Global Warming:The Politics and Science of Fear

>> Even if burning fossil fuels didn't contribute to the warming, it creates massive amounts of pollution. >>

Yes, the world is s.l..o..w..l....y realising that if we do something, we must not leave any permanent footprint. Unfortunately the world's population is TOXIC, insane, in-toxicated and they know not what they do... totally unaware.

Clean up our act... but with war mongers loose, the situation is totally out of rational control.

There is only one way out of this..... join forces and prepare.

I can assure you, the end of this world is very rapidly approaching... and it has nothing to do with war or what humans do or not do.

The climate change will precipitate a HUGH hydrological shift away from viable life. If civilisation breaks down, then even if we had the will, or if we could do anything, I am afraid it is all lost.

Meanwhile the climate is swinging, and doing what its parameters are dictating with no more reference to humanity.

You will see the end in your lifetime.

"The Death of Clouds"
omegafour.com
 
OK, so I admit that I do not know a great deal about Global Warming...only what I've been told on TV, which amounts to "Our planet is warming due to all the byproducts of our energy consumption in our atmosphere".

That about sums it up, doesn't it? It at least sums up the mainstream message to America...

Anyway, my fear here is that no matter what is true or what isn't, this is going to become a strictly political issue. If Al Gore decides to run for office again, then everything he has said will become something that can be attacked by his political opposition...and that is a very bad thing. If there truly is a problem, Gore using it to work his way into the White House (or Congress, or whatever) will be the end of whatever hope of a singular effort we ever had. Once it becomes about Blue and Red, people will both accept it blindly, and discount it blindly. Both of which are bad.

It will mean that no average person will care about the science behind it; they will only care for the short answer--true or not--from their candidate. Putting this issue on the political stage will be the death of this issue, as nothing will ever be decided upon uniformly.

Just like the war in Iraq...people are too busy fighting over it, that no solutions can be reached. The same will be true for Global Warming, if it is in fact a real problem. (And I do not say "if it is in fact real" not because I believe it to be false, but because I am speaking from an uninformed viewpoint on the subject, and would rather not jump on either side of the issue without knowing all of the facts)
 
spidergoat said:
Doing something about global warming is a win-win. Even if burning fossil fuels didn't contribute to the warming, it creates massive amounts of pollution.
Click to expand...
Doing something reasonable such as researching alternative fuels, building more nuke plants, or switching to compact flourescent light bulbs is a win win. Imposing draconian solutions that cost hundreds of billions of dollars and accomplish nothing (like kyoto) is not.

There is such a thing as opportunity cost. Hundreds of billions of dollars spent on CO2 remediation can not be spent on anything else. We do not have the hundreds of billions to waste,.
 
URI said:
>> Even if burning fossil fuels didn't contribute to the warming, it creates massive amounts of pollution. >>

Yes, the world is s.l..o..w..l....y realising that if we do something, we must not leave any permanent footprint. Unfortunately the world's population is TOXIC, insane, in-toxicated and they know not what they do... totally unaware.

Clean up our act... but with war mongers loose, the situation is totally out of rational control.

There is only one way out of this..... join forces and prepare.

I can assure you, the end of this world is very rapidly approaching... and it has nothing to do with war or what humans do or not do.

The climate change will precipitate a HUGH hydrological shift away from viable life. If civilisation breaks down, then even if we had the will, or if we could do anything, I am afraid it is all lost.

Meanwhile the climate is swinging, and doing what its parameters are dictating with no more reference to humanity.

You will see the end in your lifetime.

"The Death of Clouds"
omegafour.com
Click to expand...

I hope we Machines make it before u exit. U cancer of this planet.

[ENC]Singularity[/ENC]
 
Your link just does not add up to a hydrological disruption, Singularity. Most evaporated water comes (used to come) from the ocean. Puny earth dwellers have very little sway about anything in the climate of the world... local maybe, but global, NO !

