"Unequivocal Proof" Global warming real and man made
- Thread starter sexy-girl
- Start date
Cheyenne
Ms. Smarty Pantsless
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2000
- Posts
- 59,554
If you didn't care about the article or the topic, why post a thread about it? Or do you mean you don't care if other people agree with your source or not, you believe it unconditionally because you like the newspaper it was written in?sexy-girl said:
My comment meant that it is obvious both Ish and ******* have spent a considerable amount of time researching this topic as opposed to you. They sound more credible than someone insisting something is true based on the source in which they read it.
ksmybuttons
Push and Pull
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2001
- Posts
- 30,254
Ishmael said:
Air quality is air quality, Ish. Pollution is pollution. Whether you limit it by just worrying about it as global climate change doesn't change the fact that the emissions are harmful to humans and the environment and the continuation of our ecosystems.
Those 95 Senators who voted against the Kyoto Protocol did so because of the harm that they believed allowing "developing nations" (read China, Brazil and India) to be exempt would adversely affect the economics of the US.(This happened during the Clinton administration.) Bush didn't even put it up for ratification because he felt it was flawed, but he also didn't step in and find a compromise, either, he just dumped it.
I have to say that any "assurance" from you doesn't make me feel any better about how we take care of our world.
lavender
Cautiously Optimistic
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2001
- Posts
- 25,108
There is a huge difference between the United States and the rest of the world - especially Europe - with respect to climate change.
In the halls of Washington, DC you will hear people disputing the existence of climate change. Whether we are experiencing global warming or global cooling.
Last year, during the Democratic primaries in New Hampshire - my father, a Republican presidential voter since Jimmy Carter - called and commented that the winter in New England (which was very harsh) was very interesting to see first hand as the Democratic candidates discussed global warming. I sighed and then explained that this meant nothing to the overall debate about global warming.
But, in American politics and with American citizens - there are those who do think that climate change and the fears of global warming are cockeyed leftist wingnut talk rather than something that is backed by a large number of scientists and researches.
This week, in the halls of the British Parliament instead of debating if global warming existed the parties were actually arguing over who was going to do MORE to try to decrease emissions and other human acts and agents that cause detriment to the environment which may contribute to climate change.
It really is an issue upon which the United States and Europe differ. It's much to my chagrin that the United States is so unprogressive on this issue.
Ishmael, it's a bit disingenuous to talk about how climate change is good. You mention having two seasons to grow crops. But, do we really need the extra food with the number of people that would be wiped out due to weather changes and flooding due to global climate change? Let's just consider the Benelux nations for starters. Then, we can go to the island nations. I heard this week that one large flooding episode caused from further global warming (not complete - but more) could do $60 billion dollars damage to London.
In the halls of Washington, DC you will hear people disputing the existence of climate change. Whether we are experiencing global warming or global cooling.
Last year, during the Democratic primaries in New Hampshire - my father, a Republican presidential voter since Jimmy Carter - called and commented that the winter in New England (which was very harsh) was very interesting to see first hand as the Democratic candidates discussed global warming. I sighed and then explained that this meant nothing to the overall debate about global warming.
But, in American politics and with American citizens - there are those who do think that climate change and the fears of global warming are cockeyed leftist wingnut talk rather than something that is backed by a large number of scientists and researches.
This week, in the halls of the British Parliament instead of debating if global warming existed the parties were actually arguing over who was going to do MORE to try to decrease emissions and other human acts and agents that cause detriment to the environment which may contribute to climate change.
It really is an issue upon which the United States and Europe differ. It's much to my chagrin that the United States is so unprogressive on this issue.
Ishmael, it's a bit disingenuous to talk about how climate change is good. You mention having two seasons to grow crops. But, do we really need the extra food with the number of people that would be wiped out due to weather changes and flooding due to global climate change? Let's just consider the Benelux nations for starters. Then, we can go to the island nations. I heard this week that one large flooding episode caused from further global warming (not complete - but more) could do $60 billion dollars damage to London.
RobDownSouth
BoycotDivestSanctio
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 78,360
Cheyenne said:
If your criteria includes distraction, distortion, strawman arguments, and propaganda masquerading as legitimate scientific research, then I'd have to agree with you.
In any event, your history of marching in lockstep with Ish opinion-wise disqualifies you as an impartial judge of the merits of this thread.
lavender
Cautiously Optimistic
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2001
- Posts
- 25,108
zipman said:
Read my post re the differences between the United States and the UK on this issue, zip.
I think most Europeans have to wonder why in the world the United States is so different than they are with respect to these issues. The only thing they can blame it on is politics as usual - since our scientists and researches are at the forefront of so many studies regarding this matter.
