What do you do to fight global warming?

[MardiGrasBandit]

Link removed


You can help make a difference! Help me help the Earth!

Global Warming is an undisputed fact in the scientific community. The Earth is getting hotter thanks to our abuse of the environment. If we don't come together to reverse our self destructive course, we face a future that is more then bleak, it is devastating. Inspired by Al Gore's message of hope in his Oscar winning film An Inconvenient Truth and the wisdom he imparted in his amazing Live Earth concerts, I have decided to sell the rights to my energy consumption and waste production for the next three months. With the first $10 bid I will endeavor to reduce my ecological footprint by 10%. For each $10 after that I will work to reduce my footprint by 2%, up to the maximum of a 50% reduction in the damage I inflict on our environment.

Why should you bid? Let me tell you about myself. I think of myself as an average person in terms of energy use and waste production, in other words, I'm terrible for the environment. I have looked over my lifestyle and realized there is so much I can do to make a positive change for this world, and I am ready to do everything I can. Unfortunately, it is not easy to do this. Changing my life will require much effort on many fronts; my home, my work, and changing the lives of those around me. Your money will help me finance the efforts I will make and help to reduce the ecological footprint I inflict on the environment.

What you get:

-Bi-weekly e-mail updates letting you know what I have done to improve my lifestyle, and environmentally friendly tips on how you can do the same.

-If the winning bid is over $100, you will receive an autographed copy of An Inconvenient Truth, your choice of book or DVD. If the winning bid is over $200, you will receive both!

-Should I publish a book or star in a movie about this adventure in helping the planet, you will receive a percentage of the proceeds that matches the percentage you paid me to reduce my ecological footprint.

-A clear conscience and the satisfaction of knowing you have helped make a difference in all of our futures!
I urge you all to bid! Even if you don't, be sure to show all your friends! Together we can make a difference!

This is my contribution to saving the planet. I already have a bid (don't worry, it's not too late for you to win)! What do you all do to help improve our environment?

[No Surrender]

All right folks. The purpose of this thread is not to discuss whether MardiGrasBandit's plan will work but what you do or could do to fight the spectre of global warming. Please, not "LOL, THAT'S STUPID" posts please.

[SquidDNA]

Seeing as a fair number of people on in the community are unconvinced that there's even a warming trend, let alone a warming trend influenced by human behavior, this thread might be more tumultuous than you may expect.

I expect that
1) Given a global warming trend is influenced by CO2 emissions
2) the more responsible and more industrialized nations manage to control their emissions
3 the up and coming developing nations are going to make up for it.

[severijn]

http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/images/dilbert21222010070618.gif
http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/images/dilbert2061101070619.gif
http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/images/dilbert2004073470620.gif

Well, if you want to know what you can do to limit your CO2 output you can as is easily imaginable extremely far: stop driving your car and share one with others or use the public transportation system more, stop drinking carbonated drinks, buy fresh food instead of food frozen with CO2 etc.

Unfortunatly, you'll find out that your efforts are wasted as the largest part of the population will not relinquish the comfort given by those CO2 contributing factors, using the "what is more likely"-theory. Therefore, you're only fooling yourself to believe your actions actually will change anything at all, as the entire point was that everyone changed(hooray for unattainable ideals!).

Finally, I'd like to point out that in one outburst, a volcano of average size will produce enough CO2 to dwarf all our efforts, and even dwarf our CO2 output. And all of this is assuming the theory is actually not a convenient way to create jobs for scientists and try to halt china's dangerously fast economic expansion.

[SquidDNA]

Stop drinking carbonated drinks? Are you serious?

[Energizer Bunny]

My sole real contribution is that I am always pretty diligent about switching things off when I'm not using them (i.e. not leaving TV's on standby and the like). I really have no idea why I do this - there certainly isn't a voice in the back of my head screaming about global warming.

The other thing (and I'm not really sure if this counts) is that I drive my car very little and tend to use public transport instead. Beyond that I'm afraid I really don't do much.

[Logga]

I encourage people to not eat baked beans because they taste bad and are not helping the planet :D

[Nurizeko]

Lets see, what do I do to fight global warming.

Well....I recycle, thats proven to be an extremely efficient beneficial way to stop climate change, right?...oh wait...


Um....I get halfway annoyed when my mother used to cut the lawn in the middle of summer when the daisies were pushing through, I mean, who would take a beautiful garden lawn green with white drops of daisy flower all over the place, and then ruin it with a lawn mower cutting the grass almost to the roots?.

Thats greenism isn't it?...


UUh...hmmm.....I grow cacti as a half-hobby, its important we have a large and stable population of succulents when the mean mean sun bakes the earth into one expansive desert that we all apparently must fear.


Um...I often note to my friends and family how last summer it was the hottest on record and this time we've been lucky to have 5 good days of decent sunshine going, the below average temperatures and increased amount of rain, raising awareness is half the battle!.


hmm, what do I do?...

Not much TBH, but then, I don't own a big belching factory that needs to be made environmentally friendlier, I don't run the industry of any of the polluting nations, I'm not chairman of a multinational cooperation with in-efficient un-green policies.

I suppose I could go live in a cave with nothing but dirt for clothing like my ancient forefathers, but in that situation, TB bluntly honest, if I have to chose between caveman lifestyle and a warmer planet, I'll take the warmer planet, and I'de probably still get fined for farting emissions and camp-fire pollution.


Oh and the original post is basically an advertisement, spam...is that allowed here now?...

[Nanolathe]

I'd like to point out that in one outburst, a volcano of average size will produce enough CO2 to dwarf all our efforts, and even dwarf our CO2 output.Completely wrong. Yes in one burst it sends quite a lot of CO2 but few volcanoes erupt Every Day. We push out much much more... just over a longer time frame.

I don't drive, I try and recycle most things, My TV is hardly used at all and I switch off my lights... I am illuminated only by the warm loving glow of my PC Monitor :D.

[severijn]

Well, if you are determined to lower your CO2 output...drinking less carbonated drinks will help, even though the amount of output generated by that is infinitesimal. When brought in the right perspective, most if not all of the things you could do to lower it are relatively infinitesimal.

If you ask me, it's more of an ideology than something actually practical. The guidelines I gave are because of that nothing more than ways to silence your conscience.

Oh, and about the volcano, I meant that as it produces enough to be equal to many years of CO2 output from humans.

[Nanolathe]

Con-sci-ence? What is this "Con-sci-ence" you speak of?

Also: Where do you get your 'facts' about CO2 output?
It's very simple. Natural CO2 emmisions have been around for billions of years and there is absolutely nothing we can do about those. Our form of pollution has only been around for a few hundred years, and staggeringly we are now running out of Oil to pollute with... doesn't that tell you anything?

[SquidDNA]

severijn, where does the CO2 that goes into carbonated drinks come from?

[Nanolathe]

Surprisingly enough Squid it is compressed out of... AIR!
Therefore balancing out the amount we put in compared to the amount we let out...

of course we have to use machinery to compress it and that uses up fuel... but it isn't actually the CO2 in the drinks we need to worry about. :D

*Opens a can of Coca-Cola* Cheers!

[Nurizeko]

I try and recycle most things

I may be wrong but, wouldn't recycling plants basically undo all the effort put into recycling by their emissions?.

*shrugs*


If you ask me, it's more of an ideology than something actually practical. The guidelines I gave are because of that nothing more than ways to silence your conscience.

Lucky for me it doesn't really bother my conscience.

My main point with this main stream environmentalism lark is the gimmicks, the fad like nature of it, the fanatical nutjob like nature of the extremity, the illogical unreasonable stupidity of some peoples "green solutions", the irrational fear of modern nuclear power, using rock bands to "raise awareness" of something were already aware of, and causing no small amount of pollution and wasted energy to boot, and finally, this foolish notion that somehow its up to every middle class family who wants to keep up with the Jones' to save the planet by buying a silly little arm-band, and do cute little things to be greener, and this carbon trading lol-factory, even while we continue to blatantly waste energy and resources, China is churning out more industrial pollution every day, we still can't make any significant dents on our own, and all our apparent hard work can be undone by a days worth of east Asian emissions.

If climate change is a human created and human controllable phenomenon, then we should be able to do better then Madonna singing another one of her dusty dated songs that fell out of vogue years ago on a stage flashing with lights and screens, and all the other wastes of time and energy that was put into it.

:bunny:

[Nanolathe]

I may be wrong but, wouldn't recycling plants basically undo all the effort put into recycling by their emissions?.

*shrugs*Depends what you are recycling. Aluminium is extraordinarily costly to mine and refine and yet much simpler and cost efficient to recycle.

And what happens when we dig up all the Aluminium, Oil, etc? you just gonna make some more? Good luck with your Alchemy.

[severijn]

I could just go ahead and ask what makes you so certain that the people who told you about global warming are right, considering you probably never did peer to peer studies or any other way to validate them, rather than just taking their word because they're scientist. And as we all know, they're always right.

Rather than doing just that and starting the beginning of the end of this thread, I'd say I read it in my Belgian geology books, thus also not doing peer to peer studies and just taking their word for it, because in reality, I don't really care about the volcano's output. Rather than that, I'd look at other factors contributing to global warming, like other gasses, such as the hydrogen that the ocean releases, and then I'd use logic and ask myself if we actually really matter when compared against an ocean taking up 70% of the world.

Anyways, even with all that in mind, my understanding of science will not allow me to really be zealous about either way of this argument. Right now, some scientist claim that the world is coming to an end. This has happened before, like say the fear for another ice age earlier.
Fortunatly, with science, eventually scientists will be able to say it for sure, and untill that time, the best thing to do is just wait untill that happens.

So I'd suggest we don't start the entire argument about which side is correct, because by waiting a little longer(when all scientist get to a consensus), we'll get to see which side is right.

The main point I actually tried to show here is that to really make a difference according to the current theory, is that we all should change, and that's a nice ideal. Like all ideals, it'll never happen, so why should we bother?

In the end, the state of the world is not really my responsibility anyways.

EDIT: Oh, right squid, sorry.

[Nanolathe]

In the end, the state of the world is not really my responsibility anyways.
**I am apologising in advance for the one word answer here**

Wow.

Now if only everyone had this attitude... oh wait we're close enough already. Excellent.

The Human race doesn't deserve to survive the next global catastrophe. I hope we all die... Soon. The planet will be much better off.

[jorulius]

Well I do think becoming less wasteful and more efficient is always a good thing, but I fail to see how this will stop global warming since there are so many factors contributing to it. Human activity being just one of them. Also all these rockstars and the like who suddenly become experts on the matter, ugh, they seriously get on my nerves.

[severijn]

If you don't mind me asking, what makes the state of the world your responsibility, nanolathe?

[Illiandri2]

I am energy efficient in most manners. I recycle, i tend to switch off electrical devices and do most things that help reduce my foot print. The only fault of mine is that i have a passion for cars. Thus i tend to drive alot,although in an energy efficient one, but i have redeemed myself by taking part in building a solar car for England.

It is indeed true that we as single people can do nearly nothing to reduce CO2 emmisions but as a mass we can. Big coorporations have decided to look into alternative energy sources and invest in them. But again that is not the problem but i fear i might be going into a rant so i will stop here.

[Energizer Bunny]

His point is that it is all our responsibility, not his specifically.

[Moe]

Well, being an environmentally conscious person I turn off the lights in the lab when I go to lunch. Of course that still leaves the 55,000 Watt laser power transformer running, which uses up as much power as 1,000 light bulbs, but hey.

[Starfisher]

I trawl the internets looking for promising alternative energy companies to invest in.

I haven't found any yet.

This sucks.

Moe we need you to create an OMGLOL LASER that hits a OMGYELLOWBALL and makes free energy. I know you can do it! Try not to destroy the city too many times.

[Nanolathe]

Thank you Energizer. That was exactly my point :)
The sort of non-caring attitude of people like Severijn is exactly the reason the world is going to hell in a hand basket. (Well that's what I think anyway) Unfortunately that sort of attitude seams to be the prevailing trend in the world today. :(

[Starfisher]

That's the way everyone has always thought. It's not new nor is it surprising. Generally, the activist/crusader mindset is the outlier, not the "leave me alone and let me make a living" mindset.

My pet theory is that only very deluded or sheltered folk manage to make it into adulthood with a crusading mindset. Everyone else outgrows it or is forced into reality by way of having to provide for a family, hold down a job, etc.

The world doesn't need saving. Humans need a new primary energy source. Mixing the two up doesn't get you anywhere.

[Vakarian]

People are so used to the way they live i.e cars PCs central heating, that many arn't prepared to sacrifice. A much better way is to create new technology that when we consumers use won't gank the planet, everyone wins then.

[CwnAnwnn]

Seeing as a fair number of people on in the community are unconvinced that there's even a warming trend, let alone a warming trend influenced by human behavior, this thread might be more tumultuous than you may expect.

Global warming is a fact. If you're not a leading scientist with acess to real data you should stop spending so much time forming your "opinions" and more time reading.


I have every outlet in my home on a powerstrip and i cut them off when i leave.

buy a car with high MPG or ride a bike.

don't throw away and waste so much stuff.

in the end it will take major change from Govs. to fix the problem, but its good to be part of the solution.

The Relic forums are made up of people with many diverse beliefs, if you wish to disagree, you are free to. However, do so in a way that does not insult other people with name calling. The offending parts of your post have been deleted.
Thanks
-No Surrender

[Energizer Bunny]

My pet theory is that only very deluded or sheltered folk manage to make it into adulthood with a crusading mindset. Everyone else outgrows it or is forced into reality by way of having to provide for a family, hold down a job, etc.

That's absolutely true. Realism is aged optimism.

[Moe]

People are so used to the way they live i.e cars PCs central heating, that many arn't prepared to sacrifice

Yeah see you're not supposed to sacrifice them. You're not being asked to start living in the stone age, but maybe you use energy saving light bulbs and a car that doesn't get three miles per gallon.

[norfolknclue]

I would argue that global warming is undisputed. There are very real scientists who do indeeed dispute the global warming theory. There are facts that support it, but there are also facts that don't - it's just the support structure that you choose to interpret those facts, and that's the part that's in dispute.

However, in order to do my bit, I've just bought a 3.2litre V6 sports car.

[Dr. Awesome]

Every one can help prevent climate change in the way we're doing now, the question is will it be enough? Environmentalism, now, for most people, is little more than a fashion statement, we just hope it's one that people don't tire of quickly. It should be a life-long commitment, the goal at the centre of every community, part of the global mentality. As for basic household measures, I think people should put more emphasis on reduction rather than recycling, to me it's just a way of living exactly as you always do whilst feeling less guilty. The main way to prevent climate change is by using less generally, and recycling that which you can't live without.
As for me, I spend my life in one room, in front of one appliance with my mice and cacti, helping with the gardening occasionally, not eating a lot, and recycling, though I'd like to do more.

[Guilliman]

I don't plan to get a drivers licence. Thats what I do. I don't see the point in getting it and spend to much on a car and gas for it. I'd rather wait a bit more and use the public transportation untill a good clean car is cheap to buy (cheaper then they are now)

[Moe]

There are very real scientists who do indeeed dispute the global warming theory

Writing a thesis paper that blatantly misinterprets facts because you're being paid to do so doesn't make you a "real scientist". Additionally, there are also "very real scientists" who believe in UFOs, Jetis, perpetuum mobiles, mind control, and that Einstein's theory is a conspiracy by the government.

Global warming or more accurately climate change isn't something you believe or don't believe in depending on how you interpret the data. It's something that's happening.

[norfolknclue]

Ok, maybe I should rephrase that. The global temperature is rising - of that there is little doubt. However, there are no concrete fact which can link what we do to the fact it is happening. I accept that we have an effect, but whether we are the main cause is something that is up for debate.

In other news, I have switched to electricity suppliers that guarantee they get a portion of their power (I think it's around 30%) from renewable resources (wind, solar wave etc), and am currently investigating ways to put power back into the grid via photovoltaic energy.

What does worry me though is that the energy (and resources) required to produce such alternative energy sources (i.e. the oil and nasty chemicals required to produce said solar cells, wind farms (not to mention the general way they ruin the landscape)) will never equal the energy they save.

It's interesting this came up on a gaming site too, where no doubt most people's rigs are using at least a 500W power supply and with the advent of SLi, Corssfire and now triple cossfire, PC's are reaching the point where 1Kw power suplies will be needed. Add this into the production processes for all the circuit boards, chips etc, and the general throwaway culture that chip companies rely upon to stay in business (the constant upgrade path etc etc), and none of us are 'carbon positive' to use fashionable phrase.

That 'Live earth' bugged me too. All that power used in lighting rigs and sound systems, plus people's cars to get to the gig would surely have been better if it hadn't have been done.

[Troubleshooter]

Global warming or more accurately climate change isn't something you believe or don't believe in depending on how you interpret the data. It's something that's happening.But the cause is still very much in debate. The cause is all that matters, really. The bottom line is that the Earth has and will continue to go through changes, but the question is, does Humanity have its thumb on the scales of climate change. More to the point, can man affect climate change? If we can affect it, then the question becomes, should we affect it?

The prevailing dogma is that we can, we are, and we are headed toward a major disaster unless we take positive action to reverse our impact. I still dont buy it. Theres lots of people that dont. But I am willing to entertain the possibilty that I am wrong and take prudent measures to mitigate human impact until there is a conclusive link to humanity and climate change, and then a viable solution to how we can take afirmative control of the climate... or we rule ourselves out of it and go about our merry way.

Then ofcourse you have to determine what climate you want and terraform the earth to that spec. This will be a rather humorous debate in climate democratization as the countries that ring the arctic will have an economic interest in exploiting their natrural resources :D

[Inst]

Fighting global warming is like a bicyclist trying to outrun a tank http://www.zonaeuropa.com/20050522_5.jpg. It's too late. Inevitably, water levels will rise and the climate will change, and all of this will be significant. THe question is by what degree.

[Vaarok]

Only a few thousand years ago the land where I live was under two miles of ice sheet. A degree in a century is not convincing evidence.

[Starfisher]

You can't expect anyone to take you seriously if you think reducing 40 years of research into a single non-comprehensive sentence is convincing.

[Moe]

I still dont buy it. Theres lots of people that dont.

My problem with that kind of statement is that the "lots of people who don't" mostly know jack shit about environmental physics. This is like me saying "I don't buy this whole genetics crap" without having the first clue about it.

Your beliefs are your own, but saying "I don't buy it" without actually understanding it makes you seem rather foolish.


What does worry me though is that the energy (and resources) required to produce such alternative energy sources (i.e. the oil and nasty chemicals required to produce said solar cells, wind farms (not to mention the general way they ruin the landscape)) will never equal the energy they save.

That's not true. Yes, solar cells aren't very efficient right now, but there are several things wrong with your statement.

