Are we killing ourselves? Or just our Children?

[BAC5.2]

I am still curious as to how MUCH the world as a whole emits today compared to 10,000 years ago.

I don't care about percent distribution, because those numbers are only relative to eachother without a total number to work from.

[Subtle]

Some of those that promote a government solution to hyped climate hysteria don't really need a full brainwash--just a light rinse is enough.

[gto7419]

Do humans really think that much of themselves in this day and age that we really think we have the power to impact world to make it inhabitable? At best we'll gum it up enough to get rid of a large percentage of our over population problem and the world will reset itself.

I'm glad someone shares my sentiment. We are in the world, not of it. We are part of nature, not controlling it. If the ability to destroy the world was possible with substances found in the world, then it would have probably have already been destroyed a long time ago.

To think we have no control over our environment is a little far fetched in my opinion. Enough of anything and there WILL be drastic change. Think about the nukes that Russia lost after the collapse - Set enough of those off and there you have it - a radioactive world. We most CERTAINLY have the power to make this world inhabitable.

I personally believe global warming is a slow gradual effect but IS real.

Also, the Bush administration was mentioned, so Ill give my take... Bush spins everything and anything he can to further his own agenda - I believe NOTHING that leaves his mouth. The reason he wouldnt allow photographs of dead soldiers is so that public opinion for or against the war wouldnt have more visual sway against him. He cares nothing for the lives lost other than the impact they could possibly have on his finances. He cares nothing about this country other than how policy will effect his and his friends' greed.

He is not the reformed christian he claims to be - he is still the drunk driving moron he always was, and how he was ever elected - twice no less - always boggles my mind.

[isotopeman]

Wow. I've missed a lot the last week or so.

Anyone here can be as hard as they want on scientists and still not come close to being as hard on them as their own peers. It's about answering questions, and everyone knows what happens when a "wrong" answer is proven wrong. That doesn't mean we should stop trying to find answers to questions though.
Not every scientist is biased by who funds them. That wouldn't even be called science by the opinions of most scientists.


There are lots of reasons to be less polluting even if climate change weren't affected by it. I'm still searching for a place that can test the emissions of my Legacy in hopes of seeing what I can do to reduce them. If I succeed, I'll start doing the same with my motorcycle. The best thing I can do though is to not depend on the car. It was obvious years ago that depending on a car is a potential weakness and moved closer to work. I've saved plenty in lower car maintenance costs, fewer fill ups (I'm still on the tank of gas I bought the first week of Jan.), a better sense of the community I live in and less stress. It's nice not having to worry if something happens to the car or if gas prices go up and down. I've also found that I can get to work faster without the car. I used to live 8 miles from the university I attended. It was actually faster to go by bicycle than to drive, find a parking spot, then walk or take the bus to the class.
I'd like to calculate how much/little CO2 I produce in a year from driving, but that would be misleading if I do things like take the elevator one floor up or down all the time, leave the thermostat at wasteful temperatures when I'm gone, etc.
I can't totally eliminate my dependence on fossil fuels, but I'll be damned if I'm going to use that as an excuse to bow down to that weakness and not even try.

Just for clarity, humans have known that the world isn't flat for centuries before Columbus. What does Atlas hold? (It's not flat.) Erathosthenes even did a great job of calculating the circumference of the Earth in ~250BC.

[rallysam]

I am still curious as to how MUCH the world as a whole emits today compared to 10,000 years ago.

I don't care about percent distribution, because those numbers are only relative to eachother without a total number to work from.

First of all, one way to think about it is: Does the number really mean anything to you? You could imagine a universe in which us adding only 1% to nature's output would be enough to raise temps a few degrees, kill some people, and change a whole bunch of things we kinda like about the world. So, what's bad? 0.1%? 10% 110%? It doesn't really mean anything to me. Only analyzing the consequences of that change tells me anything. Thousands of scientists have done that and concluded that the amount we're adding is causing some serious badness.

But, you're still curious and so am I so....


