I found this to be a very good read, thought I'd share.
(AP) NEW YORK — Tucked between treatises on algae and prehistoric turquoise beads, the study on page 460 of a long-ago issue of the U.S. journal Science drew little attention.
"I don't think there were any newspaper articles about it or anything like that," the author recalls.
But the headline on the 1975 report was bold: "Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?" And this article that coined the term may have marked the last time a mention of "global warming" didn't set off an instant outcry of angry denial. ___
EDITOR'S NOTE: Climate change has already provoked debate in a U.S. presidential campaign barely begun. An Associated Press journalist draws on decades of climate reporting to offer a retrospective and analysis on global warming and the undying urge to deny.
___
In the paper, Columbia University geoscientist Wally Broecker calculated how much carbon dioxide would accumulate in the atmosphere in the coming 35 years, and how temperatures consequently would rise. His numbers have proven almost dead-on correct. Meanwhile, other powerful evidence poured in over those decades, showing the "greenhouse effect" is real and is happening. And yet resistance to the idea among many in the U.S. appears to have hardened.
What's going on?
"The desire to disbelieve deepens as the scale of the threat grows," concludes economist-ethicist Clive Hamilton.
He and others who track what they call "denialism" find that its nature is changing in America, last redoubt of climate naysayers. It has taken on a more partisan, ideological tone. Polls find a widening Republican-Democrat gap on climate. Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry even accuses climate scientists of lying for money. Global warming looms as a debatable question in yet another U.S. election campaign.
From his big-windowed office overlooking the wooded campus of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., Broecker has observed this deepening of the desire to disbelieve.
"The opposition by the Republicans has gotten stronger and stronger," the 79-year-old "grandfather of climate science" said in an interview. "But, of course, the push by the Democrats has become stronger and stronger, and as it has become a more important issue, it has become more polarized."
The solution: "Eventually it'll become damned clear that the Earth is warming and the warming is beyond anything we have experienced in millions of years, and people will have to admit..." He stopped and laughed.
"Well, I suppose they could say God is burning us up."
The basic physics of anthropogenic — manmade — global warming has been clear for more than a century, since researchers proved that carbon dioxide traps heat. Others later showed CO2 was building up in the atmosphere from the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels. Weather stations then filled in the rest: Temperatures were rising.
"As a physicist, putting CO2 into the air is good enough for me. It's the physics that convinces me," said veteran Cambridge University researcher Liz Morris. But she said work must go on to refine climate data and computer climate models, "to convince the deeply reluctant organizers of this world."
The reluctance to rein in carbon emissions revealed itself early on.
In the 1980s, as scientists studied Greenland's buried ice for clues to past climate, upgraded their computer models peering into the future, and improved global temperature analyses, the fossil-fuel industries were mobilizing for a campaign to question the science.
By 1988, NASA climatologist James Hansen could appear before a U.S. Senate committee and warn that global warming had begun, a dramatic announcement later confirmed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a new, U.N.-sponsored network of hundreds of international scientists.
But when Hansen was called back to testify in 1989, the White House of President George H.W. Bush edited this government scientist's remarks to water down his conclusions, and Hansen declined to appear.
That was the year U.S. oil and coal interests formed the Global Climate Coalition to combat efforts to shift economies away from their products. Britain's Royal Society and other researchers later determined that oil giant Exxon disbursed millions of dollars annually to think tanks and a handful of supposed experts to sow doubt about the facts.
In 1997, two years after the IPCC declared the "balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate," the world's nations gathered in Kyoto, Japan, to try to do something about it. The naysayers were there as well.
"The statement that we'll have continued warming with an increase in CO2 is opinion, not fact," oil executive William F. O'Keefe of the Global Climate Coalition insisted to reporters in Kyoto.
The late Bert Bolin, then IPCC chief, despaired.
"I'm not really surprised at the political reaction," the Swedish climatologist told The Associated Press. "I am surprised at the way some of the scientific findings have been rejected in an unscientific manner."
In fact, a document emerged years later showing that the industry coalition's own scientific team had quietly advised it that the basic science of global warming was indisputable.
Kyoto's final agreement called for limited rollbacks in greenhouse emissions. The United States didn't even join in that. And by 2000, the CO2 built up in the atmosphere to 369 parts per million — just 4 ppm less than Broecker predicted — compared with 280 ppm before the industrial revolution.
Global temperatures rose as well, by 0.6 degrees C (1.1 degrees F) in the 20th century. And the mercury just kept rising. The decade 2000-2009 was the warmest on record, and 2010 and 2005 were the warmest years on record.
Satellite and other monitoring, meanwhile, found nights were warming faster than days, and winters more than summers, and the upper atmosphere was cooling while the lower atmosphere warmed — all clear signals greenhouse warming was at work, not some other factor.
The impact has been widespread.
An authoritative study this August reported that hundreds of species are retreating toward the poles, egrets showing up in southern England, American robins in Eskimo villages. Some, such as polar bears, have nowhere to go. Eventual large-scale extinctions are feared.
The heat is cutting into wheat yields, nurturing beetles that are destroying northern forests, attracting malarial mosquitoes to higher altitudes.
From the Rockies to the Himalayas, glaciers are shrinking, sending ever more water into the world's seas. Because of accelerated melt in Greenland and elsewhere, the eight-nation Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program projects ocean levels will rise 90 to 160 centimeters (35 to 63 inches) by 2100, threatening coastlines everywhere.
"We are scared, really and truly," diplomat Laurence Edwards, from the Pacific's Marshall Islands, told the AP before the 1997 Kyoto meeting.
Today in his low-lying home islands, rising seas have washed away shoreline graveyards, saltwater has invaded wells, and islanders desperately seek aid to build a seawall to shield their capital.
The oceans are turning more acidic, too, from absorbing excess carbon dioxide. Acidifying seas will harm plankton, shellfish and other marine life up the food chain. Biologists fear the world's coral reefs, home to much ocean life and already damaged from warmer waters, will largely disappear in this century.
The greatest fears may focus on "feedbacks" in the Arctic, warming twice as fast as the rest of the world.
The Arctic Ocean's summer ice cap has shrunk by half and is expected to essentially vanish by 2030 or 2040, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center reported Sept. 15. Ashore, meanwhile, the Arctic tundra's permafrost is thawing and releasing methane, a powerful greenhouse gas.
These changes will feed on themselves: Released methane leads to warmer skies, which will release more methane. Ice-free Arctic waters absorb more of the sun's heat than do reflective ice and snow, and so melt will beget melt. The frozen Arctic is a controller of Northern Hemisphere climate; an unfrozen one could upend age-old weather patterns across continents.
In the face of years of scientific findings and growing impacts, the doubters persist. They ignore long-term trends and seize on insignificant year-to-year blips in data to claim all is well. They focus on minor mistakes in thousands of pages of peer-reviewed studies to claim all is wrong. And they carom from one explanation to another for today's warming Earth: jet contrails, sunspots, cosmic rays, natural cycles.
"Ninety-eight percent of the world's climate scientists say it's for real, and yet you still have deniers," observed former U.S. Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, a New York Republican who chaired the House's science committee.
Christiana Figueres, Costa Rican head of the U.N.'s post-Kyoto climate negotiations, finds it "very, very perplexing, this apparent allergy that there is in the United States. Why?"
The Australian scholar Hamilton sought to explain why in his 2010 book, "Requiem for a Species: Why We Resist the Truth About Climate Change."
In an interview, he said he found a "transformation" from the 1990s and its industry-financed campaign, to an America where climate denial "has now become a marker of cultural identity in the 'angry' parts of the United States."
"Climate denial has been incorporated in the broader movement of right-wing populism," he said, a movement that has "a visceral loathing of environmentalism."
An in-depth study of a decade of Gallup polling finds statistical backing for that analysis.
On the question of whether they believed the effects of global warming were already happening, the percentage of self-identified Republicans or conservatives answering "yes" plummeted from almost 50 percent in 2007-2008 to 30 percent or less in 2010, while liberals and Democrats remained at 70 percent or more, according to the study in this spring's Sociological Quarterly.
A Pew Research Center poll last October found a similar left-right gap.
The drop-off coincided with the election of Democrat Barack Obama as president and the Democratic effort in Congress, ultimately futile, to impose government caps on industrial greenhouse emissions.
Boehlert, the veteran GOP congressman, noted that "high-profile people with an 'R' after their name, like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann, are saying it's all fiction. Pooh-poohing the science of climate change feeds into their basic narrative that all government is bad."
The quarterly study's authors, Aaron M. McCright of Michigan State University and Riley E. Dunlap of Oklahoma State, suggested climate had joined abortion and other explosive, intractable issues as a mainstay of America's hardening left-right gap.
"The culture wars have thus taken on a new dimension," they wrote.
Al Gore, for one, remains upbeat. The former vice president and Nobel Prize-winning climate campaigner says "ferocity" in defense of false beliefs often increases "as the evidence proving them false builds."
In an AP interview, he pointed to tipping points in recent history — the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the dismantling of U.S. racial segregation — when the potential for change built slowly in the background, until a critical mass was reached.
"This is building toward a point where the falsehoods of climate denial will be unacceptable as a basis for policy much longer," Gore said. "As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'How long? Not long.'"
Even Wally Broecker's jest — that deniers could blame God — may not be an option for long.
Last May the Vatican's Pontifical Academy of Sciences, arm of an institution that once persecuted Galileo for his scientific findings, pronounced on manmade global warming: It's happening.
Said the pope's scientific advisers, "We must protect the habitat that sustains us."
I was willing to accept global warming until we found that 'hockey stick' graph in An Inconvenient Truth to suggest the temperature change was complete made-up bull gak.
Mr. Self Destruct wrote:I was willing to accept global warming until we found that 'hockey stick' graph in An Inconvenient Truth to suggest the temperature change was complete made-up bull gak.
Yeah, some politician making up a graph doesn't disprove an already well-researched and proven phenomenon. Sorry.
What other evidence? The only reliable information on the climate we have is less than 200 years old. Earth is alleged to being millions of years old. There might be a climate change, but I think it is much more believable that Earth goes through cyclical climate changes than to say that this is a man made issue.
Mr. Self Destruct wrote:I was willing to accept global warming until we found that 'hockey stick' graph in An Inconvenient Truth to suggest the temperature change was complete made-up bull gak.
Yeah, some politician making up a graph doesn't disprove an already well-researched and proven phenomenon. Sorry.
It wasn't entirely the fact that he bulled it, it was the fact that he essentially revived the entire global-warming hysteria with false evidence. I don't ever remember hearing anything about it until one day Mr. Gore makes a movie and then HOLY gak WE'RE ALL GOING TO DROWN IN FLAMING WATER. It wouldn't have made much of a difference to me if he wasn't trying to make himself into the Great Paragon and Poobah of all things global warming.
Amaya wrote:What other evidence? The only reliable information on the climate we have is less than 200 years old. Earth is alleged to being millions of years old. There might be a climate change, but I think it is much more believable that Earth goes through cyclical climate changes than to say that this is a man made issue.
Actually scientists have journied to both poles. Using special tools they have, and are recovering ice that is millions of years old. Using this ice a person can determine what the climate of the earth was millions of years ago. So in fact it is possible to gather reliable climate information which is older than 200 years old
Amaya wrote:What other evidence? The only reliable information on the climate we have is less than 200 years old. Earth is alleged to being millions of years old. There might be a climate change, but I think it is much more believable that Earth goes through cyclical climate changes than to say that this is a man made issue.