-"will never equal"? There's research being done. New technologies are usually pretty inefficient in the beginning, they have to be refined and revised and improved.
-wind power plants are actually quite efficient. The energy cost for building one is offset rather quickly. They do ruin the landscape, but you can place them offshore for example. There's also the question of how much an oil power plant would ruin any landscape...

[norfolknclue]

There's also a high environmental cost with producing PV cells, which I forgot to include and instead rashly lumped in with the 'energy' word I used.

The energy cost for the constuction of a propellor system is quite high I'd say: Creation of cement and concrete (plus the attendant chemical cost/pollution), the diesel of all the heavy equipment required to build the supporting column, the motor itself, and the propellers, which are no doubt made of some high grade poly-carbon material which requires oil to make.

Be interesting to see exactly how long they take to recoup the entire construction cost with regards to their lifespan (which seems to be about 20 years). I suspect analysis that takes into account all factors does not exist.

[dreddnott]

Inst is basically correct, there's nothing this current generation (or the next few) can do to reverse global warming by reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

In fact, it might take up to one hundred thousand years for CO2 levels to reach their pre-industrial level if humanity ceased to exist. Frankly I think the Earth has been taking it rather well.

Things I have done for "the planet":

Drove the wheels off of a 50MPG car (my current vehicle (http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g54/dreddnott/cabrio2.jpg) gets a sinful 30MPG, tops)
Worked for a computer recycling warehouse for a year

My pet project however is spreading awareness about the biodiversity of harvester ants in the High Desert -with the Pogonomyrmex genus being displaced by Linepithema humile and Solenopsis invicta, the local horny toads have no food source and are fast disappearing. This is something tangible that people can really get into and actually make a difference doing.

[norfolknclue]

30 MPG! pah! I get about 10 if I drive it hard. 28 if I drive as nicely as possible.

[BlackLabel]

I dont belive in cars...i only ride my skateboard/bike...i buy local food...i mean...what else ? Oh, and i try to get a job at a firm that produces solar pannels...:awesome:

[Troubleshooter]

Your beliefs are your own, but saying "I don't buy it" without actually understanding it makes you seem rather foolish.Is it not true in reverse?

Do people who "buy into" AGW without knowing the environmental physics also come off as foolish?

Also, you are making an assumption about my level of knowlege on the subject based on my position regarding that subject. Thats kind of a hallmark of bias. :-\

[Cyberbob]

Do people who "buy into" AGW without knowing the environmental physics also come off as foolish?

The difference is, my dear Trouble, is that the scientists who attempt to debunk AGW do so by twisting the facts & figures something nasty.

If someone could be called a fool for buying into anything they didn't understand, then we're all a pack of loons - because I'm pretty sure that nobody understands the science behind everything we do or use.

[Troubleshooter]

The difference is, my dear Trouble, is that the scientists who attempt to debunk AGW do so by twisting the facts & figures something nasty.Thats not always true either. There are plenty of honest people on the other side who are simply persuing their own discipline of science which leads them to climate change theory that makes AGW impact shrink to near insignificance.

Making AGW into a political/economic issue has turned the science and debate about that science into a football. Some people on both sides see advancement of their particular POV more important than getting it right. Throw in a dash of FUD to cement your backers to your cause and watch the whole thing polarize into a stagnant mess.... :(

Its gotten to the point that if you take a position of "I dont know" you are deemed a flat-earther with not ability to reason your way out of a paper bag.

[Moe]

Be interesting to see exactly how long they take to recoup the entire construction cost with regards to their lifespan (which seems to be about 20 years). I suspect analysis that takes into account all factors does not exist.

There are turbines nowadays that comfortably churn out about 2 Megawatts. Let's say there's only wind 50% of the time (which is a very conservative estimate as they're usually built in windy places), so their net yield is 1 MW. That's 1 million joules per second or 86.4 Gigajoule per day. A year has 365.25 days, which translates to 35.5 terajoules of energy per year. A 20 year lifecycle then means around 700 terajoules of energy generated in total. I couldn't find anything on the amount required to build a turbine, but 700 terajoules is quite a lot of energy: it's the equivalent of almost 170 kilotons of TNT or the energy released by a small strategic thermonuclear warhead.


Also, you are making an assumption about my level of knowlege on the subject based on my position regarding that subject. Thats kind of a hallmark of bias.

No, I'm making an assumption about your level of knowledge based on the content of your posts. As for people "buying into" global warming, well, there's a difference between "these guys do this for a living and they say this is how it is, and I believe them because I have no reason not to" and "these guys do this for a living and they say this is how it is, yet I choose to not believe them because uhm... yeah I think they're wrong".

[norfolknclue]

That's precisely the point Cyberbob. There is no direct evidence in either direction.

[Noble]

Maybe you guys should start discussing the causes, or lack thereof, of global warming rather than trading stereotypes with one another. Personally, after doing a bit of reading on the subject, human causation seems very feasible to me.

Correlation certainly isn't causation, but it is enough to make us raise an eyebrow. It is true that an increase in temperature alone is not proof that humans have caused such an increase. However, CO2 concentrations are higher than they have been in the last 650,000 years. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and CH4 have increased by %31 and %141 since the year 1750. It is at this point that we begin to see a warming trend. We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

We know the earth is warming up. We know that we have drastically increased the atmospheric concentrations of a gas that will cause the earth to warm up if the concentrations are high enough. We know that the warming trend began around the time of the industrial revolution, which is when we started pumping CO2 (among other things) into the air. This isn't enough to prove that we have caused the warming of the earth, but it is enough to form a sound theory.

[Cyberbob]

their own discipline of science
:lol:

You've just confirmed my argument, you know?

-Edit-


That's precisely the point Cyberbob. There is no direct evidence in either direction.
:wtf:

I suggest you read the relevant posts again.

[norfolknclue]

i'm not doubting your energy calculations there mo, but there's nothing there to include the process of creating the concrete (which is particularly energy intensive) etc, dragging the oil out of the ground to power the earth moving equipment. I have no doubt that if you merely take into account the creation of the motor, then yes, it will claw back it's cost in well, I dunno, a few years. Do you see what I'm getting at?

Also, I think the 50% figure is a little out. According to the British Wind Energy Authority, "A modern wind turbine produces electricity 70-85% of the time, but it generates different outputs depending on the wind speed. Over the course of a year, it will typically generate about 30% of the theoretical maximum output. This is known as its load factor."

Understand I'm not against wind power, or renewable energy at all, on the contrary, it is our only means to keep on growing as a race, before we pollute ourselves to death, it's just that current technology is not ideal.

I don't understand that comment about readin the relevant posts. What I'm trying to say that there are people who analyse science and statistics for a living who say we caused global warming, and there are those who analyse science and statistics for a living who say we are not the main cause of global warming, there are still other climate scientists who say 'global warming' is even the wrong terminology. There is a huge amount of dispute about even the terminology in the scientific press.

Just because CO2 causes global warming is the commonly held view doesn't necessarily make it so.

Galileo was nearly killed for radical science. The scientific establishment is not always correct.

[Starfisher]

Oh for fuck's sake. Galileo was nearly killed by the Church, not "the scientific establishment", unless you are cleverly drawing a parallel between a distributed peer review network that is rabidly empirical to a monolithic organization based on dogmatic interpretations of an ancient text. Oh wait, that makes no sense.

The only people claiming that human emissions have nothing to do with global warming are those paid by oil companies or twisting their science. I've yet to see a coherent claim that human emissions have no effect - your statement including the cause "CO2 causes warming" is one flaw, since methane is also a major human product with far more warming potential, and certainly a major contributor to the current trend.

At this point, the only thing I've heard from global warming opponents is "Well, maybe not!". Brilliant argument. Yes, maybe not, skepticism is nice. But you can validly say "Maybe not" about any scientific theory explaining a physical phenomenon. It's a worthless platitude for those who for whatever reason have grown so accustomed to defending one side of this debate that they just can't let it go.

[norfolknclue]

As an aside, I'm not saying any of you are wrong, I'm merely calling for a level of balanced views without just instantly accepting the most commonly held view. It may yet be proved that we are the main cause of the planet's temperature increasing, or it may yet be proved otherwise.

So, yes I am playing devils advocate, but in a way to try and ask people to keep an open mind.

Starfish=case in point.

On that bombshell, I'm off to the pub. See you all later! :)

[Cyberbob]

It may yet be proved that we are the main cause of the planet's temperature increasing, or it may yet be proved otherwise.

Newsflash: It's already been proven that we are.

[dreddnott]

It doesn't matter to us, living right here and now, if we are proven to be the cause - reducing CO2 levels in the atmosphere (and thereby reducing the temperature) by reducing anthropogenic CO2 emissions would take hundreds, if not thousands, of years and cripple the global economy.

The best thing we can do right now is lay the groundwork for -all- alternative energy sources - modern nuclear power is quite a different ballgame than it used to be (95+% of first-run waste can be reprocessed), solar power could easily pay for itself if the economy of scale came into play, and wind power (especially offshore) is a wonderful thing...now, we've just got to figure out how to keep those windmills from killing birds (high-frequency noise generation?).

There are even people out there turning turkey bitz and other trash into fuel...all they need is the time and investment of larger corporations, which seem to be only interested in snuffing adventurous energy entrepreneurs (Who killed the electric car?).

Hybrids are a scam, underperforming when compared to 1980s technology, and modern diesels not available in the United States of America handily leave them in the dust in reliability and efficiency. Plug-in hybrids may be the industry's roundabout, grudging way of admitting that electric vehicles were the Right Thing, but I wouldn't touch one unless it had a diesel generator (multifuel of course) that wasn't coupled to the drivetrain.

[Giant Moth]

One tiny bit that helps, that has definetly been advertised a lot here in Sweden is your energy consumption. Try to minimise it as much as possible. Shut off your lights when you leave, don't have your computer on for 5 years just for the sake of it(unless of course, it's a server). Use energy saving lights in rooms you have lights on for long periods of time. Don't keep unecesery products plugged in all the time. Shut off tv's, monitors, etc.

Every little bit helps.

[MardiGrasBandit]

If climate change is a human created and human controllable phenomenon, then we should be able to do better then Madonna singing another one of her dusty dated songs that fell out of vogue years ago on a stage flashing with lights and screens, and all the other wastes of time and energy that was put into it.
I agree. That's why I have taken the extrodinary step of putting the rights to my energy consumption and waste production up for sale. If you truely feel as you say you do, I await your bid!


I trawl the internets looking for promising alternative energy companies to invest in.
There is no energy like human energy! Remember, if you win my auction, you not only get bi-weekly emails with tips on how to save the Earth, you invest in my publishing/acting future!


People are so used to the way they live i.e cars PCs central heating, that many arn't prepared to sacrifice. A much better way is to create new technology that when we consumers use won't gank the planet, everyone wins then.
This is true. It's very hard to try and make a difference. Luckily, I have given you the option of buying a difference. Even if you don't take my environmentally friendly tips to heart, you can rest assured knowing that you have reduced my ecological footprint by up to 50%! It's like reducing your own with no effort! Imagine how attractive you will appear to others when you tell them what you have done for all of us! You really can't afford not to bid!


Global warming is a fact. If you're not a leading scientist with acess to real data you should stop spending so much time forming your "opinions" and more time reading.
I agree. If you don't believe in the fact of man made global warming, it is even more urgent that you bid at most $99.01 to receive your autographed copy of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth! As a special bonus to our skeptical forum members, use the promotional code RELICFORUM when you win, and if you are unsatisfied I will refund a percentage of your money equal to the percentage reduction you paid me to strive for!

[Flawless]

Personally, I find this discussion rather silly, seeing as no one here is really qualified to talk about the subject. It would be like a group of friends talking about sex, when they are all virgins. You can talk about it, but you haven't experienced it so you don't really know and therefore it's really quite ridiculous.

I'm willing to bet that few here actually have the qualifications to make any sort of arguments, but here's what I have to say to the global warming nay-sayers.

My father is a scientist (but not a climatologist). I brought global warming up with him one day, and he believes in it. Why? He went through a very complex explanation that I didn't really understand, but the main idea of the argument was that climatologists have the data, the training, and the education to analyze such problems, and when almost every single scientist comes up with the same conclusion, you have to just trust them, because they know what they're doing and you don't have a clue. If almost every single scientist believes in a said theory (that is backed up with hard evidence), you might as well accept it as fact because to be honest, they know more than you do.

So when you see people spouting anti global warming theory garbage and gibberish, all they're doing is misconstruing the basic facts and trying to divert your attention away with false studies and facts (intentionally or unintentionally, according to my father) It is totally ignorant to assume that because you read a few "studies", watched a few tv specials that you can now make a judgement on whether global warming is real or not. Please, there is a reason we hire experts.

[Starfisher]

Ok, I'm taking down the link to your auction, since we expressly forbid advertisement. Even advertisement that sounds a lot like manic satire.

[Inst]

I'm not particularly aligned with the objectives of the environmentalist movement. I don't see why, if we had the technology, we couldn't replace the Earth with a Dyson Sphere. On the other hand, excessive environmental destruction destroys value; global warming is projected to cost humanity trillions of dollars through rising sea levels and changes in climate patterns, species extinction deprives mankind of useful chemical and genetic information, damaging water resources makes life generally unpleasant.

For global warming, I personally prefer a global Carbon Tax, a surcharge added onto the consumption of carbon-liberating products. The increase in cost would encourage consumers to use less petroleum products, and the taxes reaped from this process would aid in managing global warming.

[Troubleshooter]

Heres an article that confirms that CO2 is not the cause of GW (http://http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html
... And here is a site that confirms the CO2 is DEFINATELY the cause, but also says that the sun plays a minor role. (http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html)

I happen to trust both sources.


No, I'm making an assumption about your level of knowledge based on the content of your posts.

Sorry for being spartan on this topic, I hashed the crap out of it in the last AGW thread... I dont have the tollerance for another drawn out discussion about stuff that allows for very little variance from the extream poles of opinion.

Facts on AGW are still comming in from many sources. It seems to me that the wise thing to do is see where the facts lead and try to unify the data rather than skip to ONOESAGWISREALZ and start with the destructive powergrabs that are expected to follow "consensus".

[Kratos]

There are four possibitlys and only four!
First: We do nothing and there is no such thing like global warming => We are fine
Second: We do nothing and there is such thing like global warming => We are screwed, milions or more will die and it will cost us plenty!
Third: We do something and there is no such thing like global warming => It will cost us money, that`s all (and will even create some jobs)
Fourth: We doe something and there is such thing like global warming => It will cost us money again, but we will be fine with that

So what of the four possibitly shall we take? I say we should take the two possibitlys were it only costs us money!

[Troubleshooter]

forum keeps eating my post... sorry if dupes hit.

[The5thElephant]

norfolknclue - It is not a "balanced view" when the large majority of scientists agree on the human cause of global warming and have numerous tested theories to back it up (we have known about the effects of greenhouse gases long before we were worried about global warming, why do you think they are called greenhouse gases?). Especially when a large majority of the scientists who disagree with this are eventually shown to be incredibly biased, and in some cases even being paid by gas and oil companies. Hmmmmm, conflict of interest? That is not real science.

However, I do not believe that the punitive actions we "activists" take to help "save the planet" do anything. Driving a hybrid and recycling are the tiniest drops out of a planet sized ocean which is increasing faster than you can bucket it out. Hell, you aren't even saving the planet when you do this, you are just hurting it at a slower rate. To truly "help" you would have to have negative carbon output, which entails putting electricity back into the grid and creating carbon sinks.

How many of you are really willing to do that? Not to mention the oft repeated fact that the number of humans in the world who will be willing to do such things is not going to increase significantly enough to make a difference.

We need to realize that we are going to have to deal with the consequences of global warming (which are often completely blown out of proportion, the world is not going to end) instead of wasting time and money on slowing it down by the slightest bit.

As Starfisher said earlier, the final solution to all this is an alternative energy source to fossil fuels. Not recycling to make yourself feel better (hell some research even suggests that recycling puts more pollution into the atmosphere than the equivalent of garbage that is saved from the dump).

[Tak]

A lot of the global warming hype = way to sell stuff. Do you really think GE or Toyota or whoever really gives a shit if the planet curls up into a dusty crust in a few hundred years? But wait, they can guilt you into paying 20k for a new car or six bucks for a new lightbulb? Hot damn, lets get to 'savin some planets!

:p

That said, we should all certainly agree that we need to be better stewards of this loverly bit of cosmic fate that we've ended up on. We only have so much water and air takes a while to get clean again, so why *not* go for the cleaner, nicer routes if we can?

(FWIW, I'm decidedly in the 'don't know' camp. Guess I need to get a map for this paper bag then, right Trouble? ;))

[Starfisher]

trouble, your first link doesn't "confirm" that CO2 plays no role.


Dr Solanki said that the brighter Sun and higher levels of "greenhouse gases", such as carbon dioxide, both contributed to the change in the Earth's temperature but it was impossible to say which had the greater impact.

Dr David Viner, the senior research scientist at the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit, said the research showed that the sun did have an effect on global warming.

He added, however, that the study also showed that over the past 20 years the number of sunspots had remained roughly constant, while the Earth's temperature had continued to increase.

The only guy in that article claiming that it had nothing to do with CO2 is exactly the global warming warrior type that I was talking about, so eager to defend their side that they cite unreliable sources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bellamy#Views_on_global_warming) and end up being completely wrong.

You appear to be attempting to downplay human involvement by citing environmental factors - this is sleight of hand. Environmental factors do play a part in climate variance, and it's true that we don't understand all of them yet. Yet every time someone goes looking for an alternative explanation they find that it is not a major factor. Saying that the next thing they look at might be the one that shows us that CO2, methane and water vapor, against all logic and evidence have little effect on global temperature is about as valid as saying that the next time Squid looks at a yeast, there'll be a yeast-leprechaun turning it into a prion. Sure, it could happen. Can't rule anything out entirely, ever.

But to suggest that everyone is wrong because there's not enough data is ignoring the past 40 years of data showing that yes, the greenhouse effect exists, and yes, we are contributing to it, and yes, the amount of our contribution should create a temperature increase. Maybe it'll be solar-fairies. Who knows? But the amount of skepticism leveled at global warming would seem absurd when applied to any other physical theory, yet be no less valid.

[boolybooly]

What do I do to fight global warming? OK I use all energy efficient light bulbs, began converting a couple of years ago and now the whole house has them. At 80p a piece they actually save money now, so why not ? How many energy wasters pay the bills ?

I have floored my loft (and built a bigger hatch) so I can use it as a microgeneration station in due course by putting solar PV & possibly thermal on the roof outside when installation costs are "optimal" so I can sell to the national grid and recoup costs. Flooring also insulates the ceiling of the living space below. Also is a handy indoor workspace where I can leave tools out without stubbing my toe in the morning! Also handy storage.

