, however I think that's enough with all the evidence surrounding us in every corner.

With all due respect, maybe someone is telling you what to believe? It's kind of easy to put complex issues in simple terms that seem to make sense if you lack the proper tools to see the over-simplification.

It seems you are diverting the attack to the arguer here, not the theory behind it.

You said "This is all proven science at work here."

Perhaps I should have said "you have provided no evidence to support that claim."

I don't believe that you agree with the idea that global warming with human assistance is taking place, and I think that's an issue and it's unsettling that people are willing to put 10 million dollars on teh betting table and think this way.

I do agree it's possible, but I'm not convinced that it's proven or even very likely. I'm hovering around 50/50 until I see some studies that address the unknowns or offer irrefutable connections. Slide me a link if you have it and don't mind. I can't promise I'll read it because I'm easily distracted and sometimes busy, but I'll read until I smell bullshit.

Personally, I think that given small shifts in our way of thinking and handling this we will be taking steps in the right direction.

Easier said than done. Competing values complicates the scenario immensely.

We should be saying, at this relatively early age in this process that is taking place "well, lets set ourselves some targets -- in the next 20 years or so we want all automobiles to be non-reliant off our (limited) supply of fossil fuels.

That's a good idea for other reasons. For the specified purpose it is simply premature.

Remember that once oil supplies come to a hault - there won't be ANYTHING left for us to use, this will collapse the manufacturing industry COMPLETELY, no more appliances for you and me or your grandchildren!

That's not necessarily true at all. An oil-free economy could definately support manufacturing. My guess is that regardless, my children will have appliances. Of course that's just a guess.

So is it not prudent to start considering these matters NOW, and to forget about blindly intruding into other countries that have done no wrong doing "for our precious economy" and consider some priorities!

It's definately prudent to consider them, but premature to take drastic action. I will not forget about intruding into other countries to ensure world-wide economic stability, especially when there are other reasons that justify it. To insinuate that Iraq was "innocent" is most revealing as to whom has their proverbial head in the sand.

I am sort of, to an extent. I beleive that the big corporations are robbing the smaller guys and there is loasds of uncompetitive behaviour going on with the large corporations.

Big corporations are just like the smaller guys in general. They try to (at least give the impression) satisfy their customers in order to prolong their existance (remarkably similar to a survival instinct) and continue to thrive.

There is so much money embezzlement bullshit going on, I mean for one, let's just say you're a poor man software developer and you bring out a program to display slide shows quickly and easily. Nowadays you can get your little arse sued by the company that believes that you stole some companies millions of $ of research in how to create a drop-down box.

In business there are risks. If you are not willing to take them, you work for someone who is. Your complaints are no excuse. I really think tsun tsu should be taught profusely in all educational systems so people can understand the nature of competition better than they seem to.

Okay that example may be a little far fetched but it's pretty close.... The rich lawyers out there have merely set up a franchise there for themselves to protect their own interests and the interests of the big corporations. Nice.

Do you blame them? Isn't it the most human of all things to protect your interests? I take issue with the corrupt for sure, but corporations are made up of people. Some of them are corrupt. Welcome to humanity. The rich lawyers, while pretty much disgusting, are apparently necessary for now or they wouldn't exist. Hopefully we'll discover a better way as we plod into our future, but I can imagine a thousand worse scenarios quite easily.

A McDonalds in every village -- sweet!! Lovely, my face just lights up every time I see that great reminder of global homogeneousness.

*shrug* The consumers don't have to eat it.

Why do I get the feeling that you are somehow involved with large corporations yourself. Sounds like your not such a "little guy" to me. ;)

Because you're a corporate conspiracy theorist and I'm defending corporations. I don't hate corporations in general any more than I hate you. You're a hater and if you get down to it I'd bet you can't really defend your hate, you're just kind of in on the whole "power to the people" thing, which to an extent I'm down with... but I refuse to go back to the dogmatic mindset "corporations suck!" because in fact when I give them a fair shot, I'd say they are really the most important things in the world and have spearheaded the advance of humanity. In essence, I owe any semblance of prosperity I feel (in a material sense) to corporations. While I'm not entirely materialilstic, I'm certainly ecstatic to be able to talk to people all around the world on my keen computer here.

And I AM a little guy. I'm the quality manager/ IT director for a small company who works a lot for a large one. I really love my little company and hope to foster it into a big small company over time. I want to do it such that we are the better solution because we are more efficient.. because we do better work, because we're more dependable... because we respect the limits of planetary resources and want to honor them by not wasting them. I also wish to ensure the economic prosperity of my family and those of my co-workers by doing so.

Did you find any graphs like this :
http://www.internat.naturvardsverket.se/documents/pollutants/climate/climate/svalbe.gif

Yeah. Your graph doesn't say much in the big picture though. Have you looked at a graph of the stock exchange up close like that? You can't establish long term traits based on local phenomenon, it's that simple.

SOunds like you're burying your head in the sand mate.

Or perhaps you simply haven't thought this through as clearly as you think you have.

1 billion years of evidence would be a little hard to pull considering we don't even have 1 billion years of ice core to drill through..

That makes long term prediction kind of tough eh? Get it?

Attacks aside here, it seems to me that you are refuting the evidence that SCIENTISTS have been pulling out of their clackers... Pull another one !

Scientists are people. They have egos and careers. That some or even a lot of scientists are saying something doesn't mean it's definate. It's a theory at this point with some supporting evidence, but discering human impact from environmental hasn't been done clearly that I'm aware of.

Further, and to the ends of the link article above, I'd guess what you've been reading isn't particularly scientific to begin with. Further, not all scientists are good statisticians, which makes interpreting data pretty tough. I'd say there is evidence to support the claim that humans contribute to global warming, but nothing concrete. As such, there's not much to be said about the topic at this time other than "precautionary measures".

Ciao

Cya.

CO<SUB>2</SUB> isn't just the problem, but the other chemicals/gases like C<SUB>x</SUB>H<SUB>x</SUB>, H<SUB>2</SUB>S, NO<SUB>x</SUB> and other CO<SUB>x</SUB> varients.

For instance H<SUB>2</SUB>S can be generated from Volcanoes that much is known from a blast that once occured above Crete which wiped out the population of the island as well as causing a tidal wave and Acid cloud.

