Global Warming: Man made carbon emmisions or natural cycle?

[Khyron]

I like yellow cake with chocolate frosting. What's your favorite? 

White cake with Whipped frosting and coconut on top :yummy:

[TheGhost]

Global Warming, Nader, Religion.....


this thread is getting good....


and I still Like Cake.

Pie is better.  Especially apple pie.

[71EV2RT]

I like pecan pie and pumpkin pie. As far as cake, you just can't beat chocolate cake with cherries inside

[Charger_Fan]

Mmmm, cake...

[RD]

Mmmm, cake...

those arent cherries on that cake.. surely.. hers was lost a long time ago

[Dave22443]

Here's some interesting reading on the subject at hand for anyone interested in the actual subject of this thread.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

[pettyfan43]

Man Made GLOBAL WARMING is a farce, if it is real, WHY has the mean temp of the planet been DROPPING since 1998?

We have satellites orbiting mars, and they relay the SAME kind of info back here that we get from Earth Orbiting satellites.
The reports from the satellites that are orbiting Mars dovetail with the reports from our OWN satellites, in other words the SAME tmp fluctuations that EARTH has, so does MARS.  Those damn martians need to park those Suburbans right now!!!! 

In other words, there is only ONE thing that is shared atmosphereically between Earth and Mars, that big thermonuclear ball in 93 million miles from us, called the SUN. Could it be that the recent (for around TEN YEARS) drop in sunspot activity has a little something to do with this???

I think it JUST MIGHT!!!!!!   But hey, that's just my opinion and all but, I'm just sayin'!!!

[pettyfan43]

OK, somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a temperature decrease part of global warming? So the argument that this is the coldest year, or December, or decade doesn't really make sense. It's like this, the temperature rises, causing the polar ice cap to melt, which in turn lowers the temp. of the oceans and causes cooler weather. Or something like that. So cooler temps are part of global warming , right?

Yep and eating a live rattlesnake head first makes you a genius! 

The goal of these charletons is to make you believe that anything from a heat wave, to Tornados and an ice storm are all part of "climate Change" which is ultimately true, because the climate has changed ever since this old Rock has been here. It's called WEATHER. See once the mega-hurricane season didn't pan out like all the "experts" claimed and we had overall cooler, calmer weather, they had to come up with SOMETHING! SO now no matter WHAT the weather condition is, it will be part of the climate change disaster, Hey it may be sunny and 72 degrees without a cloud in the sky, but that is BBBBAAAADDDDDD.      

It was much hotter (4-5 degrees on average across the whole planet) during the renaissance period. (MAN those chariots put off the "CARBON" huh?) Humans LOVED IT. There was more food to be had because of MUCH greater areas for crop growth for longer periods of time, There were advancements in industry, arts and general productivity and creativity because of an overall much healthier atmosphere with less disease and famine.  This is all historic truth.

Also CO2 is not a "greenhouse gas" it is what YOU exhale EVERYTIME you breathe, it is also what those big green leafy things in your yard LIVE ON and they turn it into OXYGEN.

People have been sucked into a huge FRAUD perpetuated by people who are making BILLIONS from the whole scam. And they are believing this because they have forgotten 5th grade science and 7th grade history.

The sky's NOT falling folks. Remember that there are a BUNCH of people making a BUNCH of money off this junk science. "Global Warming" as far as the manmade variety is on its BEST DAY an UNPROVEN theory. And they are more than willing to make it cost you a LOT of money.

Look at it this way, if Al Gore an John Edwards were so worried about the environment, would they live in the mansions they do? Mansions that use as much power in a MONTH as an average 2 story house uses in a YEAR!

There's an inconvenient truth for ya.

[pettyfan43]

"MYTH: The science of global warming is too uncertain to act on.
FACT: There is no debate among scientists about the basic facts of global warming."

The FACT is that if there ARE scientists who DISAGREE with a Government entity whose whole purpose DEPENDS on the theory being true then the statement above is FALSE.

[AKcharger]

I've always wondered why Mr. Sun is never mentioned in GW theorys

[Lowprofile]

Brothers and Sisters, The Truth shall set you Free! 

[defiance]

Man Made GLOBAL WARMING is a farce, blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah

I won't claim global warming is real.  You, however, claim to know as fact that it is not.  I'm interested in your degrees and years of experience working with one of the most complex systems known to man (the climate) which would qualify you to make that judgement?  Oh, you don't have any?  Huh.  Ok, then I'm back where I started, trying to filter through the BS to figure out who IS most qualified and listen to them. 