Actually scientists have journied to both poles. Using special tools they have, and are recovering ice that is millions of years old. Using this ice a person can determine what the climate of the earth was millions of years ago. So in fact it is possible to gather reliable climate information which is older than 200 years old
And how reliable is that? Wouldn't such materials be affected by the current climate?
Amaya wrote:What other evidence? The only reliable information on the climate we have is less than 200 years old. Earth is alleged to being millions of years old. There might be a climate change, but I think it is much more believable that Earth goes through cyclical climate changes than to say that this is a man made issue.
First, the planet is billions of years old, not millions. The generally accepted age for the Earth is 4.1 to 4.2 billion years.
Second, in order to dispute the fact that humans are contributing to global warming you would have to ignore two indisputable points: 1) CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere. 2) Humans pump CO2 into the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels.
Can you deny either of those two facts? If not, then I can't see how you can claim that humans aren't contributing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote:
Dakkadan wrote:
Amaya wrote:What other evidence? The only reliable information on the climate we have is less than 200 years old. Earth is alleged to being millions of years old. There might be a climate change, but I think it is much more believable that Earth goes through cyclical climate changes than to say that this is a man made issue.
Actually scientists have journied to both poles. Using special tools they have, and are recovering ice that is millions of years old. Using this ice a person can determine what the climate of the earth was millions of years ago. So in fact it is possible to gather reliable climate information which is older than 200 years old
And how reliable is that? Wouldn't such materials be affected by the current climate?
Amaya wrote:What other evidence? The only reliable information on the climate we have is less than 200 years old. Earth is alleged to being millions of years old. There might be a climate change, but I think it is much more believable that Earth goes through cyclical climate changes than to say that this is a man made issue.
You agree that climate change is happening, but you doubt the anthropogenic component.
Amaya wrote:What other evidence? The only reliable information on the climate we have is less than 200 years old. Earth is alleged to being millions of years old. There might be a climate change, but I think it is much more believable that Earth goes through cyclical climate changes than to say that this is a man made issue.
You agree that climate change is happening, but you doubt the anthropogenic component.
Even if everyone were to accept the standard model of CO2 -> OMG WE'RE ALL GOING TO DROWN, we should still have a debate about what the proper role of government and regulation should have on the issue. Specifically, is anthropogenic global warming a bad thing and is it better to
Unfortunately, neither side is really interested in advancing the debate. The right, correctly IMO, is arguing against the underlying position of global warming while the left refuses to discuss anything other than Kyoto or the like.
Those are unreliable as the ice freezes both from the top down And bottom up, assuming that we are basing these Ice Core findings off of ones found in water
Amaya wrote: Earth is alleged to being millions of years old.
Ok lets start at the top.
The earth isnt "alleged" to being millions of years old. The earth is 4.54 billion years old.
Plus, something that has been alleged is something that is said to have taken place without proof, and there is more proof for the age of the earth being in the billions than there is proof that I am an extremely ill tempered, heavily follicled little ewok. And this is proved thanks to eye witness testimony, thousands of pictures in cyber space, and a conversation with my almost as hairy siblings and parents.
Those are unreliable as the ice freezes both from the top down And bottom up, assuming that we are basing these Ice Core findings off of ones found in water
You should actually read the ice core artical he linked if you are interested in the science. The are links at the bottom to outside websites with lots of information on the exact science. Its very accurate in some cases they can tell you what volcano erupted 1000 years ago.
rubiksnoob wrote:
Second, in order to dispute the fact that humans are contributing to global warming you would have to ignore two indisputable points:
1) CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere.
2) Humans pump CO2 into the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels.
Can you deny either of those two facts? If not, then I can't see how you can claim that humans aren't contributing.
Lets look at the various contributions to greenhouse gases:
Greenhouse gases as part of the total atmosphere: 1-2 percent (the rest being @ 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen)
Of that 2 percent:
95 percent is water vapor 3.62 percent is carbon dioxide (harmful)
Of that 3.62 percent, humans account for 3.4 percent from co2 emissions.
So, humans do contribute to the greenhouse gases, however it doesn't even amount to the tip of the tail that wags the dog.
If global warming is occurring, its because of the Sun. If there is global cooling, it's because of the sun. Plain and simple.
Enviromentalist Nazis can ban grills, SUVs, aerosol cans, and cow flatulence, but it won't amount to a hill of beans.
So, King Canute, feel free to command the sun to stop shining, but don't touch my grill.
Regards,
Phanatik
Amaya wrote: Earth is alleged to being millions of years old.
Ok lets start at the top.
The earth isnt "alleged" to being millions of years old. The earth is 4.54 billion years old.
Plus, something that has been alleged is something that is said to have taken place without proof, and there is more proof for the age of the earth being in the billions than there is proof that I am an extremely ill tempered, heavily follicled little ewok. And this is proved thanks to eye witness testimony, thousands of pictures in cyber space, and a conversation with my almost as hairy siblings and parents.
Actually, according to the scientific method, scientific truths are not absolute. Right now, the general consensus is that the earth is 4.54 billion years, BUT, if a new discovery was made, next year, the general consensus would be that the earth is maybe 5.69 billion years old. My point is, I guess, that when it comes to science, it is silly to say that "the earth is 4.54 billion years old", because, as I said, new discoveries are always being made...When my dad was in school, the earth was generally thought of as 3 billion years old, or thereabouts.
You have believed a liar, who lied to you. The result is that you've looked foolish when you repeated that lie here. Do you like being duped?
No? Then stop believing the liars who tell you these things for political motivations, and start reading about the actual science that's going on in studying climate change.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr. Self Destruct wrote:It wasn't entirely the fact that he bulled it, it was the fact that he essentially revived the entire global-warming hysteria with false evidence. I don't ever remember hearing anything about it until one day Mr. Gore makes a movie and then HOLY gak WE'RE ALL GOING TO DROWN IN FLAMING WATER.
The lack of priority that climate change had before Gore's documentary speaks volumes of the lack of respect towards science in the popular consciousness, but that's about all.
It wouldn't have made much of a difference to me if he wasn't trying to make himself into the Great Paragon and Poobah of all things global warming.
You can dislike Gore all you want, but that doesn't give you the ability to deny the scientific consensus.
You don't get to deny gravity because Mr Newton was a weirdo, either.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:Even if everyone were to accept the standard model of CO2 -> OMG WE'RE ALL GOING TO DROWN, we should still have a debate about what the proper role of government and regulation should have on the issue. Specifically, is anthropogenic global warming a bad thing and is it better to
Uh huh. I too have noted a distinct lack of honest and forthright debate about whether it might be better for the pacific island nations to sink under the sea.
Meanwhile, climate change is bad. We may get more arable land in some places and other kinds of things, but the simple fact is we've built up centuries of infrastructure based on weather patterns that have remained more or less constant over that time, or changed very slowly. The cost in rebuilding that infrastructure to account for new weather patterns is immense, far greater than the cost of capping emmissions, in the long term.
As well as making a simple, intuitive sense, this idea was explored in detail in the Stern Review. Stern found that the cost of stabilising carbon dioxide at about 550ppm was about 1% of GDP. The cost of adapting to climate change would be at least 10% of GDP.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Azure wrote:Those are unreliable as the ice freezes both from the top down And bottom up, assuming that we are basing these Ice Core findings off of ones found in water
That's complete nonsense. I don't know who told you that nonsense, but they were lying to you. Instead of bing duped and repeating that nonsense and looking foolish, please go and read the science.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phanatik wrote:Of that 2 percent: 95 percent is water vapor 3.62 percent is carbon dioxide (harmful)
Which would be relevant if all particals trapped heat in the same fashion. Of course, that's something we've known isn't true for more than a hundred years, when we first studied the properties of carbon dioxide. It certainly isn't hard to come across knowledge, it was even given in the article posted by the OP.
At this point, pride should kick in, and tell you to stop listening to whoever told you that nonsense, and made you look silly repeating it here.
Oh, and for the record, as per the OP's article that you didn't bother to read, carbon dioxide has increased from 280ppm to 369ppm from the start of the industrial age until now, making human's responsible for just under 32% of the total carbon dioxide in the air. So that's another piece of nonsense that's made you look silly. Not that the total proportion is a relevant figure anyway, what matters is that impact of that proportion on temperature.
Oh, you called me silly. I guess you win the argument.
But, there's just that little matter that enviromentalists change the data to support their position.
But you called me silly, so you win the argument.
And you do have the video of icebergs and glaciers melting, that will raise sea levels destroying coastal cities. (Icebergs and glaciers and polar bears, oh my!)
But, that video was falsified as well. It's from different locations.
But you called me silly, so you win the argument.
Well, you DO have that great enviromental champion Al Gore, who will at the drop of a hat leave one of his many homes (burning more electricity than Thor) and hop on his private plane (burning fossil fuels) to bring the message to the masses around the world. What a guy!
But, he stands to profit billions from the offset rights he's purchased.
But, you called me silly, so you win the argument.
Why does the Global Warming debate revolve around Al-flipping-Gore all the time?
Surely there must be more than just Al saying this stuff in the US other than that bloke.
The rest of the world [I suppose I should say developed] seems to have got the message fine without him, can't you just drop him given that any politician in the US just seems to engender 50%+ of the public ingnoring him/the point on sight.
Have you tried getting Elmo to say a few word yet? He's good. (the little red feller not the comedian)
Phanatik wrote:Oh, you called me silly. I guess you win the argument.
But, there's just that little matter that enviromentalists change the data to support their position.
But you called me silly, so you win the argument.
And you do have the video of icebergs and glaciers melting, that will raise sea levels destroying coastal cities. (Icebergs and glaciers and polar bears, oh my!)
But, that video was falsified as well. It's from different locations.
But you called me silly, so you win the argument.
Well, you DO have that great enviromental champion Al Gore, who will at the drop of a hat leave one of his many homes (burning more electricity than Thor) and hop on his private plane (burning fossil fuels) to bring the message to the masses around the world. What a guy!
But, he stands to profit billions from the offset rights he's purchased.
But, you called me silly, so you win the argument.
Best,
Don't forget Al Gore is making serious cash, as in tens of millions of dollars on this, including private equity funds that invest in government supported "green energy." Whether or not global warming is occuring, whether or not it is man made, when your proponents are shucksters who have blindingly high personal financial interests, then color me skeptical.
notprop wrote:Why does the Global Warming debate revolve around Al-flipping-Gore all the time?
Surely there must be more than just Al saying this stuff in the US other than that bloke.
The rest of the world [I suppose I should say developed] seems to have got the message fine without him, can't you just drop him given that any politician in the US just seems to engender 50%+ of the public ingnoring him/the point on sight.
Have you tried getting Elmo to say a few word yet? He's good. (the little red feller not the comedian)
Actually the rest of the world hasn't. Just a few Euro nutters and others paying lip service. The Chinese and Indians are pumping the smog as fast as they can.
The positive I have is that "clean energy" generally is domestic energy, breaking us from reliance on dictators and psychopaths who have a thing for blowing up children at the local market square.
Unfortunately, it's just as hard selling the gore crowd on nuclear power as it is selling the right on climate change, so it's going to be remarkably hard to do anything about this.
I agree on the clean/renewable energy sources. The sooner we have Fusion energy and or enough Wind/Solar/Tidal energy the sooner we can cut the Middle-East and Balkans loose to fight it out amoungst themselves and for our entertainment.
