"Unequivocal Proof" Global warming real and man made

[John Doe]

I think Sexy-girl's comment went beyond just a comment about "global climate change."

It was provocative as if the US citizens aren't getting the information. We have just as much access as any other country and some of us understand what the Bush Administration chooses to do.

The people who matter are the ones that are developing alternatives. The auto industry certainly isn't going to stop trying to decrease emissions based on this administrations stand: they know politics will change and in order for them to stay on top of their field, they need to continue to find alternatives. This is true from all aspects of industry.

Some industries try to rely on this administrations views, but the communities are the ones that will make the difference at this point. I know one of our communities turned down the building of a plant to prevent the pollution - some other community may accept it, but ours have chosen not to because of the environmental impact.

And c2c, how can man choose to not help in the places that he can have impact? All those people died in the tsunami, because of that we shouldn't try to continue medical knowledge that will help prevent other illness? Kind of convoluted logic if you ask me.

Where did he say anything like that?

 

[zipman]

air pollution, ozone holes and global warming due to CO2 emissions are all completely different things

however they're also linked too ... we know due to CO2 emissions that the world on average is getting warmer ... but people get confused by that like ish who said when i said about global warming that we might be heading into an ice age

in fact he's kind of right ... the biggest effects of global warming that will see won't be sun bathing weather but it will be climate change ... some areas may get drier others might get wetter or even colder ... and there is research to show that global warming could end up taking us into an ice age even

one example to do with the article you posted is that research i've read has shown that its possible that global warming may increase the size of the ozone hole which like your article said may mean the artic areas get colder

the fact is we don't know what all the effects of global warming will be other than it will lead to big climate change ... but most scientists know its happening and know the main causes

I don't think we do know why it is occurring. Climate change has been occurring for the entire history of this planet. Ice ages occurred long before man was producing fossil fuel emmissions.

Could it be that it is the ego of mankind that assumes that we can control global temperatures?

 

[sexy-girl]

In all honesty, at least he uses science to frequently back up his viewpoint instead of blindly accepting a report based on the newpaper that supports it.

i'm not blindly accepting a report based on a newspaper article you can't say i'm doing that just because cheyenne says so even after i insist i'm not

but i am interested in it and it backs up various stuff i've read in past and you're not the only person that has talked to scientists or heard them speak

it also backs up my governments position and the chief science advisor to tony blairs position ... it backs up the european position ... it backs up stuff that i've researched and come to believe ... it's not just something i read in a paper one morning

 

[ksmybuttons]

Where did he say anything like that?

As I read his post, he was stating that man has little impact comparitively...my question is "does it justify doing nothing, then?"

 

[ksmybuttons]

i'm not blindly accepting a report based on a newspaper article you can't say i'm doing that just because cheyenne says so even after i insist i'm not

but i am interested in it and it backs up various stuff i've read in past and you're not the only person that has talked to scientists or heard them speak

it also backs up my governments position and the chief science advisor to tony blairs position ... it backs up the european position ... it backs up stuff that i've researched and come to believe ... it's not just something i read in a paper one morning

Your also going on the premise that the US government doesn't believe in global warming. What they believe is that the Kyoto protocol is a poorly written agreement.

 

[John Doe]

As I read his post, he was stating that man has little impact comparitively...my question is "does it justify doing nothing, then?"

You said "And c2c, how can man choose to not help in the places that he can have impact? All those people died in the tsunami, because of that we shouldn't try to continue medical knowledge that will help prevent other illness? Kind of convoluted logic if you ask me."

I read that as implying he believes those things that you say are convoluted logic.

 

[curious2c]

I think Sexy-girl's comment went beyond just a comment about "global climate change."

It was provocative as if the US citizens aren't getting the information. We have just as much access as any other country and some of us understand what the Bush Administration chooses to do.

The people who matter are the ones that are developing alternatives. The auto industry certainly isn't going to stop trying to decrease emissions based on this administrations stand: they know politics will change and in order for them to stay on top of their field, they need to continue to find alternatives. This is true from all aspects of industry.

Some industries try to rely on this administrations views, but the communities are the ones that will make the difference at this point. I know one of our communities turned down the building of a plant to prevent the pollution - some other community may accept it, but ours have chosen not to because of the environmental impact.