Also, it is worthwhile to note right now - the myriad of stories that have come out in the last 4 years about how this Administration is manipulating science to create reports and studies they want to be created. We really have to watch the scientific information that is coming out of this administration - let me be more specific - that is commissioned by this administration.
It is truly sad when politics corrupts science.
I think that's why sexy-girl is waiting for the conservative dismissal.
Also, in the past when we've had global warming discussions, the faithful conservatvies have come in and completely disputed the existence of global warming.
You should go read some of AJ's posts with some poster - I forget which one - regarding global warming. They would go on and on and on about its existence or lack thereof - with AJ of course spouting off bullshit.
zipman
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2002
- Posts
- 38,552
Cheyenne said:
I would question the validity of any report that states "a "stunning" correlation between a rise in ocean temperature over the past 40 years and pollution of the atmosphere" and then only uses ocean temperatures as proof when air temperatures which was the standard for measuring global warming doesn't prove their point.
In addition, global warming has been blamed for increaing the size of the hole in the ozone layer while the greatest reductions of ozone in the atmosphere are a result of extremely cold winters in the arctic, most notably the 1999-2000 winter. Scientists have been monitoring the winter this year because of the potential danger of UV radiation to people in higher latitudes including Europe.
lavender
Cautiously Optimistic
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2001
- Posts
- 25,108
Cheyenne said:
Ok let's see.
Ish and ****** spout crackpot science
Sexy-Girl quotes a reputable newssource that is quoting factual material.
But, Ish and ***** have spent more time researching. And sexy-girl is an idiot.
Hmmmmm.
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.
zipman
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2002
- Posts
- 38,552
lavender said:
Why do you single out AJ when Rob and sexy-girl were clearly dismissive from the very first posts on this thread.
The truth is that we do not know anywhere near enough information on Global warming to even begin to know whether it is good or bad and what the true ramifications of it are. I have done extensive reading on it and to ugget that the Bush administration is the only one manipulating science to fit a political agenda is simply untrue. The global warming crowd has put forth some of the most ludicrous studies based on clearly flawed projection models that I have ever seen.
zipman
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2002
- Posts
- 38,552
Ozone layer over Arctic 'thinning'
BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) -- Record low temperatures over the North Pole are thinning the protective ozone layer, a condition which could affect human health in northern countries and even central European nations, the European Union warned Monday.
"Large ozone losses are expected to occur if the cold conditions persist," said European Commissioner for Science and Research Janez Potocnik.
He said the first signs of ozone loss have been observed after an extremely harsh winter above the Arctic.
The ozone layer keeps out ultraviolet radiation, which is dangerous to humans and animals. Less protection could increase risks of skin cancer and affect biodiversity, scientists say.
Because of the record lows over the Arctic, scientists have been put on alert to monitor closely the condition of the ozone layer over the coming months.
"The meteorological conditions we are now witnessing resemble and even surpass the conditions of the 1999-2000 winter -- when the worst ozone loss to date was observed," said Dr. Neil Harris of the European Ozone Research Coordinating Unit in Britain.
He said temperatures at a 20 kilometer (12 mile) height had dropped to an average of minus 80 degrees Celsius (minus 112 degrees Fahrenheit), the lowest over the Arctic in half a century.
People in some northern countries who work out in the open should taken special precautions for sun protection in a month, Harris said.
While there are considerable year-to-year variations in the Arctic, there has been ozone loss in the southern Antarctic during almost all winters since the late 1980s.
"The concern is that the Arctic appears to be moving into Antarctic-like conditions which will result in an increase in UV radiation levels that will have consequences on human health in northern hemisphere countries," the statement of the EU head office said.
It said the hole in the ozone layer could affect areas around the polar zone, Scandinavia and even down to central Europe.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/01/31/ozone.ap/index.html
BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) -- Record low temperatures over the North Pole are thinning the protective ozone layer, a condition which could affect human health in northern countries and even central European nations, the European Union warned Monday.
"Large ozone losses are expected to occur if the cold conditions persist," said European Commissioner for Science and Research Janez Potocnik.
He said the first signs of ozone loss have been observed after an extremely harsh winter above the Arctic.
The ozone layer keeps out ultraviolet radiation, which is dangerous to humans and animals. Less protection could increase risks of skin cancer and affect biodiversity, scientists say.
Because of the record lows over the Arctic, scientists have been put on alert to monitor closely the condition of the ozone layer over the coming months.
"The meteorological conditions we are now witnessing resemble and even surpass the conditions of the 1999-2000 winter -- when the worst ozone loss to date was observed," said Dr. Neil Harris of the European Ozone Research Coordinating Unit in Britain.