Fraz, Thats also a little unfair on dictators, some of them only like torturing people. Lets not pigeon hole everyone now.
Like, if we REALLY want to do anything, the hippies need to drop their opposition to nuclear power. You'll get a LOT more agreement if you rally around an actual solution that some people who doubt global warming still like. This way, a lot of them are like "well, don't think global warming is happening, but I am pro-nuclear so I'll go along for that"
Rented Tritium wrote:Unfortunately, it's just as hard selling the gore crowd on nuclear power as it is selling the right on climate change, so it's going to be remarkably hard to do anything about this.
Its inevitable. If prudent we begin converted to an electricty based economy, with underlying electricity powered by (say it together now chillins) "nuc - you - ler," and where efficacious solar, and wind.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rented Tritium wrote:Like, if we REALLY want to do anything, the hippies need to drop their opposition to nuclear power. You'll get a LOT more agreement if you rally around an actual solution that some people who doubt global warming still like. This way, a lot of them are like "well, don't think global warming is happening, but I am pro-nuclear so I'll go along for that"
Everyone wins.
Exactly, well the good guys win anyway. The ME and certain dictators on death's door due to cancer, not so much.
notprop wrote:I agree on the clean/renewable energy sources. The sooner we have Fusion energy and or enough Wind/Solar/Tidal energy the sooner we can cut the Middle-East and Balkans loose to fight it out amoungst themselves and for our entertainment.
You're worried about climate change (global warming being a subset thereof), and yet you're advocating wind, solar, and (most importantly) tidal energy? Do you realize the catastrophic effect that pulling tidal energy out of the oceans would have on the global climate? If you think a small change in atmospheric CO2 is bad, wait until you start fething with the oceans.
If we harvested enough wind and solar energy to replace our current consumption you'd likewise see a lot of environmental disruption.
Now as far as non-nuclear clean energy goes, wind is the most ready for prime time currently. Solar is way below break even still and will need some creative applications to even BEGIN to replace things. Wind though, has some REALLY interesting innovations coming up.
They're experimenting with what are effectively giant kites with turbines on them that are tethered up higher where the winds are more constant and faster. You can even hook them up to sea platforms so they aren't even visible from land.
If we can get power out of those in excess of their materials cost, even only a small net, we can just crank them out.
as Biccat says though, harvesting kinetic energy from very important natural cycles can do damage if you go overboard. I will say though that you'd need to harvest a TON of energy before you noticed it, like, wayyy more than we can actually get.
Frazzled - Good call (and thanks), I took the plunge 5 years ago.
Rented - While the sun does go through cyclic periods of warmer and cooler periods, its still the hottest object in this solar system. Without it, the earth would eventually cool off far below the level to support life.
So, turn your oven to 450 degrees F and stick your head in, and then turn it down to 400 degrees F and stick it in again. Notice a difference?
Phanatik wrote:Frazzled - Good call (and thanks), I took the plunge 5 years ago.
Rented - While the sun does go through cyclic periods of warmer and cooler periods, its still the hottest object in this solar system. Without it, the earth would eventually cool off far below the level to support life.
So, turn your oven to 450 degrees F and stick your head in, and then turn it down to 400 degrees F and stick it in again. Notice a difference?
Regards,
Are you under the impression that the fact that the sun is hot is not part of the math here?
Do you think I don't view the sun as part of the system?
This post is insulting drivel. We're arguing that greenhouse gases are keeping too much of the sun's energy on earth. Do you really not get the concept here? "SUN IS HOT" does not disprove even a little bit of our thesis.
To use your own analogy, stick your head in at 400, now put on a ski mask and do it again. Your head got hotter the second time because of the ski mask and both times because of the oven.
notprop wrote:I agree on the clean/renewable energy sources. The sooner we have Fusion energy and or enough Wind/Solar/Tidal energy the sooner we can cut the Middle-East and Balkans loose to fight it out amoungst themselves and for our entertainment.
You're worried about climate change (global warming being a subset thereof), and yet you're advocating wind, solar, and (most importantly) tidal energy? Do you realize the catastrophic effect that pulling tidal energy out of the oceans would have on the global climate? If you think a small change in atmospheric CO2 is bad, wait until you start fething with the oceans.
If we harvested enough wind and solar energy to replace our current consumption you'd likewise see a lot of environmental disruption.
Hmmmm, scared of tidal energy now?
How do you pull tidal energy out of an ocean? You do realise tht those wavey things disapate on contact with the coastline don't you? They don't bounce off Ireland and head back to the US in one long never ending game of tag.
Seriously, there are problems with tidal energy, damming effects and siltation for example which can be planned out/managed; but you seem to be inferring that the ocean is like a battery and that it might be drained of power?
Still we will see what the mass effects of that o-so-dangerous wind energy use is when the Londo Array is finished in the near future. Thats 40km2 of wind turbines in the Thames Estuary. Thats on top of the huge numbers already installed off of the Kent coast. I like them and think the're pretty.
Phanatik wrote:Frazzled - Good call (and thanks), I took the plunge 5 years ago.
Rented - While the sun does go through cyclic periods of warmer and cooler periods, its still the hottest object in this solar system. Without it, the earth would eventually cool off far below the level to support life.
So, turn your oven to 450 degrees F and stick your head in, and then turn it down to 400 degrees F and stick it in again. Notice a difference?
Regards,
Are you under the impression that the fact that the sun is hot is not part of the math here?
Do you think I don't view the sun as part of the system?
This post is insulting drivel. We're arguing that greenhouse gases are keeping too much of the sun's energy on earth. Do you really not get the concept here? "SUN IS HOT" does not disprove even a little bit of our thesis.
To use your own analogy, stick your head in at 400, now put on a ski mask and do it again. Your head got hotter the second time because of the ski mask and both times because of the oven.
Solar cycles are just now being explored as a cause for temprature changes on Earth and Mars (it was noticed Mars is heating up at the same rate as greanhouse gas guzzling Earth). I'm not necessarily disagreeing with global warming-definitely climate change (cause er duh the climate constantly changes derp derp) but the cause is a major dispute. Indeed, if solar cycles are indeed tied to Earth temp changes, then we are in for a cool spell. Thats why, under the enlightened Frazzled administration, while Canada and Greenland are definitely ours, we're only putting down an option on Antartica.
notprop wrote:I agree on the clean/renewable energy sources. The sooner we have Fusion energy and or enough Wind/Solar/Tidal energy the sooner we can cut the Middle-East and Balkans loose to fight it out amoungst themselves and for our entertainment.
You're worried about climate change (global warming being a subset thereof), and yet you're advocating wind, solar, and (most importantly) tidal energy? Do you realize the catastrophic effect that pulling tidal energy out of the oceans would have on the global climate? If you think a small change in atmospheric CO2 is bad, wait until you start fething with the oceans.
If we harvested enough wind and solar energy to replace our current consumption you'd likewise see a lot of environmental disruption.
Hmmmm, scared of tidal energy now?
How do you pull tidal energy out of an ocean? You do realise tht those wavey things disapate on contact with the coastline don't you? They don't bounce off Ireland and head back to the US in one long never ending game of tag.
Seriously, there are problems with tidal energy, damming effects and siltation for example which can be planned out/managed; but you seem to be inferring that the ocean is like a battery and that it might be drained of power?
Still we will see what the mass effects of that o-so-dangerous wind energy use is when the Londo Array is finished in the near future. Thats 40km2 of wind turbines in the Thames Estuary. Thats on top of the huge numbers already installed off of the Kent coast. I like them and think the're pretty.
I don't think we have to worry as much as he does, but theoretically he's absolutely right. Wind and tidal energy absolutely have consequences. First off, law of conservation of energy. When you harvest energy from the ocean, you are robbing the ocean of movement. You are only taking a tiiiiiny fraction of it, but if you had ENOUGH of them, you absolutely could change ocean currents. Even a 1% drop in overall kinetic energy could completely screw up major currents.
Same with wind. Wind farms work because they take energy from the wind. The wind is slightly slower on the other side of the turbine. The energy has to come from somewhere. The issue is that the pressure difference on either side of a sufficiently large wind farm HAS BEEN PROVEN to slightly change cloud patterns and temperature gradient in a variety of ways. Again, these things aren't obvious on the scale that we are usually doing it, but if you expand it enough you WILL SEE SOME CHANGES that can add up.
Even on the small scale, the noise of a wind turbine can screw with animal migration etc, and tidal energy can change the erosion deposition patterns of a given shore just like how sea walls increase erosion on either side.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:
Phanatik wrote:Frazzled - Good call (and thanks), I took the plunge 5 years ago.
Rented - While the sun does go through cyclic periods of warmer and cooler periods, its still the hottest object in this solar system. Without it, the earth would eventually cool off far below the level to support life.
So, turn your oven to 450 degrees F and stick your head in, and then turn it down to 400 degrees F and stick it in again. Notice a difference?
Regards,
Are you under the impression that the fact that the sun is hot is not part of the math here?
Do you think I don't view the sun as part of the system?
This post is insulting drivel. We're arguing that greenhouse gases are keeping too much of the sun's energy on earth. Do you really not get the concept here? "SUN IS HOT" does not disprove even a little bit of our thesis.
To use your own analogy, stick your head in at 400, now put on a ski mask and do it again. Your head got hotter the second time because of the ski mask and both times because of the oven.
Solar cycles are just now being explored as a cause for temprature changes on Earth and Mars (it was noticed Mars is heating up at the same rate as greanhouse gas guzzling Earth). I'm not necessarily disagreeing with global warming-definitely climate change (cause er duh the climate constantly changes derp derp) but the cause is a major dispute. Indeed, if solar cycles are indeed tied to Earth temp changes, then we are in for a cool spell. Thats why, under the enlightened Frazzled administration, while Canada and Greenland are definitely ours, we're only putting down an option on Antartica.
There's a chance that we're in for a cold spell either way. There's a good deal of evidence suggesting that with a large enough melt, the salinity of the oceans drops and convection falls apart, making the gulf stream turn off for a few hundred years. This is PROBABLY what happened in each ice age. The north freezes harder and the south gets hotter. The colder north regenerates the ice caps and increases salinity, restarting the current.
It's sort of like a temperature safety valve.
At issue is that A) if we ARE causing the increase this time, we can't be 100% sure that safety valve can handle the extra energy and B) even if it's 100% natural, a natural cycle that kills millions still kills millions.
This is the science that the day after tomorrow was LOOOSELY based on (ice tornadoes are uhh not part of the thesis haha)
Either we're in one of three states - loosing energy, gaining energy or equal loss and gain which will balance themselves out.
Now clearly not ALL of the energy from the sun gets removed by radiation, some goes into the food chain. But assuming that there isn't a net loss then we've miraculously been in homeostatis until the last 200 years or else we've not actually been cooking for the last 4.x billion years. (Also I'm not convinced about the age of the earth myself)
Either we're in one of three states - loosing energy, gaining energy or equal loss and gain which will balance themselves out.
Now clearly not ALL of the energy from the sun gets removed by radiation, some goes into the food chain. But assuming that there isn't a net loss then we've miraculously been in homeostatis until the last 200 years or else we've not actually been cooking for the last 4.x billion years. (Also I'm not convinced about the age of the earth myself)
Like I said about the gulf stream, the earth thermo cycle has a series of pressure valves to get it back to relative homeostasis. Earth isn't a perfect black body, but it is able to swing back and forth with an average at approx the level of a black body, so it's cool.
