farseerlum
New member
dangit all i was realy hoping to pin it all on you nelson lol
Speaking of thorny issues
- Thread starter Shawn R. L.
- Start date
No Such Agency
New member
I like George Carlin, but he\'s a comedian, he makes a living out of being a crotchety misanthropist. The REAL point to take from that quote is that WE are the ones who will suffer most from radical climate change. Other species will either persist or (sadly) die off, and some people don\'t care so much about that. But WE will be living in the nest we\'ve been shitting in. Don\'t we have any concern about that possibility?
There\'s a lot of evidence that humans are causing climate change, and the majority of the scientific community agrees this is happening. Suddenly they all have some \"hidden agenda\", just because their findings imply we should stop consuming oil as fast as we can, and maybe invest some of our (abundant) money in alternatives?
Let\'s be selfish about this... but be selfish as a species, not as individuals. Anyone with children (or who might want them someday), who doesn\'t want to see them growing up in a bad-cyberpunk-novel future of filthy air and water and high energy prices, should be seriously thinking about reducing humanity\'s environmental impact.
farseerlum
New member
no one anywhere disagrees with this concept.
most arguments come from how it\'s being implemented.
for instance catylytic converters are now in the millions of cars in the world. good idea no?
well yeah except that palladium used in the converters is mined in russia and is putting an increadable amount of sulpher dioxide in the atmosphear. so you have really only moved the problem somewhere else.
how about hydrogen fueled cars? sure why not. unfortunately the oil and time we will consume to refit the cars is a major overhead. and then we still need to produce and transport hydrogen. probably useing coal for fuel instead.
electric cars. fuels by green electricty for that sake of the argument.
there isn\'t enough lithium currently and many think there never will be enough lithium to make that many batteries. we are essentially waiting for new battery technology that will work on the huge scale needed. until then are people taking there mobil phone battereis to the recyclers or just dumping them in the general waste?
and then we come to even trickier problems of methane. 100 litres of methan per cow per day. so if you want to save the world don\'t eat meat. or we can use that methane make electricity. hurah eat cows again. cept it still takes 2 barrels of oil to grow, kill, transport and sell a single cow. oops, back to being vegitarian.
the problem isn\'t that we should do something the problem is that most people think they should do it actively. they don\'t just use less in the first place.
there is no solution in science that gives us \"green\" energy in enough quatity to suffice the world. there is certainly no science available that can do it cheaper than fossil fuels allowing the third world to develop cleaner.
the only thing you can do is to check how much you consume and cut back. that really is all you can do.
Braveheart712
New member
OK all you rocket scientist, I got one for you. Ready, here goes!!!
Since we have begun to monitor the planet Mars and take measurements from this planet a few things have occurred. 1) The average temperature has begun to increase. and 2) The marsian polar ice caps have begun to receed. Hmmm, are we causing this. Damn we are good, not only are we causing our own planet to get warmer but we also are warming up our next door neighbors l! Or maybe, just maybe, the sun that we are revolving around is in flux. It is a fact that the sun has out of its usual cycle of sunspots and solar flares, and currently is very active. Maybe, just maybe, the sun has more to do with this than anything else we pitly humans are doing. On a side note to all you Al Gore locksteppers, I don\'t see him changing his lifestyle. He still flies around in his Lear Jet, owns a house he is rarely in that uses more energy in a day than most of ours do in a month, etc. The good ex-vice president also invested in a company that seeks to deveolp the whole concept of free carbon converters which would became very profitable if enough environmental panic is instilled in the general populus. Don\'t get me wrong, we all need to practice conservation and be atune to what affect we at having on our planet, but be careful when you buy into the current popular thinking. Be careful to see if what they are telling you is true or if the people speaking are herding you like lemming with their own hidden agenda. Follow the money trail people, Mr. Gore is not the crunchy environmentalist he would like us all to believe.