I use an electric bicycle instead of a petrol vehicle. Also saves tax and MOT and insurance requirements.

I recycle using my personal council mini-skips and also compost organics for use in the garden.

What do I do to fight global warming? Basically I look after myself. It only takes a little imagination to turn a challenge into productive change. IMHO many naysayers are just stuck in a rut and there are many reasons for that, but basically its a truism that people dont like change. It makes them feel uncomfortable, they are afraid of seeming foolish, they dont like to stick out and prefer to avoid unecessary activity which is itself a form of energy efficiency, but of a personal kind. If it goes too far people get fat and can be reclassified as lazy.

That kind of behaviour is also indicative of a lack of confidence and I say that because if a strategy shirks beneficial change as much as it avoids unecessary timewasting innovation, it isn't about optimisation of effort, its about conformism and not doing it until everyone else is doing it. I can understand why lack of certainty about anthropogenic global warming feeds that doubt and leads some people to procrastinate. There will always be a proportion who won't change if they have any uncertainty about it. There are those with vested interests in the fossil fuel economy who use this fact to delay change and pay people to cast doubts on AGW. IMHO AGW is happening but its not an end of world scenario, that is exaggeration. It is really an additional factor in the debate on when to move off fossil fuels and the science suggests sooner rather than later otherwise more extreme changes will cause more damage to our economy, which is what the Stern report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6096084.stm) was all about. But there are influential people whose self interest is opposed to the majority interest and they are arguing to delay transfer from fossil fuels. Who do you believe?

Persuading people to do what is good for themselves is all about getting a critical mass of people to adopt useful innovations, then all of a sudden it becomes normal. That was another point of the concerts, reduce the weird factor a bit more.

You have to do stuff in the short term to make stuff happen in the mid term to have an easier life in the long term. Its always been that way, even hunting mammoths or digging tubers, people are understandibly hesitant about deviating from methods they know will work. They watch other people to see if they have anything to lose first. But saving energy is a win win scenario any which way, and moving off fossil fuels sooner rather than later is the smart thing to do.

[Inst]

The main problem with blaming water vapor, then mocking the hockey stick is that it shows a basic ignorance of mathematics and science. There can be effects that are exponential or logistic. You don't necessarily require a linear relation between the quantity of insulating gases and the temperature.

Trouble:




He added, however, that the study also showed that over the past 20 years the number of sunspots had remained roughly constant, while the Earth's temperature had continued to increase.

This suggested that over the past 20 years, human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation had begun to dominate "the natural factors involved in climate change", he said.

I, too, am fed up with these muthafucking snakes on this muthafucking plane. I find the environmentalist movement shrill, when they could be rational. I understand the reasons for their shrillness, but all the same, it grates on my psychology.

[MardiGrasBandit]

Ok, I'm taking down the link to your auction, since we expressly forbid advertisement. Even advertisement that sounds a lot like manic satire.
Damn. I guess people can just search for it when they want to bid.

Flawless, I suggest you show your father my auction. Perhaps he would like to help make a difference!

[Briarus]

i believe the climate is getting warmer. i do not know how much human activity is contribiuting to this but it is adding to the warm up in some way.

i do NOT recycle (my trash) because i don't have the extra $30 to $60 bucks a month they want for me to seperate my plastice/glass/paper/different colored glass, magazine paper from newspaper (that i don't get) and be told that if i don't do that i can get an additional FINE on top of the money that i am paying for the privilege of sorting their trsh for them so they (the local waste management company) can sell the stuff for profit...and the paper goes to a facility up stream that has been cited for pollution more times than i can count. <-- sorry i always get a little pissed when i think of the state of recycling here.

What i do however:
i have replaced 99% of the bulbs in my house with Fluorescents. (there is mercury in them so that's a bit of a problem)
i reuse plastic bags from the grocery store and my wife brings her own to the store
i have low flow shower heads, and i water the yard as little as possible
we use cloth diapers on my son
we have small high milege cars.

[CommodoreKitty]

Seeing as how I am a minor, there is not much I can do to 'help'[ with fighting global warming. What I do do, though, is try not to waste energy and resources, but thats mainly to try to save money, though. I also try to get my folks to get those new light-bulbs, expensive but they pay for themselfs after a while. Also another way to save money. Also, if I ever get the money to buy it, I'll probably get a fuel efficient car, but not a hybrid, I hate those. Again, less money spent commuting. So, anything I am doing/will do o help the environment will also save me money, awesome.

As far as the global warming goes, the people who say it doesn't exist period are simply lying, and those that say humanity doesn't cause are either lying or don't want to know that information. I for one take the middle road, yes the warming cycle did start around the time of the industrial revolution, but climate has a way of suddenly changing. There was a little ice age a little before that, and during it for that matter, so it is entirely possible that the warming cycle we all know started in a time when it was going to warm up regardless due to the warming/cooling cycles associated with the little ice age. Humanity is definitely a large factor in this, but I doubt it is the only one.

[MardiGrasBandit]

Briarus and Commodore, don't despair! People like you are the ones best served by my offer. If you don't feel you can do anything in your life, pay me to do it in mine! Remember, my bi-weekly e-mail updates not only tell you what I've done and how much I have reduced my ecological footprint, they give you helpful tips for green living! You will be surprised when you see how much you can do! Together we can make a difference!

[Noble]

If you don't feel you can do anything in your life, pay me to do it in mine!

If you were donating the money you got to a charity of some kind, I might be less angry, as it stands it sounds like you are trying to hold the environment at ransom. Why not simply take steps to improve your ecological foot print because it's the right thing to do instead of demanding people pay you to do it? Cease your shameless advertising, people shouldn't be paying you to be a good person.

[roflmao]

Just one thing, do not listen to the ecologist global warming fanatics, as their methods either :
Require you to return back to the stone age.
Accelerate global warming instead of doing the opposite :|.

[Energizer Bunny]

Yeah that sounds sensible. Lets gather the world's foremost experts on a subject then lets ignore their ideas and instead spout pointless rhetoric that actually isn't based on any kind of fact.

[Flawless]

MardiGrasBandit, buying things off an auction is not a good way to help global warming. Solving global warming would require a worldwide movement supported by all, not just buying autographed, overpriced dvds. I highly doubt any of that money will go to anything that would make a difference.

[MardiGrasBandit]

Noble, I wish I could just change my life. Unfortunately it is not that easy. Making a difference costs money. For years multi-national corporations and societal elites have been trading pollution rights, why should the common man not have a chance to do so? Pollution credits are a market based solution to the man made climate crisis. I'm happy that I can offer people the chance to reduce the impact we have on the environment, and you should be happy too. Perhaps if you read AL Gore's book An Inconvenient Truth you would change your position. Remember, if you bid just $99.01 I will ship you an autographed copy!

Flawless, don't be so cynical! I will work hard to change my life according to the final price, and every little bit helps. I suggest you bid on my auction. Remeber, as a skeptic you can take advantage of my Relic Forum guarantee (see page four).

[Noble]

So you won't take small steps to better our environment unless I give you $100? What if instead, I keep my $100, and take those steps on my own? Again, why should I pay you to be socially responsible? You should be doing this kind of thing free of charge, not suckering people into a fee for service version of environmentalism.

[Troubleshooter]

Think of it as a micro-carbon-credit where you get to feel better about saving the planet and someone else gets free beer. ;)

[MardiGrasBandit]

Not everyone will make the changes in their own life needed to help the Earth. Some people are unwilling to do so, others just don't know how. Both groups are well served by my offer. The former can rest easy knowing that even if they don't change their own life, for a small fee they have caused a change in someone else's. The latter will be educated by my bi-weekly emails with instructional tips on green living, and if the bidding is high enough, an autographed copy of An Inconvenient Truth! It's a win win situation for us all!

Also, remember that you win a percentage of the proceeds from any books or films I make about this adventure in green living! An investment like that would look good in any portfolio!

[Noble]

You sir are preying on people's guilt, and are offering a quick dose of "feel good" as a replacement for people actually effecting any change in their life, or the world at large. If you really had the intention of bettering the world you would strive to educate people on green living without incurring a fee. As flawless said, in order to actually change things for the better we need a mass movement driven by motivated, and more importantly, educated people. We don't need a singular person getting paid to do what he should be doing anyway.

There are far more effective ways of getting people active in the green movement than charging them for some weekly emails, a DVD and a sketchy (at best) promise of a return on their investment. I find it interesting that all of your posts are written as if they are trying to sell me a product. You come off as totally insincere because of this.

How about raising funds and using those funds to create some kind of tangible product or change? Build a local recycling center. Print pamphlets and distribute them in your neighborhood. Rent a community center and hold a meeting. Buy a domain name and create a web site that espouses your message. There are any number of ways to use charitable funds that will actually make a difference.

[Starfisher]

I think this is probably an extended satire, but it's also feels eerily like shades of things to come.

[MardiGrasBandit]

As I said, not everyone want's to put in the effort to do these things. I am giving those people the chance to make a difference without expending much effort (of course, should they want to expend effort, my bi-weekly e-mail tips will help them do so). Why should the pollution trading market be the exclusive province of multinational corporations and the rich? To think so is a very elitist idea that flies in the face of the grass roots efforts needed to combat man made global warming.

[Troubleshooter]

trouble, your first link doesn't "confirm" that CO2 plays no role.
I suppose my wording for the link is misleading, but I will let it stand rather than edit it for clarity, perhaps as a window on my own bias. Either way, my intention was to point out that there are scientists searching for alternate causes for the percieved acceleration in GW that do not focus on the human element as the sole, or even the major cause. Also, to point out that these are not crack pots, corporate shills, or hopeless skeptics...


Dr Bill Burrows, a climatologist and a member of the Royal Meteorological Society, welcomed Dr Solanki's research. "While the established view remains that the sun cannot be responsible for all the climate changes we have seen in the past 50 years or so, this study is certainly significant," he said.

"It shows that there is enough happening on the solar front to merit further research. Perhaps we are devoting too many resources to correcting human effects on the climate without being sure that we are the major contributor."
Heres where I start to pull out my hair on this!!! I wont bother to comment on it, just suffice to say that if I were interviewing this person, the next 30 minutes would revolve around those two highlighted snips.


You appear to be attempting to downplay human involvement by citing environmental factors - this is sleight of hand.I appear to... well, I'll accept that and go a step further: I believe that AGW is the Arrogance of our time. We believe in our power want to show mastery of our fate. If we can break the world, surely we can save it, right? Its almost a modern tower of babel to me. I honestly do think that the engine of the climate sees our contributions in the same way that the engine of my car sees imputiry in fuel... its a drag, but so small as to be insignificant on the large scale. However, I am (as far as I can tell) the only person on this thread that has stated that "i am willing to be wrong". I just have not seen fully compelling data that is without resonable doubt attached to it. The presence of alternate explainations just makes me more willing to sit back and let the data come together... It seems from the above that even the scientific community that has already adopted the AGW line is willing to caveat that when a new study comes along that opens new questions about the true magnitude of the AGW impact. I dont feel like I am out on a limb here by saying that I dont know, and that I am willing to wait for more information before I will support major political/social/economic shift to retard AGW.

Lastly, I am a firm believer that you dont speed up to a brick wall at 100 mph and then trust in your brakes to stop you before disaster. Theres absolutely nothing wrong with taking prudent precaution (ride the brakes a bit) to at least position yourself to make any adjustments later. To that end, I support standardizing and regulating the so-called carbon market, and I an a huge believer in sustainable growth and recycleing and even renewable energy. As I have said before, its possible to have honest disagreement on this topic without being an irresponsable twit, regardless of how quickly such labels get tossed around.

(pardon my speeeling.)

[Moe]

Heres an article that confirms that CO2 is not the cause of GW

He added, however, that the study also showed that over the past 20 years the number of sunspots had remained roughly constant, while the Earth's temperature had continued to increase.

This suggested that over the past 20 years, human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation had begun to dominate "the natural factors involved in climate change", he said.

What else ya got?

[Black]

Just a question, is an article really scientifically admissable? Shouldn't this thread require direct citations of actual peer reviewed studies, of which the vast majority are in support of human-caused global warming?

[Moe]

Yes it should, the problem is that peer-reviewed papers are usually fairly scientific (duh) as far as their language is concerned and aren't easily understood. On the other hand the guy writing for the newspaper probably only has a very limited understanding of the science himself since he's a journalist and as their science guy probably has to cover everything from astrophysics to genetics, which puts these articles on shaky ground.

Trouble: well damn you posted while I was posting.

[Troubleshooter]

I already said I am going to get hauled into another GW link fest... the above was intended to paint a picture of where I sit on the topic... which is to say that theres enough reasonable doubt to merit more study.

If you want my last major dump on this topic, heres the most recent thread with about 1000000000 links in it from various members.

http://forums.relicnews.com/showthread.php?t=135913&page=1&pp=15&

Edit: Well double-damn you for doing the same :)

[Tiger_AceAJB]

theory against global warming:

What they are saying is that the ozone layer is "melting", thus making it hotter. Well, ozone is created when oxygen is heated into a super-active state. Thus, the hotter it gets, the more it's repaired. Also, they don't take into account that there is a 7-year cycle of hot and cold.

:wtf2: global warming is just a bunch of shit that comes out of al gores ass :wtf2:. if anything, its warming because of the increased population's body heat or electricity or something or the sun could be getting hotter.

I feel it is important to share this with everyone. Not everyone believes in g.b.-the news has an opinion of it's own. It hides and leans alot. Trust me. Look at what the news has to say about Iraq and then watch that new show on the military channel, "My War Diary", to see what I mean.


***PLEASE DON'T DELETE THIS POST***

[Bonnet]

Ok, from the IPCC report (http://www.ipcc-wg2.org/) (don't bother to read the thing just look at the data):
A) The globe is warming.
B) There are both natural and human (anthropogenic) causes.
C) The disagreement can be found in the extent to which humans effect the process and the extent that the globe will warm. The IPCC report suggest substantial leeway in these two areas (as much as 60% error).

[Tiger_AceAJB]

english?

[roflmao]

Has anyone read Hard Green?
I actually meant what I said.
(when the book title says "conservative manifesto", it does not mean bush-lover(or anything related to politics), it means conservative when it comes to the enviorment)

[Moe]

theory against global warming:

What they are saying is that the ozone layer is "melting", thus making it hotter. Well, ozone is created when oxygen is heated into a super-active state. Thus, the hotter it gets, the more it's repaired. Also, they don't take into account that there is a 7-year cycle of hot and cold.

global warming is just a bunch of shit that comes out of al gores ass . if anything, its warming because of the increased population's body heat or electricity or something or the sun could be getting hotter.


This is without a doubt the most ridiculous theory presented in this thread. None of that was even remotely correct. I find it ironic that you're talking about "shit coming out of al gores ass" when you're obviously pulling stuff out of thin air. Your post demonstrated a thorough lack of scientific understanding of any of the processes involved in climate change. In short, it was completely wrong.

Oh by the way, troubleshooter: BBC can't make up their mind, apparently. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stm)

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Yes it should, the problem is that peer-reviewed papers are usually fairly scientific (duh) as far as their language is concerned and aren't easily understood. On the other hand the guy writing for the newspaper probably only has a very limited understanding of the science himself since he's a journalist and as their science guy probably has to cover everything from astrophysics to genetics, which puts these articles on shaky ground.

Heh. One line of criticism leveled against modern reporters is that should be educated in the fields they cover rather than in journalism.

As for myself, I try to buy local (especially food), I drive as little as possible, and I prefer high-quality long-lasting appliances, tools, clothing, etc.

Not to drag politics into it, but I support green politicians over corporatist or uncaring ones. That's important, because so much of what needs to be done has to be done on a political level. Slightly more important is supporting green organizations and 'spreading the message' so to speak, since politicians wont budge an inch without a base or a trend :)

[Nanolathe]

If anything, its warming because of the increased population's body heat or electricity or something or the sun could be getting hotter.You just cannot be serious... it is just not possible... is it?
Everyone look at this quote. This is the best example in this thread of someone who does not understand the scientific method at all. The mind boggles at how ignorant you are Tiger_AceAJB. (or at least how ignorant your are in your posting).
I quite like the bit about "Or something", if I wasn't so angry at your bastardisation of scientific method I would be laughing... at you, mind, not with you.

[Nurizeko]

The difference is, my dear Trouble, is that the scientists who attempt to debunk AGW do so by twisting the facts & figures something nasty.

I always thought they did it by providing an alternative opinion and pointing out areas of the pro-GW camps arguments that could be called into doubt.

This idea that all pro-human caused GW scientists are recognized experts of everything and that opponents to the human cause theory are all fringe nut-jobs is rather insulting I would assume.

Oh and twisting facts and figures is something all scientists are fully capable of when they get too invested emotionally and personally in their chosen side of a debate.


The only people claiming that human emissions have nothing to do with global warming are those paid by oil companies or twisting their science.

Fisher,don't do that. You can do better then just blatantly ignorantly disregarding other sides of a scientific debate in such a manner, thats the kind of pathetic counters that ID proponents use, or any other poor debater. Wether you like it or not, some scientists for genuine reasons don't agree with your favorite hypothesis. Shrugging it off in that manner is just insulting, to them and the pursuit of science in general.

I agree with nofolknclue's response, its one thing to accept one side of a scientific debate as the most plausable, and another to what appears to be blindly humping its metaphorical leg while belittling the opposite side as dirty or ignorant science.


Newsflash: It's already been proven that we are.

No, it hasn't, why you think you can stride in and just claim it is is rather puzzling TBH.

Edit: In conclusion precautions are fine, but I don't buy into the whole fanatical environmentalism, I don't dig the whole reading out my green credentials like a noble reads his ancestry, I don't buy into the irrational "green" policies and opposition to solutions, especially modern nuclear power, just because they aren't outwardly green and fluffy but guys in a white coat with a super computer nearby (guess they only like science when its supporting their human caused GW and nothing else).

So basically I don't like the way people are approaching the issue.

Secondly, I don't really like the way the science is getting manipulated to such a degree in politics and the likes, that any theory which remotely calls into question humans as the sole cause, its insulting to other scientists and insulting to the very heart of science, seeking the truth. That means exploring all possibilities, it means giving fair chance to all hypothesis' in regard to an issue.

The medieval catholic style disregard for any non-human caused GW science, alongside the sheer stupidity of how were approaching the GW issue, makes my head hurt.

Frankly as it stands we might aswell be seeming not to care for all the insincere, irrational, half hearted, just wrong ways were dealing with it.

Precautions are fine, solutions and finding a more efficient and sustainable energy source and lifestyle is just common sense, its what the human race was doing long before GW was an issue, its the sheer dumb-fuckery that surrounds GW now which bugs me.