And c2c, how can man choose to not help in the places that he can have impact? All those people died in the tsunami, because of that we shouldn't try to continue medical knowledge that will help prevent other illness? Kind of convoluted logic if you ask me.

I never said that man shouldn't try to change or be more aware and earth friendly at all. I think that if man stopped using any kind of green house gases or prdduing them in any way, it wouldn't make a difference in the 'cycle' we are currently in. My guess is, what with the several volcanos that are currently roiling around up here in Alaska, we are not far from a few more explosive additions to the problem.

Man should try to be earth friendly...after all we have to live here and get our food and water from this planet. I have never said that I support not trying to do more to be enviromentally friendly.

As a point in this, I'll tell you that I buy recycled paper goods, including toilet paper...as often as it is available here. Most times these items are well within the range of un recycled products, and in fact in a few cases those earth friendly products have been less expensive across the board.

I dislike heavy traffic due to the smell of all that carbon monoxide in your face as it is...I support solar and wind and hydro-electric technologies...I do feel that man should do everything in his power to not add to the problem...however, at some point one has to realize that sometimes the fixes end up bieng worse than the problem ever was to begin with.

As long as the big oil, big power, and big government run our research and development facilities, as long as they only finance what will give them a large 'return' on their investment, as long as the truth of some technologies is hidden behind that shroud of big money, those alternative ways will not be successful. Just wait until the gas and coal run out...see how fast wind, hydro, geo thermal, and solar catch on...also see how the big oil and power companies have it all tied up under their control too...they are already working on it.

Shell, BP, Standard oil, Exxon, and a few others have rather large investments in certain areas of the country and world. Those area's have no oil or minerals...rather, they have geo-thermal positive sites or those areas are favorable for solar arrays...in a large scale development way.


Big oil and big power support education through grants, scholarships, and direct funding to universities, and other schools. Even the modern technologies like computers have added to this.

Most computers today have first use wood, minerals and also have added to the global additions of CO2...more than many people realize. Paper use with the advent of printers and PC's has gone up...not down. Plastic uses oil or wood for it's base to start with. There is nothing new or different under the sun that does not start either in the forest, a mine or a well...period.

Yes...man has a long ways to go to be earth aware and friendly. I do my part, even though I doubt the veracity of some 'scientific' claim on global warming. Global warming is a cycle, and has been a cycle forever. There is no other explaination for that. Man could help, or in the end, man may find that no matter what happened or what man did, it would have happened anyway.

In the end, I would love to see more time, money and effort spent developing solar, wind, geo-thermal, and hydro power. I would love to see a new form of vehicle that was earth friendly like a hydrogen powered vehicle...however, remember that hydrogen power puts out H3O...not H2O...eventually there would or will be a problem with H3O...mark my words.

See? Every time something comes up that is so much better...side effects can be quite worse.

In the end, man needs to learn to do more with far less...be less oriented on having lots to having what is needed. Even I have a problem at times with that 'keeping up with the Jones' syndrome.

 

[Guest]

 

[zipman]

i'm not blindly accepting a report based on a newspaper article you can't say i'm doing that just because cheyenne says so even after i insist i'm not

but i am interested in it and it backs up various stuff i've read in past and you're not the only person that has talked to scientists or heard them speak

it also backs up my governments position and the chief science advisor to tony blairs position ... it backs up the european position ... it backs up stuff that i've researched and come to believe ... it's not just something i read in a paper one morning

I shouldn't have said blindly accepting it. My apologies.

It may not be the case, but it seems that you accept it because it agrees with your position and the position of your government. How much have you investigated the other side of the issue?

There have been several posts that call into question the validity of the scientific reports which you believe based on the exclusion of historical climate change cycles and natural factors such as volcanic activity. You haven't addressed those yet unless I missed it.

 

[John Doe]

I never said that man shouldn't try to change or be more aware and earth friendly at all. I think that if man stopped using any kind of green house gases or prdduing them in any way, it wouldn't make a difference in the 'cycle' we are currently in. My guess is, what with the several volcanos that are currently roiling around up here in Alaska, we are not far from a few more explosive additions to the problem.

Man should try to be earth friendly...after all we have to live here and get our food and water from this planet. I have never said that I support not trying to do more to be enviromentally friendly.

As a point in this, I'll tell you that I buy recycled paper goods, including toilet paper...as often as it is available here. Most times these items are well within the range of un recycled products, and in fact in a few cases those earth friendly products have been less expensive across the board.