He said temperatures at a 20 kilometer (12 mile) height had dropped to an average of minus 80 degrees Celsius (minus 112 degrees Fahrenheit), the lowest over the Arctic in half a century.
People in some northern countries who work out in the open should taken special precautions for sun protection in a month, Harris said.
While there are considerable year-to-year variations in the Arctic, there has been ozone loss in the southern Antarctic during almost all winters since the late 1980s.
"The concern is that the Arctic appears to be moving into Antarctic-like conditions which will result in an increase in UV radiation levels that will have consequences on human health in northern hemisphere countries," the statement of the EU head office said.
It said the hole in the ozone layer could affect areas around the polar zone, Scandinavia and even down to central Europe.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/01/31/ozone.ap/index.html
sexy-girl
sacrilegious
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2001
- Posts
- 19,584
zipman said:
you're right perhaps i shouldn't of done that but i guess i've had "discussions" in these type of threads before with ish and ****** and i was expecting it ... but i like to think that i tried to stay on topic and discuss the article without resulting to insults
and i wasn't "making digs at bush" bush is important because his policies are central to the vast difference in opinion between US government and other world governments on how to handle global warming ... and also for the way science has been used as propoganda in the US to keep public opinion on the side of the government
the EPA have complained that their reports were being censored and edited by white house officials
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3006448.stm
Cheyenne said:
i meant i don't care about turning this thread into a contest of silly insults and "handing each other ass's"
i've researched this a lot and been following environmental issues in one form or another for a considerable time (most of my teen and adult years anyway) and i was familiar with each peice of research ish posted ... i've often joked on literotica that perhaps i should do more activism on homosexual issues because i don't do any but i do a fair amount on enviromental issues (most have been local though)
over last few years theres been huge amounts of scientific consensus that global warming was man made and something we should be dealing with now ... i was expecting this research and it's supports what i've learned elsewhere ... i look forward to finding out more about it ... but i believe it at the moment because it backs up other good research already done
i'll try and spend some time later if there seems any genuine interest in this thread about debunking some of the stuff ish posted ... but i'm not sure if theres any point unless theres a real interest to have a real discussion with some open mindedness ... and to be honest as rob posted in this thread ... the theories he mentioned don't really have any scientific support
curious2c
In Flux
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2002
- Posts
- 19,254
I believe that first of all, with all the volcanos that have erupted in the last twenty years, it can't nor ever was just man that caused the problem.
Secondly, I also believe that this is a natural cycle of the earth. One that may be on a thousand or ten thousand year turn which would preclude man from being able to precisely prove it without someone else stepping up and pointing their finger at something else.
Thirdly, if it were a man made problem, the the work done in the seventies should have caused a drop or at least a leveling of certain parts of the problem, yet it hasn't. Matter of fact, right after banning the fluorcarbons it went into higher gear it seems.
That man is a part of it I do not doubt, but I find it very hard to believe that man is the only reason, nor will I accept that. Each of the last ten biggest volcaninc erruptions in the last ten or so years has put out more than all of the modern industrualized world has in it's lifetime. That has been said each time one of them has errupted, all by scientists. I have to ask...how could man compete with that?
Secondly, I also believe that this is a natural cycle of the earth. One that may be on a thousand or ten thousand year turn which would preclude man from being able to precisely prove it without someone else stepping up and pointing their finger at something else.
Thirdly, if it were a man made problem, the the work done in the seventies should have caused a drop or at least a leveling of certain parts of the problem, yet it hasn't. Matter of fact, right after banning the fluorcarbons it went into higher gear it seems.
That man is a part of it I do not doubt, but I find it very hard to believe that man is the only reason, nor will I accept that. Each of the last ten biggest volcaninc erruptions in the last ten or so years has put out more than all of the modern industrualized world has in it's lifetime. That has been said each time one of them has errupted, all by scientists. I have to ask...how could man compete with that?
lavender
Cautiously Optimistic
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2001
- Posts
- 25,108
zipman said:
Because of this:
https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=33036&page=1&highlight=global+warming
https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=35536&page=1&highlight=global+warming
https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=35657&page=1&highlight=global+warming
https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=36273&page=1&highlight=global+warming
Cheyenne
Ms. Smarty Pantsless
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2000
- Posts
- 59,554
lavender said:
And yet, sexygirl didn't do even a minimal search. You're as bad as she is with the "reputable news source that is quoting factual material." Who SAYS it is factual other than the newspaper? I agree with zipman on this one.