Its attracted the worst in people and little of the best.

[Starfisher]

Fisher,don't do that. You can do better then just blatantly ignorantly disregarding other sides of a scientific debate in such a manner, thats the kind of pathetic counters that ID proponents use, or any other poor debater. Wether you like it or not, some scientists for genuine reasons don't agree with your favorite hypothesis. Shrugging it off in that manner is just insulting, to them and the pursuit of science in general.

I agree with nofolknclue's response, its one thing to accept one side of a scientific debate as the most plausable, and another to what appears to be blindly humping its metaphorical leg while belittling the opposite side as dirty or ignorant science.Find me one modern example of a substantive challenge to the claim that human beings are a major player in climate change. I base my "shrugging it off" on the fact that I simply cannot find anything not worth just shrugging off.

Scientific skepticism is all well and good, but when un-science tries to disguise itself as a valid scientific attack under the guise of "well, it might be this", I have no patience.

[Kained]

The onus is not on the skeptic to provide evidence to challenge a claim but on the claimant to provide evidence to support their claim. The majority of scientific studies may support anthropogenic global warming (AGW) but proof is not conclusive and does not equal truth since new evidence may change the basis for the claim.

Although I am sure both sides of the discussion will support measures within reason to protect the environment it would seem the AGW supporters are not interested in looking for evidence outside of the conclusion they have already drawn and as we all know finding facts to fit a conclusion is "un-science".

[Noble]

The onus is not on the skeptic to provide evidence to challenge a claim but on the claimant to provide evidence to support their claim.

Which is precisely what has allready been done. There is a mountain of evidence that supports AGW.

[Nanolathe]

as we all know finding facts to fit a conclusion is "un-science".Isn't that just inquiry? The universe exists... which is our conclusion and we're looking for facts to show us how aren't we?

Making up 'facts' or finding correlations that are unrelated is "un-science".
Just to throw a small amount of religion in here, Pastafarians (believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster) believe that it is the decrease in Pirates that is affecting climate change. And it is true that as pirate numbers have decreased global temperatures have increased...

I'll let you draw your own conclusions :D

[Troubleshooter]

"This should settle the debate," said Mike Lockwood, from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory, who carried out the new analysis together with Claus Froehlich from the World Radiation Center in Switzerland.

Its language like this that turns me off to the notion that this is anything but gap-filling research. Meaning, they get a gap in the AGW theory, and then revise other peoples data to close the gap, then shut off debate on it as "already discredited/debunked"

I deal quite a bit with political footballs. When one "side" is pushing an agenda, the dont leave critisism to stand for long before they attack it. Thats not to say that in matters as big as these that there is not good reason to be on offense against bunk science, but it smells funny to me. All the signs are there that generally cause me to take a jaundiced eye to the process.

Heres a neat little gem I found a while back that touches on how I see this.

How To Discredit an Unwelcome Report

Stage One: Refuse to publish in the public interest saying:

There are security considerations
The findings could be misinterpreted
You are waiting for the results of a wider and more detailed report which is still in preparation (if there isn't one, commission it; this gives you even more time)

Stage Two: Discredit the evidence you are not publishing, saying:

It leaves important questions unanswered
Much of the evidence is inconclusive
The figures are open to other interpretations
Certain findings are contradictory
Some of the main conclusions have been questioned (if they haven't, question them yourself; then they have)

Stage Three: Undermine the recommendations. Suggested phrases:

'Not really a basis for long term decisions'
'Not sufficient information on which to base a valid assessment'
'No reason for any fundamental rethink of existing policy'
'Broadly speaking, it endorses current practice'

Stage Four: Discredit the person who produced the report. Explain (off the record) that:

He is harbouring a grudge against the Department
He is a publicity seeker
He is trying to get a Knighthood/Chair/Vice Chancellorship
He used to be a consultant to a multinational
He wants to be a consultant to a multinational

To suppress an internal government report, rewrite it as official advice to the Minister. Then it is against the rules to publish it, so you can leak the bits you want to friendly journalists.
Notice how the above tactics have been used on both sides of the AGW issue? I am telling you, theres too much politics involved in this science for me to be at peace with any findings just yet.


To directly respond to your find Moe, I presented in my earlier post two examples of respectable sources taking opposite views while caveating that there may be something worthwhile in the other side/counter research. The point was not to build a case for or against AGW, but to point out that among responsable adults, there still is room for reasonable doubt that AGW is the major player in climate change since the industrial revolution.

It doesn't surprise me that the BBC cant make up its mind... good journalism/editing does not form conclusions, just reports facts-to-date. ;)

[Starfisher]

But all of those views have said, flat out, that AGW is still the major player in the observed climate change, and that "doubt" never comes close to eliminating AGW as a player. Your own sources! Yet you maintain what you claim is a reasonable doubt. How is it reasonable if there is no foundation for it in the evidence, except that which you project on to it?

Your earlier posts reveal that you are applying your preconceptions about the human inability to affect the climate. You feel that people 'want' to be able to change the climate, and so want to see evidence that we can, yet the obvious counterpoint is that you don't think humanity can affect the environment, and so maintain doubt of any claim to the contrary, no matter how well supported that claim may be.

I'm a simple atheist/agnostic/whatever. As evidence piles up for something, I increasingly treat it as an actionable or acceptable explanation. I cannot find a single example of a substantive objection to the evidence as it stands. The only objections that exist are facile arguments cloaking some ulterior motive, usually founded in an ideology that is challenged by the science as it stands.

To claim that all the evidence pointing towards AGW is false, you have to provide a clear alternative explanation, and none has been forthcoming. Or you might find a fatal hole in the reasoning, yet one has not been articulated. The only thing I ever hear is "well, you're not 100% sure so it could be anything!" which is true, yet completely worthless as an alternative to or flaw in the current explanation. Science is never 100% sure about anything, yet the only science receiving this level of skepticism is that which has the potential to ruffle some feathers in the political and corporate world.

Such things irritate me to no end.

[Lrkr]

I can't believe this debate is still going on.

this depressing apathic reasoning seems most likely to hold true for the near future :

If AGW isn't true ; noone is going to act anyway since humanity apparently cannot reach a consensus on a scientific nor political level during the time interval that matters ; so no money will be wasted on it. Oh and millions could die because of climate change; humans causing it or not.

If AGW is true ; noone is going to act anyway since humanity apparently cannot reach a consensus on a scientific nor political level during the time interval that matters ; so no money will be wasted on it. Oh and millions could die because of climate change; humans causing it or not.

meanwhile in Bangladesh:
:moe: :cry::moe:

I know one thing; I'm probably going to prod my son to become a hydraulics engineer =D

[MardiGrasBandit]

The debate still has five days and twelve hours to go on. Don't despair, there is one person who was willing to spend $1 to fight global warming (by causing a 1% reduction in my energy consumption and waste production). You seem both concerned and intelligent, just the kind of person who should bid on my auction! Remember, if you bid just $199.01 more, you will receive autographed copies of Al Gore's book and Oscar winning film An Inconvenient Truth!

Imagine how attractive you will appear to the opposite sex when you tell them what you have done for our Earth, and how smart your boss will think you are when he sees your autographed copy of An Inconvenient Truth! Hot sex and a big raise is just a bid away!

[Troubleshooter]

You feel that people 'want' to be able to change the climate, and so want to see evidence that we can, yet the obvious counterpoint is that you don't think humanity can affect the environment, and so maintain doubt of any claim to the contrary, no matter how well supported that claim may be.
Actually, its the scale of change and the scope of the conclusions about what that change will lead to that form my position.

I have traveled the world rather extensively, I have seen quite a bit of it. I've studied the historical aspects of human impact on the environment from bronze age smelting in northern Jordan/lebanon/Syria to muslim crusader scorched earth tactics against christian crusaders to Egyptian nile basin practice and a sprinkling of other cultures. I know for a fact that people can and do abuse their local environment and cause lasting changes to whole regions, but I have never once seen a culture wipe itself out from even the most abusive treatment of the environment.

What the modern era offers us is a way to automate the distructive practices of the past. Clear and burn farming in the amazon is a pretty good example of what I am getting at.

I dont dispute that man kind can, as a result of its exploitation of the natural resources at hand, cause environmental change. Where AGW looses me is the sheer magnitude of what it proposes itself to be. The sience just is not there yet. We understand quite well what the effects of deforestation will have on the environment, but how the engine of climate on earth works is still mostly a mystery. People who claim to have very good understanding of these things are generally the most politically active people attached to the subject. As I pointed out earlier, most intellectually honest participants admit that regardless of the direction of their research (pro/anti-AGW) they simply can not rule out that possibility that they other side may have some value to the cause of determing what the hell is actually going on.

In the space between, is where I live. I am willing to wait on more unity in the data.


As evidence piles up for something, I increasingly treat it as an actionable or acceptable explanation. As do I. I already said its time to start positioning ourselves for a possible set of policy shifts to AGW mitigation. We are not, however, ready for condemning the global economy to massive recession on something that appears to make sense, but only to a few people who seem to be making alot of noise. (note, I am not saying who. The Anti-AGW crowd could just as easily send the global economy into a nose dive if the more sensational claims of the AGW crowd start to come to pass)


The only objections that exist are facile arguments cloaking some ulterior motive, usually founded in an ideology that is challenged by the science as it stands.You ever read the history of Unified Theory Mathematics? There was a very good show on the Science Channel last week that summarized how the 11th dimension became the dominant theory after having been debunked and disavowed by the majority of people doing the work in the field. Now they cant get enough of it...

The people who work in these fields often claim total certainty about stuff and then back peddle as soon as someone comes along and shows them a new way of looking at it. I am fairly certain that climate change is a very similar case... its just a matter of time until someone proves conclusively that we are wrong (again) on AGW. Thats the main reason I argue for time... more eyes need to be on this problem. As it stands now, there are too many people with too much to gain by advancing the sience to "finished" status for me to be comfortable with the conclusions.

Then there is the whole other topic that I touched on in my first post here : If AGW is real, do we really want/need to stop it? The fact is that this is the most interesting point not being discussed. There is plenty of evidence that a warmer world will be more conducive to human activity, not less. But all we ever hear about is how millions will die if we dont act. *Sigh* Let me whip out my scientific crystal ball ... I seeeeeee tropical rainforrest across much of the nothern hemisphere... :lol:

FFS, there are russian scientists that claim that AGW will cause another ice age. No one has a freaking clue what would happen, and we have, what, 10000000000 years of archeological evidence about the climate and eco-systems to predict with.

[Tiger_AceAJB]

You just cannot be serious... it is just not possible... is it?
Everyone look at this quote. This is the best example in this thread of someone who does not understand the scientific method at all. The mind boggles at how ignorant you are Tiger_AceAJB. (or at least how ignorant your are in your posting).
I quite like the bit about "Or something", if I wasn't so angry at your bastardisation of scientific method I would be laughing... at you, mind, not with you.


well, gw is a hairbrained theory 2. stupid problem has a stupid reason.

[The5thElephant]

MardiGrasBandit, I don't mean to be rude, but please STFU. It is not funny, nor a good thing you are doing. It doesn't take that much money to change some of your most polluting and consumerist habits, not to mention I could just buy Al Gore's book and film for far cheaper (fuck autographs, who gives a shit about those anymore?). Your posts are not informative or helpful to this thread, despite the fact that you started it. It just makes people who actually want to make a change seem like selfish and silly assholes.

Tiger_AceAJB - The ozone is melting? You have no idea what you are talking about dude. Your post demonstrates a blatant disregard for science and you clearly have not looked this stuff up at all. This is one of the reasons so many people think GW is bullshit, because they just don't know jack shit. They read some random article and then think they know everything there is to know about it.


Nurizeko - We dump millions, MILLIONS, of tons of material into the air ALL the time. This stuff doesn't just dissapear. Certainly the long term affects are debatable in specifics, but we do know what happens to an enclosed environment with more greenhouse gases in it with a heat source (the sun). It gets HOTTER. The atmosphere is an incredibly thin layer relative to the rest of the earth, it is really not that strange to think that we could affect it.

There is far less reason for people who believe in human-caused GW to undermine criticism than the other side has to undermine GW. Get over your whole "I am seeing the bigger picture" and realize that when the great majority of the scientific world agrees on something it is usually at least generally true. The specifics aside, Global Warming is at least significantly sped up by humans, the evidence agrees with this.

EDIT: Tiger_Ace, do you think before you post or do words just splurge out of your head and onto the computer? Do some research and come back with something actually worthwhile saying, you're just making the thread stupider.

[Tiger_AceAJB]

well idk exactly wut the scientific word for the ozone going away is but anyone with a moldy old brain should no wut i mean.

every night i go to bed, bowing down to a statue of Jesus thanking him for getting Bush in instead of gore.

thankyou Jesus, thankyou!

[Moe]

well idk exactly wut the scientific word for the ozone going away is but anyone with a moldy old brain should no wut i mean.

Kindly stop butchering your language, or I'm going to smack you over the head with a dictionary. Oh and then I'm doing it again with a children's book on physics.

[Tiger_AceAJB]

bring it!

is it not true though that they say the ozone layer is going away though. thats all i hear about!

[MardiGrasBandit]

5thElephant, I am alarmed and disturbed to see you have decided to be part of the problem, not part of the solution. The market for pollution rights is proven to be one of the most successful ways to reduce emissions, as it provides an economic incentive for corporations to lower their output. As anyone with a firm basis in economics or political science can tell you, workable market based solutions are far more effective them simple regulation in effecting positive change. The lack of a trading scheme was one of the reasons the Kyoto Protocol was rejected by the United States.

I deeply want to make a change, and resent your accusation that I do not. My auction stand as proof of my commitment to taking the proven effectiveness of the large scale market based answer to the man made climate crisis and bringing it down to the small scale, individual level based on sincere grass roots efforts.

I can't help note that you are quick to criticize others efforts on this thread. If you reread the title, you will see it is "what do you do to fight global warming", not "disparage what others do to save the Earth". If I have read you wrong, then I apologize, but I feel your words are alarmingly clear. If you truly desired to help the planet and achieve negative emissions as you mentioned on page five, you would have bid on my auction by now. The best way for you to achieve you goal is to both lower your own ecological footprint and pay to lower mine. If we both work hard enough, you will reach your goal of having a positive impact on the Earth.

[The5thElephant]

No, the best way to fight global warming is to educate all the idiots out there who think that doing what you are doing is actually going to make a difference. Once they realize that small token efforts such as this without a massive popular effort won't go anywhere, they will stop wasting their money and start putting it into better uses. Such as funding alternative energy research or funding efforts to prepare for the symptoms of global warming.

The only grass roots movements which work are the ones which become big enough. This only happens when people have a reason to do so beyond simply "it being the right thing to do". When it starts hurting their wallets (people are buying Hybrids more to save money than to save the planet) or their lifestyle, then they are willing to change. The civil rights movement did not grow simply because it was "the right thing", it grew because people began to see their own friends and neighbors hurt terribly by racism. We do not have the problem of GW on our doorstep yet (except for hurricane Katrina) so people are not going to work together enough to make the difference you hope for.

I am not criticising your goal, I am criticising your means to it. You are gaining more than you are sacrificing (monetarily that is), and then having this clearly over-the-top attitude about the whole thing. People do not appreciate such a consistently satirical tone when you continue to tell them that the right thing to do is give you money.

Now enough about your silly endeavor because it is a waste to this thread and a waste of our time.

Tiger_AceAJB - You are right that the ozone layer is no longer depleting like it used to, however this is due to our significantly lower use of aerosols with certain chemicals which were damaging the ozone. Also, the ozone layer's depletion or increase is the least of our worried in comparison to the other effects global warming will have. Or have you not noticed the warmer winters, bigger hurricanes, melting icecaps, rising sea-levels, changing gulf-stream, etc?

EDIT: Just found this, don't know if it was posted yet. The Sun is not the cause of GW (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6290228.stm).

[Tiger_AceAJB]

if global warming is true, then wut do u plan on doing. wed have to shut down the economy completely!



***GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT TRUE***

[The5thElephant]

I do not plan on fighting global warming, I plan on fighting the effects it will have. It is too late to stop it, because it is happening already. Driving hybrids and using efficient light bulbs just slows it down, but we and later generations WILL have to deal with the problems it WILL cause. Thus I suggest we spend our money on preparing for those problems and developing an alternate fuel source. This could in fact be a boost to our economy if enough companies realize the potential of being frontrunners in this field.

The greatest danger to our economy is peak-oil and our reliance on oil as a fuel source. This is a problem that exists with or without global warming.

For the last time, start actually reading about what you talk about before writing. You just sound like an idiot now. What is the point of posting on the internet if all it does is make you look less intelligent and nobody ends up actually listening? Please be a little more constructive.

[Noble]

wed have to shut down the economy completely!

I might take you seriously if the rest of the world hadn't allready put very high emission standars in place, while maintaining their economies. In fact, foreign car companies with high emission standards are doing far better than their American counterparts.

Please quit butchering the English language.

[The5thElephant]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6288172.stm

A BBC article about grass-roots efforts to fight global warming. It sounds all well and nice, but once again, its not going to change shit. They claim to be well informed but then keep changing cars to use biofuels (Biofuels currently are NOT better for global warming due to the energy expended to create them) or make a few minor changes in their lifestyle. Then they spout some bullshit that it "feels good in their soul", thus demonstrating further that most of these actions are based on feeling less guilty and less about finding out how to actually make a change.

Blech.

[Starfisher]

If AGW is real, do we really want/need to stop it? The fact is that this is the most interesting point not being discussed. There is plenty of evidence that a warmer world will be more conducive to human activity, not less. But all we ever hear about is how millions will die if we dont act. *Sigh* Let me whip out my scientific crystal ball ... I seeeeeee tropical rainforrest across much of the nothern hemisphere...Well, my beef isn't so much with the "what do we do" than it is with the principle behind your disagreement with the science as it stands.

"What do we do" is actually a far more contentious problem than I think it should be. When you get right down to it, global warming should be the ultimate issue. It has something for literally everyone. Environmentalists get to have orgasms saving the world. Conservatives get to fund American alternative energy (which technology we would control, and then license, thereby creating an American energy hegemony instead of the 3rd world/Canada one we have today). Energy companies get to be the recipients of massive government funding as well as great position in future energy markets.

Everyone wins. And all of that stuff would be great for our country, great for our economy, and great for humanity in the end. Really, when you boil it all down, the only thing a GW nut is asking you to do is be more efficient about your lifestyle. They're asking you to return to your grandparents notions of "waste not, want not" instead of the current mindset of "BUY MORE SHIT YOU DON'T NEED". Add in an new national technology effort that results in a lot of American innovation, potentially generating a stranglehold on energy technology, and why the hell does anyone fight it?