However H<SUB>2</SUB>S can also be generated from the biodegrading of organic material. For those of you that don't know H<SUB>2</SUB>S (Hydrogen-Sulphide) can in quantity be lethal and is one of the gases to check for when working in the biomass field.

C<SUB>x</SUB>H<SUB>x</SUB> (Acetylene, Methane, Butane etc) can be generated from the Biodegrading of Organic matter, however it can also come from the Chemical production industry like household cleaning fluids and even acids used for cleaning metal of corrosion. This gas can be burnt off rather than vented, and even used in conjunction with power-regeneration to Burn the gas so it's exhaust might become the lesser of two evils while also producing power.

There is also all the pollutants created by the petrolleum industry through their flares, that burn at a high temperature but can create NO<SUB>x</SUB> as a side effect.
(Nitrogen-Monoxide/Nitrogen-Dioxide)

When these gases are in the atmosphere they can alter molecular state due to photonic energy bombardment which can cause change in molecular bonding.
This has been observed by NASA satellites that monitor the amount of CO<SUB>2</SUB> & C<SUB>x</SUB>H<SUB>x</SUB> in the atmosphere, if I remember correctly it was shown that depending on the time of year and the planets alignment to sun the chemical reactions in the atmosphere would ebb and flow between some chemicals being in higher densities than others, as elements from the molecules would switch their bonding partners in relationship to photonic energy.

Therefore it's suggested that too much of one particular chemical in the atmosphere would cause the increase in the wrong types of chemicals, and the Kyoto agreement was destined to help prove if man has such a deriving factor on the earth by asking all the countries of the world to lower their emission. If man has played such a factor on the globes ecological state it would be made known by NASA's scans over the decline in emissions through policy up until Kyoto's original agreement comes in in 2010 (or 2015 as the US agreed)

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/climate.html

Lets not also forget how the ice caps and glaciers everywhere are melting at an alarmingly faster rate.

Did anyone read that article in national geographic about global warming, that was good.

Lets not also forget how the ice caps and glaciers everywhere are melting at an alarmingly faster rate.I've got to ask, so? The largest danger is the disruption of underwater currents and the relocation of heat.

Sure sea levels have resin only 1.7in in the last 50 years, but at this rate of warming sea levels could be up by 400ft by the year 3000! A foot or two increase withing the next 100 years would cause incredible amounts of damage.

I doubt it... how much ice do you actually think is above sea level? Not all that much.

On top of this, a melting of the glaciers means a cooling of the ocean's thermal belt, and a cooling of many northern/southern pieces of land. Most ice would simply move... that which melted is mostly below the sea level anyhow.

You haven't presented anything but a claim! ;) Can you understand now? Do you think that scientists don't have agendas? There are plenty of scientists claiming plenty of things, but I understand enough about statistics and science to know how easy it is to baffle people who don't with it. It just takes good PR.


This topic is in the wrong section, this is hardly "pseudoscience" that we're talking about here ay :)
I think your argument that I haven't presented anything but a claim is a laugh, since anything anybody says is a claim, of course, sometimes it comes with results, but in this case I don't believe it is too difficult to locate and link to some hard data.

Please read this (http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/004320.html). It's well put. My position is summarized perfectly in it. I was shocked to see it put so well with only a few minutes of searching.


I'm sorry but I can't bare to read through so much drivel (opinionated armchair biases extraordinaire)... No point in arguing with people who think they know what they're talking about is there ;)


The earth is approx. 4 billion years old and was perhaps more than once a solid ball of ice. Prior to the breaking apart of Pangea, the surfact temperature in the center (along with the intensity of weather) was likely extremely more insane than current climate offers. The point is that it's an old, violent planet. The typical violence offered by non-human events over the history of the planets simply dwarfs current apparent negative effects. The magnitude of such events makes humanity look pretty insignificant in comparison to the forces the earth/solar system offers us without our input.


That is true, however, the earth has been a VERY stable place for the last coupla thousand years. Without that level of stability I don't believe we could have such a great diverse level of life here on earth - admit it, the world as we know it today is extremely well "nourished"..

It probably does yeah, but that doesn't mean it isn't natural, or that it won't be correct itself without further directed effort regardless of environmental policy. Again, prevenative policy is probably best given our apparent ignorance as to the potential long term impact of humanity on its environment.


100% agreed. Have you noticed that your president isn't at all interested in doing something about this ? What's the last policy that President Bush implemented in order to somehow curb Greenhouse gas emissions ? Come on, be truthful ? Does perhaps, Exxon etc. have something to do with this ?


Volcanoes, animals, vents. That kind of thing.


True, apparently farting cows contribute to about 5% of Greenhouse gases.. Now only if they can, like Ali-G said in one episode, somehow contain said farts!


You breath too much you dirty bastard. Hehe. Teasing. Pardon.


I have plants outside that are able to handle the amount of breathing I do! :)


I'm pretty sure you're wrong. Volcanoes have always contributed to the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as far as I know. I could be mistaken. I get the names of stuff wrong sometimes and I'm sometimes distracted when watching that stuff on the science channel. I'm pretty sure the reason offered that the earth recovered from the spiraling snowball effect was due to the greenhouse effect offered by the planet's volcanic activity, taking several hundred thousand years to build up enough gasses to warm up the "snowball earth (http://www-eps.harvard.edu/people/faculty/hoffman/snowball_paper.html)".


Well, I disagree with your opinion that it is volcanoes, that suddenly over the last 50 or so years, have suddenly lifted the amount of Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere exponentially. We can be relatively assured that our industries are contributing a whole lot, along with deforestation etc.
If you look at the graphs of estimated readouts of total Co2 in the atmosphere in the latest National Geographic magazine, you will see that before the middle of this century the graph was pretty much flat!
It is only recently that Co2 levels have been on the increase, and there are not many things that can explain for that - no new volcanoes etc.,
All this, we would hope is constantly being checked by scientists... We kind of rely on their research for any further policy changes at the moment I guess..


So in your completely unscientific opinion, you're right? :) I mean for the purposes of casual conversation I might lend your claim credence, but for the purposes of making scientific claims I don't think you're making the cut. Hehe. Pardon, but seriously man.. think about what you're saying here. There might be good estimates, but how accurate are they? How can you even say for sure? You can't really I'd think... well, maybe in the last 20 years or so there might be good records (with satellites and all). Regardless, how it compares in volume to other earthly contributions is of paramount importance. If you don't know how much mother nature put out, you don't have a goddamned clue if we're doing it or if it's just a thing that seems to be happening for reasons we're not quite sure about.


