Re:Just saying
Monday, November 30 2009 @ 03:19 AM CST

Just sayin though !!

Re:Just saying
Monday, November 30 2009 @ 08:53 AM CST

This whole thing is ridiculous.Cutting carbon emissions will destroy all of the plant life on earth. If anything we need more CO2.

Re:Just saying
Monday, November 30 2009 @ 08:54 AM CST

Re:Just saying
Monday, November 30 2009 @ 02:21 PM CST

The entire debate over global warming is extremely interesting. It doesn't help when scandals like the current one are interjected. It does not take much for the public to be swayed based on singular events. It is certainly possible that there are "bad" scientists, just as there are bad people in all other walks of life... but to paint the issue with a broad brush based solely on one group of scientists is a bit too convenient.

I should also point out that the scientific community DOES NOT like to be duped... historically those who perpetrate fraud are viewed in a very negative light (e.g. University of Utah 'Cold Fusion' pioneers / Bell Labs organic electronics 'guru' Schon). The idea of a mass conspiracy on the part of a single branch of science is hard to fathom, based on the constant refinement/improvement of data gathering techniques and instrumentation, the long term chances of getting away with perpetrating scientific fraud are likely to be exceedingly low.

I find it comical when people are skeptical but cannot provide any evidence as to why they are skeptical.

I also find it comical when people take things at blind faith and defend global warming without making any effort to understand or research the issue itself.

Drawing decisions without taking a hard look at the primary source data is ludicrous. How many people in this thread (or elsewhere) have read any of the initial manuscripts that the current theories are based on? I'd venture to say very few.

So then we are left to draw conclusions and opinions based on a dilution (or even re-interpretation) of the actual scientific data. On both sides you have reporters/columnists/geniuses/hacks/political pundits who may not even understand the data in the first place, adding their own slant to it to satisfy their own agendas...

But in terms of the big picture... it is a murky subject and extremely difficult to draw firm conclusions. There are SOOO many variables that constructing convincing models is, well, exceedingly difficult. There is no doubt that celestial bodies undergo cyclical changes in climate, as Chalchas has pointed out. But that doesn't mean that there aren't other factors at play.

For me, I look at the basic chemistry involved - it is a fact that radiation from the sun/space hits the surface of the earth and a portion of it is reflected as IR radiation. It is a fact that CO2 can absorb this radiation, and when it does so, it is manifest as localized heating. Translating this into a real world model is difficult though... because you have to account for the changes to the atmosphere in terms of the relative concentrations of the various gases present, diffusion of these gases on a planetwide basis, plus you need to be able to account for the transmission characteristics of the atmosphere (how much radiation is getting through, how is that transmission affected by particulate in the atmosphere), etc, etc.

I also look at the money involved.... who benefits the most from a pro-global warming or anti-global warming agenda? To me it seems likely that the bigger money would be on the anti-global warming side of things. The journal Science (one of the most respected peer-reviewed scientific journals in the world) published findings on a review of nearly 1000 scientific manuscripts dealing with climate change between 1993 and 2003 and found that there was nearly 100% concensus on global warming. That was of course before Exxon, Mobil, and the like began offering grant money for consenting views, so the numbers would undoubtedly be different if surveyed now. The British lab under scrutiny also undoubtedly contributed manuscripts that were included in the 2004 Science survey, so these would also need to be called into question.

There is a lot to digest. What I would ask of people is to take a look at the primary hard data if possible and draw their own conclusions from that, rather than from some talking head on tv or radio (regardless of which stance they support). I'm still not totally sure which side I come out supporting - I need to do a lot more reading and evaluating myself.

Mason

Finally I would add: Whether or not climate change is a result of man's activities is irrelevant. If there are trends that portend future impact on mankind's safety and survival, they need to be addressed. Much like if an asteroid were hurtling on a collision course towards earth, we would need to make plans to do something about it, even if mankind wasn't responsible for placing that asteroid on its current trajectory.

Re:Just saying
Monday, November 30 2009 @ 04:11 PM CST

In a hundred years time, assuming there is still a human race, we will be viewing the large scale use of fossil fuels as the greatest mistake we ever made.

As to the argument that human activity is not affecting global climate change, I say we've been contributing for thousands of years; for instance, the Sahara desert is large enough that if it were covered in jungle, the difference would be subtle but measurable world-wide. That area became desert when Mediterranean countries used all the trees to build navies. The old Babylonian empire was huge and green (massive irrigation allowing them to replace forest with fields). Ten years after they pissed off Ghengis, the whole area was desert (no-one left to tend to the irrigation) - again, I reckon a subtle, but probably measurable, change to world climate as a result.

The primary reason for the denial of our part in climate change is that Big Business is afraid for its' profits and is using every scummy trick in the book to prevent us realising that we must change our ways or die.

Re:Just saying
Monday, November 30 2009 @ 05:01 PM CST

Quote by: VicDiesel What? There is no science to support your point of view? Those damn crickets.

Before we go any further with this thing, let me just say that I love the whole 'crickets' refrain (I honestly do). I often despair at the earnest humorlessness of contemporary political activists: it's become all too common to be unironic and thin-skinned and ready to dispense some dismal homily about 'big-picture' issues, blah blah blah..... Yecchh!
Your crickets, though, are a bracing rejoinder; very antagonistic and funny. I'm an unabashed fan!