But the extra co2 emissions are keeping us in a net increase. The good news is we'll eventually hit a pressure valve (an ice age), the bad news is that said pressure valve will kill a lot of people.
Also, there's the theory that if we screwed up the balance FAR ENOUGH, we could break through the pressure valves and just become venus, which obv would suck.
Now, next point, you aren't convinced about the age of the earth? Uhhh, wut? Explain your position there.
Scared of tidal energy? Well, I'm scared of the consequence of drawing tidal energy out of the oceans. Because thermodynamics says you can't get energy from nothing.
notprop wrote:How do you pull tidal energy out of an ocean?
Not by harvesting the energy of what most people consider waves. You pull energy out of the ocean by exploiting the difference in kinetic energy between moving water and a reference point, for example the air or non-tidal part of the ocean.
notprop wrote:You do realise tht those wavey things disapate on contact with the coastline don't you?
Even if the waves did dissipate when they contact the coastline (they don't), it's incredibly inefficient to try to harvest the energy from the waves, it's much easier to harvest energy from tidal streams.
notprop wrote:They don't bounce off Ireland and head back to the US in one long never ending game of tag.
Yeah, they do. It's called reflection.
notprop wrote:Seriously, there are problems with tidal energy, damming effects and siltation for example which can be planned out/managed; but you seem to be inferring that the ocean is like a battery and that it might be drained of power?
Actually, I imply, you infer.
The problem isn't drawing energy out of the ocean, but that when you withdraw energy from the system you change the characteristics of that system.
notprop wrote:Still we will see what the mass effects of that o-so-dangerous wind energy use is when the Londo Array is finished in the near future. Thats 40km2 of wind turbines in the Thames Estuary. Thats on top of the huge numbers already installed off of the Kent coast. I like them and think the're pretty.
The effect of 40 square km. will actually be pretty minimal, globally speaking, because the system only generates ~1200 MW of power. That's about as much energy as two traditional coal plants, which would also have a fairly minimal environmental impact. The biggest difference will be in the area downwind of the turbines.
It saddens me that my backyard grilling has been increasing the co2 on Mars all of these years. Who knew?
As pittance, I think every nation's economy should be revamped to fight insidious backyard grilling that is ruining the ecology of Mars.
I'm perfectly willing to return to living in caves until thousands of years in the future when solar/wind energy technology will finally be sufficient to make it possible for me to once again turn on the lights.
<stands up>
I admit it. I'm a dirty little energy user.
Phanatik wrote:
Your side cheats. Your side lies. Cheaters and liars have ZERO credibility.
Since everyone cheats, and everyone lies, that should indicate that no one has any credibility; which is basically the foundation of critical thinking.
Phanatik wrote:
I really don't know or care how you do your math, because I don't trust you (the plural you).
You could, of course, do the math yourself, or investigate the methodology in question; rather than relying on trust. I know it requires more work, but with an IQ of 151 that work shouldn't prove challenging.
Phanatik wrote:It saddens me that my backyard grilling has been increasing the co2 on Mars all of these years. Who knew?
As pittance, I think every nation's economy should be revamped to fight insidious backyard grilling that is ruining the ecology of Mars.
I'm perfectly willing to return to living in caves until thousands of years in the future when solar/wind energy technology will finally be sufficient to make it possible for me to once again turn on the lights.
<stands up>
I admit it. I'm a dirty little energy user.
Regards,
Thre last time I grilled I had to hose down a large swath so I wouldn't start another 30,000 acre fire. But the steaks were worth it. Seriously.
biccat wrote:Even if everyone were to accept the standard model of CO2 -> OMG WE'RE ALL GOING TO DROWN, we should still have a debate about what the proper role of government and regulation should have on the issue. Specifically, is anthropogenic global warming a bad thing and is it better to
Unfortunately, neither side is really interested in advancing the debate. The right, correctly IMO, is arguing against the underlying position of global warming while the left refuses to discuss anything other than Kyoto or the like.
Strangely, this isn't all that far from my position on the debate, as it stands. I think that the left has put too much faith in the anthropogenic nature of global warming, and that the right spends too much time denying basic climate statistics.
The planet has gotten warmer over the period relevant to most statistics, and that's difficult to deny given that there's little, non-political challenges to it. The real questions are whether or not we caused it, whether or not we can do anything about it, and whether or not we should do anything about it.
I lived in San Angelo for 4 months (during the summer - gasp) and loved it. That was 1986 though, when I believe they were still switching over from global cooling to global warming.
Phanatik wrote:It saddens me that my backyard grilling has been increasing the co2 on Mars all of these years. Who knew?
As pittance, I think every nation's economy should be revamped to fight insidious backyard grilling that is ruining the ecology of Mars.
I'm perfectly willing to return to living in caves until thousands of years in the future when solar/wind energy technology will finally be sufficient to make it possible for me to once again turn on the lights.
<stands up>
I admit it. I'm a dirty little energy user.
Regards,
Thre last time I grilled I had to hose down a large swath so I wouldn't start another 30,000 acre fire. But the steaks were worth it. Seriously.
Oh Frazzled, you're carbon footprint is so large it mould make a clown blush.
Anyways, the only possible fix I can see to this is a nuclear winter. You see if we make the planet really, really cold then eventually gloabl warming will heat everything back up and everything will be hunky-dory for any surviving humans and/or mutants still left around. What other actions can force an evolutionary change, save the Earth, and give us a chance to live out any post-apocalyptic Earth fantasies we may have?
dogma wrote:The real questions are whether or not we caused it, whether or not we can do anything about it, and whether or not we should do anything about it.
Truer words have never been spoken.
I don't bother trying to reconcile data over snapshots of time for a planet that is over 4 billion years old; that has in it's time been a cooling ball of magma, a big snowball, or wavered between ice ages and balmy sunny days.
I don't lose sleep over what amounts to about 1 degree of difference over the short term. Today it's warm; tomorrow it may be cold, but it will be warm again.
I have more fascination for the possibility of crustal shifts, and have they occurred in the past, and possibly the future? Now that is global climate change.
Earth is a pretty awesome planet, in fact its my preferred planet over any in our solar system. Pluto used to be my favorite planet until science said it wasn't a planet anymore, so that makes Earth my favorite plaent currently. I also really don't know how to feel about rising water levels, I know how to swim, I like fishing, and maybe there's a chance we could build underwater bio-domes but I also like knowing that I can't drown in a field of grass.
I'm lucky to live in an area juuust inside where the water would be if we had a complete cap melt AND I'm juuuust south enough that if the north atlantic conveyor shut down, my local climate would be roughly the same temp it is now.
Of course, it would be much more crowded, since it would get much hotter south of me and much colder north of me, but still, advantage is advantage.
I believe it was the Atlantic conveyor shutting down that caused the drought that wiped out the Maya. Or, maybe they didn't sacrifice enough people. One of those two.
Phanatik wrote:I believe it was the Atlantic conveyor shutting down that caused the drought that wiped out the Maya. Or, maybe they didn't sacrifice enough people.
Amaya wrote:What other evidence? The only reliable information on the climate we have is less than 200 years old. Earth is alleged to being millions of years old. There might be a climate change, but I think it is much more believable that Earth goes through cyclical climate changes than to say that this is a man made issue.
Right there... 'millions of years old'. Anything you say beyond this point is going to be highly questionable.
I think what we decide in the West might become a bit of a moot point, considering the CO2 that India and especially China are pumping out into the atmosphere. The fastest rising economies in the world are even less likely to hamstring themselves than the West is, even if we do come up with some punitive measures to reduce environmental pollution it's almost certain that they aren't going to follow suit.
Really, before any kind of measures can take place that will reduce profit margins, history has proven that what needs to happen is some kind of massive environmental disaster that can be reliably attributed to global warming. It will need to kill a lot of people - not poor people, we can just simply flip over the channel and watch something else - it has to kill a quantity of the rich, and preferably the famous. Perhaps something like a super-hurricane hitting Beverly Hills. The site of a teary-faced Tom Cruise and family fleeing from the onslaught of a 200mph wind would be sure to quench the doubts of even the most ardent climate-change denier.
Regarding the Nuclear issue, it will be interesting to see how it develops. Some governments (again, mostly in the Far East, but also in Europe) have started stock-piling supplies of Thorium. Not only is this an excellent material for making cool looking suits of armour in World of Warcraft, but it's also a fissionable material that does not possess the qualities that will allow it to explode and make an area of the earth glow in the dark for thousands of years. Back in the 50's and 60's it was ignored in favour of uranium because a) the reactor technology was not at a level to make sufficient to make use of it b) It couldn't be used to make bombs.
The waste produced by Thorium has also got a much shorter half life than Uranium. The stuff was practically being thrown away when mining operations were looking for Uranium, and some scientists think that at current levels of energy consumption Thorium reactors could power the earth for more than a 1000 years (by which point we will have long since moved on, or will have gone back to living in caves). Apparently India is about to bring the first Thorium reactor online later this year, with the Chinese not far behind. So, I think there is some hope for cheaper, less polluting forms of energy production, and an alternative to wind farms and tidal farms. Again though, these energy groups need to get some more money behind them and therefore some political clout to rival the kind of lobbying that goes on between the oil industry and Washington if they are to become more numerous.
The downside to thorium though is that there's an inverse correlation between half-life and intensity. Things with impossibly long half-lives are almost always emitting very very low amount of radiation over time while materials with short half-lives are always more dangerous.
Give me a long half-life byproduct any day. Bury it in the correct geological area and there's no problem.
People freak out about how we just bury the stuff and forget about it, but what's the problem, were you planning on living down there?
Phanatik wrote:Oh, you called me silly. I guess you win the argument.
No, I said you were made to look silly, because you repeated an argument that was obviously wrong.
I have no idea if you are silly. I don't know if you spend your lunch breaks from work running through garden sprinklers, or if you always ask for the kid's menu at restaraunts so you can colour in the picture. But I do know that you've repeated obviously false arguments that you could see are false with a few minutes research. And that's made you look silly in this thread.
But, there's just that little matter that enviromentalists change the data to support their position.
No, they don't. You're attempting to reference the poorly reported storm in a teacup that was ClimateGate. Go read about it, you'll find there was no such alteration of data.
And you do have the video of icebergs and glaciers melting, that will raise sea levels destroying coastal cities. (Icebergs and glaciers and polar bears, oh my!)
The evidence for climate change isn't based on a video of a glacier melting. Seriously, that's just, well, silly.
We have tracked the growth and decline of total ice coverage as the planet has heated. It's getting smaller. Go look it up.
Well, you DO have that great enviromental champion Al Gore, who will at the drop of a hat leave one of his many homes (burning more electricity than Thor) and hop on his private plane (burning fossil fuels) to bring the message to the masses around the world. What a guy!
Climate change isn't an idea that Al Gore just came up with. There's an immense body of research into climate patterns and trends. Seriously, go read about them.
But, you called me silly, so you win the argument.
No, I haven't won anything. I could sit here being very witty, and making fun of your arguments with turns of phrase and maybe even make you cry, but I won't have won anything. When you go off and read the science, learn about the consensus in the scientific community on global warming, then we'll both have won something.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
notprop wrote:I agree on the clean/renewable energy sources. The sooner we have Fusion energy and or enough Wind/Solar/Tidal energy the sooner we can cut the Middle-East and Balkans loose to fight it out amoungst themselves and for our entertainment.