Well, if I'm not arguing with a scientist then I assume that we are having a friendly debate about this. :) As was said, there is much evidence around us to support the theory that things are warming up FASTER than they ever have, and if it is a natural cause, as you suggest, then we better the hell check it out because it's really going to nail the biodiversity of this place, and endanger the lives of millions of people... Have you ever imagined how we will deal with a city of 20 million running out of water supplies?... If the world can't adapt as fast as the weather changes then we are going to be dealing with a lot uglier planet in the future. Unfortunately the world famous coral reefs of Australia are going to be going through bleaching due to current temperature increases, not much we can do about it I guess, but it is really pretty sad...


Certainly, but does that impact global warming? You mean air pollution? Are you sure it impacts global warming or are you just spewing environmentalist dogma? I don't say that to goad, but to ask you a serious and very important question regarding our ability to have a "scientific" conversation on this topic.


When I talk about pollution here, I'm talking about how much CO2 we're throwing into the atmosphere in a big city. Air pollution consists largely of greenhouse gases mate.. Otherwise where does air pollution come from ?
Cars, buses, trucks, power stations, fires, all are lending a hand here! I don't think you need a degree in science to see that!


You seem pretty certain but I have a sneaking feeling you're only saying that because it seems to make sense. I agree that it seems to make sense on the surface, but I'm not so sure you're correct. I'd like to see a 95% confidence on max human yearly CO2 input for the last hundred years, and then read the paper on how they can be so confident (given that there is no single database and I'd imagine many countries have fraudulent records).


heheh I think we know a lot more than you think about how every country in the world generates its electricity, considering most of it was brought into said small countries by the west. Sounds to me like you may misunderestimate how much we really know about what's going on in the world.
Still, though, even if there are a few fraudenlent records there and here that is not going to make much difference to the calculations -- the calculations should always consider that it may need to "give or take a few". We have an approximate idea of how many coal stations would be pumping how much into the sky, therefore can estimate how much that particular industry is contributing.


Gasses is one thing. Bournouli did that up a while back and it kicks ass, however.. global climate is much more involved that "gasses".

Sure, but it seems to me that you may be in denial that we can actually grasp how these things interact to a certain extent...
Remember that weather prediction is one thing - it's like tapping into a noise generator and trying to make sense of it, but there is a median which one can tap into to get an overall drift of where things are heading.


[quote]
That sounds more like indoctrination that good sense. What is "the right direction"? What if 1,000,000 people starve to death because of resources redirected to stop global warming? I'm just trying hard to make the point that "the right direction" is not particularly clear.


That is the catch 22 - we don't want to take that risk because we don't know for sure, yet it is possible that there will be a risk so the conclusion that most seem to come to is that we'll deal with it when it happens (when it may be too late to work out how to deal with it effectively).
I was quiet impressed with something I read on the news the other day - apparently Governor Schwartnneggar is keen to get motor industries within California adhering to a certain standard by the year 2015. Light motor vehicles will have to cut emmissions by up to 25%. That is the best thing I have heard since this Global Warming thing started hotting up and it puts a huge smile on my dial. Much respect to the Terminator !


With all due respect, maybe someone is telling you what to believe? It's kind of easy to put complex issues in simple terms that seem to make sense if you lack the proper tools to see the over-simplification.


I trust what the scientists have been reporting to us over the last few years, I don't have to believe every detail , but I can ask somebody how much the ice caps are retreating, or what other weather changes have they noticed during the last 20 years of their 80 year lives ?


I do agree it's possible, but I'm not convinced that it's proven or even very likely. I'm hovering around 50/50 until I see some studies that address the unknowns or offer irrefutable connections. Slide me a link if you have it and don't mind. I can't promise I'll read it because I'm easily distracted and sometimes busy, but I'll read until I smell bullshit.


Check out the article in National Geographic :)
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0409/feature1/


Easier said than done. Competing values complicates the scenario immensely.


I don't know, if the State that I live in made some changes, and it is succesful, I feal that other States would want to follow suite.


That's not necessarily true at all. An oil-free economy could definately support manufacturing. My guess is that regardless, my children will have appliances. Of course that's just a guess.


Hmmmm, apparently all the products around you that have some sort of plastic attached to it which relies off oil to be manufactured. If you are keen to chase this up - I can start a new topic in another section and we'll take it to the *experts*, how about that?


It's definately prudent to consider them, but premature to take drastic action. I will not forget about intruding into other countries to ensure world-wide economic stability, especially when there are other reasons that justify it. To insinuate that Iraq was "innocent" is most revealing as to whom has their proverbial head in the sand.


No weapons of mass destruction where discovered in Iraq. People in Iraq, are in general, to a certain degree, inherently violent people in my opinion , it is their way of life. To assume that we are going to guide them to a peaceful democracy, is in my opinion, great guesswork! The future of Iraq is by no means looking good at this point and I fail to see the country simply accepting the American way as a new way of life for their people. There will be much violence and much turmoil in that country - mark my words and remember this conversation every time you hear about trouble in Iraq and the massive failure to understand the true nature of what the people in Iraq wanted, or didn't want!
Saddam was a dictator, an evil man, but guess who put him in power! We want to interfere too much with their politics, they're not easily going to accept what we have to offer, especially with the turmoil and indecisiveness that has occurred around the world due to that puppet that you have ruling your nation. I could go on, but we'd be getting way off topic ;)
Just one more thing -- how does the U.S. plan to stave off any other future anti-americanism which is rife in Iraq ? I could see them planning to build real nuclear weapons just to piss u guys off! Guess we'll be seeing America involved with Iraq for a long, long time :(
It was so not worth it imho.


In business there are risks. If you are not willing to take them, you work for someone who is. Your complaints are no excuse. I really think tsun tsu should be taught profusely in all educational systems so people can understand the nature of competition better than they seem to.