Since we have begun to monitor the planet Mars and take measurements from this planet a few things have occurred. 1) The average temperature has begun to increase. and 2) The marsian polar ice caps have begun to receed. Hmmm, are we causing this. Damn we are good, not only are we causing our own planet to get warmer but we also are warming up our next door neighbors l! Or maybe, just maybe, the sun that we are revolving around is in flux. It is a fact that the sun has out of its usual cycle of sunspots and solar flares, and currently is very active. Maybe, just maybe, the sun has more to do with this than anything else we pitly humans are doing. On a side note to all you Al Gore locksteppers, I don\'t see him changing his lifestyle. He still flies around in his Lear Jet, owns a house he is rarely in that uses more energy in a day than most of ours do in a month, etc. The good ex-vice president also invested in a company that seeks to deveolp the whole concept of free carbon converters which would became very profitable if enough environmental panic is instilled in the general populus. Don\'t get me wrong, we all need to practice conservation and be atune to what affect we at having on our planet, but be careful when you buy into the current popular thinking. Be careful to see if what they are telling you is true or if the people speaking are herding you like lemming with their own hidden agenda. Follow the money trail people, Mr. Gore is not the crunchy environmentalist he would like us all to believe.
Braveheart712
New member
In regards to my previous quote from George Carlin. I do \"get it\" and I hope everyone else does too. The human species one of the single most sucessful species to enhabit this planet, but like nearly every other species from the dawn of time, it evolves, becomes sucessful to a varied degree, then dies out due to a myriad of reasons. That too my friends will happen to us, we are no different from anything else that has existed on this planet. We are a dirty, nasty, distructive warlike species that will ultimately end our reign with the tools we created in our own hands. The difference here is that I see our demise being brought about through scwabbles and wars over resources where we use the \"final solution\" rather than a minor shift in the temperatue of the planet by the rate of one degree per every one hundred and fifty years. Just my opinion, I could be wrong....
Yeah, it is a pessimistic view but I also think in my heart that this is the way the world is heading. Wishing it was different would not make it so, it would still be only a wish.
Yeah, it is a pessimistic view but I also think in my heart that this is the way the world is heading. Wishing it was different would not make it so, it would still be only a wish.
Braveheart712
New member
Originally posted by matty1001
GW is evil! (Deciper that abbreviation however you see fit)
No, GW is a moron. I think that you actually need a brain to devise an evil plan and neither GW seem to show any signs of possessing one.
What is the Global Average Temperature?
Over what time scale would you measure that by? 100 years? 1000 years? 10,000 years?
Are we measuring from Ice Age to Ice Age?
Does Global Average Temperature even really mean anything, with all the different climates of the world? I mean I could average out the phonebook but it doesn\'t actually tell us anything.
Over what time scale would you measure that by? 100 years? 1000 years? 10,000 years?
Are we measuring from Ice Age to Ice Age?
Does Global Average Temperature even really mean anything, with all the different climates of the world? I mean I could average out the phonebook but it doesn\'t actually tell us anything.
see my previous post. The ice caps on mars have been starting to recede for the past few years. Even allowing their decline to be measured in decades, that still leaves 100+ years of glacial decline on earth to be taken into account. It\'s a rather silly fallacy to equate the climate on earth with that of mars.
Not to mention that solar fluctuations are accounted for in IPCC calculations. Their influence on climate is set at about 10%. Argue their influence if you like, but I\'d advise getting a degree in science and actually learning the shit behind it first.
@farseerlum, I completely agree. Simplification is the key...
although methane, while being a problem, is still secondary to co2 in terms of its effect on global climate. I would start cutting back on the amount of co2 we\'re spewing into the air before starting to kill cows.
No it isn\'t. The common denominator is the Sun. It only makes sense to compare the climate on planets close to the sun.
From what I understand, the suns recent temperatures have been the highest ever recorded.
I have a question not so far off from what we are discussing....Do governments have the ability to control the weather? I mean can they make it rain in a drought, or cause a drought as a military weapon? Did the Government cause hurricane Katrina? Can they stop a tornado that was heading for a residential area?
Braveheart712
New member
Hey Nelson, not that I need to list my degrees and accomplishments here, but believe it or not I do have some post graduate classes in science my friend, as well a several degrees. What amazes me is when people start to pull out empirical data like \"influnces on our climate is 10%\"..blah, blah, blah that comes from no dicenable methodology and try to pass it off as fact. 10% of what, what is the other 90%,blah, blah, blah. I am not a huge fan of numbers because they can be used to do whatever the person stacking them want to do. Take our countries use of national debt or balanced budget for examples.
My point in this whole global warming debate that tickles me is that no one in the scientific community can agree as to exactly how the THEORY of greenhouse gases work and to what extent, if any, they have had on the possible warming of the planet. When dealing with controilled experiments in a lab you cannot make measurements that translate to the global ecosphere since every influence and factor are not properly represented. Far more factors come into play than methane produced by farm animals, and CO2 emitted from the burning of fossil fuel.