You think the UN intervened in the Balkans because of oil?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rented Tritium wrote:Solar is way below break even still and will need some creative applications to even BEGIN to replace things. Wind though, has some REALLY interesting innovations coming up.
The dreams of vast fields of solar panels powering a city are certainly looking more and more like an impossibility, but solar is already proving it's worth in local power generation.
The great strength of solar panels is that they can be built at any scale with little change in the cost/unit, and this allows us to build micro sites at the point of energy consumption. So rather than built a large energy generator and then ship that energy off to each house and factory and lose much of the energy in transfer, your can produce it on site. Roof panels on houses basically.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Solar cycles are just now being explored as a cause for temprature changes on Earth and Mars (it was noticed Mars is heating up at the same rate as greanhouse gas guzzling Earth).
No, there has been an observed shrinking of the southern polar ice cap over a three year period, and no other evidence of heating anywhere on the planet.
Your claim that this is just now being explored is also wrong, the observation was made early last decade, and follow up work has failed not only to find any other evidence of heating on the planet, but has actually managed to identify factors that would explain how the southern pole could change considerably over a three year period without any additional heat (exposed basalt rock that heats up tremendously during the day).
Meanwhile, we've observed the Sun, and we've observed the other planets, and they're not heating up.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phanatik wrote:It saddens me that my backyard grilling has been increasing the co2 on Mars all of these years. Who knew?
It hasn't. Mars hasn't shown overall evidence of warming. You're believing the liars again.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rented Tritium wrote:People freak out about how we just bury the stuff and forget about it, but what's the problem, were you planning on living down there?
Yeah, people in Australia worry and fuss over the idea that we would take large amounts of nuclear waste and bury it in the middle of the desert. We're geologically and politically stable, and have really big deserts no-one wants to go into. Why wouldn't we want to make pots of money taking people's nuclear waste?
It's hard to know which side to root for when it comes to global warming is it natural or caused by humans? I'm not sure, both have good points and substantial evidence to back up there points.
Cheesecat wrote:It's hard to know which side to root for when it comes to global warming is it natural or caused by humans? I'm not sure, both have good points and substantial evidence to back up there points.
97% of scientists actve in the field of climate change believe that it is real and that man has a real, material impact on climate. I'm gonna go with those guys.
Cheesecat wrote:It's hard to know which side to root for when it comes to global warming is it natural or caused by humans? I'm not sure, both have good points and substantial evidence to back up there points.
97% of scientists actve in the field of climate change believe that it is real and that man has a real, material impact on climate. I'm gonna go with those guys.
I have to agree with this comment.
One of the things I do with my clients is to plant crops at a local community garden. Every year I have been seeing the changes to the seasons that have been affecting the crop yields. We really had no summer in my region as it appears to shift into late winter into a fall like manner. This meant that many of my crops planted were harvested later in the year. Definitely a unusual situation as I am now getting strawberries that normally would be harvested in late June to be harvest now in October. Tomatoes the same way as well. In order to save my small strawberry plot I'm going to have to the Plastic garden tent it up soon to keep the temperature and moisture correct for another month to complete the harvest before getting them ready for the winter.
To me Global Warming is a fact. I have seen the changes to the growing seasons in my gardens and I believe that we humans are part of the problem.
And once you've wrangled with the question of how much of global warming is caused by man, you've almost uncovered the whole tip of the iceberg; then you have to start getting into the hard questions. Can we do anything about it? If so, what? Can that be done without destroying modern life? Can we get China to sign on, or are they just going to gobble everyone up once we've hamstrung Western society? Would that be bad? Aaaand so on, ad infinitum.
Bromsy wrote:And once you've wrangled with the question of how much of global warming is caused by man, you've almost uncovered the whole tip of the iceberg; then you have to start getting into the hard questions. Can we do anything about it? If so, what? Can that be done without destroying modern life? Can we get China to sign on, or are they just going to gobble everyone up once we've hamstrung Western society? Would that be bad? Aaaand so on, ad infinitum.
Then you start drinking.
What can we do about it? We can reduce emissions. It's really that simple. There's this idea that's gotten stuck into people's heads somehow that moving to reduce emissions somehow means destroying all industry on the planet or something, and it's just not true. The estimate for stabilising emissions by 2020 is 1% of worldwide GDP. It's a fair cost, no doubt, but it's hardly economy destroying.
Getting everyone to agree to measures to do this is the hard bit, I agree, but China isn't the stopping block you make them out to be. In fact, they're champions for certain kinds of measures, like subsidising the deployment of green energy sources, they're just opposed to putting a cap on future emissions based on present standards, and as a rapidly industrialising economy that makes perfect sense. They're certainly not as difficult as the US, who have developed a kind of ideological freak out over the idea of entering any international treaty.
The opposition to climate change is idealogical. It's like people who refute evolution, they do it not on the basis of evidence but because they scratch around for means to justify, or maybe genuinely convince themselves, that reality fits their world view.
Why else dismiss the years and years of detailed and published evidence because Al Gore got something wrong in a popularist film, or because of 'Climategate' in which the scientists have been clearer of wrongdoing, it was entirely blown out of proportion by the right wing. It's pathetic, these two events are nothing against the overwhelming evidence in favour of anthropogenic global warming. Any field of research this massive will have a few oddities but it's a conservative's wet dream to find something, anything to massively publicise and distort in order to attack and dismiss decades of research and thousands of scientists.
And the reason is that it suits them for global warming not to be happening. They aren't looking for genuine scientific enquiry, they just want the oil to keep flowing and maintain their lifestyle.
If the public accept the gravity of the situation regarding climate change it means they'll have to face the real issues of flying and driving everywhere, spend more money on alternative energies, change their lifestyle. In a country like America in which some of the largest streams of cast going to politicians and lobbyists are hugely backed by oil money there's no reason to change. Also the idea of public spending on alternative energies is abhorrent, because that's socialism or something.
Phanatik wrote:It's amusing to watch socialists try to run the planet and our lives for us.
Its just as amusing watching conservatives, libertarians, fascists, communists, liberals, authoritarians, monarchists, and plutocrats (among others) do the same.
Realizing that there are other people, and that they will control your life in some fashion is a sign of maturity.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phanatik wrote:
'Pick the Target, Freeze It, Personalize It and Polarize It.'
- Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals
So, you're saying that you're following Mr. Alinsky's methodology by labeling any opinion you dislike as socialist?
In any case, I'll never understand why the Right hates Alinsky so much, nothing in Rule for Radicals is particularly novel. The books is basically an introduction to general political strategy. Hell, this Karl Rove quote:
Alinsky's 1971 book, "Rules for Radicals," is a favorite of the Obamas. Michele Obama quoted it at the Democratic Convention. One Alinsky tactic is to "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." That's what the White House did in targeting Rush Limbaugh, Rick Santelli and Jim Cramer.
Is an example of picking a target, freezing it, personalizing it, and polarizing it.
Hmmm...as far as controlling someone else's life goes, I really doubt that conservatives can be lumped in with the usual autocrats.
Conservatives believe in the constitution, and so will tolerate/advocate just the bare miniumum of outside control.
I don't see what maturity has to do with recognizing that other people want to control your life, or have some influence on it. You might want to check the definition on that one.
Regards,
Automatically Appended Next Post: "So, you're saying that you're following Mr. Alinsky's methodology by labeling any opinion you dislike as socialist?"
Forget "maturity." Look up the definition for "transparent" instead.
Phanatik wrote:Hmmm...as far as controlling someone else's life goes, I really doubt that conservatives can be lumped in with the usual autocrats.
Conservatives believe in the constitution, and so will tolerate/advocate just the bare miniumum of outside control.
The Constitution isn't the bare minimum of formal outside control (the bare minimum is lawlessness), nor is it relevant outside the United States, which wasn't a limiting factor in your initial comment.
Phanatik wrote:
I don't see what maturity has to do with recognizing that other people want to control your life, or have some influence on it. You might want to check the definition on that one.
I didn't say want, I said will. You have no choice in the matter.
In any case, psychological maturity is essentially defined by the manner in which one reacts to the environment (as inclusive of others), and the recognition that the environment will control your behavior is central to that process.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phanatik wrote:
"So, you're saying that you're following Mr. Alinsky's methodology by labeling any opinion you dislike as socialist?"
Forget "maturity." Look up the definition for "transparent" instead.
Phanatik wrote:Hmmm...as far as controlling someone else's life goes, I really doubt that conservatives can be lumped in with the usual autocrats.
Conservatives want to control your life too. They want to force you to pray in school (and re-write curriculum to remove science from it), they want to block homosexuals from marrying (and they even try to make it socially if not legally acceptable to assault them), they want to force women to not be able to choose abortion (and the hate they spew on this subject is vitriolic enough to eat through non-reactive glass), they want to block immigrants from coming into the country (and I'm not even talking about the illegal ones, whom they almost want to punish by execution at times), and so on and so forth.
Social conservatives are essentially defined by their desire to control your life, contrasting against libertarianism.
dogma wrote:
The Constitution isn't the bare minimum of formal outside control (the bare minimum is lawlessness), nor is it relevant outside the United States, which wasn't a limiting factor in your initial comment.
You seem to have a problem with definitions, but liberals do want to control the language, in order to control the argument.
Lawlessness would be the absolute minimum.
If this digresses into you merely parsing whether or not I cross my T's, etc, then it's pointless to respond to you. Snarkiness isn't an argument, and it doesn't prove/disprove the original topic.
Phanatik wrote:
You seem to have a problem with definitions, but liberals do want to control the language, in order to control the argument.
Its interesting that you think I'm on one side or the other. I'm probably more liberal than you, but I'm also less liberal than either Melissia or Sebster (to pull two examples from this thread) and I make my living by thinking about politics dispassionately.
In any case, appealing to definitions is an attempt to control language. So is crying wolf (read: socialist).
Phanatik wrote:
Lawlessness would be the absolute minimum.
Yes it would, and another phrase which carries the meaning of "absolute minimum" is "bare minimum".
Phanatik wrote:
If this digresses into you merely parsing whether or not I cross my T's, etc, then it's pointless to respond to you. Snarkiness isn't an argument, and it doesn't prove/disprove the original topic.
In any case, I'm not being particularly pedantic here as I'm actually engaging the substance of your argument, while you appear to be trying to attack my word choice.
If you want me to be pedantic I certainly can be, there's plenty of evidence to that effect in my posting history.
Bromsy wrote:And once you've wrangled with the question of how much of global warming is caused by man, you've almost uncovered the whole tip of the iceberg; then you have to start getting into the hard questions. Can we do anything about it? If so, what? Can that be done without destroying modern life? Can we get China to sign on, or are they just going to gobble everyone up once we've hamstrung Western society? Would that be bad? Aaaand so on, ad infinitum.
Phanatik wrote:It's amusing to watch socialists try to run the planet and our lives for us.
So, lacking any means of rebuttal against the points already made against you, you instead decide the charge back into the thread with a generalised criticism of 'socialists'.
Once it became obvious you were out of your depth you could have continued to enquire about the state of climate change research, and likely would have learned a whole lot that challenged the nonsense that scientifically illiterate but politically powerful people had told you. Instead you just decide to put a metal bucket on your head, bang a wooden spoon against it and start yelling 'people who follow the advice of scientific experts are socialist poopyheads'.
Phanatik wrote:It saddens me that my backyard grilling has been increasing the co2 on Mars all of these years. Who knew?