I understand the basics of competition :) However I do think there is too much unfair practice out there. For eg., does Microsoft really need to charge the ludicrous amount of money they do for a copy of their O.S. , if they are the one and only leader in the industry ? We are almost forced into buying their mucky software at unrealistic prices... Why should we trust Microsoft more with that extra money than on ourselves ? It is unfair practice unfortunately, and a lot of big corpos subscribe to this. It is this sort of behaviour that really needs a third body to look into things and sort those things out -- cutting Microsoft into 3, that was the biggest load of bullocks I'd ever heard. How about, cutting the cost of their OS to about $30 a unit ? Would that really hurt them too much ? Do you honestly think they're a great and honest, loving company to charge us such steep prices, even though they fully recognise they are the major leading company in the industry?

Do you blame them? Isn't it the most human of all things to protect your interests? I take issue with the corrupt for sure, but corporations are made up of people. Some of them are corrupt. Welcome to humanity. The rich lawyers, while pretty much disgusting, are apparently necessary for now or they wouldn't exist. Hopefully we'll discover a better way as we plod into our future, but I can imagine a thousand worse scenarios quite easily.



*shrug* The consumers don't have to eat it.


That does not make them any prettier... Unilaterism in design principles and ethics can be quite disgusting in some far off corners... But I guess that is an issue for the individual..


Because you're a corporate conspiracy theorist and I'm defending corporations. I don't hate corporations in general any more than I hate you. You're a hater and if you get down to it I'd bet you can't really defend your hate, you're just kind of in on the whole "power to the people" thing, which to an extent I'm down with... but I refuse to go back to the dogmatic mindset "corporations suck!" because in fact when I give them a fair shot, I'd say they are really the most important things in the world and have spearheaded the advance of humanity. In essence, I owe any semblance of prosperity I feel (in a material sense) to corporations. While I'm not entirely materialilstic, I'm certainly ecstatic to be able to talk to people all around the world on my keen computer here.

[quote]
Yeah. Your graph doesn't say much in the big picture though. Have you looked at a graph of the stock exchange up close like that? You can't establish long term traits based on local phenomenon, it's that simple.


Hmm well it depends largely how far back we can take the graph back to give you a better idea. If there has been an upward trend for the last 50 years, and before that a certain level of stability, chances are that the next phase will be a continued upward trend. If there is, as stock exchange indexes go, large amounts of fluctuations in the graph, that is more suggestive of a level of randomness. Unfortunately, that graph for me, looks like pure and simple mathematics to me.


That makes long term prediction kind of tough eh? Get it?


Hahahaa smartass :) I'm talking about going back 20 000 years worth of history -- in this particular epoch, we can get a good guess of how things have been running and at what sort of pace.

Scientists are people. They have egos and careers. That some or even a lot of scientists are saying something doesn't mean it's definate. It's a theory at this point with some supporting evidence, but discering human impact from environmental hasn't been done clearly that I'm aware of.


Are you talking about the presentation of said data? There is a shitload of work that's been put in , and even upon analysing one small facet - for eg. aerial photographs going back 30 years - scientists are reporting the "signs".


Further, and to the ends of the link article above, I'd guess what you've been reading isn't particularly scientific to begin with. Further, not all scientists are good statisticians, which makes interpreting data pretty tough. I'd say there is evidence to support the claim that humans contribute to global warming, but nothing concrete. As such, there's not much to be said about the topic at this time other than "precautionary measures".


How can you say that what I've been reading isn't scientific ? It is from the word of scientists themselves! Even you clearly don't have much authority on the matter, considering that you haven't devoted your life to science, so I don't think you're one to speak for that.

Anyway, I just take it we are having a friendly debate here and the consequences of our discussion is not going to have much of an overall bearing on the matter, unless of course, your uncle works in Enron or something of its nature :lol:


Take care
Daniel


Cya.

Sure sea levels have resin only 1.7in in the last 50 years, but at this rate of warming sea levels could be up by 400ft by the year 3000! A foot or two increase withing the next 100 years would cause incredible amounts of damage.

I heard we're talking about 3 or 4 meter differences.

Regardless, I think I prefer the world the way it was.....There is obviously going to be large amounts of suffering going on in the next 50 - 100 years in many places around the world, due to the damage we're causing...

I think your argument that I haven't presented anything but a claim is a laugh, since anything anybody says is a claim, of course, sometimes it comes with results, but in this case I don't believe it is too difficult to locate and link to some hard data.

But yet you didn't bother to present any. You just make claims and assume them correct and then defend it with "it's not too hard to find data". Find it or your claim shall remain baseless.

I'm sorry but I can't bare to read through so much drivel (opinionated armchair biases extraordinaire)... No point in arguing with people who think they know what they're talking about is there ;)

Ah, so you won't even listen to a counter-argument. Looks like you describe yourself well. It's good that completely unqualified, unscientific people like yourself can formulate an opinion and stubbornly promote it until my ears bleed... bleeting "but scientists say!!!".

Do you even remotely understand that touting the "last 30 years of data" or anything is basically meaningless in the big picture? Do you know that you're trying to base your model on a sample of less that 0.0000000075% of the data? Statistically, do you have a clue how stupid that is? Seriously? Convince me you have the first clue as to the scientific process and I'll listen. Otherwise the fact that you read National Geographic is nice but un-impressive.

n remotely understand that touting the "last 30 years of data" or anything is basically meaningless in the big picture? Do you know that you're trying to base your model on a sample of less that 0.0000000075% of the data? Statistically, do you have a clue how stupid that is? Seriously? Convince me you have the first clue as to the scientific process and I'll listen. Otherwise the fact that you read National Geographic is nice but un-impressive.

Erm, please, you're making many many claims yourself...! Where is your long list of credentials then Mr. some-guy-who-works-in-an-office ? So it's all right for you to shoot your mouth off, obviously you have some supreriority complex about yourself...

Funny that you make these comments when your counterarguments have no backing either :lol:

I've pointed to some very informative evidence yet you still can't see the picture... There are MANY links out there describing what's going on here .... I'm not going to be your nanny and try to show you how it's quite evident that's what happening here is EXTREMELY unkosher....

Your arrogance is not surpising. Too many people in the U.S. like you who are too dam arrogant to read the signs.. WAsting my time arguing with such stupidity!

Oh well... Back to the grind...

It's not hard to tell from the above posts exactly who has the "temper tantrum" problems and can't seperate the topic at hand and their own personal "temper restraint" mechanisms :)

Erm, please, you're making many many claims yourself...!

