Global Warming Again
- Thread starter lavender
- Start date
The thing is, Lavy my dear, that certain people aren't going to accept things until god himself writes them in the sky. There isn't a need to post new evidence because the only new evidence that would matter would be someone(With credible credentials) saying there isn't global warming.
It isn't a case of two people disputing the evidence, it's a case of one group looking at evidence and the other not looking at evidence.
Not much you can do.
It isn't a case of two people disputing the evidence, it's a case of one group looking at evidence and the other not looking at evidence.
Not much you can do.
SleepingWarrior
Egocentric Sociopath
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2001
- Posts
- 20,753
Gotta give a big ol' Amen to that Evil, I am from the group who wont read it cause at this point in my life I dont really care ( I know its a bad position but its mine, thats all I can say) what the next generations have to put up with. Right now it seems fine where I am so 'as long as it isnt broke' I wont try and fix it.
SleepingWarrior said:
Well, it is kind of broke and by not actively fixing it we're just breaking it further but you certainly are free to your apathy. I for one can't say that I'm a big crusader on many issues I should be.
BTW The short form is EBW, not Evil
SleepingWarrior
Egocentric Sociopath
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2001
- Posts
- 20,753
I am pretty sure I would think different if I thought I would have the chance to actually 'pass on the family name' but as I have said I have had no luck on that and doubt I will sooooo.... as long as I dont have a reason to care I dont think I will, but I do (albeit kind of) admire those who do have the foresight to be doing something about it now instead of later.
SleepingWarrior said:
Fair enough.
I could shake my finger at you all night and say that you should have more concern for others than that but that would just confirm that I am getting dangerously crotchety in my old age.
Good luck to you.
Weird Harold
Opinionated Old Fart
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2000
- Posts
- 23,768
SleepingWarrior said:
Ask the people in Houston, and elswhere along the track of the Storm-formerly-known-as-Allison if Global Warming is something "the next generation has to worry about". Ask the people in Northern Nevada, and North-Western Utah who will be shovelling snow this week if Global Warming is a problem for the future.
"Global Warming" is here now, and it will get noticably worse in YOUR lifetime. It doesn't always mean that the weather is warmer everywhere. It means that the waether is going to be messed up whereever you try to hide from the facts.
Even if you choose to ignore that facet of pollution, as you get older, you will develop breathing problems from constant exposure to pollutants and spend thousands of dollars over your lifetime for clean drinking water.
Finding ways to stop or reverse pollution isn't going to be cheap, and we definitely need to find a way to accomplish change without dumping the world economy into the toilet.
Before someone inevitably dives in with comments about how weather patterns are cyclical and that there isn't enough information or hard fact:
Even if global warming isn't taken seriously by anyone [let's suppose that for the moment], that still isn't grounds for not reducing levels of emissions [car, industrial etc] and pollutants. Fossil fuels are finite, and at present consumption rates [which are always on the increase] then it might not be global warming that we have to worry about in the not too distant future. I see nothing to be smug about in this scenario. As for any form of pollution, well, is there anyone who really doesn't give a damn about this? If there is, then there really can't be much hope after all. For those waiting for divine intervention from 'science', well I think that the limits of this will be proven at some point in our evolution; again, sooner rather than later.
Even if global warming isn't taken seriously by anyone [let's suppose that for the moment], that still isn't grounds for not reducing levels of emissions [car, industrial etc] and pollutants. Fossil fuels are finite, and at present consumption rates [which are always on the increase] then it might not be global warming that we have to worry about in the not too distant future. I see nothing to be smug about in this scenario. As for any form of pollution, well, is there anyone who really doesn't give a damn about this? If there is, then there really can't be much hope after all. For those waiting for divine intervention from 'science', well I think that the limits of this will be proven at some point in our evolution; again, sooner rather than later.
SleepingWarrior
Egocentric Sociopath
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2001
- Posts
- 20,753
Weird Harold said:
Well I am already a constant smoker so fear of pollution affecting my breathing is kinda nulled out.
SleepingWarrior
Egocentric Sociopath
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2001
- Posts
- 20,753
No,no, was just illistrating why large scale pollution wouldnt matter to me because I am already well on my way to some pretty nasty diseases.
SleepingWarrior
Egocentric Sociopath
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2001
- Posts
- 20,753
Well its a damn shame I dont have those Vulcan morals now isnt it. 
WriterDom
Good to the last drop
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2000
- Posts
- 20,077
Smokers: Unhealthy lifestyle or far greater problem.
5.608 trillion cigarettes a year don't add to global warming?
unhealthy lifestyle option?