As pittance, I think every nation's economy should be revamped to fight insidious backyard grilling that is ruining the ecology of Mars.
I'm perfectly willing to return to living in caves until thousands of years in the future when solar/wind energy technology will finally be sufficient to make it possible for me to once again turn on the lights.
<stands up>
I admit it. I'm a dirty little energy user.
Regards,
I spit my root beer all over my desk, foam thru the nose and everything. ManBearPig is real.
Sebster - you refuted me so thoroughly, I think I will let my hair grow long, wear tie-dyed shirts, stop bathing, join ELF to destroy SUVs the world over, and rally with my well-informed brothers and sisters on Wall Street. Thank you.
Rubiks - Isn't one of the three main industries of Spitsbergen coal mining? Also, don't socialists hold the majority of seats in your parliment?
Hi, I'm Phanatik, TNSPOTB
(The Newest Socialist Poopyhead on the Block)
Phanatik wrote:
I think I will let my hair grow long, wear tie-dyed shirts, stop bathing, join ELF to destroy SUVs the world over, and rally with my well-informed brothers and sisters on Wall Street.
I haven't been affected by any changes and so haven't/can't notice them but i'm willing to believe the 97% (Is that the right stat?) of experts who say it is happening.
As it is, it's not exactly a bad idea anyway... so go figure...
purplefood wrote:I haven't been affected by any changes and so haven't/can't notice them but i'm willing to believe the 97% (Is that the right stat?) of experts who say it is happening.
As it is, it's not exactly a bad idea anyway... so go figure...
97% of UFO researchers believe that Earth has been visited by UFOs.
Consensus is not science.
Although I'm not convinced of the validity of anthropomorphic global warming, the real debate isn't scientific it's political. The last global warming period (mideival warm period) we had was pretty darn good for humanity and life in general.
Yes, I know, anthropogenic, but I saw that typo once and I like it
purplefood wrote:I haven't been affected by any changes and so haven't/can't notice them but i'm willing to believe the 97% (Is that the right stat?) of experts who say it is happening.
As it is, it's not exactly a bad idea anyway... so go figure...
97% of UFO researchers believe that Earth has been visited by UFOs.
Consensus is not science.
Although I'm not convinced of the validity of anthropomorphic global warming, the real debate isn't scientific it's political. The last global warming period (mideival warm period) we had was pretty darn good for humanity and life in general.
Yes, I know, anthropogenic, but I saw that typo once and I like it
I think that on the whole the fellows researchng global warming are a touch more reliable...
That said i haven't met any so they could all me raving lunatics.
biccat wrote:
That statement is completely and objectively false.
Paradigms are predicated on consensus, and unless The Structure of Scientific Revolutions was about art, its a fair bet that consensus is a part of Kuhnian science.
biccat wrote:
That statement is completely and objectively false.
Paradigms are predicated on consensus, and unless The Structure of Scientific Revolutions was about art, its a fair bet that consensus is a part of Kuhnian science.
Kuhn passed away in 1996 and is incapable of agreement or disagreement.
Agnosticism is the only defensible and consistent religious belief, especially as to concepts of the afterlife.
Belief in the afterlife (from a Christian perspective) requires the belief that Jesus knew of the afterlife, that he spoke the truth, and that the truth was adequately recorded. Each of these is ultimately an act of faith and isn't objectively knowable.
Of all religious perspectives, atheism is actually the least defensible.
biccat wrote:
Agnosticism is the only defensible and consistent religious belief, especially as to concepts of the afterlife.
No, there are other defensible, and consistent, religious beliefs.
Who are you to say God didn't tell me that he exists?
biccat wrote:
Belief in the afterlife (from a Christian perspective) requires the belief that Jesus knew of the afterlife, that he spoke the truth, and that the truth was adequately recorded. Each of these is ultimately an act of faith and isn't objectively knowable.
Actually, no, none of that is true.
biccat wrote:
Of all religious perspectives, atheism is actually the least defensible.
dogma wrote:Who are you to say God didn't tell me that he exists?
I never said that. You just have to accept that your personal beliefs are not objectively demonstrable.
dogma wrote:
Belief in the afterlife (from a Christian perspective) requires the belief that Jesus knew of the afterlife, that he spoke the truth, and that the truth was adequately recorded. Each of these is ultimately an act of faith and isn't objectively knowable.
Actually, no, none of that is true.
Um...what? How is it not true? The Christian concept of afterlife is based on comments by Jesus as recorded in the Gospels. There are other references to an afterlife, particularly in the old testament, but the Christian concept of the afterlife started with Christ.
dogma wrote:Atheism isn't a religious belief, nor is theism.
It's almost like you didn't even read what I wrote.
biccat wrote:
I never said that. You just have to accept that your personal beliefs are not objectively demonstrable.
You should know by now that I don't have personal beliefs.
biccat wrote:
Um...what? How is it not true? The Christian concept of afterlife is based on comments by Jesus as recorded in the Gospels. There are other references to an afterlife, particularly in the old testament, but the Christian concept of the afterlife started with Christ.
Christ didn't have an explicit eschatology, that came from John.
biccat wrote:
It's almost like you didn't even read what I wrote.
I'm sorry, let me be more precise: Atheism is not a religious perspective, nor is theism.
Chongara wrote:If Global Warming was real Jesus would have told us about it when he wrote the bible.
He did. Thats why TRexes had liked coconuts. Coconuts grow in hot climates. DUH!
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm conservative. yet...
They want to force you to pray in school (and re-write curriculum to remove science from it),
***Don't want that.
they want to block homosexuals from marrying (and they even try to make it socially if not legally acceptable to assault them),
***Don't care. If you want to be that stupid I'll warn you "don't do it!" too...
they want to force women to not be able to choose abortion (and the hate they spew on this subject is vitriolic enough to eat through non-reactive glass),
***Don't care.
they want to block immigrants from coming into the country (and I'm not even talking about the illegal ones, whom they almost want to punish by execution at times), and so on and so forth.
***Bring 'em! I just want the nation to have secure borders.
Social conservatives are essentially defined by their desire to control your life, contrasting against libertarianism.
***I don't want to control your life. I just want you to do what I say. Is that so bad?
dogma wrote:You should know by now that I don't have personal beliefs.
I assumed we were talking about a hypothetical 'you'. However, I am unable to connect your assertion that you don't have personal beliefs with your previous comment "Who are you to say God didn't tell me that he exists?" that implicitly suggests that God did tell you that he exists.
The only rational conclusion I can reach is that you're insane.
dogma wrote:Christ didn't have an explicit eschatology, that came from John.
I think you're confusing revelations with the afterlife. While Christ didn't discuss the Revelation, he did refer to the "Kingdom of Heaven" and the concept of the afterlife.
dogma wrote:I'm sorry, let me be more precise: Atheism is not a religious perspective, nor is theism.
Sure it is. Perspective is how you see the world, the state of your ideas. Believing or not believing in God is a perspective on religion, just as belief or unbelief in unicorns is a perspective on equestrianism.
Agnosticism is the only defensible and consistent religious belief, especially as to concepts of the afterlife.
Belief in the afterlife (from a Christian perspective) requires the belief that Jesus knew of the afterlife, that he spoke the truth, and that the truth was adequately recorded. Each of these is ultimately an act of faith and isn't objectively knowable.
Of all religious perspectives, atheism is actually the least defensible.
Maybe in your somewhat biased belief it is Bic.
Atheism is defensible, ive seen some truly sterling efforts.
And even if you manage to make that leap, how on earth is a lack of belief LESS defensible than fething MAGIC!? Not a hypothesis, not even a coherent idea, just out and out, mystical magic!
And atheism isn't a religious perspective, I've never even heard a sensible Religious people say such a silly thing. Just those wacky Creationists in a desperate attempt to add some credence to their own staggering ridiculous and universally disproved theory of nothing, because if we are all Religious, then they just look a tiny bit less silly. Its childish.
I know its silly to point it out of course, as this absurd non argument comes up all the time what with all the American young earthers that frequent dakkadakka, but I merely lack a belief until some good evidence turns up. How the feth does that make me Religious?
biccat wrote:
I assumed we were talking about a hypothetical 'you'. However, I am unable to connect your assertion that you don't have personal beliefs with your previous comment "Who are you to say God didn't tell me that he exists?" that implicitly suggests that God did tell you that he exists.
Meh, not really, one can suggest occurrences without them being existential. I doubt Judith Jarvis Thomson really pushed a fat man in front of a trolley.
biccat wrote:
The only rational conclusion I can reach is that you're insane.
According to Dantec, that's an asset.
biccat wrote:
I think you're confusing revelations with the afterlife. While Christ didn't discuss the Revelation, he did refer to the "Kingdom of Heaven" and the concept of the afterlife.
He did refer to a "Kingdom of Heaven", and the place he would "prepare" but that was prior to his "death".
It isn't clear that Jesus had any concept of afterlife at all.
biccat wrote:
Sure it is. Perspective is how you see the world, the state of your ideas. Believing or not believing in God is a perspective on religion, just as belief or unbelief in unicorns is a perspective on equestrianism.
So science is religious (no, Orlanth, it isn't), now?
Agnosticism is the only defensible and consistent religious belief, especially as to concepts of the afterlife.
Belief in the afterlife (from a Christian perspective) requires the belief that Jesus knew of the afterlife, that he spoke the truth, and that the truth was adequately recorded. Each of these is ultimately an act of faith and isn't objectively knowable.
Of all religious perspectives, atheism is actually the least defensible.
Maybe in your somewhat biased belief it is Bic.
Atheism is defensible, ive seen some truly sterling efforts.
And even if you manage to make that leap, how on earth is a lack of belief LESS defensible than fething MAGIC!? Not a hypothesis, not even a coherent idea, just out and out, mystical magic!
And atheism isn't a religious perspective, I've never even heard a sensible Religious people say such a silly thing. Just those wacky Creationists in a desperate attempt to add some credence to their own staggering ridiculous and universally disproved theory of nothing, because if we are all Religious, then they just look a tiny bit less silly. Its childish.
I know its silly to point it out of course, as this absurd non argument comes up all the time what with all the American young earthers that frequent dakkadakka, but I merely lack a belief until some good evidence turns up. How the feth does that make me Religious?
Your insolence to the revealed knowledge of the Great Speghetti being will not go unanswered.
in recompence I shall sacrifice angel hair pasta with a nice marinara tonight to appease its greatness.
Frazzled wrote:
Your insolence to the revealed knowledge of the Great Speghetti being will not go unanswered.
in recompence I shall sacrifice angel hair pasta with a nice marinara tonight to appease its greatness.
Phanatik wrote: You seem to have a problem with definitions, but liberals do want to control the language, in order to control the argument.
Its interesting that you think I'm on one side or the other. I'm probably more liberal than you, but I'm also less liberal than either Melissia or Sebster (to pull two examples from this thread) and I make my living by thinking about politics dispassionately.
In any case, appealing to definitions is an attempt to control language. So is crying wolf (read: socialist).
lol.
Dunno. A lot of the issues I'm conservative on never come up on this forum (gun control for example, as well as my views on military intervention-- I supported both Iraq and Afghanistan when they both started as well as Libya, though Iraq a bit less so in retrospect because hindsight's a *****)... Saying I'm "liberal" gives people the wrong idea. They might think I'd want to ban gun ownership or something. Which couldn't be further from the truth.