So you're not even paying attention? My claim is that your claims are unfounded. Der duh. It requires that I discredit your argument, which I have. Thanks for playing.

Where is your long list of credentials then Mr. some-guy-who-works-in-an-office ?

If I told you would you believe me? I have a BS in Industrial Engineering. It's not much, but science and statistics were a big big part of it. Certain things about statistics I had to learn at great labor. One of first points made was how easy it is to mislead with them. I mean scientists misleading themselves, or journalists misleading themselves based on scientific data that they don't really understand. I mean that with claims of that magnitude, stiff skepticism is paramount to advancing science. While it does seem that many agree that humans are the cause, there stills exists no definitive answer.

So it's all right for you to shoot your mouth off, obviously you have some supreriority complex about yourself...

I keeps it real. I see problems with your thinking. I offer you your fault and alternatives to your reasoning based on the fault I percieve with it.

Funny that you make these comments when your counterarguments have no backing either :lol:

My counter-argument is very simple. You can't base long-term models on short-term phenomenon. It's common sense. It's about resolution. How can you compute a 1000 year average from a 30 second sample of data? Your confidence could only be like 0.000002 percent or something (totally guesstimated).

I've pointed to some very informative evidence yet you still can't see the picture... There are MANY links out there describing what's going on here .... I'm not going to be your nanny and try to show you how it's quite evident that's what happening here is EXTREMELY unkosher....

None of them that I've run across address my concern. It isn't presented because people.... apparently people just like you don't understand to ask the question in the first place... so why report it?

Your arrogance is not surpising.

LOL. Look in the mirror man. You haven't addressed the point, you keep saying "there's plenty of evidence, look at the articles"... but you don't, and the articles don't answer the question. I ask again how do you account for the fact that you can't base long term trends on short term trends? How about, have you accounted for all natural phenomenon and completely isolated humanity as the certain source of global warming? If you're not certain, then exactly what is the confidence offered by your model? How do you verify that confidence?

Too many people in the U.S. like you who are too dam arrogant to read the signs.. WAsting my time arguing with such stupidity!

So who has the superiority complex here? I think it's you.

Oh well... Back to the grind...

Grind on grinding grinder.

You can pretend if you'd like, that I deny global warming. You're wrong. I have valid questions regarding the methods used to reach these conclusions. I have a very difficult time understanding how such broad assertions can be made on such a small sample of the data. It seems quite un-scientific. Of course I might be wrong. I don't deny global warming, I'm simply not convinced as to the cause or that human activity impacts it significantly. It's also a matter of scale. I'm not certain the seemingly humongous amounts of junk we spew has much predictable significance given the scope of the biosphere (which if separated from humanity might dwarf it for all i know) and planetary geothermal kind of activity.

Okay, wesmorris, let me ask you a question :

How far will you let the gaia system stuff us over before you start taking precautionary measures ? Sounds to me like you're going to wait too long, perhaps when it's too late.
What I'm saying is that we should be looking in DETAIL at the evidence that is surrounding us, as the earlier we start properly analysing the details, then our chances of probably doing more damage than we had hoped, is minimalised. I say, we shouldn't have to wait for earth to turn itself on us, as in, drought, famine, changing weather systems or whatever, if we want to look after the future of this vulnerable planet that has been taken over by the humans, we should be noting every single detail that we can pick up, and if necessary, take action. Trouble is, that people are STILL not convinced.. Many scientists ARE convinced... Some aren't...
Where are the facts that tell us exactly how many scientists are convinced and how many are not ?

Oh btw, check out this thread :
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=41159

:)

Okay, wesmorris, let me ask you a question :

How far will you let the gaia system stuff us over before you start taking precautionary measures ? Sounds to me like you're going to wait too long, perhaps when it's too late.

Well, the US has what we call the "EPA". I believe there are a ton of international agreements in effect. To say "you aren't taking any precautions" is simply alarmist dogma.

What I'm saying is that we should be looking in DETAIL at the evidence that is surrounding us, as the earlier we start properly analysing the details, then our chances of probably doing more damage than we had hoped, is minimalised.

That is already happening. Saying that we should start now sound again to me like alarmist dogma.

I say, we shouldn't have to wait for earth to turn itself on us, as in, drought, famine, changing weather systems or whatever, if we want to look after the future of this vulnerable planet that has been taken over by the humans, we should be noting every single detail that we can pick up, and if necessary, take action.

The Earth will not "turn on us". It will perform its function. We should hope to survive it regardless of our affect on that function. The Earth could well destroy us while executing its function, regardless of our impact. It's a very violent planet.

Trouble is, that people are STILL not convinced.. Many scientists ARE convinced... Some aren't...

IMO, it's good that those people don't buy the alarmist dogma. It's as of yet unwarranted to my knowledge, as I've explained a number of times.

Where are the facts that tell us exactly how many scientists are convinced and how many are not?

That's a good question. I would also like answers to the questions I raised.

Just for information purposes the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) isn't just US based, there is pretty much one in every developed country and some in the developing countries (Admittedly to help enforce that their development is clean).

The EPA can deal with anything from Flytipping, to Tribunuals against Industry giants that have been disposing of chemicals wrongly to dealing with lowering greenhouse imissions. If there is every a major fire at a chemical plant, or a chemical spill you can be sure that the EPA will have guys juggling numbers to do the math to check what sort of impact has been made.

You'd think... but I've had interaction with the EPA. They are standard government workers. If the situation is in any way different than the status quo, and not deadly, they completely ignore it.

Well, the US has what we call the "EPA". I believe there are a ton of international agreements in effect. To say "you aren't taking any precautions" is simply alarmist dogma.


Hmmmm I don't know about dogma. Mate you are ignoring the facts that tends of thousands of scientists around the world have proposed. Do you still not believe that Aerosoles are more than likely responsible for the gaping hole in the ozone layer? If that isn't the case, why aren't we using Aerosoles freely ?
The same applies for global warming. If there are tens of thousands of scientists around the world requesting that we take heed, I think that's important that we do.

So... You say, it will cost the lives of millions of people to do so. Simply use our brains,we wil surely figure out a way to keep more intelligent industry going -- it's not really hard when we put our minds to it and stimulate an economy with doing so. People are just lazy and too happy with the constant rate of $$$$$$$ getting deposited in their pockets and getting their dicks sucked by gorgeous women.


