Bush Hurricane Conspiracy

You haven't presented anything but a claim!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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. 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.

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.

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.

Volcanoes, animals, vents. That kind of thing.

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

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".

So in your completely unscientific opinion, you're right?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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.

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.

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.

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).

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

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!".

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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.

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.

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 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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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".

Cya.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

This topic is in the wrong section, this is hardly "pseudoscience" that we're talking about here ay

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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.

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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"..

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 ?

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!

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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..

Well, if I'm not arguing with a scientist then I assume that we are having a friendly debate about this.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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...

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!

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.

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.

 

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...

 

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.

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.

 

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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.

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.

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.

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).

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?

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?

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

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

 

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.

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

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...

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 - discusses "urban warming", rather than "global warming"...
The physics of El Nino
A simple picture of how El Nino works
The myth of global warming (opinion)
Natural Life Magazine- Global Warming: A Reality
The Source of Half the World's Oxygen gets little credit
The Remarkable Ocean World - The Gaia Hypothesis
Guide to philosophy and the Environment
The Gaian Mind

 

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

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.

 

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.

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

 

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

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....

And then some of the comments are flat out dishonest

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:

We know what these chemicals do to our health... the argument for global warming is unsupported and not nearly as important.