I am very sorry to hear about RED and BLUE !
Damn politicians, not one of them is worth anything, no scientific knowledge, no humanity, no sense.... LOL, yes they have cents, that's about all.
 
JDawg said:
Anyway, my fear here is that no matter what is true or what isn't, this is going to become a strictly political issue. If Al Gore decides to run for office again, then everything he has said will become something that can be attacked by his political opposition...and that is a very bad thing.
Click to expand...
It's too late. For years now, 90% of comments against Al gore and global warming have been something along the lines of "Al gore is a big fat lying politician, so global warming isn't happening".

Madanthonywayne, Kyoto would not have cost hundreds of billions of dollars. It would have cost much less than that. I note that you do have hundreds of billions of dollars to waste on occupying Iraq.
 
People need to get their heads out of the sand and admit that greed is a major force that is in some ways incompatible with solving the problem of global warming, and in other ways, compatible. We are all in this together, as human beings.

Anthropogenic global warming that may change our lifestyle is a fact. That is not political.

What is political is how to solve it. The starter of this thread was apparently a little slow to realize that.
 
guthrie said:
Madanthonywayne, Kyoto would not have cost hundreds of billions of dollars. It would have cost much less than that. I note that you do have hundreds of billions of dollars to waste on occupying Iraq.
Click to expand...
Since coming into effect February 16, 2005, the Kyoto Protocol has cost the world about $338,114,500,000 while the potential temperature saving by the year 2050 so far achieved by Kyoto is 0.0035 degrees and yes, that really does represent about $100K per billionth of one degree allegedly "saved." Guess that means for the bargain price of just $100 trillion we could theoretically lower global mean temperature by about 1 °C. http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyoto_Count_Up.html
Click to expand...
Sorry, I was a little low. It's already cost us hundreds of billions and that's without the US or Australia taking part! But hey, what's $100K per billionth of a degree? A bargan! How could we possible spend our money better!

In other global warming news.
Climate change will be considered a joke in five years time, meteorologist Augie Auer told the annual meeting of Mid Canterbury Federated Farmers in Ashburton this week.

Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was vital to keep the world warm, he explained.

"If we didn't have the greenhouse effect the planet would be at minus 18 deg C but because we do have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 deg C, all the time."

The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent.

However, carbon dioxide as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively.

"That ought to be the end of the argument, there and then," he said.

"We couldn't do it (change the climate) even if we wanted to because water vapour dominates." http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaruherald/4064691a6571.html
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
>> Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was vital to keep the world warm, he explained. >>

Exactly. Water vapour is being removed and not replaced.

yes -18C at night, +50C during the day.

Now is that warming or cooling ?
LOL
 
madanthonywayne,
Are you factoring the environmental costs of continuing the status quo? Presently, corporations are allowed to get away with ignoring the long term consequences of their actions. This is leading to a myopic and catastrophic situation where short term profits are all that matter. Someday, we will all have to pay the hidden costs of industrialization. It would be much better for civilization if we at least begin to require planning for long term sustainability.
 
sandy said:
We have bigger problems right now than alGore's global hot air.
Click to expand...

so the fact with global warming were screwing around with highly complex and powerful forces that we don't really understand all that well isn't that a big problem. when humans alter nature the pressures tend to build until nature pushes back hard. global warming could destroy the world as we know and need it to be for our survival. I consider that to be a huge problem
 