Which brings me back to my original contention: People have gotten so used to being adversaries, so used to defending a position because their political or religious ideology tells them to rather than it being a position with rational merit, that we as a society are incapable of the consensus action our government, and to a degree our civilization, is founded on. People's identity is so wrapped up on where they stand on issues that they no longer give a damn about where the truth of something lies. They only care about how best to preserve their identity. It doesn't even matter what the issue is. People have a stance, and they'll do anything to defend it, regardless of the actual evidence coming in or even what would be best for them in the long run.

So my bias here, I guess, is a larger disgust at the moronic shortsightedness of our species, and the inability of Americans to remember that we're in the same god damned country, poised to own the world for the next century. All we can do is buy a new plasma TV to watch political hacks shout at each other without even pretending to listen. It's the death of the empire, really, and it's because we're too caught up in the gladiatorial combat of internal politics to notice the opportunities right above our heads, ripe for the picking.

[Nanolathe]

I urge you to reconsider your position Tiger_AceAJB. Coming here and just stating that Global Warming isn't true is just not going to work. We have records that clearly show that even over the last 40 years the global temperature is slowly rising. That is fact... not a theory.

Making fun of you is clearly not going to change your mind, so is it possible for us to have a proper debate about this issue without resorting to "MSN speak"?

I am perfectly willing to have a discussion and so are many others on this forum, but just posting your opinion without any reason to back that up will not get you anywhere.

[Troubleshooter]

Well fisher, as usual I think we share more ground than we know. I think its just a matter of perspective that divides us. I think we are on the same continum, but at different points.


So my bias here, I guess, is a larger disgust at the moronic shortsightedness of our speciesSuch is the cumulative effect of FUD and counter FUD over the years. One reason that the Pro-AGW crowd needs to calm down is that the public is tired of ALAR/DDT/GM Food hype and de-hype cycles. The ammount of political political capital that the scientific community has in the USA is terribly small, mainly due to piss poor journalism and cowardly leadership.

One question that I would like answered is : How does the transparncey of a government relate to its official position on AGW?

@Marigras: no really, just stop. Cynical treatment of the subject only makes things worse.... trust me.

[A176]

I am a strong believer in the notion that global warming is a naturally occurring process on the earth, thus I don't really do anything consciously to combat it.

I am however fervent in saving energy, energy costs, and alternative energy, which by chance, would all contribute to 'counteract' global warming.

[The5thElephant]

Well it is naturally occurring in the sense that humans are natural beings in nature causing something to happen....naturally.

Sure there are the planetary cycles, but they are simply too slow and not enough to explain the changes we are seeing today. Note the previously posted articles to see evidence against it being due to changes in the Sun.

[wayfarer]

Nothing actual. But I could consider to jump from a bridge. Damned everyone and his dog bombards me with this shit at the moment "save the world". I mean serious why? I don't have a huge chimney in my garden I don't clear rain woods. I recycle I don't throw stuff in the wood. I believe in a healthy walk.
What the he hell do you expect? Stop breathing.

[boolybooly]

I think global warming is for real Tiger. But noone is going to shut down the economy, instead we are thinking about how to run the economy without causing warming. Then we use our current manufacturing capacity to make the means to do that, eg solar/wind/tidal power stations and electric cars.

Meanwhile the planet is cooking so the question is how quick do we need to move, which is really one of those how long is a piece of string questions. That is what the Stern report tried to answer, see my previous.

It is going to cost money to do it properly and people are reluctant to move on an idea originating among tinfoil hat wearing lunatics wiffling about Gaia (which hypothesis is, IMHO as popularly represented, fundamentally mistaken. In fact if Gaia was true and the Earth had bonafide homeostatic mechanisms akin to a living organism we wouldn't have to do anything about AGW, it doesnt, we do).

But the funny thing is its not wiffle, its just the wifflers were the first to be convinced by it, because they are convinced about everything from UFOs to unicorns. Meanwhile the normals are all the more suspicious because the "crazies" believe it so adamantly. Meanwhile the crazies believe it all the more adamantly because it gets up normals noses. But behind all the lifestyle politics there is a reality and we have to respond to it because we are living organisms living in an inorganic world which can and has veered to extremes which are very hostile to life. Though to be honest I think the snowball Earth is far more dangerous on that score than a desertified equator, but a happy medium is best of all.

[The5thElephant]

While Earth does not have "bonafide homeostatic mechanisms", it is a very large and diverse planet which has survived through far more drastic changes than the ones we are seeing today.

I believe GW is something we must address, but it is also something which must happen (too late to stop it) and in the long run we will likely benefit from it. We will learn to become a more sustainable culture and the rest of the Earth will do just fine. There certainly will be extinctions and changes in environment for species, but as always there will be just as much diversity and wonderfulness of life in a few thousand years. Life would not be what it is today were it not for many of the "disasters" that took place in the past, so I don't think it's the "Earth" as an ecology which we should be worried about.

[Nanolathe]

Seams we have a few camps here.

"Oh noes We're all doomed, 50 years is all we have!"

"Hell why don't we just leave it be. Humans have had a good run, 130,000 years is nothing to sniff at. Lets just enjoy our last few decades/centuries/millennia right?"

and...

"Nothin's gonna happen. Mankind will live forever."

**Nanolathe goes and sits in a corner to contemplate the idiocy of Mankind and how he can possibly rid the world of it's utter uselessness.**

[Nurizeko]

Well put, 5th.

I don't really, as a personal feeling, appreciate the "the Earth is a delicate glass ball that must be mothered like a baby" opinion, but again, just a personal thought.


**Nanolathe goes and sits in a corner to contemplate the idiocy of Mankind and how he can possibly rid the world of it's utter uselessness.**

Hmm...well...its just a silly thought I had, mostly after reading some of your other replies, but you could start with an OD. :|

Like the green living lobby would say, every little helps.

[Nanolathe]

Why is it that every time I post something people always tell me to kill myself? Not exactly very friendly there Nuri. :disgust:

[TheDeadlyShoe]

HRm... there's nothing wrong with people being motivated by guilt.

[Starfisher]

Nanolathe: Your post is indicative of the very idiocy you purport to hate so much. You characterize the debate into two wild extremes, and if you actually read the posts here you find that none of them fit into your strawmen. You ignore the nuances of the debate here, and seize upon the solution being "ridding the world of its utter uselessness".

You are the problem. And if you think that removing human kind from the Earth is the solution, well, you might as well start somewhere.

[Nurizeko]

Well, at least in two posts in one thread you've stated your desire for the end of the human race, been rather pessimistic and cynical, in some strange way that doesn't make me feel happy inside, and overall being a right downer.

If you want the human race dead, try and build a virus already, do it, and then when the combined intelligence agencies of the Earth assasinate you several times over and take your research to play with, at least we can say "That nanolathe guy, he made the effort".

:awesome:

Nothing personal man, just you "I wish everyone would just die already" attitude makes me want to be not nice to you... :donny:

silly huh?. :dunce:

[Nanolathe]

I apologise. My last two posts were not constructed when I was in the right frame of mind. Something happened in 'Real Life' and I got rather upset about it. My anger was carried over into my forum posting (never a good mix) and this has resulted in all of you thinking I am a complete douche bag, correct?

I must, most humbly, seek your forgiveness. :(

I ask you to please disregard my last two posts. (#125 & #127)
Sorry everyone, normal transmission will now resume.

[Troubleshooter]

Sure there are the planetary cycles, but they are simply too slow and not enough to explain the changes we are seeing today. Note the previously posted articles to see evidence against it being due to changes in the Sun.

Now I am going to get myself in trouble here.. :)

Natural cycles are not predictors of future events. Just because you observe a phenomina over and over and can guess at its relative predictablity, you can never totally rule out that a phenomina might "skip" a cycle for one reason or another.

Comets striking the earth could cause early ice age, and human generated CO2 could cause an early warming period. The possibility that the present warming period is a conincidence in relation to our ability to track events to a much greater percision can not be overlooked entirely.

Look at the pace of scientific progress and understanding across a multitude of disciplines since the industrial revolution... its staggering. Now, I am not going to assert that the AGW camp is just "better" at observation than the pre-industrial era scientists, and thats whats "causing" the AGW hype machine to run on overdrive. Several theories about thermometer percision and such are based on that line of thinking and have been mostly ruled out. BUT, you have to admit that the ability quantify our world makes it seem much more fragile... suddenly it goes from a monolithic structure of permenance to a delicate pocket of life in a dead universe. The closer you look, the easier it is to find problems.... and then to extrapolate those problems into systemic crisis.

I wonder if doctors have this problem with diagnosis. The longer they examine a patient, the less healthy the patient becomes by virtue of percision....

[Moe]

The longer they examine a patient, the less healthy the patient becomes by virtue of percision....


Actually it's more of an asymptotic thing.

[Mac_Bug]

What you're really advocating is to stick our heads in the sand and sing lalala until the world changes. I mean, sure, my physics teacher said it doesn't make any sense to ask what would happen if you could go faster than light, but of course in a few thousand years they'll come around to my view that it is entirely possible and maybe even probable. Let's write this in a peer reviewed scientific journal and get a nobel prize.

The trouble with GW and the associated issues is that the scientific data behind it is, as is the case with most scientific papers, incomprehensible to the general public. I am curious to see how many people who feels strongly about GW one way or another has actually sat around and read real scientific papers in peer reviewed journals in order to form their own opinions on the matter. Just as real life discussions around the coffee table doesn't result in anyone going to the library and checking out scientific journals, arguments on the internet rarely produces anything that requires a subscription to, as is the case with most scientific journal articles. THe whole GW issue is essentially forced to be reduced to layman terms in order to raise awareness, and in doing so it's inviting the average joe to attack it without the need to look at the actual evidence.

Of course there are the minority who claim disagreement with the scientific community's consensus, maybe some of them are paid by oil companies, but I think these things ought to be evaluated on the merits of their contents, not debating rhetorics and calling on logical fallacies.

[A176]

THe whole GW issue is essentially forced to be reduced to layman terms in order to raise awareness, and in doing so it's inviting the average joe to attack it without the need to look at the actual evidence.

dont forget becoming a marketing keyword for the media, politics, and other couldnt-care-shitless professions.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

The possibility that the present warming period is a conincidence in relation to our ability to track events to a much greater percision can not be overlooked entirely.

It can be ignored entirely because scientists have researched the ebb and flow of past temperature trends and can compare them to the current one.

You act like this hasn't been looked at from nearly every possible angle by tens of thousands of experts.

Irregardless, all of that pales beside "What are you going to do about it?" You must admit at the least the strong possibility that the activities of 6 billion humans (from chemicals to forestry) has impacted the climate such as to cause global warming. Shouldn't we take steps considering the possible consequences?

(Incidentally, this reminds me of the One Percent Doctrine, a theory put out by Dick Cheney that if theres even a 1% probability of Iraq have WMDs, the invasion was a correct choice. Of course, this doctrine mysteriously doesnt apply to - say - global warming, where if there's even a 1% chance that it's all a cosmic accident, we can and should ignore it.)

[The5thElephant]

Troubleshooter puts it well. We are more and more capable of noticing the ways in which we can affect and ARE affecting the planet, and this makes many of us freak out thinking we are going to kill it (because humans just love to hate/blame other humans, whether it be for religious or environmental dogma). We are in fact causing there to be changes from the norm which we are used to, and yes these changes could eventually build up to be quite significant (relative to our history). But this planet will continue to survive (relative to its entire history) as will its biodiversity, and most likely humans as well.

What I hate about actually taking the time to research all these things to formulate a well backed opinion is that it makes one realize just how much bullshit EVERYONE spouts (including myself). This is true of all debates, whether it be political, religious or in this case environmental.

Thus I suggest a very Plato's Republic ideal of all decisions being made by scientists, historians and philosophers, who actually know what the fuck they are talking about. Sure they won't necessarily agree with eachother, but at least it will be an intelligent debate with an intelligent conclusion.

[Moe]

The possibility that the present warming period is a conincidence in relation to our ability to track events to a much greater percision can not be overlooked entirely.

Do you honestly think that's not being factored in? It's arguments like these which I was talking about the last time we did this. I'm not saying everything every scientist says is always true. But there are literally thousands of people who spent years being educated in this field and spent even more years doing research in this field, yet people who mostly don't even know what our atmosphere looks like think they can dismiss their studies with a single sentence.

[Troubleshooter]

Do you honestly think that's not being factored in?I honestly dont know.

If I had to hazard a guess, I would say that its not being factored in uniformly. I am not brushing aside the data, I am asking for more. Thats the beauty of my position, I just have a very high threshold for pain :)


It can be ignored entirely because scientists have researched the ebb and flow of past temperature trends and can compare them to the current one.Yes, I understand. I am mearly throwing out that the "acceleration" trend that is associated with CO2 emmissions (AGW) could still be naturally occuring due to factors that have not been drawn into the equations.

I knew putting that out there would get me busted ;) I dont claim that this IS the case, just like to leave the door open for the possiblity that our ability to measure past anomolies like the present warming trend might not exist because the present warming trend is naturally occuring, but is also unprecidented. Its obviously an incredibly weak position to take... but freakishly wierd stuff happens, especially when you observe things with greater and greater scrutiny.

I also like giving Moe headaches :D


Irregardless, all of that pales beside "What are you going to do about it?" You must admit at the least the strong possibility that the activities of 6 billion humans (from chemicals to forestry) has impacted the climate such as to cause global warming. Shouldn't we take steps considering the possible consequences?I have already said that I agree with prudent steps in the direction of AGW mitigation would be tollerable, even good for humans as a whole wether AGW is real or not. We may find that with minimal pain, we actually do have our thumbs on the scales and realize a new potential for our species... and that would be awesome. My guess is that we will find that we dont have that power, and it will all be for naught, but that the effort to create a new paradigm that is less agressive twords the ecosystem we will all move forward anyway. Not unlike great works of the past bringing about vastly benificial social movement/evolution. (space programs, exploration of our planet at great cost, pure research and so on.)

[Lrkr]

But this planet will continue to survive (relative to its entire history) as will its biodiversity, and most likely humans as well.

People just love to profess belief to this.
The argument seems to be sound at first sight : look at the history of our planet; if Life would be so fragile no way would it have endured all that abuse.

With some people you can sniff in there a rationalized adherence to divine providence; but i'll not attack that connection in your case 5th.

The argument is an one that fails to show a tad of humility in face of the repeated (http://park.org/Canada/Museum/extinction/extincmenu.html)events which squashed life during the earths history.
The fact that 'life-in-general' came back from these events could mean very little to a creature like Homo Sapiens. Basically the only ace up our sleeve is our ability to transmit knowledge reliably to future generations.
It isn't so far fetched to think of effects following extensive global warming combined with an energy crisis that would significantly reduce the efficiency of this ace.
And quite honestly I don't give a shit about the cockroach enduring through the next 100000 years if humanity isn't going to be around to witness it.


The media hype is nauseating. Sure. But the concern is valid.

6° C global rise by the end of the next century would probably at least severely hamper our survival if it doesn't outright kill us off.

Brussels would have a climate like Baghdad; most of the bottom of the marine food chain would die out disrupting the global food chain severely; any large land masses around the equator would become deserts; prompting massive human migration to the last patches of arable land in Europe; Russia and North America; Greenland and Antartica will have melted fully making the sea levels rise by 70 metres (75 % of what it has done in the last 350 million years) totally changing the already restricted habitable land surface etc. etc.



Now you can debate all you want on wether this is gonna happen. 6° in a century is an extreme scenario.

But if it happens we currently have enough info to give us a nice idea of what it could be like. And your statement shouldn't come so confidently out of your trunk in the light of that info.

[roflmao]

Lets just construct a giant shield over the world with air-conditioning.

[Troubleshooter]

Lets just construct a giant shield over the world with air-conditioning.LOL. I remember as a child, watching an earth-day special where Robin Williams did a skit about how nay-sayers could always find an unreasonable solution to any environmental problem. When the issue of global warming came up... the solution was to move everyone into the Mall. Malls have everything you need to sustain life + air conditioning :D

[Firelance]

As a meteorology major, I am exposed to climatological goings on from time to time (even being invited to a screening of "An Inconvenient Truth" by the Climatology professor) and I am encouraged to try and earn a working understanding of the processes of "Global Climate Change." I have also had numerous discussions with my father, an engineer who used to be involved in emissions testing for engines.

To be quite frank, I do not hold any opinion of this "Global Climate Change" notion other than the fact that its constantly changing and has been since this rock actually condensed an atmosphere some distant time in the past.

I should note that reliable and timely weather observations worth a damn have only been taken since the mid to late 19th century, not quite enough on the face of it to observe any long term trends. Then scientists attempt to derive past climate information via the ice sheets and such, but never let us in on any of the really important information. Such information may include what might cause variances in their data, what the margin of error is, what they have calibrated their systems against, and so on.

I'm not ranting on that "global climate change" as the public understands it doesn't exist, but I'm not singing its praises either. Its got a long way in my views before I can generate an honest opinion on the subject matter, and I hope I can shed some further light on this when I delve deeper into this during the academic year.

Until such an acceptable answer in either direction can be formulated, life will pretty much stay the same for me.

[Moe]

Then scientists attempt to derive past climate information via the ice sheets and such, but never let us in on any of the really important information. Such information may include what might cause variances in their data, what the margin of error is, what they have calibrated their systems against, and so on.

Huh? A couple of years ago I had to give a talk about the use of GPR in glaciology. In order to prepare for it I went through loads of journal articles and other publications that mainly revolved around drilling into the ice sheet covering Greenland for climate research purposes, and the majority of them provided the information you just listed.

[boolybooly]

Here is an interesting plan akin to the OP's scheme (http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn12111-company-plans-eco-iron-dump-off-galapagos-.html).


carbon-offsetting firm Planktos ... plans to dump the iron in order to trigger a plankton bloom - and sell carbon "offset" credits as a result

Actually I think this might not be such a bad idea if done responsibly during el nino years. But if they were to over do it, it could be catastrophic for the ecosystem and the humans effected by it.

[norfolknclue]

<3 trouble :E

[The5thElephant]

The argument is an one that fails to show a tad of humility in face of the repeated events which squashed life during the earths history.
The fact that 'life-in-general' came back from these events could mean very little to a creature like Homo Sapiens. Basically the only ace up our sleeve is our ability to transmit knowledge reliably to future generations.
It isn't so far fetched to think of effects following extensive global warming combined with an energy crisis that would significantly reduce the efficiency of this ace.
And quite honestly I don't give a shit about the cockroach enduring through the next 100000 years if humanity isn't going to be around to witness it.


