Global Warming

[Yvonne G]

LOL!

As always, diffuse the situation with a good belly laugh!

 

[DoctorCosmonaut]

I don't think all these "technicalities" matter, whether climate change is man made or not, humans produce an exorbent amount of pollution that effects animal and plant health (not even taking the atmosphere into account because of how debatable that is). Does anyone here really object to trying to cut pollution and make stricter regulations on what can run off into streams or float off into our sky? Have you ever seen an industrial center city in Northern China? You can't go outside! It rains acid on you! That's not some naturally occurring event. Regardless of the global climate, we ARE affecting our micro-climates. Its time to cut the arguing and the finger pointing and make some changes that are good and over due anyways.

 

[dmmj]

by any means necassary I suppose?

 

[webskipper]

Its time to cut the arguing and the finger pointing and make some changes that are good and over due anyways.

2000 Honda Insight Hybrid, Red, Manual, Auto AC, 201000 miles, lifetime average MPG 64.

That's my carbon footprint.

 

[chadk]

It boils down to control. You have to have a global issue to convince people we need a global solution with someone in control. Wonder who that will be?

In the 70's is was about the threat of an ice age. Then it was the hole in the ozone.

I'm all for attacking real environmental issues. I stand behind efforts to combat pollution in the rivers and lakes and the Puget Sound.

But even those activists promoting this man made (up) issue don't believe it. For example, Obama spent how much time on Copenhagen (sp) talking about the dangers of Global Warming. Guess what, he and all the others there flew jet planes there. The carbon footprint from the single event is bigger than what I'll be responsible for my entire life. But they are 'above' us lower class folks I guess. Then, a week or 2 later, Obama is right back in his jet flying over there again to promote an even more important cause. That's right, the city of Chicago and their bid for the Olympics. Stupid games became more important to the president of the US than the immanent threat of global warming and the coming doomsday.

Then of course we know Gore travels around to speak all over the world at high dollar events in his jet.

Then there is the new movie coming out about global warming. The activists behind it are so serious about the issue, and how planes are the biggest issue, that they all flew to the premier in New York to promote the movie.

Seriously, let's focus on real issues. Not some agenda that will line the pockets of these hypocrites.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-cvK9vxA6M

 

[Stephanie Logan]

sorry but mars does have an atmosphere it is just thinner than ours and different composition than ours. And since you wont accept anything without proof here is one of hundreds I saw on bing
http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_kids/AskKids/mars_atmosphere.shtml
Granted it is a kids science site but it clearly explains mars atmosphere, I did not want to get to technical in my answer. So do most of the other planets and many many moons also have them, so anything else you wanna try and discredit in my post?

Sorry you are correct. Mars does have an atmosphere. I guess I should have said, an atmosphere that supports life. The earth is unique in our solar system for that.

Still doesn't affect the science of climate change. Activists' "hypocrisy" in how they live their lives vs. what they preach does not change the science of climate change. Climate change is already inevitable, and whether manmade or not, it's going to be expensive, it's going to be messy, and it's going to reduce our descendents' standard of living.

 

[terryo]

It boils down to control. You have to have a global issue to convince people we need a global solution with someone in control. Wonder who that will be?

In the 70's is was about the threat of an ice age. Then it was the hole in the ozone.

I'm all for attacking real environmental issues. I stand behind efforts to combat pollution in the rivers and lakes and the Puget Sound.

But even those activists promoting this man made (up) issue don't believe it. For example, Obama spent how much time on Copenhagen (sp) talking about the dangers of Global Warming. Guess what, he and all the others there flew jet planes there. The carbon footprint from the single event is bigger than what I'll be responsible for my entire life. But they are 'above' us lower class folks I guess. Then, a week or 2 later, Obama is right back in his jet flying over there again to promote an even more important cause. That's right, the city of Chicago and their bid for the Olympics. Stupid games became more important to the president of the US than the immanent threat of global warming and the coming doomsday.

Then of course we know Gore travels around to speak all over the world at high dollar events in his jet.

Then there is the new movie coming out about global warming. The activists behind it are so serious about the issue, and how planes are the biggest issue, that they all flew to the premier in New York to promote the movie.

Seriously, let's focus on real issues. Not some agenda that will line the pockets of these hypocrites.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-cvK9vxA6M

Yay Chad!!!

 

[Stephanie Logan]

I'm all for attacking real environmental issues. I stand behind efforts to combat pollution in the rivers and lakes and the Puget Sound.

But even those activists promoting this man made (up) issue don't believe it. For example, Obama spent how much time on Copenhagen (sp) talking about the dangers of Global Warming. Guess what, he and all the others there flew jet planes there. The carbon footprint from the single event is bigger than what I'll be responsible for my entire life. But they are 'above' us lower class folks I guess. Then, a week or 2 later, Obama is right back in his jet flying over there again to promote an even more important cause. That's right, the city of Chicago and their bid for the Olympics. Stupid games became more important to the president of the US than the immanent threat of global warming and the coming doomsday.
Then of course we know Gore travels around to speak all over the world at high dollar events in his jet.

Do you travel by jet? Do you heat your house and tortoise enclosures?

Do you believe we can or should change our carbon footprint overnight?

Do you plan to leave a better world for your kids and grandkids?

It's a choice that you control, right now.

 

[chadk]

First off, I do not believe in man-caused global warming. I believe in protecting our resources and fighting pollution. But I'm not a global warming alarmist. So I'm not sure why those questions are relavent to me??