madanthonywayne said:
When Al Gore was vice president, he said the United States should not sign the Kyoto treaty unless there is meaningful participation by the major developing nations. AL GORE HIMSELF was against the Kyoto treaty. Now all the sudden he needs an issue and he's Mr. Enviromentalist. Of course he's Mr. Hypocritical Enviromentalist who uses twenty times the energy the average American uses in just one of his mansions. Meanwhile the evil George Bush is "off the grid" and even recycling his rainwater!!!! If Al Gore actually believed any of this bullshit, he'd be doing more than talking. He'd take action, at least at his own damned house!!!!
Really? Lots of people say they're for "the enviroment, but don't do shit about it (number one on that list, Al Gore). How many people have replaced all their incandescent bulbs with compact flourescents? A simple thing that actually saves you money while helping the enviroment (hint, I have.). How many people bitch every time gas goes up 10 cents a gallon? If you really support the enviroment, you should be asking for $10/gallon gas. That would cut down on emisions. But no one wants that. How many people car pool? Or ride bikes? How many walk to work? How many have gardens to grow their own food? How about supporting nuclear power? NOT IN MY BACKYARD!!!!!!! How about hydroelectric? IT KILLS FISH!!!!!!! How about windmills? IT RUINS THE VIEW OFF MY NANTUCKET MANSION!!!!!!

It's cool to say you're "for the enviroment" or maybe wear a tie died shirt on earth day, but when push comes to shove, nobody really gives a shit.
Click to expand...

his house doesn't use 20 times as much energy his energy payments are 20 times what most people pay. currently eco-friendly stuff costs more he really isn't using as much energy as you say he is
 
pjdude1219 said:
his house doesn't use 20 times as much energy his energy payments are 20 times what most people pay. currently eco-friendly stuff costs more he really isn't using as much energy as you say he is
Click to expand...
:confused: So you're saying the cost of energy is, perhaps, twenty times the norm where he lives?:confused:
 
madanthonywayne said:
:confused: So you're saying the cost of energy is, perhaps, twenty times the norm where he lives?:confused:
Click to expand...

no i'm saying that because of the investments to eco-freindly stuff energy costs more for him. its probably cheaper per a unit of energy for other people around him.
 
pjdude1219 said:
no i'm saying that because of the investments to eco-freindly stuff energy costs more for him. its probably cheaper per a unit of energy for other people around him.
Click to expand...
Is this based on anything, or just conjecture? Even if it's true, do you really think the difference will make a dent in the 20X figure?
 
Where on earth do these people get their "facts" from?

The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent.

However, carbon dioxide as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively.
Click to expand...
CO2 contributes roughly 3 degrees of warming to the greenhouse effect, but we've increased the amount in the atmosphere by a third over the prvious natural level. This means we're due roughly a degree of warming from it. Or in other words the purported figures dont add up.

Dont believe me? Argue with a climatologist:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/01/calculating-the-greenhouse-effect

"The other trace gases contribute 5% ... amongst which carbon dioxide corresponds to 3.65%". That is just 100 minus 95% of course, but really it should be 15 to 34% - of which CO2 on its own is between 9 and 26% (op cit). If you were to naively estimate the total temperature contribution of the CO2 it would be between 3 and 9 ºC - but see below.

"The human-caused contribution corresponds to about 3% of the total carbon dioxide in the present atmosphere,". This one is blatantly false and is erroneously credited to the US Dept. of Energy in the original source (their Table 1)! The '3%' number actually comes from comparing the human emissions with the gross emissions from natural sources while neglecting to consider the large natural sink. Because of the rapid cycling between the biosphere, the atmosphere and the upper ocean, that is an irrelevant comparison - kind of like comparing the interest on your bank account and your salary and expecting to be able to say something about your savings without thinking about your spending. The correct statement is that CO2 is around 30% higher than it was in the pre-industrial period, and all of that rise is due to human emissions (fossil fuel use and deforestation principally).

"Therefore, the probable effect of human-injected carbon dioxide is a miniscule 0.12% of the greenhouse warming". That's just 0.03*0.0365 of course - but even that is calculated wrong (it should be 0.11% by my calculator). But from our numbers, it would be between 3 and 8%.
"a temperature rise of 0.036 ºC". More like 1-2.6 ºC actually, but although this gives numbers that are in the ballpark of the IPCC estimates (0.6 to 1.7 ºC warming for an increase of 30% in CO2 at equilibirum) this is not a sensible way to calculate climate sensitivty.
Click to expand...

Ahhh, it seems your numbers are due to some uneducated person called Bob Carter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top