But getting back to it: your call for the scientific evidence that refutes the MMGW claim is silly. This is not a peer-review science website. Refutations of the magnitude you're calling for would only serve to confound any attempt at conversation. If I did happen to have some science that might serve my cause, it would be quickly dismissed as having "no bona fide credentials" anyway, so the whole conceit is absurd.

But, I'll bite: I will reluctantly forget about all the non-scientific chicanery those emails revealed, and assume global warming is not a cyclical phenomenon, but an ever-increasing trend. In that case, what is the government (or even the UN) going to do to fix it? What carbon removal plans are afoot to cleanse the atmosphere of all the crap we've thrown into it? Are there any plans to do that? Or are there only plans to permit production in certain parts of the world at the expense of others? Are there only plans to limit the kind of cars everybody (excluding, of course, those heroes who sounded the alarm) can use? Are there only plans to tax and limit and tax some more?

What recourse will we have if it all turns out to be a normal cyclical event, and not a man-made catastrophe? Will I be expected to take comfort in your assurance that it 'might have been a lot worse'?

Re:Just saying
Monday, November 30 2009 @ 05:30 PM CST

So I Googled "crickets" and "global warming" together, and.....................

Crickets May Predict Human Survivability During Global Warming

Re:Just saying
Monday, November 30 2009 @ 06:49 PM CST

Quote by: rover101 In a hundred years time, assuming there is still a human race, we will be viewing the large scale use of fossil fuels as the greatest mistake we ever made..

Had we not made use of fossil fuel, I would propose that that you wouldn't have a MAC, nor I a PC and this discussion would be moot. It could have been a good thing (for the global environment), remaining in the dark ages with no advent to the Industrial Age. Even with a lack of all of the by-products we take for granted that are derived from "fossil fuel" (resources), like power, communications, medicine, heat, plastics, computing, detergents etc., etc. ad-nauseam, the world would presumably be better off, and scientific advances founded and propelled by the discoveries related to fossil resources would never have occurred, including the political science of Global Warming.

And I'm so glad you mentioned trees. Had mankind not "advanced" to the brink of it's own terminal destiny based on its usage of fossil resources, we could have continued with our own destruction via methods including warfare, pillage, genocide and mass extermination of forests and other resources to fuel a slower burning flame of extermination of planet Earth, or perhaps only just mankind.

Re:Just saying
Monday, November 30 2009 @ 07:05 PM CST

Quote by: Rocha Malhada Had we not made use of fossil fuel, I would propose that that you wouldn't have a MAC, nor I a PC and this discussion would be moot.

I'm not sure that that follows. Neither plastics nor micro electronics have much to do with fossil fuels, so the only correlation is with energy. And then it's just an accident of molecular physics that burning stuff is so horrendously exothermal. If the reaction that governs loading and depleting batteries had been different, then we may have had an economy that runs on stored electricity rather than instantly generated through coal/gas power plants.

Victor.

Re:Just saying
Monday, November 30 2009 @ 07:28 PM CST

actually more than just an energy source....

Petrochemical Products Made from Petroleum (Crude Oil)

There are more than 4,000 petrochemical products that are made from petroleum (crude oil).

Here's a list of the most popular and frequently used products:

Artificial Limbs
Bags (garbage bags, shopping bags)
Balloons
Bandaids
Candles
Clothing (polyester, nylon)
Combs
Computers, calculators
Crayons
Credit Cards
Dishwashing Liquids
Disposable Diapers
Eye Glasses, Sunglasses
Fertilizers
Fishing Rods
Flooring (linoleum, tiles, carpets)
Garden Hose
Hand Lotion, Cream, Petroleum Jelly
Helmets (bicycle, hockey, etc.)
Heart Valves
Helmets (bicycle, hockey, etc.)
Insect Repellent
Insecticides
Life Jackets
Milk Jugs
Paint Brushes
Panty Hose
Parachutes
Patio Furniture
Pens
Perfume
Rope (nylon)
Safety Glass
Shampoo
Shower Curtains, Shower Doors
Soft Contact Lenses
Soft Drink Bottles, Plastic Bottles
Tape (clear, masking, etc.)
Tapes - (cassettes, vcr tapes)
Telephones
Tennis rackets
Tents
Toys, Dolls, Model Cars
Tires (synthetic rubber)
Toothbrushes, Toothpaste Tubes
Trash Bags
TV Cabinets
Umbrellas
Unbreakable Dishes
Waterproof Jackets, Boots, Pants

from another site:
Computer chips – Ink – Paint brushes – Telephones – Insecticides – Motorcycle helmets – Clothing – Tents – Shoes – Glue – Skis – Hand lotion – CDs – Rubbing alcohol – Credit cards – Crayons – Toilet seats – House paint – Movie film – Disposable diapers – Upholstery – Garden hose – Umbrellas – Milk jugs – Bandages – Antihistamines – Nail polish – Perfume – Luggage – Ballpoint pens – Aspirin – Carpet – Toys – Pesticides