The filters on one pack of 20 cigarettes weigh 0.12 ounces (with no tobacco attached) and displaces a volume of 10 ml. With annual world-wide production of cigarettes at 5.608 trillion, the potential weight and volume of cigarette butts becomes enormous (Table 1).
Similarly, cigarette butts take up a large volume of space. If one person smokes a pack and a half a day, he will consume more than 10,000 cigarettes in a year. This number of cigarette butts (filters only --not including remnant tobacco) will fill a volume of five liters. Worldwide annual consumption of cigarettes creates enough cigarette butt waste to fill more than 2,800,000,000 liters (2,800,000 m3).
Cigarette butts are the most common type of litter on earth. Collected, they weigh in the millions of pounds. The toxic chemicals absorbed by cigarettes' cellulose acetate filters and found in butts' remnant tobacco, are quickly leached from the butts by water.
http://www.cigarettelitter.org/index.asp?PageName=UN
Ally C said:I smoke too, but smoking has nothing to do with 'pollution' on a massive industrial / global scale. You're mixing up an unhealthy lifestyle option with a far greater problem for us all.
5.608 trillion cigarettes a year don't add to global warming?
unhealthy lifestyle option?
The filters on one pack of 20 cigarettes weigh 0.12 ounces (with no tobacco attached) and displaces a volume of 10 ml. With annual world-wide production of cigarettes at 5.608 trillion, the potential weight and volume of cigarette butts becomes enormous (Table 1).
Similarly, cigarette butts take up a large volume of space. If one person smokes a pack and a half a day, he will consume more than 10,000 cigarettes in a year. This number of cigarette butts (filters only --not including remnant tobacco) will fill a volume of five liters. Worldwide annual consumption of cigarettes creates enough cigarette butt waste to fill more than 2,800,000,000 liters (2,800,000 m3).
Cigarette butts are the most common type of litter on earth. Collected, they weigh in the millions of pounds. The toxic chemicals absorbed by cigarettes' cellulose acetate filters and found in butts' remnant tobacco, are quickly leached from the butts by water.
http://www.cigarettelitter.org/index.asp?PageName=UN
SleepingWarrior
Egocentric Sociopath
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2001
- Posts
- 20,753
*Lights another cig up* Just doing my part to the destroy the earth.
Andra_Jenny
Mentally Divergent
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2000
- Posts
- 2,865
Global warming is bad science
I have posted links to show it, but you guys,
Go to Drudge this morning help is on the way,
NASA has designed a new system for moving us in our orbit so, smoke on, drive on, cut down a tree for Israel!
I have posted links to show it, but you guys,
Go to Drudge this morning help is on the way,
NASA has designed a new system for moving us in our orbit so, smoke on, drive on, cut down a tree for Israel!
I'll bring this one up again, as I replied to it on another thread which cited some posts from here. I read the other thread before seeing the posts made on this one after I left the other day. As it is, I've perhaps ranted a bit unnecessarily in some respects, but still feel that the points I made are justified. Why? Because we're not comparing like for like. If you want to address "pollution" en bloc, good luck to you, and I'll see you in another lifetime.
The specific issue of smoking would require some 'give and take' [!]. The same goes for all "pollution reduction" measures. Governments have it in their power to make changes; if not then all our arguments affected, or potentially affected, by government policy are redundant. Individuals have it in their power to make choices too. I presently choose to smoke while others don't. I'm fully aware of all issues smoking related, but see it as my individual choice to carry on doing so. Make your voices heard as a group and get some real change, if your concerns are so real. I've no doubt they are, so why wait?
Footnote: I'm not defending smoking. I'm not attacking it either. See the "smoking" thread for further details.
The specific issue of smoking would require some 'give and take' [!]. The same goes for all "pollution reduction" measures. Governments have it in their power to make changes; if not then all our arguments affected, or potentially affected, by government policy are redundant. Individuals have it in their power to make choices too. I presently choose to smoke while others don't. I'm fully aware of all issues smoking related, but see it as my individual choice to carry on doing so. Make your voices heard as a group and get some real change, if your concerns are so real. I've no doubt they are, so why wait?
Footnote: I'm not defending smoking. I'm not attacking it either. See the "smoking" thread for further details.
Andra_Jenny
Mentally Divergent
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2000
- Posts
- 2,865
Oh yeah?
Here's something from someone smarter than I am Lavy,
Reed Irvine
http://www.newsmax.com/commentarchive.shtml?a=2001/6/12/230735
Hot Air on 'Global Warming'
Reed Irvine
June 12, 2001
The global warming scare was played up by the media when
the National Academy of Sciences issued a report on June
6 that said the earth’s temperature is rising, mainly
because of human actions, and that this could cause
drastic climatic changes. The news stories and the
editorials they inspired cited no empirical evidence
that would support the claim that the earth’s atmosphere
is getting warmer and that this is likely to continue
throughout this century.