Here is another scientific fact agreed upon in the current scientific community for you to explain away. During the middle ages, Europe experienced somewhat of a climate cool down. Oddly enough the climate did in fact warm up to current levels again before the age of industrialization occurred. How did the planet\'s temperature fluctuat then? Please explain.
This planet is in flux as is everything in our solar system. Since we have started to measure average temperatures most scientist agree that the average temperature has varied about one degree. It is flawed logic to assume that humans are the cause of this variance, since this planet has been in flux throughout the eons of its existence. Think what you like, if believeing in global warming makes you feel better, that is your right. One of the few freedoms left is freedom of thought, so exercize your right and think what you like. I myself am not drinking the Kool-Aid. That is not to say that the practice of conservation should not be followed, having respect for our resources and the environment, but again use caution when being told what you should think and believe. i am not convinced that there is not some hidden adgenda being pushed under the cover of global warming.
My point in this whole global warming debate that tickles me is that no one in the scientific community can agree as to exactly how the THEORY of greenhouse gases work and to what extent, if any, they have had on the possible warming of the planet. When dealing with controilled experiments in a lab you cannot make measurements that translate to the global ecosphere since every influence and factor are not properly represented. Far more factors come into play than methane produced by farm animals, and CO2 emitted from the burning of fossil fuel.
Here is another scientific fact agreed upon in the current scientific community for you to explain away. During the middle ages, Europe experienced somewhat of a climate cool down. Oddly enough the climate did in fact warm up to current levels again before the age of industrialization occurred. How did the planet\'s temperature fluctuat then? Please explain.
This planet is in flux as is everything in our solar system. Since we have started to measure average temperatures most scientist agree that the average temperature has varied about one degree. It is flawed logic to assume that humans are the cause of this variance, since this planet has been in flux throughout the eons of its existence. Think what you like, if believeing in global warming makes you feel better, that is your right. One of the few freedoms left is freedom of thought, so exercize your right and think what you like. I myself am not drinking the Kool-Aid. That is not to say that the practice of conservation should not be followed, having respect for our resources and the environment, but again use caution when being told what you should think and believe. i am not convinced that there is not some hidden adgenda being pushed under the cover of global warming.
Braveheart712
New member
Not a bad question Vike! I am not sure that weather control exists, but Tesla did do some experimentation during his life in this area. Supposedly there is a huge project in Alaska that some people beileve is an extension of his work but sadly I can offer not links or facts to direct you further. Can anyone else out there shed some light on this side topic?
AinuLainour
New member
I believe humans will be the first race not to die out. We are by far the most advanced race ever and it is not believable that we will simply destroy ourselves.
farseerlum
New member
actually nelson the lab coats aren\'t sure which is worse.
methane is a far worse greenhouse gas (about 20 times worse) but is absobed back into the system faster. carbon on the other had is pretty weak but stays as CO2 in atmosphere for a lot longer.
methane also has a habit of turning up in weird places. defrosting tundra for one is releasing a lot of methane.
we concentrate on carbon emissions becuase we cause it. that and it\'s effects would last a long time.
methane is a far worse greenhouse gas (about 20 times worse) but is absobed back into the system faster. carbon on the other had is pretty weak but stays as CO2 in atmosphere for a lot longer.
methane also has a habit of turning up in weird places. defrosting tundra for one is releasing a lot of methane.
we concentrate on carbon emissions becuase we cause it. that and it\'s effects would last a long time.
Unnecessary sarcasm
Interesting. I underestimated this argument the first time I read it. This would of course present a plausible alternative to the theory that man is causing the current heat up. This would not prove that human actions played no role in the situation here on earth. What you have done is to suggest a possibility. That is constructive, but it is hardly worthy of the certainty with which you dismiss the views of others.
Ad hominem - circumstantial at those who believe in global waring, followed by an ad hominem - tu quoque at Gore. Gore didn\'t intent the issue and many if not most who take global warming seriously did not do soe because of his actions. Calling us lock steppers is both unwarranted and in most cases inaccurate. As to his own hypocrisy. Okay, so he\'s a hypocrit. There is a lot of that to go around. This fact does not make him wrong.
Again an ad hominem - circumstantial. And of course if the point is that environmentalists may profit from changes in behavior as a result of greenhouse concerns, then this is at best the pot calling the kettle black. There are currently far more who profit from continued use of current technology. If we are going to examine ulterior motives, then let\'s not do so selectively.