Frazzled wrote:
Your insolence to the revealed knowledge of the Great Speghetti being will not go unanswered.
in recompence I shall sacrifice angel hair pasta with a nice marinara tonight to appease its greatness.
Vodka sauce is the only proper partner.
Perhaps a nice garlic focaccia.
I have not heard of the vodka sauce sect. We need to have a council level meeting, clearly. We just need a Caesar (salad) to call the meeting.
So is this a thread about global warming or the sanity of people and their religions?
Global warning ain't real!
Didn't some island chain try to sue america for "causing the flooding" of their islands because USA puts out so much emitions?
So then the american lawyers had to come up with reasons why there wasn't anything such thing as global warming.
Which was easy enough as the whole global warming thing was fake. But they couldn't say that. So they paid off the islanders.
The only evidence I've seen of Global warning is: I used to see snow in New England a few days before Thanksgiving, now we hope for some around Christmas.
biccat wrote:The only rational conclusion I can reach is that you're insane.
It took a few posts, but I realized that persona was a tar baby.
"the only winning move is not to play." Ignore, and move on.
Regards,
I think its hilarious you play that card when everyone disproved you wrong and showed you how wrong you were and you completely ignored them by calling them socialists.
biccat wrote:The only rational conclusion I can reach is that you're insane.
It took a few posts, but I realized that persona was a tar baby.
"the only winning move is not to play." Ignore, and move on.
Regards,
I think its hilarious you play that card when everyone disproved you wrong and showed you how wrong you were and you completely ignored them by calling them socialists.
And you play THAT card.
You are such a child, it hurts my brain.
Does proper punctuation and sentence structure hurt your brain as well? Wait, shouldn't you be at an OccupyDumpwater Florida protest or something?
Frazzled wrote:
I have not heard of the vodka sauce sect. We need to have a council level meeting, clearly. We just need a Caesar (salad) to call the meeting.
Gaze.
Phanatik wrote:
It took a few posts, but I realized that persona was a tar baby.
Br'er Rabbit wouldn't use such force.
Then again, Br'er Rabbit didn't try and drop IQ scores either.
biccat wrote:The only rational conclusion I can reach is that you're insane.
It took a few posts, but I realized that persona was a tar baby.
"the only winning move is not to play." Ignore, and move on.
Regards,
I think its hilarious you play that card when everyone disproved you wrong and showed you how wrong you were and you completely ignored them by calling them socialists.
And you play THAT card.
You are such a child, it hurts my brain.
Does proper punctuation and sentence structure hurt your brain as well? Wait, shouldn't you be at an OccupyDumpwater Florida protest or something?
While he might not have the best grammar at least his post is honest.
Frazzled wrote:
I have not heard of the vodka sauce sect. We need to have a council level meeting, clearly. We just need a Caesar (salad) to call the meeting.
Karon wrote:when everyone disproved you wrong and showed you how wrong you were and you completely ignored them by calling them socialists.
That hurt MY brain trying to figure out what you said.
Man-made global warming isn't true; you can't prove a negative, so no one proved or disproved anything.
I will admit to the possibility of recent global warming, but that would be due to the sun. The sun burns about 600 million tons of hydrogen every second, so a few burgers and some hotdogs in my backyard pale in comparison.
Karon wrote:when everyone disproved you wrong and showed you how wrong you were and you completely ignored them by calling them socialists.
That hurt MY brain trying to figure out what you said.
Man-made global warming isn't true; you can't prove a negative, so no one proved or disproved anything.
I will admit to the possibility of recent global warming, but that would be due to the sun. The sun burns about 600 million tons of hydrogen every second, so a few burgers and some hotdogs in my backyard pale in comparison.
Regards,
You do realize it's green houses gases like CO2 that are the cause of man-made Global Warming and it has nothing to do with the burning of hydrogen.
mattyrm wrote:Atheism is defensible, ive seen some truly sterling efforts.
It's indefensible to the extent you're trying to disprove a fact. Most religious sects require a scintilla of belief in some basic fact (Mohammad was divinely inspired, Buddha attained enlightenment, the Gospels are an accurate depiction of events), but once you've got that, the rest follows.
Atheism is defensible over religion only to the extent it questions the initial beliefs/assumptions that ground those beliefs. But ultimately, you're claiming a negative, which is inherently unprovable.
That's not to say Atheism may not be correct.
mattyrm wrote:And atheism isn't a religious perspective, I've never even heard a sensible Religious people say such a silly thing. Just those wacky Creationists in a desperate attempt to add some credence to their own staggering ridiculous and universally disproved theory of nothing, because if we are all Religious, then they just look a tiny bit less silly. Its childish.
You're a great illustration that Atheism is a religious perspective. It's not a religion, but it is a way of looking at religious beliefs. I'm not sure how you can't see that.
dogma wrote:Meh, not really, one can suggest occurrences without them being existential. I doubt Judith Jarvis Thomson really pushed a fat man in front of a trolley.
I'm operating under the assumption that Ms. Thomson invents her philosophical thought experiments as a cover for her dispicable crimes. Otherwise, she would have thrown the fat man in front of a train. Nobody uses trolleys except murderers.
dogma wrote:He did refer to a "Kingdom of Heaven", and the place he would "prepare" but that was prior to his "death".
It isn't clear that Jesus had any concept of afterlife at all.
"Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God[a]; believe also in me. 2 My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. 4 You know the way to the place where I am going"
John 14:1
dogma wrote:So science is religious (no, Orlanth, it isn't), now?
biccat wrote:
I'm operating under the assumption that Ms. Thomson invents her philosophical thought experiments as a cover for her dispicable crimes. Otherwise, she would have thrown the fat man in front of a train. Nobody uses trolleys except murderers.
Stanley Kowalski killed no one.
biccat wrote:
"Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God[a]; believe also in me. 2 My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. 4 You know the way to the place where I am going"
John 14:1
John 14:1 ends after "...also believe in me."
Anyway: "Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?"
Jesus said they knew where he was going, the disciples disagreed. It is a strange thing to know X is going to death, but not know death. Though the Biblical version of "know" is very...odd.
biccat wrote:
No, it's not.
Science doesn't entail a belief in God, so it must be religious.
Phanatik wrote:I will admit to the possibility of recent global warming, but that would be due to the sun. The sun burns about 600 million tons of hydrogen every second, so a few burgers and some hotdogs in my backyard pale in comparison.
This sort of ignorance disappoints me. No point in arguing with it. It's like people who say "well we didn't have much sun this summer so that's the end of global warming".
Cheesecat wrote:You do realize it's green houses gases like CO2 that are the cause of man-made Global Warming and it has nothing to do with the burning of hydrogen.
You DO realize that I was comparing the awesome activities of the sun to the barely noticeable backyard grilling and cow flatulence co2 abusers?
Also, to reiterate, you DO realize that water vapor makes up 97-98% of all greenhouse gases? So, go blame the rain!
Phanatik wrote:
You DO realize that I was comparing the awesome activities of the sun to the barely noticeable backyard grilling and cow flatulence co2 abusers?
Also, to reiterate, you DO realize that water vapor makes up 97-98% of all greenhouse gases? So, go blame the rain!
Phanatik wrote:
You DO realize that I was comparing the awesome activities of the sun to the barely noticeable backyard grilling and cow flatulence co2 abusers?
Also, to reiterate, you DO realize that water vapor makes up 97-98% of all greenhouse gases? So, go blame the rain!
Howard A Treesong - This sort of ignorance disappoints me. No point in arguing with it. It's like people who say "well it's been 1 degree warmer over the last one hundred years so of course there is global warming and of course it's man's fault".
Phanatik wrote:
You DO realize that I was comparing the awesome activities of the sun to the barely noticeable backyard grilling and cow flatulence co2 abusers?
Also, to reiterate, you DO realize that water vapor makes up 97-98% of all greenhouse gases? So, go blame the rain!
Have a nice day.
Wow.
You have to be a liberal plant.
One of my crepe murtles leans left. Its clearly a lefty fifth columnist too. And to think, the wiener dogs constantly protect that tree from predatory attacks by hated squirrels.
Cheesecat wrote:You do realize it's green houses gases like CO2 that are the cause of man-made Global Warming and it has nothing to do with the burning of hydrogen.
You DO realize that I was comparing the awesome activities of the sun to the barely noticeable backyard grilling and cow flatulence co2 abusers?
Also, to reiterate, you DO realize that water vapor makes up 97-98% of all greenhouse gases? So, go blame the rain!
Have a nice day.
A certain volume of greenhouse gasses are good, othewise the planet would irradiate heat too fast and end up freezing cold. But the atmosphere lies in a fairly precise balance to sustain the the current environment. Vast quantities of carbon continually moves between the atmophere to the sea and land but it sits in a sort of equilibrium that typically takes very long periods of just to adjust.
By injecting even a small proportion of CO2 into the atmosphere in the very short term (post industrial revolution) we tip that equilibrium and cause an increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
Frankly it doesn't matter if 99% of CO2 comes from water vapour, that simply isn't the point and it doesn't mean that our 1% doesn't have an effect. I don't understand what is hard to comprehend about this.
Cheesecat wrote:You do realize it's green houses gases like CO2 that are the cause of man-made Global Warming and it has nothing to do with the burning of hydrogen.
You DO realize that I was comparing the awesome activities of the sun to the barely noticeable backyard grilling and cow flatulence co2 abusers?
Also, to reiterate, you DO realize that water vapor makes up 97-98% of all greenhouse gases? So, go blame the rain!
Have a nice day.
You seem really intent on this whole grilling thing.
Cheesecat wrote:You do realize it's green houses gases like CO2 that are the cause of man-made Global Warming and it has nothing to do with the burning of hydrogen.
You DO realize that I was comparing the awesome activities of the sun to the barely noticeable backyard grilling and cow flatulence co2 abusers?
Also, to reiterate, you DO realize that water vapor makes up 97-98% of all greenhouse gases? So, go blame the rain!
Have a nice day.
You seem really intent on this whole grilling thing.
Howard A Treesong wrote:By injecting even a small proportion of CO2 into the atmosphere in the very short term (post industrial revolution) we tip that equilibrium and cause an increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
Frankly it doesn't matter if 99% of CO2 comes from water vapour, that simply isn't the point and it doesn't mean that our 1% doesn't have an effect. I don't understand what is hard to comprehend about this.
Actually, co2 doesn't come from water vapor.
Copied from page 1:
"Greenhouse gases as part of the total atmosphere: 1-2 percent (the rest being @ 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen)
Of that 2 percent:
95 percent is water vapor
3.62 percent is carbon dioxide (harmful)
Of that 3.62 percent, humans account for 3.4 percent from co2 emissions."
Howard A Treesong wrote:By injecting even a small proportion of CO2 into the atmosphere in the very short term (post industrial revolution) we tip that equilibrium and cause an increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
Frankly it doesn't matter if 99% of CO2 comes from water vapour, that simply isn't the point and it doesn't mean that our 1% doesn't have an effect. I don't understand what is hard to comprehend about this.
Actually, co2 doesn't come from water vapor.
Copied from page 1:
"Greenhouse gases as part of the total atmosphere: 1-2 percent (the rest being @ 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen)
Of that 2 percent:
95 percent is water vapor
3.62 percent is carbon dioxide (harmful)
Of that 3.62 percent, humans account for 3.4 percent from co2 emissions."
Could you find some sources for that information, please?
rubiksnoob wrote:could you find some sources for that information, please?