A few points that keep getting made that I must argue with, though.

- "It's arrogant to think MAN could make that kind of impact!"  Bull.  We have built the destructive capabilities to shatter continents in hours with our nuclear arsenal.  Changing the temp a few degrees over a period of decades is certainly not unreasonable. 

- "People make money off global warming, so they're just lying to you"  Bull.  If you honestly believe that such a large group of such well respected scientists would willfully deceive the world's population at large, you're an idiot.  Period.  Are there some liars out there?  Sure.  Just like there are in the automotive world.  But just like in the automotive world, the general community dismisses the "air intake turbines" and such idiocy REGARDLESS of how much money could be made if they, as a whole, started lying about performance impacts, and generally embraces learning that truly improves performance.  Hell, the competitive nature of research pretty well ensures complete bunk will be torn to pieces at first publication.  Does that mean mistakes don't happen?  No, but to gain any form of widespread acceptance, it must be based on sound theory and reasonable science.  If it's later found to be incorrect, fine.

So again, I don't know if global warming is real.  I'm not qualified in the slightest.  A lot of people who are qualified are saying it's true.  Now it looks like a lot of qualified people are saying it's not.  This tells me that BOTH SIDES have reasonable, scientific basis for their conclusions.  Unfortunately the popular discussion seems more focused on spouting political pundit talking points than uncovering the truth either way.

[71EV2RT]

 

[SFRT]

the biosphere is a closed system, and we have disrupted it. That being said, in real 'deep time' terms it doesnt matter. Some day in the future our species will have overpopulated itself into non-existence, and no matter how ravaged the planet is, the basic building blocks of life will re-fill and evolve to fill all those myriad of ecological niches and it will be business as usual for the earth.

until, of course, the sun goes dead. then all bets are definately OFF.

[RD]

i dont even know why this forum is arguing this topic....  go wrench on your charger

[Mike DC]

- "It's arrogant to think MAN could make that kind of impact!"  Bull.  We have built the destructive capabilities to shatter continents in hours with our nuclear arsenal.  Changing the temp a few degrees over a period of decades is certainly not unreasonable.

I can't picture any form of human activity that can actually "shatter a continent."  Not even a full emptying of the entire worldwide nuclear arsenal would cause changes of that caliber. 


Changing the temp a few degrees?  Yeah, we could certainly do that. 
I guess I just don't consider that a big change in the planetary sense.  All we're really doing is sh*tting where we eat and endangering ourselves.  We could maybe cause a mild short-term extinction, but nothing more than the typical ice ages we get regularly every few thousand years or so anyway.   


-------------------------------------------------------

- "People make money off global warming, so they're just lying to you"  Bull.  If you honestly believe that such a large group of such well respected scientists would willfully deceive the world's population at large, you're an idiot.  Period.  Are there some liars out there?  Sure.  Just like there are in the automotive world.  But just like in the automotive world, the general community dismisses the "air intake turbines" and such idiocy REGARDLESS of how much money could be made if they, as a whole, started lying about performance impacts, and generally embraces learning that truly improves performance.  Hell, the competitive nature of research pretty well ensures complete bunk will be torn to pieces at first publication.  Does that mean mistakes don't happen?  No, but to gain any form of widespread acceptance, it must be based on sound theory and reasonable science.  If it's later found to be incorrect, fine.

A large group of well-respected scientists will think all kinds of crazy sh*t if it suits what they are predisposed to want to believe.



They don't even have to "willfully deceive" the public.  They just have to feel that they're doing the right thing when the err on the side of cautioning us. 

Most real scientists that I know are real greenie types, and they individually would be the first ones to line up to get a hybrid car or to vote anti-corporate on anything.  With Global warming fears, I believe they're thinking with a fair amount of, "Maybe I'm not exactly correct about the magnitude of all this, but it couldn't hurt to make these changes in general."

. . .  and that's exactly the point.  OF COURSE they think "it couldn't hurt" to ban a bunch of things they personally already don't like to begin with!  Such as corporate carbon emissions, blatant expressions of masculinity like SUVs, etc.  And also, anything that makes the right half of the political spectrum look bad tends to win points with that crowd in general too. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------



It's like asking someone who hates guns and already lives in an uber-expensive safe area to write all the gun laws.  They personally see no benefit or positive side to the guns, and they don't stand to personally lose anything if they banned the guns.  So OF COURSE they're gonna "err on the side of caution" and wanna ban guns.  After all, "what could it hurt" to ban the guns?  The legal guns don't benefit (anyone or anything that THEY care about) and it could potentially hurt something to leave it legal.