I just did a quick look. As I understand it, "all of a sudden" we've got roughly 25% more CO2 in the atmosphere now than anytime seen by nature in the last 400,000 years. So, if you assume that's our fault and not a coincidence (which scientists have evidence to back up) then that gives you a rough idea the magnitude of what we're doing compared to what nature does.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carb ... 400kyr.png


I also found something that says nature is now actually ABSORBING more carbon that it emits - because we are now emitting so much that natural feedback mechanisms are trying to capture it. However, nature is not able to absorb at the same rate as we are emitting, so the net effect is more greenhouse gas:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carb ... Flux-2.png

But like I said, that's all interesting but what really matters is the predicted consequences of those numbers.

[rallysam]

...I've saved plenty in lower car maintenance costs, fewer fill ups (I'm still on the tank of gas I bought the first week of Jan.), a better sense of the community I live in and less stress. It's nice not having to worry if something happens to the car or if gas prices go up and down. I've also found that I can get to work faster without the car. I used to live 8 miles from the university I attended. It was actually faster to go by bicycle than to drive, find a parking spot, then walk or take the bus to the class.
...

That's the funny thing, you don't even have to give a crap about the environment, because there's so many perfectly good SELFISH reasons to not drive everywhere! (e.g. health, convenience, stress, money, time, etc...).

[isotopeman]

...but I still have to drive my sister to work (she has lost her license and car), as well as drive my brother occasionally if it snows or if he just doesn't have gas money for his Jeep.
I know that not everyone can eliminate driving to work and back though, and I don't intend to offend those of us who can't.
cheers.

[Subtle]

BAC5.2

Another good chart and it's worth adding that the correlation between increasing CO2 and temperature is v. loose. The best statistics indicate a 400 to 800 year lag from carbon to temp change.

But try to get grants today on those observations.

[Subtle]

The big news was how warm it was in November.

Then January recorded the following: Frozen oranges(on the trees) in California, failed avocado crops near Puerto Vallarta, ice and snow storms elsewhere, plus Winnipeg suffering 45 below(no wind chill bs)- the coldest in 11 years.

I get a weather and climate advisory called tthe Browning Newsletter.

The December 31 note included: " Since the December edition went to press, two Russian volcanoes have had large explosions that will affect this January's weather. Sheveluch and Bezymianny on Russia's Kamchatka Penninsula have both had 10 km high eruptions on December 24 and 26, respectively.

The ash debris from these eruptions will not change the global climate, but will cause some cooling in January."

This was sent out on DEC.31.--nice call.

For a bigger change it will require a large number of such eruptions, including some huge ones that can blow at least a cubic mile of rock, ash, steam and sulfuric gases up about 20 miles or so.

Has it happened before? Yes.

Can it happen again? Yes.

When? Prolly with Mother Nature's next phase of cooling.

[Fuzzylee]

I keep the cat because, although fireballs are cool,
the wife gets upset when the yard catches on fire. (Don't ask)

As for "Global Warming", a resonable person can use
Ozone Al's other invention to find information discrediting
him and the other moonbats spouting hysterical nonsense
and attempting to silence or discredit anyone who doesn't
adhere to the party line.
As for "Climate Change", well that's been going on for about
4,500,000,000 years without any human help at all.

Hey, look a real concensus.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

End Rant.....Flame suit ON!

[Subtle]

+++

[555BCTurbo]

End Rant.....Flame suit ON!

So your exhaust doesn't burn you?

[Richard]

Wow fuzzy - that is a lot of information. Too bad all it needs is one global warming defender to discredit it and it becomes irrelevant. From hard, well thought out work to "complete nonsense". Rarely are things like that actually read.

Wow. Someone has their funding come from an oil company and his research is presumed mush. Why are scientists who are bankrolled by greenpeace, sierra club, etc, not looked upon in the same light? Pure ignorance perhaps. Could a group of researchers be pressured by Congress to go one way or the other? If you say no, you don't understand the U.S. government. Could the MIT guy have been pressured to do his work? Perhaps. I think we need to look at this thing from all angles and have an honest debate. There are a lot of bright people with different questions or ideas. It's kinda hard to be heard over the roar of an angry mob though.