The Earth will not "turn on us". It will perform its function. We should hope to survive it regardless of our affect on that function. The Earth could well destroy us while executing its function, regardless of our impact. It's a very violent planet.


Not in this day and age - I'd say its a relatively calm planet now. Throwing a few more hickups...


IMO, it's good that those people don't buy the alarmist dogma. It's as of yet unwarranted to my knowledge, as I've explained a number of times.


I'm not sure I understand your way of thinking however. I'm telling you, that the evidence is there around us, in the magazines, websites, enviromentalists, governments (the Russian government is now included in this as they have signed the Kyoto protocol). There are large chunks of ice melting off the Antartic, the ice belt in Greenland is retreating, glaciers in Canada are doing so as well, the poor polar bares are getting threatened, bleaching is taking place on coral reefs, 5 cyclones in 6 weeks in Florida, different temperatures and salinities in well understood ocean currents, increased average temperatures across the planet over the last few years, weather patterns changing around the world, more CO2 in the atmosphere.....

That's enough evidence for me. I resent the negative dogma attached to these theories, it almost feels that people are too arrogant out there to heed the signs...

That's a good question. I would also like answers to the questions I raised.
You want links ?

An antartic research station link :
http://theice.org/

Check out the article...

Headline :
Gigantic Iceberg Breaks Loose!!!

I guess this might seem arbitrary to you. But metling at this rate has not been noticed by us before recent times.. Even though we've got data pointing back about 100 years.

Anyway, some more theory for you,....,.,.,.,.,.,.



ASK A SCIENTIST- Cause for Global Warming/Hole in Ozone Layer (http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newton/askasci/1993/environ/ENV032.HTM) - discusses "urban warming", rather than "global warming"...
The physics of El Nino (http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/11/8/8/1)
A simple picture of how El Nino works (http://www.knmi.nl/onderzk/oceano/special/nino/ninoinfo.html)
The myth of global warming (opinion) (http://www.thebatt.com/news/2004/06/02/Opinion/The-Myth.Of.Global.Warming-683933.shtml)
Natural Life Magazine- Global Warming: A Reality (http://www.life.ca/nl/46/warming.html)
The Source of Half the World's Oxygen gets little credit (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/0607_040607_phytoplankton.html)
The Remarkable Ocean World - The Gaia Hypothesis (http://www.oceansonline.com/gaiaho.htm)
Guide to philosophy and the Environment (http://www.lancs.ac.uk/users/philosophy/mave/guide/gaiath~1.htm)
The Gaian Mind (http://deoxy.org/gaia/)

Not in this day and age - I'd say its a relatively calm planet now. Throwing a few more hickups...Talk of 'this day ang age' is idiotic on the scales in question.
I guess this might seem arbitrary to you. But metling at this rate has not been noticed by us before recent times.. Even though we've got data pointing back about 100 years.This follows my previous comment. It's like a new born thinking the birds are flying south because it cried. After all, it 'has not been noticed by us before recent times'. We have evidence that this has happened before, and on a scale MUCH MUCH greater
If there are tens of thousands of scientists around the world requesting that we take heedAnd this is what your entire discussion is founded on. If you ask them flat out, they'll admit that they have no idea if it's us or a natural cycle (except for the most stubborn). There are scientists on both sides of the fence.... the media just tends to focus on the death and destruction side.

Talk of 'this day ang age' is idiotic on the scales in question.
This follows my previous comment. It's like a new born thinking the birds are flying south because it cried. After all, it 'has not been noticed by us before recent times'. We have evidence that this has happened before, and on a scale MUCH MUCH greater



Haha!! Yeh there was one that arrived in Sydney Harbour a few years back!!

The place we find outselves in, is, we're noticing that the ice shelves are constantly retreating, and now possibly possibly even more so due to the help we're giving it. We should consider the environment. Take action I'd say if we can prove that we can be somehow contributing to it.


And this is what your entire discussion is founded on. If you ask them flat out, they'll admit that they have no idea if it's us or a natural cycle (except for the most stubborn). There are scientists on both sides of the fence.... the media just tends to focus on the death and destruction side.

LOL. If you get a bump on your arm. And then another bump on the other arm. And your sisters life is threatened, living on an island. Is this not a cause for concern ? Sounds to me that you will get on happily with the bump until it gets more painful, before you take action. It's a viable theory to work with, but it is certainly not a preventative manner with which to approach the situation.

BTW, did you @ all bother to read the links I sent you ? Doesn't sound like it..

Here are some quotes to save you the click:

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newton/askasci/1993/environ/ENV032.HTM

Cause for Global Warming/Hole in Ozone Layer

Author: pam
Text: What causes global warming and the hole in the ozone layer?

Response #: 1 of 11
Author: Eric Dallman
Text: Pam, such a seemingly simple questions require unfortunately
elaborate answers. Since you have asked two questions, I will split my answer
into two sections: *** What is causing global warming and what can we do to
stop it? Well, first of all, it is not exactly clear if there is indeed global
warming at all. The phenomenon of global warming was discovered when data from
various weather stations was compared from year to year. There seemed to be a
trend of increasing temperatures at most of the data collection points. This
indicated that the planet was warming at an alarming rate. If you think about
it, a rise in temperature of a few degrees or so at 50 or 100 points on the
earth does not mean that the earth is getting hotter. It means that the data
points are getting hotter. Most of the original data was collected in the
forties and fifties at locations in or adjacent to urban areas. As time went
on the areas of data collection became more urbanized. Logically, more people
and buildings produce more heat. Data collection at remote sites that did not
become urbanized did not indicate any warming at all. However, when all the
data was averaged, a very frightening picture emerged. The planet seemed
doomed. Because of the uncertainty of the original data (due to changes in
population at the data collection points), many new weather stations were set
up and an international committee was established to study global warming.