But these peoples' input is not unbiased.  And it's not the whole story.  It's not fair to make the laws based only on their input. 

The gun enthusiasts, the people employed in the firearms and game hunting industries, the people who are in a much more dangerous profession and really need legal guns . . . all their input needs to matter too.

[RD]

- "It's arrogant to think MAN could make that kind of impact!"  Bull.  We have built the destructive capabilities to shatter continents in hours with our nuclear arsenal.  Changing the temp a few degrees over a period of decades is certainly not unreasonable.

I can't picture any form of human activity that can actually "shatter a continent."  Not even a full emptying of the entire worldwide nuclear arsenal would cause changes of that caliber. 


Changing the temp a few degrees?  Yeah, we could certainly do that. 
I guess I just don't consider that a big change in the planetary sense.  All we're really doing is sh*tting where we eat and endangering ourselves.  We could maybe cause a mild short-term extinction, but nothing more than the typical ice ages we get regularly every few thousand years or so anyway.   


-------------------------------------------------------

- "People make money off global warming, so they're just lying to you"  Bull.  If you honestly believe that such a large group of such well respected scientists would willfully deceive the world's population at large, you're an idiot.  Period.  Are there some liars out there?  Sure.  Just like there are in the automotive world.  But just like in the automotive world, the general community dismisses the "air intake turbines" and such idiocy REGARDLESS of how much money could be made if they, as a whole, started lying about performance impacts, and generally embraces learning that truly improves performance.  Hell, the competitive nature of research pretty well ensures complete bunk will be torn to pieces at first publication.  Does that mean mistakes don't happen?  No, but to gain any form of widespread acceptance, it must be based on sound theory and reasonable science.  If it's later found to be incorrect, fine.

A large group of well-respected scientists will think all kinds of crazy sh*t if it suits what they are predisposed to want to believe.



They don't even have to "willfully deceive" the public.  They just have to feel that they're doing the right thing when the err on the side of cautioning us. 

Most real scientists that I know are real greenie types, and they individually would be the first ones to line up to get a hybrid car or to vote anti-corporate on anything.  With Global warming fears, I believe they're thinking with a fair amount of, "Maybe I'm not exactly correct about the magnitude of all this, but it couldn't hurt to make these changes in general."

. . .  and that's exactly the point.  OF COURSE they think "it couldn't hurt" to ban a bunch of things they personally already don't like to begin with!  Such as corporate carbon emissions, blatant expressions of masculinity like SUVs, etc.  And also, anything that makes the right half of the political spectrum look bad tends to win points with that crowd in general too. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------



It's like asking someone who hates guns and already lives in an uber-expensive safe area to write all the gun laws.  They personally see no benefit or positive side to the guns, and they don't stand to personally lose anything if they banned the guns.  So OF COURSE they're gonna "err on the side of caution" and wanna ban guns.  After all, "what could it hurt" to ban the guns?  The legal guns don't benefit (anyone or anything that THEY care about) and it could potentially hurt something to leave it legal.

But these peoples' input is not unbiased.  And it's not the whole story.  It's not fair to make the laws based only on their input. 

The gun enthusiasts, the people employed in the firearms and game hunting industries, the people who are in a much more dangerous profession and really need legal guns . . . all their input needs to matter too.

mike that was a great post... NOW GO WRENCH ON YOUR CHARGER


hehehe j/k

[oldgold69]

it s just another excuse for the government to stick it s nose in your life

[AKcharger]

I really didn't think this post would become so...animated. Really, I just wanted to see a poll on the subject.

Oh well...back to the poll 

[71EV2RT]

 

[PocketThunder]

I really didn't think this post would become so...animated. Really, I just wanted to see a poll on the subject.

Oh well...back to the poll 

You think this post is animated, go read about Global Warming on moparts!      

[defiance]

- "It's arrogant to think MAN could make that kind of impact!"  Bull.  We have built the destructive capabilities to shatter continents in hours with our nuclear arsenal.  Changing the temp a few degrees over a period of decades is certainly not unreasonable.

I can't picture any form of human activity that can actually "shatter a continent."  Not even a full emptying of the entire worldwide nuclear arsenal would cause changes of that caliber. 