The New York Times’ 43-column-inch story included only
one brief quote from the report of the 11-person panel
of atmospheric scientists. It read, "Greenhouse gases
are accumulating in the atmosphere as a result of human
activities, causing surface air temperatures and
subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are,
in fact, rising." That gave the impression that even Dr.
Richard Lindzen of MIT, a prominent global warming
skeptic, had flipped and endorsed the theory that human
activity is causing the earth to overheat.
CNN said the panel agreed unanimously. Lindzen denied
this in a column in the Wall Street Journal. He said the
academy had asked that the report present a range of
views, and that there was no consensus, unanimous or
otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what
caused them.
That same day, the New York Times reported that the U.S.
has fallen behind Europe and Japan "in its ability to
simulate and predict long-term shifts in climate." It
said that American researchers had to go abroad "to find
computers capable of handling their most ambitious
climate analyses." This had all the earmarks of a
planted pitch by some of our computer modelers for more
government money.
Eighteen months ago another panel of climatologists
convened by the National Research Council had issued a
report with mixed signals. It said that in the last two
decades the rise in the earth’s temperature was greater
than the average for the past 100 years. But it also
said that the temperature of the atmosphere extending
six to nine miles above the earth’s surface showed
little if any warming. The global warming theory does
not allow differences in the temperature trends on the
surface and in the upper air. Both are supposed to heat
up together.
The panel admitted that this was a serious problem for
the believers in global warming. It said: "Major
advances in the ability to interpret and model the
subtle variations in the vertical temperature profile of
the lower atmosphere" are needed. In other words, they
need to figure out how the earth’s surface can be
heating up while the middle layers of the atmosphere are
not.
Scientists from 10 of the foremost climate research
centers in the world met in Hamburg, Germany to discuss
this problem in 1999. The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
of Dec. 15, 1999 reported: "Above all, the scientists
sought to solve an old paradox. While data developed by
weather stations, ships and measuring buoys show a clear
warming of the lower atmosphere since the late 1970s, on
average about 1.5 degrees, during the same period MSU
satellite measurements show, in fact, a mild cooling of
the middle air layers. Given the current climate models,
one should expect, in step with the warming of the
near-ground, a noticeable warming of the middle
atmosphere. This contradiction cannot be explained
away."
It said that the Max Planck Institute in Hamburg had
developed a comprehensive climate model that included
not only the usual greenhouse gases and sulfur aerosols
from the burning of fossil fuels, but also the decrease
in the ozone in the stratosphere, which is supposed to
have a cooling effect. They could not find an
explanation for the discrepancy between the surface
temperature measurements and the satellite data. The
paper said the situation is so bad "that realistic
scenarios and estimates cannot be developed. All the
models, which are engaged in climatic prediction and
driven by an identification of anthropogenic signals,
need to be improved."
It added that some modelers have concluded that, at
best, their computer models simulate the natural
fluctuation zones of the climate. The most comprehensive
climate model of the Max Planck Institute could not
explain the differences between surface and satellite
data. This was not reported by our media at the time,
and the Times story about the superiority of European
climate research didn’t report that they had solved the
problem. That would have been big news.
There is a very simple explanation for this. The
satellite data are more comprehensive and more accurate
than the surface data. They are telling us that claims
that the earth is overheating are just hot air. If the
global warming modelers admitted that, their gravy train
would derail.
Here's something from someone smarter than I am Lavy,
Reed Irvine
http://www.newsmax.com/commentarchive.shtml?a=2001/6/12/230735
Hot Air on 'Global Warming'
Reed Irvine
June 12, 2001
The global warming scare was played up by the media when
the National Academy of Sciences issued a report on June
6 that said the earth’s temperature is rising, mainly
because of human actions, and that this could cause
drastic climatic changes. The news stories and the
editorials they inspired cited no empirical evidence
that would support the claim that the earth’s atmosphere
is getting warmer and that this is likely to continue
throughout this century.
The New York Times’ 43-column-inch story included only
one brief quote from the report of the 11-person panel
of atmospheric scientists. It read, "Greenhouse gases
are accumulating in the atmosphere as a result of human
activities, causing surface air temperatures and
subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are,
in fact, rising." That gave the impression that even Dr.
Richard Lindzen of MIT, a prominent global warming
skeptic, had flipped and endorsed the theory that human
activity is causing the earth to overheat.