I dislike heavy traffic due to the smell of all that carbon monoxide in your face as it is...I support solar and wind and hydro-electric technologies...I do feel that man should do everything in his power to not add to the problem...however, at some point one has to realize that sometimes the fixes end up bieng worse than the problem ever was to begin with.

As long as the big oil, big power, and big government run our research and development facilities, as long as they only finance what will give them a large 'return' on their investment, as long as the truth of some technologies is hidden behind that shroud of big money, those alternative ways will not be successful. Just wait until the gas and coal run out...see how fast wind, hydro, geo thermal, and solar catch on...also see how the big oil and power companies have it all tied up under their control too...they are already working on it.

Shell, BP, Standard oil, Exxon, and a few others have rather large investments in certain areas of the country and world. Those area's have no oil or minerals...rather, they have geo-thermal positive sites or those areas are favorable for solar arrays...in a large scale development way.


Big oil and big power support education through grants, scholarships, and direct funding to universities, and other schools. Even the modern technologies like computers have added to this.

Most computers today have first use wood, minerals and also have added to the global additions of CO2...more than many people realize. Paper use with the advent of printers and PC's has gone up...not down. Plastic uses oil or wood for it's base to start with. There is nothing new or different under the sun that does not start either in the forest, a mine or a well...period.

Yes...man has a long ways to go to be earth aware and friendly. I do my part, even though I doubt the veracity of some 'scientific' claim on global warming. Global warming is a cycle, and has been a cycle forever. There is no other explaination for that. Man could help, or in the end, man may find that no matter what happened or what man did, it would have happened anyway.

In the end, I would love to see more time, money and effort spent developing solar, wind, geo-thermal, and hydro power. I would love to see a new form of vehicle that was earth friendly like a hydrogen powered vehicle...however, remember that hydrogen power puts out H3O...not H2O...eventually there would or will be a problem with H3O...mark my words.

See? Every time something comes up that is so much better...side effects can be quite worse.

In the end, man needs to learn to do more with far less...be less oriented on having lots to having what is needed. Even I have a problem at times with that 'keeping up with the Jones' syndrome.

How do you feel about nuclear power?

 

[sexy-girl]

Your also going on the premise that the US government doesn't believe in global warming. What they believe is that the Kyoto protocol is a poorly written agreement.

i'm sure they do believe it ... but i don't think they believe they should do anything about it and i believe they're using science as propaganda ... the white house edits it's own EPA reports ... why would they do that if they aren't making it a political issue

i haven't been one to jump on the bandwagon and say iraq was all about oil ... but i think its obvious the US environmental polices are all about that and naturally so when you see how much money oil companies invest in bush being elected


from an outside view its easy to see that the US position is vastly different from the rest of the world ... even from it's close allies like tony blair

so people are saying i'm wrong for making this discussion a US or "bush" thing but as lavender said it has become a clear political topic with the US ... in the UK and europe its something that is just accepted by both parties

 

[curious2c]

How do you feel about nuclear power?

Nuclear power...I'm afraid in the end, it will be the least intrusive power...yet the by-product of radiated waste...that has to be dealt with directly and in a very serious way. Storing it under ground in Nevada...I'm not sure is a good idea.

In the end, nuclear power has less output of greenhouse gasses by far. It is the most bang for the buck in many ways too. It also could be done in a safer way.

I think that reasearch into nuclear power needs to look at other ways to produce the heat without the side effect of long lived radiation. I think I read once about some weapons (Nuclear) have radiation half-lives that are far shorter than the current type of nuclear energy produced in power plants. The reason that type of power isnt' used is due to 'national secruity' issues. In other words, our own government doesn't want just anybody having that available to them.

I have also read about a little known type of nuclear power that had little radiationi output comparatively speaking. Problem it wasn't developed was due to it wouldn't work in weapons, which is where all the funding went. Another case of government and big money going for the profit and return on the buck instead of the return for the people of the world.

yes, Nucelar has it's place and one day we may be forced to use it like it is now...which I believe could be a lot safer.