I don't disagree at all. My point about the amazingness of life was that it CAN survive through a near total extinction event, which global warming is certainly not. Humans will even more definitely survive through global warming, and IMO far longer after that. I am not one who is worried about nuclear holocaust or world wide disasters because I find these to be highly unlikely (of course not impossible but I'm just not in the mood to send Bruce Willis to stop an incoming comet). Aside from those scenarios, we will be able to adapt and learn from any environmental changes at the rate (or even faster) we are seeing today.

So humans WOULD be around to see those cockroaches. However you might not.

[Moe]

Aside from those scenarios, we will be able to adapt and learn from any environmental changes at the rate (or even faster) we are seeing today.

It's probably reasonable to say that the knowledge that a tiny fraction of humanity will survive does little to comfort people.

[The5thElephant]

Who says only a tiny fraction will survive? Unless one of those massive catastrophes takes place, global warming will certainly not kill even a billion people (not even close). And this information isn't out there to comfort people anyway. It's not like they are going to be around to see the state of humanity in later centuries anyway (well maybe not, who knows what the average first-world length of life will be soon).

[Noble]

How are you coming to those conclusions 5th? There are quite a few areas where a sea level rise of 10-20 feet would mean the displacement of hundres of millions of people. There would be a considerable amount of strife with that many refugees, and it would be happening on every continent in the world. You also have to consider food shortages, damages to infastructure, economic implications. Conflicts over newly scarce land. Etc Etc. It would be bad, I don't think there's any way to predict, with any kind of accuracy, how many deaths would occur in a worst case scenario.

[The5thElephant]

Ignoring any major ice-shelf collapses, the rise in water level will be quite slow. A rise of 10-20 feet would take decades. This would allow for a more steady and controlled movement away.

I am not saying bad things won't happen, but it is not going to cause even close to an extinction level threat, and I highly doubt the deaths will get anywhere close to a billion.

[Energizer Bunny]

A rise of 10 to twenty feet would have an absolutely massive effect. Huge.

When we start talking about things like that happening in decades rather than centuries is it not time to start taking some sort of action?

[Starfisher]

If you've read 5th's posts, you'll see that he is advocating action - he's said a few times now that we should be working on ways to handle the effects of a rise in temperature.

5th: I think you'd get a lot of starvation/societal breakdown deaths from the rise in sea-level. Even if it takes decades, poor people who live in coastal areas can't afford to move, and generally live in countries that can't afford to move them. As they shift inland they'll swamp other areas and trigger the usual backlashes and shortages.

It's not as if a 20 foot wall of water will spawn at the poles and zerg rush the earth, but it could generate quite possibly the largest human migration in history... which simply would not go well.

[Troubleshooter]

It would be bad, I don't think there's any way to predict, with any kind of accuracy, how many deaths would occur in a worst case scenario.
That never stops alarmists from plucking numbers from the ether though...

Worst case : 100% of humanity dead.
Best Case : 0% of humanity dead.

Humans are OMG adaptable animals... we aint going anywhere.

Even if the worst case predictions about sea level rise and human displacement were to happen in an unreasonably short period, the time it takes for people to relocate and tap into new resources if amazingly fast. Only when politics (borders/corruption) interferes do you have situations where people can't find what they need to survive.

The assumptions about mass catastrophy assume human incompetence, and those that perpetuate that scenerio use human incompetence as the cause of the catastrophy, and yet the solution requires humans to be hyper-competent in application of solutions world wide to avert the scenerio. I am afraid it wont work that way, either we are competent or we are not (as a species). Given the rediculas success of humans, I'd say that, as a species, we are competent survivors, but incompetent at long term risk assessment.


5th: I think you'd get a lot of starvation/societal breakdown deaths from the rise in sea-level. Even if it takes decades, poor people who live in coastal areas can't afford to move, and generally live in countries that can't afford to move them. As they shift inland they'll swamp other areas and trigger the usual backlashes and shortages.You will get those same situations if you significantly alter the economic reality of these same populations. Whip-sawing the global economy is a sure fire way to get people killed - fast.

Furthermore, as the climate changes (in the GW scenerio) the inland environments will alter along with the coast. The coasts will actuall move, not vanish. Most people will only have to displace a few miles over a few genrerations, while the inland communities will have new/less/more resources available as a result of their local/regional changes.

I think if you looked at the ammount of coast line expected to be lost under worst case GW, and offset it by the ammount of land gained from unlocking presently frozen areas, its actually a net gain. (not sure about that... look it up if you want to know for sure.) If I am right about that, countries like canada and russia will have an abundance of natural resources ready to be tapped and vast open spaces needing people to fill them and get to work tapping said resources. Immigration from displaced populations could be far more desireable and worth paying for to make happen.

[Nurizeko]

Humans are OMG adaptable animals... we aint going anywhere.

Yeah, mother nature evolved us, were like the black sheep of the family you just cant get rid off.

*cackle*



I was looking on Youtube for Mr Burns' mother nature speech but couldn't find it.

[Starfisher]

You will get those same situations if you significantly alter the economic reality of these same populations. Whip-sawing the global economy is a sure fire way to get people killed - fast.Huh? Whip-sawing? Why do you bother crying foul over propaganda and people twisting the situation to fit their views if you do it so consistently and so blatantly? I never said anything about "whip-sawing" the economy and neither has anyone anywhere. That's your strawman.

And what's this about moving the poor of the world to Canada and Siberia and everyone living happily ever after? That's the most insanely rosy take on this I've ever heard. Where'd you get that, the CEI? Siberian permafrost melting year round doesn't create employment opportunities for the entirety of the world's poor living in coastal areas. My god man, what are you smoking?

[The5thElephant]

Well it is theorized that many currently poor areas may become rich and prosperous due to the new climate, but it really cannot be accurately predicted down to the exact area.

It just scares me that my city of New York may not be livable within a couple of centuries. With heavy rains the rivers can already flood quite a bit into the city (I have distinct memories of teachers and students wading nearly waist deep out of my school which is on the river), so any rise over 5-10 feet has us basically screwed. Theoretically you could live on the higher floors in taller buildings, but having your basement and foundations constantly inundated cannot be good for structural integrity.

New York City = the new Venice?

[Black]

New York City has the finances to do some drastic things to keep Manhattan from sinking. One day's worth of commerce happening in the city could pay for a massive engineering project to build a wall around the island if it so inclined them. I know that's a little ridiculous but it's just an example of what can be done when you have the money to do something about it.

[The5thElephant]

I don't know if you could really stop the water from seeping into the island underneath the wall. A lot of the manhattan coast is just landfill with buildings on top. When it rains a lot here it doesn't even need to flood the streets and my basement still gets water in it.

[Troubleshooter]

That's your strawman.Perhaps. Its my assessment of the effect that the most common "solutions" to AGW would create. Its not more explosive an assessment as "a tiny fraction of humanity surviving" climate change.


My god man, what are you smoking?Over the past 20 years, the USA has absorbed something on the order of 20,000,000 illegal immigrants due to a simple economic disparity between the USA and its nearest neighbors. If central america were to have a massive economic collapse due to climate change, while Canada is begging for immigrants to develope its unlocked natural resources (not seasonal... open and ready for business 24x7)... how long would it take for the migration to become a stampede? Furthermore, if Canada/Russia were seriously trying to reverse demographic slide while massively expanding thier commodity trade, why would they NOT subsadize immigration from poor/ruined areas of the world. Saudi Arabia already does this..

How can you sit there and say I am off my rocker by suggesting that a remedy to imagined problems would simply be a continuance of things that are happening NOW - without global climate crisis? What have I been smoking indeed?! :-\


I don't know if you could really stop the water from seeping into the island underneath the wall. A lot of the manhattan coast is just landfill with buildings on top. When it rains a lot here it doesn't even need to flood the streets and my basement still gets water in it.IIRC, Manhattan is a very solid hunk of rock. I would imagine that sub-basements would be fairly easy to waterproof while the exterior infrustructure would tollerate an elevated transportation grid. The question is: Would anyone want to risk the economic disruption by staying in Manhattan when they can move to more competitive and less ecologically challenged locations... like Denver for example.

[Invicitus]

There are several things we the enlightened people of the western world can do to lessen the impact of greenhouse gasses on earths climate.
1. Turn of what you don't use(no standby)
2. Stop the deforrestation of the world.(no use of timber from the rainforests)
3. Support the use of wind/water/solar/neuclear power.
4. Place/demand taxes on the use of fosile fuels.
5. Do not use your car for short trips.(walk or use public transport instead)
6. Try not to buy imported goods.
7. Switch to an energy saving bulps where possible.
8. If possible try to buy the most energy efficient product for your home.
9. Recycle whenever possible.
10. Study, get smarter. Try to make others aware of the problem with global warming.

Note: Global warming is truely global, so do not let others make our mistakes. Release and encourge advanced energy production means to the 3rd world countries.

Good luck.

[Starfisher]

Over the past 20 years, the USA has absorbed something on the order of 20,000,000 illegal immigrants due to a simple economic disparity between the USA and its nearest neighbors. If central america were to have a massive economic collapse due to climate change, while Canada is begging for immigrants to develope its unlocked natural resources (not seasonal... open and ready for business 24x7)... how long would it take for the migration to become a stampede? Furthermore, if Canada/Russia were seriously trying to reverse demographic slide while massively expanding thier commodity trade, why would they NOT subsadize immigration from poor/ruined areas of the world. Saudi Arabia already does this..
Yes, and the US is currently experiencing no domestic stress over this migration. Everyone is happy with it. Let's expand it to a billion people over a similar timespan and see what happens, shall we?

I have no doubt that humanity will adapt to whatever comes down the pipes next century. However, I think it's willfully naive to think that we will whether all of it through a simple, orderly market transaction, as you are insinuating. Lebensraum killed 60 million people last century, and there weren't even any real shortages in major population areas for that war. If the climate does continue to warm, the most populous areas on Earth will become drier, coastal areas will be forced to adapt, and all the political entities in that band will be called on to provide more with a pool of less to choose from. You like markets - what happens when things get scarce and people see each other as adversaries?

People compete. Darfur can easily be linked to the drought and famine that currently grips the region. Why do you try to hide or ignore the possibility of other Darfurs in other areas that get hit with the same basic condition?

Throughout human history, whenever things get scarce, people get killed. Yet you blithely assert that Canada and Russia will buy the poor to work in factories over "newly freed resources". Thereby making it all better. Yes, I think you're smoking something.

[The5thElephant]

The massacres at Darfur were caused by more than just famine and drought, there is also a background of racial hatred. Miserable quality of life just triggers those background hatreds into action. Same kind of thing in the Middle East. If all the palestinians were in better economic situations then you would see far less hatred of Israel.

[Troubleshooter]

Yes, and the US is currently experiencing no domestic stress over this migration. Everyone is happy with it. Let's expand it to a billion people over a similar timespan and see what happens, shall we?Well, I suppose we are just going to hurl rhetorical lightning bolts about then, huh?

I started by saying that humans are resoruceful when it comes to survival and highly adaptable as a response to the statement : "poor people who live in coastal areas can't afford to move, and generally live in countries that can't afford to move them"

I supported my statement by extrapolating current trends and policy that prove my point, and you follow up with accusing me of irrational optomism... Why? Because Canada and Russia are incapable or unwilling to adapt to climate change by encouraging or adopting trends already in place elsewhere in the world? You're right... I am aparently high on dope, its impossible for societies to make rapid and agressive advancement when they suddenly find a wealth of new resources ready for exploitation... its never happened in the past, right?!?

But wait...

I have no doubt that humanity will adapt to whatever comes down the pipes next century.
OMG you're a utopian optomist too! How the hell can you kick me in the nutz and then in essence agree with me?!!


However, I think it's willfully naive to think that we will whether all of it through a simple, orderly market transaction, as you are insinuating.Ohhhhhhh, I see... you think that because I can actually project a less than dire vision of humaity under stress from climate change that I think it will be "easy" to overcome the myriad of problems that go with it. Whelp, I wont dissapoint you... odds are that it would be very easy to mass migrate cheap labor to these places (all of which we are only speculating would become available) because the infrastructure is there, the opportunity is there, and the desire is there. Thats not to say that the cultural stress/friction would not be titanic, but since when do we shy away from progress because it might get the less-than-liberal folks in a panic.


Darfur can easily be linked to the drought and famine that currently grips the region. Why do you try to hide or ignore the possibility of other Darfurs in other areas that get hit with the same basic condition?Famine follows war generally... not the other way round.

[Nurizeko]

I live on top of a hill in a mountainous country, my city is coastal, but yeah, steep rise of the land means sea level rise wont be a big issue.

The problem is theres too much alarmism around GW.

Like has been discussed, some people won't be happy until everyone is cowering in fear at the sudden tidal waves of massive sea level rise.

Someones been watching too much Waterworld I reckon.

[Cyberbob]

I live on top of a hill in a mountainous country, my city is coastal, but yeah, steep rise of the land means sea level rise wont be a big issue.

As long as your city will be OK, I guess it'll all be alright then. :rolleyes:

[TheDeadlyShoe]

what really bugs me about this is that people question global warming and constantly change the debate from 'what should we do about global warming' to 'is there even global warming?!' and we get the same wall of crap thrown up every thread. It doesn't matter how many times we go over the same points. Nuri chiming in with how amazing it is that there's people who take things seriously just about completes the checklist. We don't need another thread like that. Or is this just an oblique way of saying "I don't take global warming into account in my lifestyle?"

[Tiresias]

I live on top of a hill in a mountainous country, my city is coastal, but yeah, steep rise of the land means sea level rise wont be a big issue.

yeah I'm sure the millions of refugees won't be an issue...

[Moe]

what really bugs me about this is that people question global warming and constantly change the debate from 'what should we do about global warming' to 'is there even global warming?!' and we get the same wall of crap thrown up every thread. It doesn't matter how many times we go over the same points. Nuri chiming in with how amazing it is that there's people who take things seriously just about completes the checklist. We don't need another thread like that. Or is this just an oblique way of saying "I don't take global warming into account in my lifestyle?"

Well what you're proposing would include actually reading the other posts in a thread. And why do that if you can just as well jump right in and post "the sun is repairing the ozone layer lol"?

I honestly don't understand why this is even a topic for discussion. Politics, religion... in those cases you have different opinions and different points of view which are probably equally valid. Not so much here. We may as well start a debate thread on skydiving and wait for someone to claim that there is no gravity and that he therefore won't have to think about his parachute.

However just as surely as every thread about morality sooner or later spirals into a "god said this" "there is no god" "u sux" "bible sux lol" discussion, every time someone mentions climate change a bunch of people will come out of the woodwork and attack it because they don't like the idea.

[Kained]

I honestly don't understand why this is even a topic for discussion.

If scientific theory is not a topic for discussion then you are not engaged in science.

[SquidDNA]

There are some levels of discussion you can attempt where everyone at the table will stare at you for a moment, and then ignore you. It usually means you don't understand what the discussion is about.

[LordZon]

One major volcanic erruption puts off more green house gasses than man has ever produced. So, good luck!

[The5thElephant]

Oh god I hate that factoid. It is so constantly misused and misconstrued.

[Moe]

If scientific theory is not a topic for discussion then you are not engaged in science.

I'd say I'm pretty engaged. That doesn't mean that I want to debate whether the sky is blue or not once per week.

[Nurizeko]

every time someone mentions climate change a bunch of people will come out of the woodwork and attack it because they don't like the idea.

No-ones attacked it though, no-one has claimed once its not happening.

Whats the issue?...Oh no, people have different opinions and views on how to best handle the situation and some, god forbid, still prefer all angles to be explored.

The problem with the thread is that some guys have been trying to imply there is a true faith vs the ignorant heretics thing going down and approaching it accordingly, and others are saying, yeah climate change is occurring, but how we are dealing with it is wrong/theres still no reason not to ignore other possible causes.

Saying some "green" policies and stuff are stupid isn't saying GW isn't happening, neither is saying "over-reacting is stupid" and "we should still be open to other hypothesis and research on alternate causes".

I think thats all some folk have been trying to say, but others are just intent on slamming the foot down and proclaiming GW to be the greatest threat to civilization ever, and that its human and human cause alone and theres nothing but our own activities causing it, and that anyone who questions dumb things like "awareness" gigs are heretics and anyone who says anything that can be remotely mis-construed as anti-Human GW should burn in purgatory.

And god forbid if someone actually wants to keep using their car or leaving an electrical item on STANDBY!.


I reckon the threads run its course in that event, those that want a GW inquisition have said their piece, those that want some real debate on the subject have said their bits.

Since no-one is allowed to question the reasons behind GW without being labeled a tool of oil industry or otherwise someone with dirty motives, and the way we deal with it being off the books because awareness is more important then actually not being hypocritical, whats the point of the thread?.


As long as your city will be OK, I guess it'll all be alright then.

yeah I'm sure the millions of refugees won't be an issue...

Yup, I wont have to move house, personally, and for my friends and family, thats a good thing. what?...I shouldn't be happy that I won't be flooded out?. We apparently are the sole cause of GW, so why should we feel sorry for ourselves now?. Must I move to the Thames valley so I can be washed away with everyone else just so I don't suffer survivors guilt or something?.

Anyway, according to the more fanatically retarded opinions, it will be billions and they'll all probably die as the waters raise suddenly over-night, and as civilization inevitably collapses back to the stone age the dead will be the last thing on my mind as small tribal bands of hardened survivors who have suddenly forgotten the basics of law, order and intelligence, fight over the last scraps of society, violently defending our fire from the others.

Oh and we'll probably get some zombies to, adds to the drama and catastrophe of the whole event.



So again, in summary...
1. No-one has denied climate change, or the fact we are probably heavily involved as a cause.
2. No-one is saying taking logical precautions isn't a good idea.

What are you guys arguing against then?.

[Noble]

Moe, if you don't want to debate the issue, then don't.

I disagree with Trouble's (and others) perspective on the issue but I don't think the issue is as cut and dry as the color of the sky. I think that people who object to, or disagree with, the idea of AGW are misinterpreting data, and are guilty of a few logical errors. I keep seeing "It's just a theory, it's not fact". Yes it is just a theory, but it's a theory with an overwhelming amount of empirical evidence, with very little evidence that discredits it.

That being said, I don't think it's a worthless discussion. Trouble has articulated his arguments admirably and I think that my understanding of the issue has benefited from that. I think I can speak for most people here (you included Moe) when I say that we discuss this sort of thing to further everyone's understanding of the issues at hand. If you feel like you aren't getting anything out of the discussion, it seems very petty of you to come into the thread and question whether or not the discussion even needs to take place. Clearly there are people present who do not possess as full of an understanding of the issue as you do (myself included), so those people are benefiting from the thread. As such, the purpose, and validity of the discussion seems exceedingly apparent to me.