And I do think that Ish and ******* can both run circles around sexygirl on this topic.
zipman
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2002
- Posts
- 38,552
sexy-girl said:
Science tends to favor trends and the trends in the scientific community do lean towards the views of global warming. However, it is only by looking at the history of global temperatures and cyclical climactic change as well as the projection models used that you can ascertain which theories are held up by actual science.
For example, most of the global warming projections do not use the 1 degree increase in global warming observed by scientific observation that has occurred over the last century as the basis for their projections. I've seen studies which actually use a 3 degree increase per year instead of 1 degree per century as their basis for predicting the melting of the Greenland Ice Shelf.
Just because a theory goes against the mainstream does not make it automatically make it "junk science." It is the methodology used which determines it's validity. Even then, take the article I posted above which shows two of the coldest winters overthe arctic and the detrimental affects it will have on people and wildlife in the more northern latitudes and discuss how is that possible if we are experiencing global warming?
RobDownSouth
BoycotDivestSanctio
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 78,360
zipman said:
I'll admit I was a bit dismissive from the start, but truthfully, I've been on Lit long enough to recognize that certain keywords in topics ("global warming" "WMDs" "election fraud" and the like) will trigger a pavlovian negative response from the lesser conservative intellects on this board. I apologize for being so puckish this morning.
As far as the rest of your post goes, I think you are oversimplifying things just a bit. I don't think anyone truly doubts the existance of "global warming" anymore (even the EPA's own website refers to it as a "certainty". The big debate, as I see it anyway, is the extent to which humans are responsible (or not responsible) for the apparant increase in the rate of global warming.
zipman
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2002
- Posts
- 38,552
lavender said:
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 used to believe everything I heard about global warming until a friend of mine who is a scientist actually began explaining the flawed science behind the majority of the studies which support global warming and he is as far left as they come with regard to politics.
Assuming that something is junk science without regard to the scientific methodology used is just poor logic.
sexy-girl
sacrilegious
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2001
- Posts
- 19,584
zipman said:
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
ksmybuttons
Push and Pull
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2001
- Posts
- 30,254
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.
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.
lavender
Cautiously Optimistic
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2001
- Posts
- 25,108
Cheyenne said:
I'm talking about Pentagon reports. I'm talking about EPA reports. I'm talking about the Bush Administration's admission through the EPA in November 2002 that global warming was, in many respects, man-made. I'm talking about reports from the National Academy of Sciences.
Sexy-Girl has read all of these too. In this instance she was just posting an article.
Cheyenne - read AJ's full anthology of posts on this subject. About 90% of his posts come from one source - newsmax. Go onto yahoo and type in global warming and man-made. You'll find that all of there is tons of stuff about global warming not being man made. Most of them will come from the intellectual conservative and other right-wing organizations that are out to disprove global warming for political purposes.
You have to understand that there is some skepticism from a partisan standpoint on global warming because belief or lack thereof in global warming or the need to do something about it does seem to be divided in many instances on party lines.
Then you look at recent history. Look at Dole's Presidential candidacy where he tried to say that the studies regarding cigarette smoking and health were not dispositive. Why? Relationship with the tobacco industry and ties to North Carolina. Then go see that the CDC and other health agencies through Bush's Administration are requiring that doctors who perform abortions or assisted miscarriages now have to tell their patients that there is an increased risk of breast cancer for women who have these procedures. I don't know if it's still up on the sites but it was about a year ago. And, this is quack science. It's not true. There is absolutely no tenable link between abortion and a rise in breast cancer - it's political.
Science has become partisan. It's not a good thing but it's a true thing. In fact, it's quite despicable that our party loyalties cause us to spout bullshit. It also is quite despicable that ties to lobbyists will make politicians forget about what is best for this country. But, hell - that's the way the political cookie crumbles these days.
But, I could actually spout off better about the lack of global warming than AJ and Ish and I haven't studied those crackpots (like Sherwood Idso - who believes CO2 is good for you and that we are actually on the way to global cooling) since high school debate when our topic was the environment and you had to be able to argue against global warming.
But, EVERYONE, even the judges knew that you were talking out of your ass when you disputed it.
I guess I spent enough time having to dispute global warming with scientific studies I knew to be flawed, scientists who were crackpots and other unreliable sources to be able to see through AJ and Ish's posts quite easily. It's all stuff I spouted off disingenuously to win a debate round.
zipman
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2002
- Posts
- 38,552
RobDownSouth said:
First off, I have yet to see a single report on global warming that takes into account the documented cyclical shifts in global temperatures. c2c made a great post and that is almost always not included as a factor.
Secondly, the predictions used to extrapolate the degree of global warming in the future are pretty unknown at this point based on the incredibly poor scientific models used so far.