CNN said the panel agreed unanimously. Lindzen denied
this in a column in the Wall Street Journal. He said the
academy had asked that the report present a range of
views, and that there was no consensus, unanimous or
otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what
caused them.
That same day, the New York Times reported that the U.S.
has fallen behind Europe and Japan "in its ability to
simulate and predict long-term shifts in climate." It
said that American researchers had to go abroad "to find
computers capable of handling their most ambitious
climate analyses." This had all the earmarks of a
planted pitch by some of our computer modelers for more
government money.
Eighteen months ago another panel of climatologists
convened by the National Research Council had issued a
report with mixed signals. It said that in the last two
decades the rise in the earth’s temperature was greater
than the average for the past 100 years. But it also
said that the temperature of the atmosphere extending
six to nine miles above the earth’s surface showed
little if any warming. The global warming theory does
not allow differences in the temperature trends on the
surface and in the upper air. Both are supposed to heat
up together.
The panel admitted that this was a serious problem for
the believers in global warming. It said: "Major
advances in the ability to interpret and model the
subtle variations in the vertical temperature profile of
the lower atmosphere" are needed. In other words, they
need to figure out how the earth’s surface can be
heating up while the middle layers of the atmosphere are
not.
Scientists from 10 of the foremost climate research
centers in the world met in Hamburg, Germany to discuss
this problem in 1999. The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
of Dec. 15, 1999 reported: "Above all, the scientists
sought to solve an old paradox. While data developed by
weather stations, ships and measuring buoys show a clear
warming of the lower atmosphere since the late 1970s, on
average about 1.5 degrees, during the same period MSU
satellite measurements show, in fact, a mild cooling of
the middle air layers. Given the current climate models,
one should expect, in step with the warming of the
near-ground, a noticeable warming of the middle
atmosphere. This contradiction cannot be explained
away."
It said that the Max Planck Institute in Hamburg had
developed a comprehensive climate model that included
not only the usual greenhouse gases and sulfur aerosols
from the burning of fossil fuels, but also the decrease
in the ozone in the stratosphere, which is supposed to
have a cooling effect. They could not find an
explanation for the discrepancy between the surface
temperature measurements and the satellite data. The
paper said the situation is so bad "that realistic
scenarios and estimates cannot be developed. All the
models, which are engaged in climatic prediction and
driven by an identification of anthropogenic signals,
need to be improved."
It added that some modelers have concluded that, at
best, their computer models simulate the natural
fluctuation zones of the climate. The most comprehensive
climate model of the Max Planck Institute could not
explain the differences between surface and satellite
data. This was not reported by our media at the time,
and the Times story about the superiority of European
climate research didn’t report that they had solved the
problem. That would have been big news.
There is a very simple explanation for this. The
satellite data are more comprehensive and more accurate
than the surface data. They are telling us that claims
that the earth is overheating are just hot air. If the
global warming modelers admitted that, their gravy train
would derail.
Andra_Jenny
Mentally Divergent
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2000
- Posts
- 2,865
Yes, we must deal with pollution
(unless we are in California and for pure economic reasons and political reasons and our govenor wants to be freed from pollution standards)
and I think as a society, the United States has led and will continue to lead because very few want a dirty nest and I will fight with anyone for good causes, better air, etc.
What I refuse to do is to be bullied into a position by politically correct science, which really abounds.
If you know much about planet dynamics, even rocket scientists can scare the living hell out of me with bad science as witness the NASA idea of using asteroids to tug the earth into a new orbit as if it were a solid rock or lump of ice. They would end all life at once with sort of a solution,
but you see, there is so much of that going on as with the Arsnic and Chlorine scams.
but I fight on...
stoopid me
(unless we are in California and for pure economic reasons and political reasons and our govenor wants to be freed from pollution standards)
and I think as a society, the United States has led and will continue to lead because very few want a dirty nest and I will fight with anyone for good causes, better air, etc.
What I refuse to do is to be bullied into a position by politically correct science, which really abounds.
If you know much about planet dynamics, even rocket scientists can scare the living hell out of me with bad science as witness the NASA idea of using asteroids to tug the earth into a new orbit as if it were a solid rock or lump of ice. They would end all life at once with sort of a solution,
but you see, there is so much of that going on as with the Arsnic and Chlorine scams.
but I fight on...
stoopid me
Andra_Jenny
Mentally Divergent
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2000
- Posts
- 2,865
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/13/190522.shtml
something more:
Just found someone who is saying the same things I have been saying for some time now.
something more:
Just found someone who is saying the same things I have been saying for some time now.