Unfortunately, it takes many years of data collection before a trend can be
established. The last reports I have read have disproved the very existence of
global warming, showing instead that URBAN warming (an increase in temperature
in areas of increasing population) does occur. If you think about it, a
weather station set up outside Chicago at an airport by some corn fields over
40 years ago cannot compare to the same station at what is now O'Hare airport.
Most weather stations set up in remote areas that still remain in remote areas
show no significant increase in average annual temperature. Well, theories
abounded about global warming, yet the fact remained that the data did indeed
show a trend of temperature increase, hence the formation of various
investigative groups. Now that I have given more than enough information
biased toward the lack of global warming, I will address your question. Global
warming is thought to occur by the green house effect. Light radiates from the
in many different wavelengths or colors. Light of very short wavelength (i.e.,
ultraviolet) passes through the earth's atmosphere, stopped only partially by
the ozone layer, and is reflected back into space. As it is reflected, the
light loses some of its energy (imagine light waves as a ball bouncing with
less force than you threw it after it hits the ground) and does not return
with as much energy as when it came in. Gases within the earth's atmosphere
(most notably carbon dioxide or C02) trap the reflected light (now having less
energy) and does not it escape into space. The low energy waves are reflected
back toward earth, becoming heat. A simple experiment to demonstrate this is
to leave your car parked in the sun on a summer day. Light enters the windows
and is reflected off the seats, etc. The light waves lose some of their energy
as they are reflected and cannot escape past the same glass widows they came
in through. Do not leave your dog in the car if you try this, it can get very
hot inside the car. Not all ultraviolet light gets to the earth. A large
portion is stopped by the ozone layer before it has a chance to reach us at
all. A hole in the ozone layer would let more ultraviolet light through,
causing more energy (energy) to reach the earth's surface. This may contribute
to global warming as the ultraviolet energy reaching the earth is ultimately
converted to heat after it is reflected. Ozone layer holes (depletion) are
addressed in the answer to your second question. Increasing the amount of C02
in the atmosphere will increase the amount of reflected energy capture and
lead to a temperature increase. Where does the C02 come from? Two things
really: Industry and destruction of trees (in rain forests, for example).
Industries typically burn things which produce C02 directly. Trees use up C02.
Cutting them down reduces the amount of C02 "sucked up" from the atmosphere
and leads to an overall increase. If global warming is indeed a fact (and
though it has not been proven, it also cannot be shown not to occur), it could
pos. possibly be prevented by reducing the amount of C02 put into the
atmosphere from burning hydrocarbons and by stopping the destruction of the
rain forests. *** What is causing the hole in the ozone layer? Your second
question is, once again, based somewhat on speculation. You see, the first
time anyone actually looked at the structure of the ozone layer they
discovered a hole. If that hole had always been there is a matter of debate.
Some people believe that the ozone layer has always had a hole in it and that
the hole was only recently observed because studies of the ozone layer
structure were not given high priority. Without giving you the same lengthy
explanation I gave the first question, the ozone layer hole is being caused
(theoretically) by the release of chlorinated fluorocarbons into the
atmosphere. Chlorinated Fluorocarbons (CFCs, from now on) are chemicals
typically used in air conditioners, refrigerators, and as propellants in
aerosol cans. These compounds rise into the atmosphere and, when stuck by high
energy Light waves (such as ultraviolet light), form highly reactive compounds
which destroy ozone. You will remember from the last question that ozone
reflects harmful ultraviolet rays back into space before they reach earth. If
more ultraviolet light reaches the earth (say from a loss of ozone) the earth
stands a greater chance of warming up. The USA and several other countries
have recently taken a very strong stance against ozone depleting agents such
as CFCs (there are other ozone depleting substances, CFCs are the most widely
used). The biggest contributor of ozone depleting CFCs, however, remains car
air conditioning units. These things leak by nature and most cars made within
the last 10 years have them. To give fair time to the other side of the story,
it cannot be proven if the hole in the ozone layer was always there or if it
always there but only recently discovered. Also, the supposed "hole" is at the
polar regions of the earth where it would be expected that the ozone would be
thin (due to such things as the earth's rotation). If industrial chemicals
(i.e., CFCs) which are not found in nature really contributed to an ozone
layer hole, would not the hole be found over the areas where such chemicals
are released? Though hypothetically CFCs get into the upper atmosphere and
destroy ozone, there is not a clear cut model that can show how or why they
only reach the polar regions. ******* CONCLUSION ******** The crux of the
matter is that in the case of both your questions, much more research is
needed before a definitive answer is had. Given the magnitude of the situation
of either global warming or an ozone layer depletion, the possibilities of
neither should be dismissed.

Response #: 4 of 11
Author: Mark Fernau
Text: Reply to Don Libby. It may be true that only 10~ of the annual
carbon emissions come from humans, but if one looks at the amount by which the
atmospheric carbon loading is INCREASING every year, people who study the
carbon cycle feel that this increase is almost entirely due to humans. Your
que sera attitude toward global warming is certainly a valid response but I am
not sure people who live in Bangladesh or the Pacific Islands who are in
danger of being inundated or the corn farmers or sugar maple producers whose
livelihood could migrate north or become extinct would share your lack of
concern. Finally, ground-level air and water pollution are certainly a more
immediate threat to human health and certainly take priority in most policy-
maker's minds. For that matter, at this time just trying to improve the
economy or provide food, shelter, and health services are taking the front
seat over any environmental concerns for eastern Europe, Africa, South
America, etc. Our biggest challenge as developed countries is to get these
other countries over this hump in a way that does not repeat our mistakes and
allows them the LUXURY to worry about the environmental effects of their
actions to better themselves.

Response #: 5 of 11
Author: Mark Fernau
Text: Note to students from Mark Fernau. After reading Eric Dallman's
explanation of the greenhouse effect more closely, I believe he has made a
common error. He talks about ultraviolet radiation being reflected by the
Earth's surface and then trapped, leading to heating. What actually happens is
that the W light is ABSORBED by the Earth's surface, and then RADIATED back to
space as INFRARED radiation by the Earth. It is IR and not W because the
Earth's surface is much cooler than the sun. Some of the IR radiation that is
headed to space is trapped by the greenhouse gases, leading to a warmer Earth.
This is the greenhouse effect. What we are worried about today is the increase
in this greenhouse effect caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases, not
the greenhouse effect itself. If there were no greenhouse effect at all, the
average temperature of the Earth would be 0 degrees Fahrenheit and life as we
know it might not exist at all! Note: W radiation is the kind that comes from
a "blacklight". IR radiation is the kind that you feel as heat from a warming
light at McDonald's or around a campfire.