 

[ksmybuttons]

i'm sure they do believe it ... but i don't think they believe they should do anything about it and i believe they're using science as propaganda ... the white house edits it's own EPA reports ... why would they do that if they aren't making it a political issue

i haven't been one to jump on the bandwagon and say iraq was all about oil ... but i think its obvious the US environmental polices are all about that and naturally so when you see how much money oil companies invest in bush being elected


from an outside view its easy to see that the US position is vastly different from the rest of the world ... even from it's close allies like tony blair

so people are saying i'm wrong for making this discussion a US or "bush" thing but as lavender said it has become a clear political topic with the US ... in the UK and europe its something that is just accepted by both parties

I understand, sexy-girl. I also think Bush policies on the environment are poor - I think the diplomatic manner in the way he handled it is even worse. You won't find me defending him in any way. The Kyoto Protocol was a missed opportunity that will continue to affect the relationship outcomes for the US in a negative fashion of a long time to come.

 

[Ishmael]

They haven't spent more time researching, Cheyenne - not at all. They just don't buy into the conventional wisdom and the overwhelmingly supported position worldwide.

You can find their information in about 10 minutes on a one time search.

What an arrogant slut you are Jane!!!!

You spout off "conventional wisdom" as if some theory is fact. There are NO proofs in science Lavy. Only theories.

Every "Global Warming" model is flawed. Each and every one without exception. Not one model takes into consideration the precessions or orbital eccentricity. The ONLY known long term predictors of earth climate, and they have ignored that data completely.

Not one model, not a single one has taken into account the higher energy state of our sun. (But then they'd have to explain the long term recession of the Martian ice caps, wouldn't they?)

Let's face it Lavy, in your world everything is evil. Man, governments, especially your own, SUV's, your life, everything. What a miserable person you must be.

Forbid that you might actually look at any alternative research that might indicate no one's to blame, and there isn't a God damned thing you can do about it. Instead you place all your marbles in a flawed and disputed basket and call it "conventional wisdom."

So you rant and rail and tilt at windmills while life goes on around you and without you. You are singularly unable to accept that it's happened before, it'll happen again and life still prevailed and the earth is still here. Man cannot destroy the earth. Not yet anyway. And anyone that thinks he can is displaying arrogance, and ignorance, that is without peer.

The point is you're accepting as fact unproven theories based on flawed models. You also accept as fact there is something to be done about it when I've already linked in some research that suggests that the remedies you propose are precisely what we shouldn't be doing.

Just like the ozone and flouro-carbon scare. How do all those flouro-carbons get into the stratosphere? I mean they're heavier than air so how do they get there to bind with the ozone? We altered our refridgeration systems to less efficient designs (isn't that the opposite direction of what we should be going?) based on some hasty research.

What is rocket fuel made from Lavy? Is it possible that all that shit got in the upper atmosphere because of greatly increased space launches? I mean it's one hell of an efficient injection methodology if you wanted to pollute the upper regions of the atmosphere. But of course there's no point in bringing that possibility up with you because "conventional wisdom" (and your own blind belief) knows that is was the automobile that did it. (Visions of cars with 7 mile long vertical tail pipes swim before my eyes. It'd make for one hell of a cartoon.)

Further, you assume because I debate you on this subject that I'm of the opinion that the earth isn't changing. You couldn't be more wrong. I'm just not stupid enough to state with any certainty that I KNOW what the cause is or that I KNOW what, if anything, has to be done to fix it.

Ishmael

 

[lavender]

By the way, orbital eccentricity has been ruled out as a cause of global climate change although they say it can affect climate on a small scale.

 

[p_p_man]

or go dig up my old thread about the "junk scientists" replacing the priests of old proclaiming the end of the world and demanding money for salvation.

Was that before or after the thread where you claimed to have patented a cure for cancer?

Don't forget your tin foil hat Ish...

ppman

 

[John Doe]

What an arrogant slut you are Jane!!!!

Oh, that's productive.

 

[John Doe]

By the way, orbital eccentricity has been ruled out as a cause of global climate change although they say it can affect climate.

Come again?

 

[lavender]

Come again?

I edited it.

 

[sexy-girl]

I shouldn't have said blindly accepting it. My apologies.

It may not be the case, but it seems that you accept it because it agrees with your position and the position of your government. How much have you investigated the other side of the issue?