"Shatter" was meant figuratively.  Destroy nearly all life ( except probably some insect an microscopic life), make uninhabitable by large life forms for decades or centuries, wipe huge swaths of landscape, etc.  I think "shatter", while not literally accurate, is a good descriptive term for that level of descruction.  Should've been more literal

Changing the temp a few degrees?  Yeah, we could certainly do that. 
I guess I just don't consider that a big change in the planetary sense.  All we're really doing is sh*tting where we eat and endangering ourselves.  We could maybe cause a mild short-term extinction, but nothing more than the typical ice ages we get regularly every few thousand years or so anyway.   


-------------------------------------------------------

- "People make money off global warming, so they're just lying to you"  Bull.  If you honestly believe that such a large group of such well respected scientists would willfully deceive the world's population at large, you're an idiot.  Period.  Are there some liars out there?  Sure.  Just like there are in the automotive world.  But just like in the automotive world, the general community dismisses the "air intake turbines" and such idiocy REGARDLESS of how much money could be made if they, as a whole, started lying about performance impacts, and generally embraces learning that truly improves performance.  Hell, the competitive nature of research pretty well ensures complete bunk will be torn to pieces at first publication.  Does that mean mistakes don't happen?  No, but to gain any form of widespread acceptance, it must be based on sound theory and reasonable science.  If it's later found to be incorrect, fine.

A large group of well-respected scientists will think all kinds of crazy sh*t if it suits what they are predisposed to want to believe.



They don't even have to "willfully deceive" the public.  They just have to feel that they're doing the right thing when the err on the side of cautioning us. 

Most real scientists that I know are real greenie types, and they individually would be the first ones to line up to get a hybrid car or to vote anti-corporate on anything.  With Global warming fears, I believe they're thinking with a fair amount of, "Maybe I'm not exactly correct about the magnitude of all this, but it couldn't hurt to make these changes in general."

. . .  and that's exactly the point.  OF COURSE they think "it couldn't hurt" to ban a bunch of things they personally already don't like to begin with!  Such as corporate carbon emissions, blatant expressions of masculinity like SUVs, etc.  And also, anything that makes the right half of the political spectrum look bad tends to win points with that crowd in general too. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------



It's like asking someone who hates guns and already lives in an uber-expensive safe area to write all the gun laws.  They personally see no benefit or positive side to the guns, and they don't stand to personally lose anything if they banned the guns.  So OF COURSE they're gonna "err on the side of caution" and wanna ban guns.  After all, "what could it hurt" to ban the guns?  The legal guns don't benefit (anyone or anything that THEY care about) and it could potentially hurt something to leave it legal.

But these peoples' input is not unbiased.  And it's not the whole story.  It's not fair to make the laws based only on their input. 

The gun enthusiasts, the people employed in the firearms and game hunting industries, the people who are in a much more dangerous profession and really need legal guns . . . all their input needs to matter too.

There is some truth in that, but you imply that such a large plurality of scientists would be happier picking up the breadcrumbs of the established research and just go with the flow because it *MIGHT* be good for the environment, but I don't believe that's true.  A researcher can make his name and assure his financial well being by being the man who disproved a popular theory.  That creates a hugely competitive environment among researchers.

Again, I'm not stating as fact that Global Warming is an accurate theory.  I'm just stating that people stating as fact that global warming is a scam or a lie are being willfully ignorant.  It is not a scam, it is not a lie, it is a contentious scientific theory that is being tested.  As with any theory within the scientific, it cannot be proven, only disproven - which, thus far, has not unequivocably been done.  There's a lot of work going on right now that may disprove it, but regardless of political leanings or personal beliefs about its accuracy, calling it a scam is showing a lack of comprehension of the scientific method.


Just a quick edit, - Mike DC, I didn't get the impression you were calling gw a scam, that last part is targeted at the more vehement, near-religious opposition.  Although, yes, I've seen the vehement near-religious proponents as well, and BOTH extremes are not respecting the nature of the scientific method.

[dodgecharger-fan]

If you take the position that global warming causes people/governments/companies/organizations to spend money to clean things up, then there is an element of a scam.

If a single piece of evidence ever comes out that contradicts the scientific theory that global warming is caused by the actions of the human race, and there is proof that someone knew about it and chose to ignore it in order to perpetuate their own agenda, we'll have a full blown let's-get-a-committee-on-this scandal on our hands (or it'll be covered up, but that doesn't make it any less of scam).

I don't doubt for a second that someone has already done such a thing. They just haven't been caught (or it's been covered up).