I travel by air maybe once every few years. I drive a vanpool for my commute. But this is just basic economics vs trying to reduce a so-called 'carbon footprint'. That is just hogwash. They want to be able to start calculating our 'carbon footprint' so they can tax us and control us at some point. Or, if you are Al Gore, you want folks to have to buy 'carbon offsets' that just happen to make investors like Gore rich...

What should set your BS meter off is when these polititions stand up and say things like "the debate is over". Or worse, when a scientist says "the science is closed to debate". Science is always evolving, going forward, 3 steps back, change direction, etc as we learn more. How many times have we heard of scientific 'consensus' changing course? Your exmple of the 'earth is flat' is perfect. Some felt the consensus was solid and that the debate should end. And as we know, that is not how science works. Fear mongering and propoganda are not scientific tools. It is a dangerous melding of science and politics.


PS - glad we don't see eye to eye on ALL issues Stephanie... that would be boring

 

[Stephanie Logan]

Yes, I think it is fair to say that neither of us is going to change the other's stance on this issue!

And I agree that most politicians seek only notoriety and re-election. They are mostly lawyers, not scientists.

 

[chadk]

A few more good reads from recent news:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...tudent-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html
The revelation will cause fresh embarrassment for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which had to issue a humiliating apology earlier this month over inaccurate statements about global warming.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009081.ece

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/world_agenda/article6947116.ece

http://people-press.org/report/584/policy-priorities-2010.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999051.ece



The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.
Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in
summer by 2013.

According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...e-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html#ixzz0eFBVwU4g

http://www.breitbart.tv/flag-waving...s-march-in-copenhagen-to-stop-global-warming/

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wor...for_developing_countries_hillary_clinton.html



CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL: 100 REASONS WHY
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138

Climate change campaigners: 100 reasons why climate change is natural and not man-made

HERE are the 100 reasons, released in a dossier issued by the European Foundation, why climate change is natural and not man-made:

1) There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity.

2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.

3) Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.

4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

5) Throughout the Earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher – more than ten times as high.

6) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time.

7) The 0.7C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends.

8) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favourable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited.

9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists – in a scandal known as “Climate-gate” - suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming

10) A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years.

11) Politicians and activiists claim rising sea levels are a direct cause of global warming but sea levels rates have been increasing steadily since the last ice age 10,000 ago

 

[DoctorCosmonaut]

This is like watching a conspiracy theorist and a rationalist go at it. ps the reason we don't hear about the ozone hole is because governments across the world and companies made significant changes (Montreal Protocol) to cut the emissions of CFCs, its precisely because of swift and united action that we don't hear about it--because we "solved it." Of course people try to make money off of everything, we did elect to live in a capitalist society and all, but looking at your carbon footprint is more about being self aware.

---

PS Chad, you can post links like that all you want, and if someone wanted to waste their time here, could post 100x more opposing that view. its an inherently controversial and challenging topic, but I think you are choosing to look at it in the wrong light, this momentum can be used for so much good, its an opportunity!

---

Here is a visual of what action on CFCs has meant:

Humans can and do make a difference on this precious gem we call home.

 

[chadk]

Sorry, but junk science and fear mongering are not a good ways to promote 'good social change'.

 

[Madkins007]

I think there is a little 'smoke and mirrors' stuff going on with the 'global warming' concept as it is usually presented.

There does seem to be a pattern of the government and media trying to create an atmosphere of fear in the general public- global warming, H1N1, whatever. Many have argued that this fearmongering is done for control (I suspect it is done more for political gain and profits- but it is the same basic thing.)

Most of the research is rather like a series of snapshots of this very large and variable planet, then trying to put the little pieces together. Then we add the little snapshots we have of our planet from the past, and those from other planets, and it all gets very... complicated.

Then, of course, is the tendency we have to oversimplify things by putting a catch-all label. The 'problem of global warming', the 'problem of metabolic bone disorder', the 'problem of poverty'- as if there was going to be one definition, one cause, one answer for the whole thing.

We know man-made pollution is a problem, and our planetary love-affair with oil is a bad thing, and that it would be smart to protect fresh water and forests and such.

The thing that bugs me is that we sometimes seem to be pushing for answers that may not make sense. A small examples is that CFL bulbs use less energy when in a socket, but they take a lot of energy to produce and supposedly contribute a lot more mercury and toxins than plain bulbs.

It is my own opinion that we need to settle down and figure out some real answers and act with courage AND knowledge. Paper, plastic, or shopping bags? If there is a clear and real winner in this area, then we do what we can to penalize the 'wrong' choice. Plastic water bottles- why are these sold in any country with safe tap water? Why isn't a car taxed based, in part, in its estimated MPG if this is so important?

Personally, I think that as long as we think of this as a big, complex issue, we will continue to have lots of fuzzy thinking and disagreement on it- whether between individuals or nations.

 

[chadk]

Awesome post Mark.

We should attack specific issues. If an area has trouble with acid rain - where it is measured, impacts are obvious, the source is obvious -we should work together to address it. If there are farms or factories polluting our ground water, we should deal with that. If our fish are being over harvested, we should address that.

In fact, I can show you example of example of where this approach has been successful. Habbit restoration has been very successful in many parts of the PNW for salmon and steelhead. On the east coast, bans on commercial fishing have had dramtic impacts on the fisheries there. compared to my dad's generation where it as almost a free for all, we have made many improvements. And we can do more.

I would also like to see us have less dependence on foreign oil and other imports. The list goes on.

And guess what, when we tackle these issues like this, if there is a real threat from global warming, we will be making some changes that should help.

 

[dmmj]

the words " good social change" scare the hell out of me.