There have been several posts that call into question the validity of the scientific reports which you believe based on the exclusion of historical climate change cycles and natural factors such as volcanic activity. You haven't addressed those yet unless I missed it.

apology accepted i probably sometimes use poor language because i'm defensive sometimes waiting for the ****** and ish usual battle i have to face in these threads

studies i've read before have always shown that while natural factors are the main thing that shapes are climate its been mans activity that has pushed us closer to runaway climate change

it's like the sun being brighter ... supposedly that was the great answer to why we were having global warming but that was caused sunspot activity that peeked in 1999 and if anything we're meant to be having a cooler sun now for a few years

the facts show that the earth climate is balanced it takes into account things like sunspot and volcanic activity ... studies showing that global warming can effect the ozone layer all show how the earth balances natural global changes

the earths climate is like an ecosystem ... but like animal ecosystems if we aren't careful we can push it out of wack ... most of the studies i have read do take into account historical climate change cycles ... it's not argued that there isn't some natural cycles and balances ... but the studies like this article is talking about are showing how much man is disrupting those natural cycles

 

[John Doe]

I edited it.

Ohh okay, it makes sense now. For a minute there I was wondering which one of us no speakee the Emglish no more.

 

[curious2c]

apology accepted i probably sometimes use poor language because i'm defensive sometimes waiting for the ****** and ish usual battle i have to face in these threads

studies i've read before have always shown that while natural factors are the main thing that shapes are climate its been mans activity that has pushed us closer to runaway climate change

it's like the sun being brighter ... supposedly that was the great answer to why we were having global warming but that was caused sunspot activity that peeked in 1999 and if anything we're meant to be having a cooler sun now for a few years

the facts show that the earth climate is balanced it takes into account things like sunspot and volcanic activity ... studies showing that global warming can effect the ozone layer all show how the earth balances natural global changes

the earths climate is like an ecosystem ... but like animal ecosystems if we aren't careful we can push it out of wack ... most of the studies i have read do take into account historical climate change cycles ... it's not argued that there isn't some natural cycles and balances ... but the studies like this article is talking about are showing how much man is disrupting those natural cycles

I just saw a show on the discovery channel and have also read a few articles that stated that sunspot activity is on a uprise since 2002 with no peak in sight. It has caused some problems with aircraft communications, satelite communications and television reception as well.

Also, the cycles and balances of the earth have been going on for a lot longer than man has been around. I'm sure that eventually we will become a stastistic whether we like it or not. Perhaps not for a long long time, but eventually we will.

I will try to find those links to some of what I read...it's been a while, and I was at work then too...well...in camp at work that is...on a different computer.


EDITED to add...


Here are a few...

http://science.nasa.gov/ssl/pad/solar/sunspots.htm

http://www******.com/scienceastronomy/sunspot_record_041027.html

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/11/03/sunspots031103

http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast19oct98_1.htm

One is from NASA who has a vested intrest in sunspots.

 

[John Doe]

I just saw a show on the discovery channel and have also read a few articles that stated that sunspot activity is on a uprise since 2002 with no peak in sight. It has caused some problems with aircraft communications, satelite communications and television reception as well.

Also, the cycles and balances of the earth have been going on for a lot longer than man has been around. I'm sure that eventually we will become a stastistic whether we like it or not. Perhaps not for a long long time, but eventually we will.

I will try to find those links to some of what I read...it's been a while, and I was at work then too...well...in camp at work that is...on a different computer.

The Discovery Channel is the USA Today of science channels.

 

[curious2c]

The Discovery Channel is the USA Today of science channels.

science for the masses...heh heh.

Not all I see there do I take as fact...but sometimes it does open the mind a tad.

 

[p_p_man]

Considering the polar caps are...

fast becoming hot natural spas, chunks of ice, continent size, are breaking away and drifting out of control, floods, heatwaves, drought, unnatural flora and fauna activity is being reported all over the world, I'd say something's happening and as Kyoto is the culmination of a ten year study and nothing else has been put forward as the cause, I say let's go for global warming.

I don't really care whether its emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere or not but instead of deriding the idea and rabbitting on about Mars we may as well do something about global warming now. If, after a decade of cutting back on emmissions, nothing improves what the hell? At least we wouldn't have spent 10 years doing nothing...and cleaning up all those noxious gases in the atmosphere can't be a bad thing anyway. We hear enough about passive cigarette smoking as it is, we may as well carry it forward to a larger scale...

And just think if CO2 was the culprit, how pleased we'll all feel about saving the Earth...

ppman