Another ad hominem and the lecture is grauitous. I for one do not need you to tell me to think critically about what others are saying. I do not need you to tell me to be wary of others\' agenda. And I sincerely doubt if others do either.
paintingploddy
New member
My post was simply to bring to the attention of those participating in this debate a current news story. I am not making any claims as to what it means, I haven\'t read the actual document, just a short synopsis that may or may not accurately summarise the relevant document.
@Nelson - How long have we been measuring the decline of glaciers on Mars? Same with the temperature of the sun? 20 years is a blip in Geological time and any data we have now is crude compared with what we may be able to emasure in another 20 years.
Similarly glaciers decline and grow in cycles, your argument ignores the cycles.
Lastly I don\'t believe data from Mars can be ignored, at least until a plausible theory is developed which explains the observations and demonstrates that the effect is totally independent of what is occurring with the sun.
Science undergoes constant evolution. The theories change to in order to explain data that the previous theory did not take into account. To ignore data from Mars because it doesn\'t suit our argument is short sighted. Would proponents of climate change hesitate to point out growth of glaciers on Mars if that were occurring?
I am a believer that we are having an impact on the planets climate. I am also a believer in looking at both sides of the coin - to fail to do so would be unscietific to my mind.
@Nelson - How long have we been measuring the decline of glaciers on Mars? Same with the temperature of the sun? 20 years is a blip in Geological time and any data we have now is crude compared with what we may be able to emasure in another 20 years.
Similarly glaciers decline and grow in cycles, your argument ignores the cycles.
Lastly I don\'t believe data from Mars can be ignored, at least until a plausible theory is developed which explains the observations and demonstrates that the effect is totally independent of what is occurring with the sun.
Science undergoes constant evolution. The theories change to in order to explain data that the previous theory did not take into account. To ignore data from Mars because it doesn\'t suit our argument is short sighted. Would proponents of climate change hesitate to point out growth of glaciers on Mars if that were occurring?
I am a believer that we are having an impact on the planets climate. I am also a believer in looking at both sides of the coin - to fail to do so would be unscietific to my mind.
funnymouth
Active member
science and the smoking gun (pt#1:random thoughts)
people are always asking for simple answers to complex questions. i deal with it all the time. the pr people are always like: \"in laymans terms, is it, or isnt it?\"
and im always like \" maybe, but...\" research is tough, and it gets done a \'lil at a time. there is never a simple, obveous, answer, just clues, and more clues, and more, until you\'re burried in them. years or decades of work can go in to a 3 page paper, on a seemingly rediculously specific topic. oh, and there will be scrutiny, so watch (your) tounge....
if i was asked about global warming, as a professional scientist, i would say: \"it seems likely, however, we cant be certain,\" because im accountable.
if you asked me personally, however, i would say: \"yes, its happening, and yes, its a problem\"
screw the planet, lets save OUR asses.
i love our planet for a number of reasons...lets call them, collectively, intrinsic value.
people might not understand the value of beauty, so ill go simpler. we need it to live, our children need it to live, 7th generation rule and all that jazz.
you could argue that the we aren\'t in an environmental crisis, yet. probably because people arent dying. my experience is that people dont consider problems problems...until the sky actually does fall.
the environment on our planet changes, thats not in doubt (hell, there was almost no oxygen in the air as recently as 1.7 bya).
we are undoubtedly changing our atmospheric environment. we have proof, ive read hundreds of research papers on the topic. the degree is argueable, but that we are is not. if environmental papers dont do it for you, how about the blackened lungs of city-dwellers, and the curtain of smog that hangs over most industrial cities? you can see that stuff, and its bad for you.
so do we ignore it until it is a real crisis for humans, not just organisms that you probably dont care about, or do we work on it now? how valuable are the lives of our great great great great great great great grandchildren? less than a tax? less than funding for more proof? less than heightened emissions standards? is our greed that powerful? is the idea of our own fallibilty that dangerous?