Take action I'd say if we can prove that we can be somehow contributing to it.But you haven't proven that this is more than a drop in teh bucket of Earth's natural cycle.
If you get a bump on your arm. And then another bump on the other arm. And your sisters life is threatened, living on an island. Is this not a cause for concern ?If you had evidence showning that bumps have been appearing on arms for millions of years (global warming/cooling), then no.
Did you @ all bother to read the links I sent you ?

Here are some quotes to save you the click:The funny thing is that they support what I said... specifically....What is causing global warming and what can we do to
stop it? Well, first of all, it is not exactly clear if there is indeed global
warming at all.

What is causing the hole in the ozone layer? Your second
question is, once again, based somewhat on speculation. You see, the first
time anyone actually looked at the structure of the ozone layer they
discovered a hole. If that hole had always been there is a matter of debate.

And then some of the comments are flat out dishonestIt may be true that only 10~ of the annual
carbon emissions come from humans, but if one looks at the amount by which the
atmospheric carbon loading is INCREASING every year, people who study the
carbon cycle feel that this increase is almost entirely due to humans.There have been several people studying the cycle who think that humans have barely any effect.


And then there is the reason we SHOULD be concerned:Finally, ground-level air and water pollution are certainly a more
immediate threat to human health and certainly take priority in most policy-
maker's minds.We know what these chemicals do to our health... the argument for global warming is unsupported and not nearly as important.

Well, regardless of whether CO2 contributes to global warming, I think a reduction of emissions is a good thing. CO2 emission is a good way to measure consumption of resources– and thus a measure of GNP.

I think a decrease in GNP is necessary for all nations for humanity to avoid crash and growth cycles (that is, if humans abide to them, and as animals in an ecosystem, they ought to). Why avoid crash and growth cycles? Because stability is better than instability. Instability leads to war, famine, plague and other apocalyptic horses. Except maybe wild beasts.

Perhaps we can survive with constant growth, but we cannot survive with constant material growth. Since CO2 output is a measure of growth (or at least consumption), a reduction in gross CO2 emission would mean a decrease in growth.

Wes, since when do you care about 1,000,000 people dying? Aren't you the kind of person who supports taking away food from starving people because it makes them "lazy?" Won't supporting their tearing down rainforests and destruction of ecosystems lead to ecological collapse and synthetic fertilizer dependency?

But you haven't proven that this is more than a drop in teh bucket of Earth's natural cycle.

I think we leave the level of proof required up to the individual. The more susceptible people are, or concerned about general welfare in the world, the more they will have a serious look at the cons of the arguments presented.

If you had evidence showning that bumps have been appearing on arms for millions of years (global warming/cooling), then no.
The funny thing is that they support what I said... specifically....


That bump is appearing on your arm. There is no proof that is has been appearing on peoples arms, except in legend. What's your answer then ?

And then some of the comments are flat out dishonestThere have been several people studying the cycle who think that humans have barely any effect.


What was dishonest about that quote? I fail to see any dishonesty in that quote..

And then there is the reason we SHOULD be concerned:We know what these chemicals do to our health... the argument for global warming is unsupported and not nearly as important.

Yeh most people clearly don't give a stuff. But then they don't feel all that threatened about it. As long as you are living a satisfactory lifestlye, that is all that counts , right ?

I think a decrease in GNP is necessary for all nations for humanity to avoid crash and growth cycles This has been suggested for hundreds of years. If this suggestion was taken even 100 years ago you would likely be dead of an infection.
Since CO2 output is a measure of growth (or at least consumption), a reduction in gross CO2 emission would mean a decrease in growth.It's not a very good measure of growth as it depnds mostly on methods of production and not amount.

We could all quite happily have decided in 1530 to stop developing and to stop growing. We didn't do that because we had no reason to. That still stands.

The more susceptible people are, or concerned about general welfare in the world, the more they will have a serious look at the cons of the arguments presented.The argument consists of
1) the world is getting hotter
2) we know that this happens once in a while on earth, but don't have good data on the past occurances
3) we have no idea what is causing it, but it might be us
4) we should worry about any regulate CO2 level, even though we have no basis for deciding what levels to regulate too
There is no proof that is has been appearing on peoples arms, except in legend.That's not the case here. We have core sames from ice which show this. we have disruptions in the rock bed. We have glacial landmarks.

The planet has gone through these 'bumps' before.
What was dishonest about that quote? I fail to see any dishonesty in that quote..He says that 'people who study the carbon cycle feel that this increase is almost entirely due to humans'... when this is not the case. I could just as easily say "people who study the carbon cycle feel that this increase not due to humans". Both are supported by 'people who study the carbon cycle'.
As long as you are living a satisfactory lifestlye, that is all that counts , right ? You are missing the point. We don't produce CO2 just for kicks.

Yet you want us to regulate it even though you can't tell us it really matters, let alone how much it should be regulated.

The argument consists of
1) the world is getting hotter
2) we know that this happens once in a while on earth, but don't have good data on the past occurances
3) we have no idea what is causing it, but it might be us
4) we should worry about any regulate CO2 level, even though we have no basis for deciding what levels to regulate too


We do have a basis for deciding what levels to regulate to in fact -- that's what the Kyoto protocol was worked out for.
The only non-cooperating countries in the world now are both the U.S. and Australia.
The current U.S. government has close ties to large energy companies. It is no surprise that the U.S. government pulled out of the agreement, it is in order to keep these people on top. Australia's current government is sucking up to the U.S. big time, it's no wonder we followed suite.

That's not the case here. We have core sames from ice which show this. we have disruptions in the rock bed. We have glacial landmarks.
The planet has gone through these 'bumps' before.

Indeed. However it remains to be proven whether or not we are augmenting this process. If we are in fact really speeding up this process (which may fully be confirmed in 30 years) then you will have to agree, we have been influencing the weather cycles. Many people would agree I'm sure that it's better to not influence the natural weather cycle if we can help it. Rather not interrupt it as much as possible and let nature run its own course independantly of our actions.


He says that 'people who study the carbon cycle feel that this increase is almost entirely due to humans'... when this is not the case. I could just as easily say "people who study the carbon cycle feel that this increase not due to humans". Both are supported by 'people who study the carbon cycle'.
You are missing the point. We don