Whether the reality of what causes (or accelerates) global warming is ever absolutely defined is immaterial. Someone out there saw an opportunity to make money and has cherry-picked their arguments ever since. I don't doubt that they influenced others to back their arguments - by whatever means.

Who? I don't know. But in a world where someone is openly greedy and stupid enough to speak about illegal activities when they know they are being recorded, I don't doubt for a second that someone else is capable of manipulating an argument to suit their goals.
Certainly, I have no proof but I'll bet you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that would disagree with my statement or find anyone who doesn't think that someone out there is capable of such greed.

As soon as that one person is found out, we'll go in to full scandal mode. Period.
Heck, I'm surprised it hasn't already happened. The energy bill for Al Gore's house was enough in my opinion.
I'm waiting for the shoe to drop on the whole carbon credits market thing. That's nothing but money trading hands to pay off a protection racket. "You pay. You stay in business. You don't pay. You're going to hurt." If it were run by anyone but government (or without their sanctioning), it would be illegal.

My point? Associating global warming with things like pollution and excessive energy consumption was a mistake.
I think the planet and the human race would be better served to address those issues on their own merit. Don't get me wrong, I am all for a cleaner place to live for everyone. They are important issues that have, in my opinion, been sullied by the whole GW argument.

I just think that trying to leverage what could very well be the natural phenomenon of global warming to accelerate actions to reduce pollution and energy consumption was ill-conceived and, in hind sight, is tantamount to a form of extortion: clean up , or else.

How about reducing pollution because it's good for the area in which you and others live?
How about reducing your energy consumption to save yourself a few bucks and reduce the demand on energy resources so they'll last longer and cost less. At the same time, it won't hurt to investigate alternative energy sources.

Those ideas are strong enough on their own. Don't you think? I do.

It's like a common cold. We can treat the symptoms. We may never have a cure for it. One thing we are certain of: catching a cold has nothing to do with temperature outside.

[defiance]

...If a single piece of evidence ever comes out that contradicts the scientific theory that global warming is caused by the actions of the human race, and there is proof that someone knew about it and chose to ignore it in order to perpetuate their own agenda, we'll have a full blown let's-get-a-committee-on-this scandal on our hands (or it'll be covered up, but that doesn't make it any less of scam).

I don't doubt for a second that someone has already done such a thing. They just haven't been caught (or it's been covered up).

Whether the reality of what causes (or accelerates) global warming is ever absolutely defined is immaterial. Someone out there saw an opportunity to make money and has cherry-picked their arguments ever since. I don't doubt that they influenced others to back their arguments - by whatever means.

Who? I don't know. But in a world where someone is openly greedy and stupid enough to speak about illegal activities when they know they are being recorded, I don't doubt for a second that someone else is capable of manipulating an argument to suit their goals.
Certainly, I have no proof but I'll bet you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that would disagree with my statement or find anyone who doesn't think that someone out there is capable of such greed.

As soon as that one person is found out, we'll go in to full scandal mode. Period.
Heck, I'm surprised it hasn't already happened. The energy bill for Al Gore's house was enough in my opinion.
I'm waiting for the shoe to drop on the whole carbon credits market thing. That's nothing but money trading hands to pay off a protection racket. "You pay. You stay in business. You don't pay. You're going to hurt." If it were run by anyone but government (or without their sanctioning), it would be illegal.
...

Excuse me, be back in a bit, must get my tin-foil hat.

Ok, back, now THEY won't be able to get my brain waves, so I'm safe to talk.

Anyway, this whole conspiracy theory nonsense is just that: nonsense.  So a cabal of evil scientists are strong-arming this massive section of the scientific community into lying so they can make more money by researching!  Brilliant!  Even if you ignore the fact that if it were GREED motivating them, corporate sponsors would have basically blank checks for them if they proved the OPPOSITE, the rest of this idea is ridiculous enough on its own.

Mike's right, they definitely could be wrong.  But lying?  Not a chance, not on this scale.  If you honestly buy into the large-scale conspiracy/cover-up idea, you may want to consult a doctor about your paranoid delusional tendancies.

But what's the difference?  Simple.  If you believe the delusional conspiracy crap, then these people are your enemies.  Read some of the posts in this thread, some people here clearly see the gw-believing scientific community as their enemies.  However, if you believe they're simply researchers trying to further human knowlege, and if you understand the nature of the scientific method and research, then you'll know that if it's wrong, the truth will be discovered - but for right now, they do honestly believe that global warming is real, and they do honestly have solid scientific support for this belief

[The70RT]

I think it is Joe the plumbers birthday today.