"Out of the entire atmospheric makeup, only one to two percent is made up of greenhouse gases with the majority being nitrogen (about 78 percent) and oxygen (about 21 percent). Of that two percent, “planet-killing” carbon dioxide comprises only 3.62 percent while water vapor encompasses 95 percent. And of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, humans cause only 3.4 percent of annual CO2 emissions. What does this all boil down to?"
rubiksnoob wrote:could you find some sources for that information, please?
"Out of the entire atmospheric makeup, only one to two percent is made up of greenhouse gases with the majority being nitrogen (about 78 percent) and oxygen (about 21 percent). Of that two percent, “planet-killing” carbon dioxide comprises only 3.62 percent while water vapor encompasses 95 percent. And of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, humans cause only 3.4 percent of annual CO2 emissions. What does this all boil down to?"
So I guess I should stop worrying about my cholesterol, since cholesterol only makes up a tiny fraction of my body and only a tiny fraction of THAT is caused by my eating habits.
rubiksnoob wrote:could you find some sources for that information, please?
"Out of the entire atmospheric makeup, only one to two percent is made up of greenhouse gases with the majority being nitrogen (about 78 percent) and oxygen (about 21 percent). Of that two percent, “planet-killing” carbon dioxide comprises only 3.62 percent while water vapor encompasses 95 percent. And of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, humans cause only 3.4 percent of annual CO2 emissions. What does this all boil down to?"
You still ignore the importance of maintaining equilibria between atmospheric and ground sources of carbon. Yes there's a lot in each but they exchange at the same rate. By burning fossil fuels and cutting down forests we shift that equilibrium so that carbon now enters the atmosphere faster than it can leave. That's why we witness a build up in carbon dioxide concentrations.
If you have a set of scales with a tonne on each side, adding a few grammes can upset that equilibrium much like a small change. Yes, the few grammes seems negligible to the volume of material on the scales but that misses the point. You only have to upset this kind of equilibria to a small degree to effect a change of a few degrees that can cause a level of climate change that threatens us. If you grossly change the atmosphere we'd burn like venus or freeze like Mars but that isn't what is expected. A marginal change of just a few degrees will affect our environment that is adverse to us.
Again, saying that the amount of carbon we add to the system is tiny compared to the volume already in it misses the point. Your article, does not address this point. It stresses the tiny amount, and then talks about the financial cost and jobs. It does not relate the importance that this tiny amount is responsible for an imbalance meaning that carbon is entering the atmosphere slightly quicker than it is being removed.
Also the article stresses that 3.62% of greenhouse gasses are CO2 and then focuses on this. What about the volume of methane produced by meat/dairy industry? Methane molecules have something like a 20x greater warming effect than CO2. But again, you article wants to look solely at CO2. I wonder why that's forgotten when trying to describe "mans contribution to global warming".
"As a result of this natural balance, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere would have changed little if human activities had not added an amount every year. This addition, presently about 3% of annual natural emissions, is sufficient to exceed the balancing effect of sinks. As a result, carbon dioxide has gradually accumulated in the atmosphere, until at present, its concentration is 30% above pre- industrial levels."
An increase of about 3% of natural carbon emissions is enough to surpass the level absorbed by carbon sinks
Phanatik wrote:Howard A Treesong - This sort of ignorance disappoints me. No point in arguing with it. It's like people who say "well it's been 1 degree warmer over the last one hundred years so of course there is global warming and of course it's man's fault".
Give me strength.
If it has gotten, over the last 100 years, 1 degree warmer across the globe one might say the globe has gotten warmer. This phenomenon might then be called "global warming".
Howard A Treesong wrote: I wonder why that's forgotten when trying to describe "mans contribution to global warming".
Because its the Heritage Foundation, and everyone who works there is incompetent or dishonest.
Phanatik wrote:Sebster - you refuted me so thoroughly, I think I will let my hair grow long, wear tie-dyed shirts, stop bathing, join ELF to destroy SUVs the world over, and rally with my well-informed brothers and sisters on Wall Street. Thank you.
That's not necessary. All we're asking is for you to adopt a reasoned approach to issues of public policy based on scientific research, in which you acknowledge the findings of people working within that field. What shirt you choose to wear while doing this is entirely up to you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
purplefood wrote:I haven't been affected by any changes and so haven't/can't notice them but i'm willing to believe the 97% (Is that the right stat?) of experts who say it is happening.
A number of approaches have found very similar figures, at about 97%. Here's one of the latest;
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html "Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:97% of UFO researchers believe that Earth has been visited by UFOs.
Consensus is not science.
True, science has factual grounds, under which a person can maintain objective accuracy despite going against the scientific consensus. However, if we make the entirely reasonable assumption that within a scientific field there is genuine discussion of the issue and a desire for scientific accuracy, then it becomes logical to conclude that the overwhelmingly represented side is incredibly likely to have the stronger case.
It should be noted that there have been countless efforts to cast doubt on the assumption that with the field of climate science there not a genuine search for the truth (culiminating in the hacked emails Climategate effort) and in each instance the scientific community has been shown to be acting in an honest, direct manner.
Although I'm not convinced of the validity of anthropomorphic global warming, the real debate isn't scientific it's political.
Yes, because while the scientific issue has been more or less settled for about fifteen years, vested interests have done a very good job of convincing the population at large that there is still some level of debate about the issue at a scientific level. This has been enough to cause significant disruption to any unified political solution to the issue.
The last global warming period (mideival warm period) we had was pretty darn good for humanity and life in general.
Again, it is not the presense of more or less heat that is the issue, but the rate of change, and the impact of that change on our infrastructure that represents a massive future cost, far greater than the cost of limiting emissions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:Of all religious perspectives, atheism is actually the least defensible.
If one professes to know better than all others, then in terms of religion that greater source of knowledge can be claimed to come from revelation or even faith, and so is (somewhat) more defensible than a purely rational, material statement.
However, if one merely professes a personal statement of belief and doesn't place their belief higher than anyone else's, then atheism, is just as defensible as any system. That is, it is defensible as long as it helps the individual make sense of the world around him.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phanatik wrote:
Cheesecat wrote:You do realize it's green houses gases like CO2 that are the cause of man-made Global Warming and it has nothing to do with the burning of hydrogen.
You DO realize that I was comparing the awesome activities of the sun to the barely noticeable backyard grilling and cow flatulence co2 abusers?
Also, to reiterate, you DO realize that water vapor makes up 97-98% of all greenhouse gases? So, go blame the rain!
Have a nice day.
You already made this claim. I pointed out that it was utterly wrong on the first page of this thread, and that it was utterly wrong given information contained in the article posted by the OP. Here is the response I gave to you;
"Which would be relevant if all particals trapped heat in the same fashion. Of course, that's something we've known isn't true for more than a hundred years, when we first studied the properties of carbon dioxide. It certainly isn't hard to come across knowledge, it was even given in the article posted by the OP.
At this point, pride should kick in, and tell you to stop listening to whoever told you that nonsense, and made you look silly repeating it here.
Oh, and for the record, as per the OP's article that you didn't bother to read, carbon dioxide has increased from 280ppm to 369ppm from the start of the industrial age until now, making human's responsible for just under 32% of the total carbon dioxide in the air. So that's another piece of nonsense that's made you look silly. Not that the total proportion is a relevant figure anyway, what matters is that impact of that proportion on temperature."
Your response was to complain that I called you silly, and to completely ignore that I pointed out you claim of science was laughably simplistic. Please read my response this time, learn something and leave this thread knowing at least something about this issue.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:Because its the Heritage Foundation, and everyone who works there is incompetent or dishonest.
Frankly, I'm too worried to research it. I'm wondering how much my own flatulence is impacting the atmosphere. How many bees must die before I stop eating these tasty burritos?
Chowderhead wrote:I love your article from 2009 stating 2008 facts, in a conversation about 2011.
Uhh, you do realize we are talking about atmospheric conditions over thousands of years? Are you suggesting things have gotten catastrophic over the last 3 years?
biccat wrote:Although I'm not convinced of the validity of anthropomorphic global warming, the real debate isn't scientific it's political.
Yes, because while the scientific issue has been more or less settled for about fifteen years, vested interests have done a very good job of convincing the population at large that there is still some level of debate about the issue at a scientific level. This has been enough to cause significant disruption to any unified political solution to the issue.
Well, I'm sure we could agree that vested interests have done a very good job of convincing the population at large of the truth of their assertions by means of scare tactics and dishonesty. This is an example (again) of experts in a scientific field trying to dominate a political debate. This issue is in the public consciousness not because of the scientific and environmental issues, but because of the political ones.
On the science of the issue, as one (prominant) dissenter said: "it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?" To assert that the science of global warming is beyond dispute is cutting down scientific inquiry.
Chowderhead wrote:I love your article from 2009 stating 2008 facts, in a conversation about 2011.
Uhh, you do realize we are talking about atmospheric conditions over thousands of years? Are you suggesting things have gotten catastrophic over the last 3 years?
He's saying our knowledge of the subject may have improved over these years, and to get a current article.
Karon wrote:He's saying our knowledge of the subject may have improved over these years, and to get a current article.
You are correct. In the last 3 years we've come to know that man-made global warming "scientists" have engaged in fraudulent unscientific practices regarding the "data" collected. East Anglia, anyone? And I do believe that the IPCC used fraudulent data to make its reports. And then there are the scientists that go along with it for grant purposes. Or simply peer pressure.
But, of course we can trust anti-American organizations like the IPCC/UN to make decisions affecting our lives. Of course we can trust reporting organizations like the huffypuffypost, or CNN, or mediamatters to exhibit only the highest journalistic standards vis a vis this issue. Of course we can trust the hundreds of front organizations funded by George I-turned-my-own-people-in-to-the-nazis Soros to maintain objectivity in this, or any matter.
I think not. I think I will remain "silly" and continue to disbelieve.
Chowderhead wrote:Phanatik, I would like a source, besides your own ramblings.
Just out of curiosity, what are you looking to be sourced? That the UN and IPCC are anti-American? I'm sure you could source it, but it's really more a statement of opinion than fact.
As for whether they're trying to control American interests and policy...that's part of the reason why the UN was created, to serve as a medium to control international foreign policy by encouraging discussion among nations. The fact that outside interests can vote on issues that affect the United States pretty much satisfies the "control" element.
Chowderhead wrote:Phanatik, I would like a source, besides your own ramblings.
All things considered, I think I'd just prefer it if you put me on ignore.
I mean, I don't like your tone. Who are you to order me to provide you with anything?
And if I don't wind up on at least 4 or 5 ignore lists, then I won't feel like I've done my part to stem the tide of the narrow-minded, herd-instinct Warmers.
Phanatik wrote:
But, of course we can trust anti-American organizations like the IPCC/UN to make decisions affecting our lives. Of course we can trust reporting organizations like the huffypuffypost, or CNN, or mediamatters ....
Pick a target(s).
Phanatik wrote:
....to exhibit only the highest journalistic standards vis a vis this issue.
Freeze it.
Phanatik wrote:
Of course we can trust the hundreds of front organizations funded by George I-turned-my-own-people-in-to-the-nazis Soros to maintain objectivity in this, or any matter.
Personalize it.
Phanatik wrote:
I think not. I think I will remain "silly" and continue to disbelieve.
Polarize it.
And, while you're at it, butcher the concept of critical thinking.
I'm not sure, both have good points and substantial evidence to back up there points.