And if Bush, the "drunk moron", could win two elections, what does that say about his opponents? Had some real candidates gone against him and not those cheesedicks, maybe things would be much different. Neither Gore or Edwards could carry their own state and that's a little embarrasing. America deserves real candidates (on both sides) and an honest debate. Politicians are a dime a dozen. Real leaders are much harder to find.

How's this for a title:

Are we selling ourselves short, or is the wool over our eyes?

[gto7419]

[quote="

And if Bush, the "drunk moron", could win two elections, what does that say about his opponents? Had some real candidates gone against him and not those cheesedicks, maybe things would be much different. Neither Gore or Edwards could carry their own state and that's a little embarrasing. America deserves real candidates (on both sides) and an honest debate. Politicians are a dime a dozen. Real leaders are much harder to find.

[/quote]

Actually, I believe what it shows is that the American public in general is awful foolish. While Gore might not have been "cool", he was actually quite smart. Bush has created MAJOR problems during his presidency and was by far the worst president of my lifetime. I feel like the past two presidential elections he won were nothing more than popularity contests. Its too bad America cannot realize real candidates and votes in the supposedly "cool" guy instead.

AND, Im sorry, but yes, Bush is a drunk moron who had more than one dui and only got into Harvard in the first place because of his daddy. Then he practically flunked through with C's. A "C" in Harvard is what they give you when you are politically connected and they cant flunk you out.

To be honest, Cartman from Southpark would be a better president than Bush

- A good sense of leadership - "respect my authoritay"
- He knows when to stand and fight - "Im gonna kick you in da nuts"
- He has a higher education than Bush - I believe he finished third grade?
- And, hes not afraid of kitty - "NO kitty, BAD kitty"

[Subtle]

Bush GRADUATED with a Bachelors degree fom Yale and an MBA from Harvard. Those are not honorary degrees.

It's worth defining the liberal-left's usage of the term "moron".

Anyone who doesn't think like a liberal is a moron.

Trouble is: liberals don't think--they feel.

[Richard]

If the last two elections were "popularity contests", who is to say that the public isn't acting the same way with the global warming debate? Could popular opinion be swayed by intense, biased media coverage and a one-sided education system? Why yes it can. See: War on Terror. If you never hear the other side of things you don't realize that they even exist.

I also love how people can claim to know so much about other people whom they have never met or even opened a book and read about. You have the right to your own opinion, but you don't have the right to your own facts.

GTO - you must not have lived through the Carter administration. He pretty much redefined the term "utter failure".

Gore isn't really that smart either. He has a bunch of people help him with his movie about "global warming", yet he flies around the world promoting his cause in a private jet , which has a MUCH greater "impact" than if he took a car. The mileage difference alone is astounding.

But let's not get too far off the point - "global warming" should be open for discussion and debate. Bitching about the president isn't going to solve much. Although it does seem to be "popular".

[evolutionmovement]

Have you heard Bush speak? We have to listen too this mongo every damn State of the Union address. Anyone can buy a degree from Ivy League Universities. It's how they stay in business so profitably (and fund all their research done by the ones there with brains, so at least some good comes of it) and how the modern monarchy is perpetuated. Either way, I've met as many idiots that have Harvard degrees as brilliant people - it means almost nothing except for the contacts you meet and the name makes for you. And Bush is practically as bad a conservative as he is a liberal - he doesn't think or feel. And from what I've seen anyone who labels themselves liberal or conservative thinks very little at all, just accepting what their people tell them. It's also an easy lead-in to genocide since it separates people from each other, making it easy to dehumanize the other side in the process. No different than religion or racism.