Yup, I wont have to move house, personally, and for my friends and family, thats a good thing. what?...I shouldn't be happy that I won't be flooded out?. We apparently are the sole cause of GW, so why should we feel sorry for ourselves now?. Must I move to the Thames valley so I can be washed away with everyone else just so I don't suffer survivors guilt or something?.

Anyway, according to the more fanatically retarded opinions, it will be billions and they'll all probably die as the waters raise suddenly over-night, and as civilization inevitably collapses back to the stone age the dead will be the last thing on my mind as small tribal bands of hardened survivors who have suddenly forgotten the basics of law, order and intelligence, fight over the last scraps of society, violently defending our fire from the others.

You have totally misinterpreted the points being made against you. Your life will be in jeopardy not because you're area will be flooded, but because we are talking about hundreds of millions of homeless, hungry people who will do anything within their power to survive. That includes breaking into your house, kicking your family out and stealing all your food and supplies. Yes, people do suddenly forget the basics of law, order and intelligence. They do so as soon as their survival is at stake. Human beings have the same "survive at all costs" instinct as every other animal. The governing entities of the world would be totally incapable of handling such an extreme volume of refugees. I live in the mountains too, but what happens when everyone on the east coast comes to the mountains looking for shelter?

No one is saying you would have survivors guilt. You won't because you will probably be fighting for survival just as hard as everyone else.

Again though: There's no way to predict the outcome of such an event, there could be billions dead, or millions, or thousands. We don't know, because there are way to many variables.

[Harmanoff]

Oh god I hate that factoid. It is so constantly misused and misconstrued.Please enlighten us that never heard neither the factiod nor that it was misused before.

[Troubleshooter]

I'd say I'm pretty engaged. That doesn't mean that I want to debate whether the sky is blue or not once per week.Thats why I have resisted turning this thread into another link-frenzy. The last one broke my brain...

One thing I will say though, despite TDS's fatigue with these types of threads, is that when we do hit these things with solid point/counterpoint, even thought 95% of it is rehashed from other threads... 5% of the stuff is new and fresh... and there are members and lurkers that have not heard this stuff before who will learn alot.

For example, the last GW thread, CJ took the time and effort to deal with me, and I learned quite alot from the exchange... not the least of which was how to properly engage in the discussion with people who take it very seriously and have a solid foundation for their arguements. I confess to having beat up on people who didnt have a damn clue about GW/AGW before becuase it was easy to do. Some of the arguements that I used to shut them down were debunked and I didnt even know it.

I dont want to win arguements, I want to explore topics. I honestly learn something new every time we dive into this stuff, even though it is very stressful when you do them in close succession. IMO, the last GW thread is still too near for me to want to really go at this with hammer and tongs again, and I am still assimilating some of the information from that last go round.

[Nurizeko]

I was reading the Wiki's on An Inconvenient Truth and The Great Global Warming Swindle as I was reading up on the politics of GW article, and generally seeking to enlighten myself more on the whole thing, the politicization of it mostly, and I came across this little chunk o info.


The total concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere is just 0.054%, a very minuscule amount. Humans contribute much less than 1% of that. The documentary states that volcanoes produce significantly more CO2 per year than humans (Durkin has subsequently admitted that this claim is wrong[7]), while plants and animals produce 150 gigatons of CO2 each year. Dying leaves produce even more CO2, and that the oceans are "the biggest source of CO2 by far." Human activity produces a "mere" 6.5 gigatons of CO2 each year. The film concludes that man-made CO2 emissions therefore cannot be causing global warming.

I'm not a climatologist, but assuming this isn't a blatant fallacy, and aware it comes from a documentary that, for lack of a better term, can be considered "anti GW/Human caused GW", if this is in fact real, it makes me wonder why we seem so so overwhelmingly believe we and we alone are to blame.

My guess is its false data from "research" commissioned exactly for this side of the argument.


Claims that all sceptics are funded by private industry (such as oil, gas, and coal industries) are false and have no basis in fact.

This is the one point from the great swindle article I fully agree with.


Scientists who speak out against the theory that global warming is man-made risk persecution, death threats, loss of funding, personal attacks, and damage to their reputations.

This one made me lol, scientists can be heavily invested in their theories, but death threats?...probably fringe eco nut-jobs if its true.

Perhaps civilization does need to be run by a council of scientists after all, to see scientists, right or wrong, given death threats by common joe public retard just makes me sad.

[Tiresias]

The Great Climate change swindle was itself a swindle, half the scientists interviews since objected that their views were totally misrepresented, it used reports that all have been since discredited included one by the same author as you mentioned. The Director has previously been in legal trouble over editing people to change their views in a previous documentary.

[Cyberbob]

The thing is, nuri, that volcanoes, plants, animals etc. have all been producing CO2 for millions of years. The only variable in the equation which is increasing is that of the amounts produced by humans.

[Troubleshooter]

nurizeko : Its numbers like that which continue to fuel my skeptisism of things... its the magnitude of the other factors stacked against human cause that make it seem as though we are overly arrogant when we discuss AGW.

However... if you look at the other side of it... as we tip the balance ever so slightly, year after year, we alter the ability of the earth to cope with the change, and the effect snowballs. Thus, over a unusually short amount of time, you not only cause more thermal buildup in the atmosphere, you also accellerate the damaging effects by killing off the earths ability to "sink" carbon at the same time. Its not unreasonable to see how this cumulative effect could actually work to raise global temperatures a few degrees over the course of a century... at least thats how I understand the AGW arguement.

[Nurizeko]

Now that you've shared your personal opinions, Tir, can someone enlighten me on the actual quote, about the CO2 percentage dealy?.

As I said, I would assume its falsified data, and fair enough, but I don't need Ad Hominem arguments to discredit the data please.

What the director did or didn't do TBH isn't my concern. :)

Troubleshooter, good post and I agree, when looking at it that way, essentially putting one block too many on the Jango block tower. :slow:

[Moe]

No-ones attacked it though, no-one has claimed once its not happening.

Whats the issue?...Oh no, people have different opinions and views on how to best handle the situation and some, god forbid, still prefer all angles to be explored.

Uh.. have you read the thread? I direct you to comments such as "AGW is something Al Gore pulled out of his ass".


Moe, if you don't want to debate the issue, then don't.
And I wasn't planning on doing so, because that's not what this thread was about. Have a look at the title please. It says "what do you do to fight global warming", not "omg lets have another discussion whether global warming exists". I really don't mind discussing the former. I mind debating the latter for the four hundredth time when that wasn't even the topic of the thread in the first place.

[Troubleshooter]

The thing is, nuri, that volcanoes, plants, animals etc. have all been producing CO2 for millions of years. The only variable in the equation which is increasing is that of the amounts produced by humans.

Thats not entirely true though. One truth about the earth is that it is hit from time to time by comets. One such comet strike in the atlantic ocean is even assumed to be the source for many of the "flood" myths that are so common in the various cultures of the world, to include the story of Noah. These comet strikes have, invariably caused massive plant-die-outs, and if you were to have a simultanious comet impact and volcanic side effects, you would have a ultra-tight AGW-style event. The classic response to these events is for life to rebound though, and for what ever damage was caused to be absorbed in some way by the global engine. Though we are pretty sure that this is what killed the dinosaurs, we still dont know how exactly the "spiral of death" was averted, though what ever did reverse the damage was certainly a natural event.

Where you have a different set of circumstances is that Humans are not making "single event" impacts, but are rather incrimentally altering the ecological equations... which might be alot like boiling a frog. I still wonder though how the earth is able to cope with major shocks but is incapable of dealing with carbon-creep.


I mind debating the latter for the four hundredth time when that wasn't even the topic of the thread in the first place.But there is a legitimate two pronged answer that addresses the thread topic : How can you fight something you dont believe is combatable, and if AGW is not the major cause of climate change, is there any point to the effort. That will lead to the sub-thread about the validity of the AGW claim (it always does)... but we have for the most part kept the discussion out of the minutia. Some of the debate directly relates to how we might cope with GW rather than fight it outright.

The actual thread was really just an advertisment anyway... at least it morphed into something interesting. ;)

[Cyberbob]

I still wonder though how the earth is able to cope with major shocks but is incapable of dealing with carbon-creep.

Who says it's unable to deal with carbon-creep? We might not be able to (this remains to be seen, though), but I'll guarantee you that life in one form or another will persist.

[Troubleshooter]

Sorry, that was acutally a question... not a statement. I R NEED PUNT-U+ATIONZ!!

[Tiresias]

the planet can deal with it, over a period of thousands/million years. We can't deal with the process.

[The5thElephant]

Sure we can, it will just suck for some people and be great for others. Like everything else in human history. We can deal with shit better than any other species on the planet. Other species are either lucky enough to survive or they die out and are replaced by something else. We however can adapt faster than the pace of natural evolution.

[Sir Plasma]

In my house, we compost and recycle large amounts of our would-be waste. As a result, we produce only 3/4 of a bag of garbage per week. We turn off machines and lights when we arent using them, and instead of throwing out used clothing and appliances, we give them to charities.

I bike instead of drive to school, and minimize paper waste by writing really small/not using a new page for each paragraph as some do.

We wash all our day's dishes at once and use water-conserving shower heads. Boo-rah!

[The5thElephant]

Plasma - I don't want to trivialize what you are doing, but even if every single American started doing that we would still have global warming. Hell, if everyone on the planet started doing that we would still have global warming (though at a slower pace, perhaps noticably perhaps not).

You aren't saving the planet, you are being efficent. Which is great, but what will truly "save the planet" (though it doesn't need saving per se) will be getting rid of fossil fuels.

[Troubleshooter]

IIRC, China just passed the US on CO2 emissions. Greater effeciency on the part of american consumers (and other western "wealthy" consumers) will only reduce demand for fossil fuels, which will make them cheaper, so China can buy more...

Irony : If you want to reduce CO2 emissions, bid up the price of fuel by consuming more, faster... ;)

I will help fight global warming by being a wasteful slob and making lots of money :lol:

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Chicago-school crap. Gasoline demand is inelastic. It doesnt go up and down with price.

[Sir Plasma]

Plasma - I don't want to trivialize what you are doing, but even if every single Canadian started doing that we would still have global warming. Hell, if everyone on the planet started doing that we would still have global warming (though at a slower pace, perhaps noticably perhaps not).


I'm aware of that, but what can I, as a middle-class fifteen-year-old, do to genuinely save the planet?

[Vakarian]

I'm aware of that, but what can I, as a middle-class fifteen-year-old, do to genuinely sace the planet?

Nothing major which is what 5th was saying. Like minded Individuals can only do so much, Governments and companies also have to contribute.

[El Russo]

If I were a devious mod I'd lock this thread to contribute towards lessening excessive and unnecessary usage of electricity ;)

[Nurizeko]

If I were a devious mod I'd lock this thread to contribute towards lessening excessive and unnecessary usage of electricity

Truly, Russo, you are a man of great potential towards energy efficiency!, if only there was an official position for Relic Nature Nazi, I mean environmentally friendly adviser, I would vote you for it. :spin:

Then again, the forum goers have never let a thing like the environment get in the way of arguing about it. :nyah:



Nothing major which is what 5th was saying. Like minded Individuals can only do so much, Governments and companies also have to contribute.

I agree, I think more people, me included would be much more enthusiastic if government and business were taking a real lead.

I think most folk can see the common sense in being energy efficient and relatively green, global warming or not, but it kinda makes some folk wonder why they have to do all this while government policies are pretty pathetic at best, and business and industry is still happily churning out its waste and by-products.

Still, as has been said, finding that golden holy grail of energy sources would help allot.

[Hunterxl]

Well In terms of fuel and air pollution reduction. You don't need to buy a High end hybrid car to be eco-conservative (smug lol). Normal sized modern cars are incredibly efficient and clean,(Excluding Gas guzzling suv's and Hummers) If more people would just not push it by buying dirty highly inefficient and impractical cars we would be fine.

[Troubleshooter]

If more people would just not push it by buying dirty highly inefficient and impractical cars we would be fine.
Bigger, safer cars ;)

BTW, I think that the present fleet of hybrids actually work out to be more polluting over time than the average SUV. Reasons have to do with the time it takes for the fuel cell to wear out and need replacement + the energy it takes to make one.

In 10 years, I am sure the eco-scale will tip forever to the Hybrid/electric car, once the manufacturing process is refined a bit.

[n0z3k1ll3r]

Bigger, safer carsTwo points here:

Firstly, your getting your safety at the expense of other people. If your in a crash with a normal car in a 4WD your more likely to survive but the people in the other car are more likely to die.

Secondly if BOTH parties have a 4WD your both more likely to die than if two normal cars crash.

They're stupid vehicles and should be banned.

[Win_Imperial]

What do you do to fight global warming?

Nothing.

[Atreides]

Build and mass market some hybrids that look like AND perform like a corvette and you have something. The current crop of hybrids I see are shaped like an egg, or scream NERDMOBILE, you almost expect to see 15 stupid bumper stickers on the back.

Climate Change is real- That's a FACT.

Climate change is caused by human activity- That is an OPINION.

Human activity will lead to massive global catastophe - That is HYPERBOLE.

It is cyclical, we will adapt, just as humans have adapted during the hot periods and cold periods we have evidence of from the past few thousand years. Who knows, maybe Greenland will be green again and some WWII P382 which are buried under hundreds of feet of ice will finally be uncovered.

When a Lockheed P-38 Lightning lifted off the runway at Middlesboro, Ky., about 3:30 Saturday afternoon it was the first time the airplane had been in the air since July 15, 1942, the day it skidded to a stop on the icecap of Greenland.


The plane was one of six P-38 fighters and two B-17 Bombers being flown to Europe about seven months after the United States entered World War II. When bad weather caused the eight aircraft to turn back they discovered that bad weather had also closed in behind them. The flight leader decided the best thing to do was have the entire flight land together before they ran out of fuel.

The crews were rescued within a few days, but the airplanes were left where they stopped and over the years they were covered by ice. A few attempts to salvage the airplanes were made but were unsuccessful.

Eventually a Middlesboro businessman named Roy Shoffner acquired the salvage rights and in 1992, 50 years and one month after the planes landed, once was finally removed from under a layer of ice 268 feet thick.
Lost Squadron (http://www.coffeedrome.com/glacier.html)

Almost 300 feet of ice INCREASED since 1942 in Greenland? What? The debate is FAR from over, I see some people just say doubters are paid by oil companies, well AGW proponents are funded by enviro groups, so there is bias all over BOTH sides of this. I have come to realise that people are blinded from facts that don't match up with their ideas, I have recognised this in myself and am trying to grow up a bit. Now I know for a fact that some of you will just completely blow past whatever point I make and just attack my view because it is naive, stupid, or whatever other form of label to be thrown out.

There are salient points on ALL sides of this issue, if you think that there are only good points on YOUR side then you are a short sighted moron who needs to pull his head out of his ideological ass and realise that you do not possess the sum total of all wisdom, and neither do your ideological heroes. i included this point about the Lost Squadron as simply a point that blasts a small hole in the political and commercial juggernaut that is the current GLOBAL WARMING AAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!! movement. We are all being marketed to. Buy a hybrid car, even though it costs you a lot more to own and the savings in fuel are negated by its short service life and high maintenance, not to mention it's styling just says DORKMOBILE. But BUY ONE OR YOU HATE THE EARTH!!! BUY florescent bubs or you want your kids to burn!!!! Do not drive unnecessarily or you are not eco friendly! Recycle!! Reuse!! BUT MAKE SURE YOU BUY THE COMPLETE LINE OF STUFF THAT "helps" THE EARTH!! And for those who really want to make a difference, buy some carbon credits, or try to get new taxes passed, because if you help to make us all have to give the government MORE money, then you really CARE. In the end the government will blow the money on junkets for politicians, but hey! At least you CARED enough to try.

[Hunterxl]

Well that's why this issue is debated. Truth is time will only tell.

[Moe]

[Almost 300 feet of ice INCREASED since 1942 in Greenland? What? The debate is FAR from over, I see some people just say doubters are paid by oil companies, well AGW proponents are funded by enviro groups, so there is bias all over BOTH sides of this.

Yeah most of those enviro groups have shitloads of money, just like oil companies. OH WAIT.

I know some of the people doing research in that field. I know they're not getting money from either side. I've looked at the same data they have, and even though I'd be the first to admit that I'm not an expert in this field I do understand most of the math they use. This is not an ideological issue, for these guys' ideology isn't "burn oil lol" or "hug trees lol". It's "science lol", and they are just reporting their findings. This was never an ideological issue until it was politicised, because up until that point it was called climate science, and I wish people would go back to treating it as such. This is being treated like a trial with both sides bringing in their "lawyers" and nobody knows wtf actually happened. It's not a lawsuit, it's a shitload of scientists from nations all over the world reporting their findings and well over a hundred nations saying "yes our guys confirmed this, this is what's happening.

[Nurizeko]

What do you do to fight global warming?


Nothing.

Straightforward and honest.



[Almost 300 feet of ice INCREASED since 1942 in Greenland? What?

I've tried to protect the right for second opinions in this thread but....doesn't ice, especially in large quantities...flow?.

The Greenland Ice sheet is flowing out towards the sea right?, and new snow falls to take its place.

Wouldn't that mean its entirely possible , you know, bury something in the ice without there being some massive gain?.

Sure new ice is forming, but its also melting to. so unless the new ice is forming faster then the ice at the edges are melting, I don't see the point of bringing it up.

[Moe]

There's also of course the part where pressure exerted on ice will cause it to melt (look at how ice scates work) which will help heavy objects sink into the ice over time.

[Kained]

While i dispute some of the science behind global warming i do support new technologies with less environmental impact. Meet the Tesla Roadster (http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php).

**edit**

I also see they're doing a Tesla Whitestar, interesting name...

[Hunterxl]

This is where my BS Geiger Counter begins to tick. You might already know my stance on Global Warming but I'm not going to go there because it doesn't matter right now.

What does matter is the amount of information "Or lack thereof" about what is happing on the ice caps and in continental Glaciers and valley glaciers in relation to climate change.

Glaciers and ice sheets are receding and I'm not denying that because they been receding since the 1700's and it's not because of rising tempratures. Yet what is failed to be mentioned is that although Glaciers and ice sheets are receding they have gotten thicker and denser. This is especially true in Greenland's unique situation where a massive continental Glaciers in the center of the country continually exerts pressure on the land below it, eventually pushing the land outwards as the glacier levels off.

After all precipitation is a major factor in the development of glaciers and Ice sheets.

So don't start building dams just yet (so I hope)

Oh I just saw this, Barns and Nobles Stance on Climate Change lol
http://ninjapirate.com/images/inconvenient_fiction.JPG

[Moe]

While i dispute some of the science behind global warming

Ok fine, let's do this then. What specifically do you dispute?