\"im sure god will fix it (but it aint broke).\"
even if its only a remote possibility that we are destroying our planet, shouldnt we do something about it?
we shit a brick at the thought of an arab guy blowing up a cafe. we spend billions on antiterrorism to combat something that might happen. we hear about global warming, and the possible death of our planet (for us), and instead of being proactive, we deny it. end of days?
want to talk impact? lets start small: jet contrails.
fluff article
the real stuff
i could link stuff all day, but i doubt anyone will read it.
id like you all to keep in mind, though, that its not just global warming, but global climate change that is the concern. i posted a neat article on \"global dimming\" awhile back. google it.
people are always asking for simple answers to complex questions. i deal with it all the time. the pr people are always like: \"in laymans terms, is it, or isnt it?\"
and im always like \" maybe, but...\" research is tough, and it gets done a \'lil at a time. there is never a simple, obveous, answer, just clues, and more clues, and more, until you\'re burried in them. years or decades of work can go in to a 3 page paper, on a seemingly rediculously specific topic. oh, and there will be scrutiny, so watch (your) tounge....
if i was asked about global warming, as a professional scientist, i would say: \"it seems likely, however, we cant be certain,\" because im accountable.
if you asked me personally, however, i would say: \"yes, its happening, and yes, its a problem\"
screw the planet, lets save OUR asses.
i love our planet for a number of reasons...lets call them, collectively, intrinsic value.
people might not understand the value of beauty, so ill go simpler. we need it to live, our children need it to live, 7th generation rule and all that jazz.
you could argue that the we aren\'t in an environmental crisis, yet. probably because people arent dying. my experience is that people dont consider problems problems...until the sky actually does fall.
the environment on our planet changes, thats not in doubt (hell, there was almost no oxygen in the air as recently as 1.7 bya).
we are undoubtedly changing our atmospheric environment. we have proof, ive read hundreds of research papers on the topic. the degree is argueable, but that we are is not. if environmental papers dont do it for you, how about the blackened lungs of city-dwellers, and the curtain of smog that hangs over most industrial cities? you can see that stuff, and its bad for you.
so do we ignore it until it is a real crisis for humans, not just organisms that you probably dont care about, or do we work on it now? how valuable are the lives of our great great great great great great great grandchildren? less than a tax? less than funding for more proof? less than heightened emissions standards? is our greed that powerful? is the idea of our own fallibilty that dangerous?
\"im sure god will fix it (but it aint broke).\"
even if its only a remote possibility that we are destroying our planet, shouldnt we do something about it?
we shit a brick at the thought of an arab guy blowing up a cafe. we spend billions on antiterrorism to combat something that might happen. we hear about global warming, and the possible death of our planet (for us), and instead of being proactive, we deny it. end of days?
want to talk impact? lets start small: jet contrails.
fluff article
the real stuff
i could link stuff all day, but i doubt anyone will read it.
id like you all to keep in mind, though, that its not just global warming, but global climate change that is the concern. i posted a neat article on \"global dimming\" awhile back. google it.
you say you took a number of post-secondary science classes, and yet you highlight THEORY as if to somehow invalidate it?
The HUGE difference between fluctuations of the past, and the current climate change is that there\'s godamn apes everywhere, stinkin up the godamn planet with their greenhouse gases, like there NEVER WAS BEFORE. Once again, if you disagree with the numbers that I\'m throwing arbitrarily out there, don\'t let me stop you from edumacating yourself on the issue. Far easier to debate it that way.
I am not one to be told what to think and what to \"believe,\" especially in science. I try to be as openminded as possible. Despite my rather sarcastic post above, I have absoutely nothing invested in \"believing\" the science of climate change. It is neither a crutch nor a religion to me. I simply accept the research, while you do not. It astounds me when people accept the validity of the scientific method when something agrees with their political ideologies, and do not when it disagrees.
This whole thing reminds me of the evolution vs. creation debate. I\'m sure you know which side I\'m on.
@vikey: I get ya, but I was trying to say that comparing the earth\'s atmosphere to mars is a hard thing to do. They have different compositions, and different variables effecting them. Humans are a huge difference, for example. And once again, it\'s hard to correlate the retreat and warming of mars and its ice caps with earth\'s, considering it only matches up for about 20 years of a 140+ warming trend on earth. The sun is one variable that we happen to have in common, to be sure. Yeah.
@farseerlum: yes, methane is about 20 times more effective in its ability to trap infrared. But of course, it has an average lifetime in the atmostphere of about 12 years (it breaks down really quickly when it\'s exposed to tropospheric hydroxide free radicals.) CO2, on the other hand, is in FAR greater concentrations in the atmosphere, and can stay in the atmosphere as long as 200 years. A lot of the shit in our air hearkens back to the days of yore (ie. early industrial revolution).
On a molecule to molecule basis, methane (and NO2 for that matter) are far worse. In terms of the actual warming effect, CO2 is the main culprit.
EDIT: Listen to Funnymouth, not me.