This whole argument about global warming is BS anyway and a dodge on the issue of chemical pollution. Regardless of the effect on the global temperature chemical pollutants cause damage that has detrimental effects on us all be it personal or indirect health or even maintenance issues to our creations caused by exposure. I hope none of you could possibly believe bad chemicals don't exist and aren't released into the environment.

[Subtle]

Is "Global Warming" hysteria the crock of doom

[gto7419]

Evolutionmovement hit the nail on the head. Bush is a total fool who has spoiled all he has touched.

Richard, I was born in 1984 and therefore missed the Carter administration.

Subtle, if you can't "feel" what makes you different than a robot?
Emotion is what tells you - lets keep that promise "not on my watch" - instead of going after oil...



And then back to environment

Evolution is right - its not just about temperature change - its the entire environment issue. By the time the next few generations are done polluting the earth, there will be nothing left...

Like I said earlier - anyone who claims that we do not have an effect on the environment is being ignorant in my opinion. Ever heard of Erin Brockovich or Pacific Gas and Electric? Hehe, I hear you can get some radical pot from this place called Chernobyl...

[thefultonhow]

Hey, look a real concensus.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Pretty easy to indict that source:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... d_Medicine

"The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging." It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war."

Sounds like a bunch of kooks to me. That site also has a case study of the "petition" that you linked to.

On Richard's anti-source-indict argument -- How about the scientists that aren't funded by anyone outside of academia?

As for the debate on whether Bush is stupid or not -- I don't think he is. He's just intellectually lazy, a bad public speaker, and a terrible politician. He may not be fit to be president, but it's stretching it a bit to say he is stupid.

[Richard]

How about those "untouched" scientists? They're not coming up with a consensus by any means. Many scientists are doing the hard work and coming to different conclusions and that's my point. It seems like we're ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater and we need to analyze this thing from all angles before jumping to any conclusions.

As far as the chemical and poision threat, it has no bearing on the global warming topic. Chemical pollutants can kill people and make them sick. No shit. I've seen the effects first hand of what chemicals can do to a person. But what has this to do with climate change? About as much as vehicular homicide or wars. A lot of things can kill people. People have been dying from even the weather since the dawn of man. A hundred nukes going off would definitely ruin our day. So could a meteor strike. But that has nothing to do with global warming. It won't be too long before someone fingers armed conflict as a contributor to global warming though. I'm placing my bets on Sheehan.

Here's something interesting. Seems researchers can't say too much either way about global warming affecting hurricanes.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17032867/

[thefultonhow]

How about those "untouched" scientists? They're not coming up with a consensus by any means. Many scientists are doing the hard work and coming to different conclusions and that's my point.

Apparently you missed the article from Science that I posted above. If you're talking about scientists who haven't published anything on the subject, well, you know that saying that opinions are like assholes. Unless you do a comprehensive scientific study it's not fact or even theory; it's opinion.

[Subtle]

Hey- too many posts are making it too complicated. It is simple and logical.

In one of my earlier posts I outlined that the anthropogenic argument is violating an important rule of logic.

And that is that because two things occur at the same time, they must be causally related. Yep-the rooster crowing in the morning causes the sun to rise.

The other critical point is the theory that modern industrialised culture is causing global warming.

This does not explain the fact that temps were as warm as they are now in the late 1200s.

I'm greatly relieved that those who accept the scam about anthropogenic warming are not designing and building cars, airplanes and elevators, for example.

[thefultonhow]

Subtle -- what else would be causing the spike in CO2 besides humans? And why does basically the entire scientific community disagree with you?

[Richard]

Who says they're right about the CO2 being the cause? It could be something else, or perhaps there are natural causes that can explain things. But only scientists who think it's CO2 to blame are ever heard. What if water vapor in the atmosphere counteracted CO2's effects?

If the sun's output varied by more than a couple percentage points, it could mean the difference between ice age and global desert, How many of these CO2 backers studied the output of the sun? Probably none. They're all for proving it's the CO2 and no other factors are considered.

But hey, it's their best guess.