Glaciers and ice sheets are receding and I'm not denying that because they been receding since the 1700's and it's not because of rising tempratures. Yet what is failed to be mentioned is that although Glaciers and ice sheets are receding they have gotten thicker and denser.

The reason why this isn't being mentioned is because it's not true.

[Deionarra]

As Moe says, listen to what the independent climate scientists and the meteorologists have to say and look at their findings and their evidence. Don't just listen to what the environmentalists or the energy companies have to say. If you do that you just end up with something that's like the quotes from reviews you see on movie posters.

They aren't lying to you when they say that the glaciers are getting thicker, parts of Greenland and much of Antarctica is getting thicker. The statement, "The Greenland ice sheet is getting thicker and denser" is therefore true. At least it's true for some localised areas of these ice sheets.

However it's also true that the overall mass of the Greenland ice sheet is decreasing at around twice the rate now than it was about 10 years ago and still seems to be increasing.

As far as I'm aware, all the theories that suggest the ice isn't melting but is just moving around are only based on lack of data where as all the data gathered shows the opposite. It's like saying there could be intelligent life living on Mars because scientists haven't looked in every crevice yet. (obviously that's an extreme example)

Oh and a believe all the recent data gathered by people looking into possibilities like this (the ice, not the aliens ;)) have show up a complete lack of any hidden ice build up. If ESA's Cryosat hadn't failed to launch we'd probably know a lot more by now.

[Moe]

Dei, a lot of the glaciers that are found in the mountains (such as the alps for example) are getting both thinner and smaller simultaneously.

[Kained]

Ok fine, let's do this then. What specifically do you dispute?

I present an electric car that balances environmental concerns with comparative petrol performance and you wish to quibble about whether or not i think some of the science behind global warming is wrong.

Next you'll be calling me a heretic for supporting alternative energy sources because they will open up new technologies and markets.

Are you just looking for an arguement or are you going to find the middle ground where people can move forward?

[Deionarra]

Yes Moe, the melting of the glaciers is probably a lot more clear cut than with the ice sheets as they tend to be easier to measure. There are of course a few exceptions that have become larger but just like with the major ice sheets the overall trend is that they are melting and melting faster than they were before.

It's these few exceptions to the rule that the opponents of global warming want to focus on. I suspect it's these kind of things taken out of context of the overall trends that give rise to people saying things like, "Yet what is failed to be mentioned is that although Glaciers and ice sheets are receding they have gotten thicker and denser", or that "the ice has just moved somewhere you haven't measured yet".


I don't really follow all the developments in this field so you probably know more about the current facts than I do.

[Moe]

I present an electric car that balances environmental concerns with comparative petrol performance and you wish to quibble about whether or not i think some of the science behind global warming is wrong.

What does one have to do with the other? If the scientific part is irrelevant then why'd you mention it?

[El Russo]

Kained trust me, Moe IS the middle ground - he just knows more than you... It's not personal but if I were going to ask someone their sincere opinion(s) on climatology I would fly out to Deutschland just to see the guy!!

Seriously, I've known Moe since he joined - four years ago!! - and watched him go from a Class A n00b (we all are noobs here btw - and that's not just an on-running in-joke!) to legendary ADD-MINIZ-TRAYTOR (!) and if we ever got round to bumping into each other the topic of discussion would move from climate studies to 'comparative multinational beer economics' between our first shots of tequila and the subsequent sucking on (your) lemons bit! ;) ;) ;)

ps: apologies for posting in this thead again and wasting energy (^^ see my one and only other post in this thread ^^)!!

[Troubleshooter]

@Moe : I am willing to bet that he doesn't dispute the science as much as disagrees with the findings. Unless you KNOW the science, it would be hard to have a real disagreement with how its being conducted. Those of us without daily personal experience with the process are left to digest what erupts out of it from time to time. GW skeptic's (like me) will latch on to anomalies that seem to be glossed over and demand fuller explanations. (see my news snips as an example of what I am taking about)

What frustrates me is when items that seem to poke holes in the wall of AGW theory are given short shrift or "revised" rather than incorporated and assessed with the respect due.

Unfortunately, with a theory as comprehensive as GLOBAL warming... you are going to run in to localized anomalies all the time. Climate models will work one day and fail the next. Data will be challenged faster than they can be confirmed. Worst of all, every time you revise a "prediction" to a less aggressive nature, you add more fuel to the skeptics fire... I know it's a big deal to me for reports like the IPCC to revise down their findings when nothing in the system has naturally accounts for such revision. If you extrapolate AGW findings along a time line in the same way that AGW proponents do for AGW it self, AGW would self eliminate itself as a theory about the same time that AGW kills us all ;)

Its tough to stand over here and be skeptical and not appear to take the conversation lightly. I don't doubt that the volume of work that goes into this stuff is worthy of respect... but as a consumer of findings, I expect ALL the data to harmonize. If it doesn't, then your (the scientific community) work is not done yet.

As a reasonable person, however, I can admit when I see a trend and am willing to agree that harmony may not come before the point that action needs to be taken arrives. To that end, I am willing to take measures to "buy time" to allow a better picture of the situation to develop.

Now, I was listing to C-Span radio last night and heard some speakers discuss various topics. One speaker was addressing the AGW/GW topic. His data shows that AGW is "probable" but not confirmed yet. His way of reconciling reality/policy was to hit the worst outcomes of AGW head on as economic challenges rather than wait for AGW links to be positively identified. So the real, near term, solution was for the countries of the world to make serious efforts in combating :
1. Famine/food supply.
2. Coastal flooding and all that goes with it
3. Malaria, child mortality.
4. Fuel. (eliminate subsidies everywhere, allow free market solutions to emerge)
5. Deregulate (100%) the electricity market.

His hypothesis (and he claims to have numbers to back this up) is that since we want to tackle the negative outcomes of GW regardless of cause anyway... and since the climate is naturally going to change regardless, we should devote our near term resources to mitigate the major climate problems expected to rise from climate change because its cheaper to deal with these problems than to not deal with them and have to do it later. And stacked against the cost of Kyoto style economic suicide (which every one admits wont really stop AGW anyway) the price is a pittance for first world countries to engage in dealing with these issues sooner rather than later.

Its easy for me to agree with him, since this is fairly well aligned with my POV... but to hear it put forward by someone intimately involved in the GW debate and know that the numbers support action along those lines as an alternative to sweeping economic changes makes me more comfortable in my position on the fence.

[Moe]

By the way, on the Tesla roadster: It has two main drawbacks, one being the price and the second one being the recharging problem. I do however think it's a pretty neat idea and hopefully they'll learn a lot while ironing out the smaller kinks. If someone builds an electric car that appeals to a larger demographic (the electric soccer mom car?) it could probably set something in motion.


@Moe : I am willing to bet that he doesn't dispute the science as much as disagrees with the findings. Unless you KNOW the science, it would be hard to have a real disagreement with how its being conducted. Those of us without daily personal experience with the process are left to digest what erupts out of it from time to time. GW skeptic's (like me) will latch on to anomalies that seem to be glossed over and demand fuller explanations. (see my news snips as an example of what I am taking about)

That's fair enough, but I think you can see my problem here. You can't dispute the science, yet you disagree with the findings on the basis that you don't like them? The process seems to go something like this:

1) I do not like what this new theory suggests.
2) I lack the background to disprove the math or to attack the theory directly, because naturally not everyone is a scientist or an expert in this particular field.
3) My only recourse therefore is to find what I believe to be holes in the theory. The problem here is that since I don't know the science behind the theory I can only make assumptions based on my personal experiences. This however is the kind of thinking that results in stuff like "we never landed on the moon, look how the flag is waving yet there is no wind!" or "the plane never hit the pentagon, the wreckage is all wrong!".
4) However, personal experiences don't always work when looking at events that are outside of our personal experience. We all know weather, but it's mostly something that happens and is predicted with a certain degree of accuracy by a guy looking at doppler radar and satellite images of a bunch of clouds. But this is short term stuff and has nothing to do with climate change. What we might be able to see here are some of the symptoms, but you won't see a gradual temperature increase on a weather map.
5) Add a few out-of-context quotes like "the glaciers are actually getting thicker!" or "well oxygen can be turned into ozone, if the ozone layer dies the sun will create a new one!" and we're halfway there.
6) Add politics, stir and bake for twenty minutes at 350°.

I'm not saying nobody should question these things. I'm not saying that scientists are right all the time (in fact they spend a lot of time being wrong), and I do think that it is possible to break down the complex stuff into something that everyone can understand and discuss. But when you constantly have to defend something against attacks that don't even make sense, when you constantly have to explain to someone why their idea simply doesn't work, and when these "arguments" are being taken as valid counterpoints, you have a problem. Do you think that this topic would be under so much fire if it didn't have such serious political and economical implications?

[Nanolathe]

Every good scientist knows that you can't prove anything... our only recourse? disprove things! Scientists use a 'Null Hypothesis' in every single experiment, it is a Hypothesis they try and disprove.

In the case of AGW a scientist does not try and prove we are causing it... but instead disproves that we are not affecting the climate.

If all of you want proof that we humans are doing this you will be disappointed time and time again... it is impossible to prove anything that way. However we can disprove that humans have no involvement.

[Kained]

With the Tesla Roadster they're doing the initial high spec model more as tester than anything else. You can see the business model of this, create a high profile electric car, build a household name and then move into the mass market.

The Tesla Whitestar is the next model which should be equal to a BMW 5 Series. If all goes well Tesla will introduce a cheaper third model. The third model will then be associated with the Tesla name and not written of as another of 'those' electric cars.

Recharging for short range journeys should be easy as photo-electric cells built into the roof will allow for a 50 mile trip a day. Longer range may be tricky but national power grids extend across the country so the infrastructure is partially there.

Look i may not agree with the findings of AGW but i do see the benefit of using environmentally friendly resources. If you wish to persuade me then pm me some relevant material and i will consider it in an objective manner but please stop making assumptions about my position based on limited information.

[Moe]

When on earth did I make an assumption about your position? I asked you to clarify what you were having a problem with. I did that because I think it's a little shortsighted to say "well I have a problem with this but I won't tell you what my problem is".

[El Russo]

I think it needs to be made known that pretty much all of the regular senior members in here have survived years of "board wars" and as such make their points forcefully, but always with respect. Others may end up mis-reading or even plain misunderstanding the posts that people such as Moe and myself make. It's almost a lingual imperative these days to be as concise as possible with one's own words and yet simultaneously write with as much precision as possible...

-- Russo

[The5thElephant]

I thought it was agreed already that it is silly to dispute the existence of AGW since those who wish to ignore the consensus of the large majority of the scientific world aren't going to be convinced on an internet forum anyway (for some reason random articles "proving" AGW wrong are more convincing than proper backed and referenced debate from intelligent people such as Moe). This thread is about what you are doing, what can be done, and what should be done about GW.

I was just reading up the Wiki article on the Tesla Motors company and I find their business plan to be a highly intelligent one. They are starting out 100% electric (take that hybrids) with a high-performance sportsty Roadster for a hefty price point as a proof-of-concept (it also dispels the whole "electric cars are weak and for pussies" idea, it even sounds cool when running, like a Star Wars speeder). Then they are developing a more typical sedan currently codenamed "WhiteStar" (how much do you wanna bet it will have OnStar in the package) which will compete with cars such as the BMW 5-series. States such as New Mexico are currently deciding whether to purchase a number of these cars into state-service, which as is currently being seen with hybrids (hybrid public buses, postal service vehicles, etc) would make for a great example to the larger public consumers. After the "WhiteStar" a more affordable third iteration is in the works.

None fossil-fuel car from the get go, with a realistic and well planned strategy to interest consumers. Now just if I had a few tens of thousands of dollars. Or maybe I should just invest in them (oh perhaps not publicly traded yet?).

[A176]

what's even more intelligent are the various 3rd party companies providing 'plug-in conversion' for current hybrid vehicles - ie, increasing battery load and adapting the vehicle to be plugged into a normal electrical socket to charge over night.

iirc, there are even systems available to recapture and store energy from the vehicle, to be put back into the grid when you 'plug' it in (ie, from regenerative braking, solar panels, or even the main engine).

[The5thElephant]

Yeah, I forgot to mention. Tesla is providing a number of people who buy the cars with home-installed solar-panels which should provide enough charge for 50 miles a day. If you travel less than that you actually have positive energy back into the grid (or your home) just for buying a car!

[floydpink7]

Although many do not realize it, there are many electric cars available now! Almost all of these are meant for city and campus driving, but they do have some major downfalls.

-No Highway diving
-Short range
-long recharge time
-low speeds (hence the highway)

but heres a couple links to the companies that make them readily available (if you can find them)

http://www.itiselectric.com/ (USA/Canada)

http://www.think.no/ytelse (norway)

http://commutercars.com/ (USA)

http://www.zenncars.com/ (USA/Canada)

http://www.gemcar.com/ (USA)

[The5thElephant]

floydpink - But look at the design of all those cars. Horrendously ugly. If a company wants their electric car to sell then they need to go beyond just having any old electric car. They need to convince the populace that you can still be cool and have an electric car, which will be just as functional or more so than a conventional gas car.

[floydpink7]

yup, thats why I put all of those "negative" aspects of the cars today there

[norfolknclue]

Just like to throw this into the works, particulary to ask Moe: You're talking about actually knowing people who iwork in the climate science area, and that Global warming is a fact.

What did they say to the scientifically undisputed fact that ice takes up less volume than water - so if the polar ice caps melt the water level will actually decrease?

[Cyberbob]

What did they say to the scientifically undisputed fact that ice takes up less volume than water - so if the polar ice caps melt the water level will actually decrease?

I can't say for sure, but I'm tipping they would've pointed out that the vast majority of Antarctica's ice is over land - not to mention Greenland.

That statement of yours holds true for the North Pole, but there's actually a lot more ice on Antarctica than there is in the Arctic circle.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

All of that has been taken into account for the water level increase calculations released by various studies. If you want to know how, exactly, you'd probably have to read that section of the study.

[SquidDNA]

"What did they say to the scientifically undisputed fact that ice takes up less volume than water - so if the polar ice caps melt the water level will actually decrease?"

This is one of those moments (http://forums.relicnews.com/showthread.php?p=2423888#post2423888) I mentioned earlier.

hunterxl, given that "An inconvenient truth" is sitting on the shelf next to the first piece of non-fiction ever published as a novel, which is also marked "new release #3" despite having been written in 1965 and they're both under fiction, I think the rational explanation is that bookstore has its head up its ass as far as keeping things organized. You know, critical thinking and all that.

[Mac_Bug]

Um, actually, ice takes up more volume than water, this is why ice floats, and frozen jars break, in fact in physics 101 one might actually be able to calculate the amount of ice that is above the water line given the density and dimensions. If you had 1 litre of water frozen into a cube and drop it into the ocean, it would displace 1 litre of water, and since the frozen ice cube has more volume, this extra volume is seen above the water - in short, if this ice melts, the water level will not change. If the ice is sitting on top of say, land under water however then this does not come into play at all, because presumably the ice is displacing less than the equilibrium (otherwise it'd float and not sit on the bottom of the ocean), and thus this ice melting will increase the water level.

[CommodoreKitty]

Regarding the electric car, the battery life and power of the car is sufficient to meet most all peoples needs. The average commute for an American is 30-40 miles, well within the range of an electric car. Normal cars would only be needed for the long distance heavy hauling stuff. The thing is, people do not like to be limited by their cars at all, even if it saves them money. That combined with the sheer terror that is the look of the cars as well as the omni-elitist culture that surrounds it, plus their higher initial price, doesn't leave many people wanting to buy it.

Not to mention, did you see that first car? I would not feel safe in that P.O.S, I don't care what the company says. I'll take my box-of-a-car beast over it any day, safer ya'know. Sucks for everyone else in the crash, but, who cares? :)

[Moe]

Just like to throw this into the works, particulary to ask Moe: You're talking about actually knowing people who iwork in the climate science area, and that Global warming is a fact.

What did they say to the scientifically undisputed fact that ice takes up less volume than water - so if the polar ice caps melt the water level will actually decrease?

They'd say that you're just trolling and to ignore you. But since people are actually taking you seriously...

Ice is less dense than water. Ice takes up more volume than water, not less. The north pole is a floating ice cap. When it melts, the water level will neither rise nor decrease, it will stay exactly the same. This is because the ice displaces exactly the amount of water it'll add when it melts. However, the south pole is a massive ice cap sitting on dry land. When that thing melts, the sea level will rise considerably.

[El Russo]

I don't understand how people can still dispute global warming. I'm not talking about "our" theories, or even whether humans have caused it or not. I would simply point at temperature records and current weather/climate patterns and point out that the globe - it's getting warmer!!

[Cyberbob]

I don't understand how people can still dispute global warming.

I'd say many do it just to be different - sort of like the emos of the science world. ;)

[floydpink7]

Well, I think that everyone (including me) talking about global warming, no matter how determined they are to try and stop it are thinking at the back their head " I don't want to change the way I live !". So there will always be people who doubt it in thier minds that there isnt any global warming.

Naturally, this is a very common pont, but there is so much information about climate change which is byas towards his or hers point of view. Which is even more confusing to people who want to separate truth and fiction.

[El Russo]

New study on global warming as influenced by humans. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6912527.stm)

[floydpink7]

Solution: Rain Dance !! :lol:

[norfolknclue]

Sorry to resurrect this, but an army scientist is talking about the sun being the main factor, not us.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/06/army-vs-global.html


Dr. Bruce West, Chief Scientist, Mathematical & Information Science Directorate, Army Research Office, will discuss the causes of global warming, and how it may not be caused by the common indicates some scientists and the media are indicating. Research conducted by Dr. West contends that the changes in the earth’s average surface temperature are directly linked to two distinctly different aspects of the sun’s dynamics: the short-term statistical fluctuations in the Sun’s irradiance and the longer-term solar cycles.

Not that it matters really, just another pov.


...
What did they say to the scientifically undisputed fact that ice takes up less (wtf?) volume than water - so if the polar ice caps melt the water level will actually decrease?

Ha! The typo of typos. What a dick. :bonk: :bleh:

[Mokino]

Switch to a life of piracy? Statistics prove more pirates = colder earth.

http://www.americanthinker.com/piratesarecool4.jpg

[The5thElephant]

That army guy is not even close to a climate expert, and his claims have repeatedly been refuted by hundreds of scientists. A lot of global-warming-caused-by-human-doubters say its sun-cycles, but the evidence just doesn't line up if you look any further than 50 years.

He is probably just another person who is being funded by people who don't want to have to use less gas (the military uses a shit-ton of gas) or have more regulations. Many of the scientists who put out this theory are directly funded or connected to oil and gas companies.

[HunterX]

Is this international necromancy week or something? norfolknclue, if want to discuss that article/global warming/climate change denial, please start a new thread.