Global Warming is a hoax.

[ttomm46]

We've had 10 recorded periods of global warming that have higher warming than now.......I believe it's junk science.....

Winter here was far colder than last years and i live in Arkansas....I knew someone had tons of research on this but i'm to lazy to try and find it....

I would think the threat of terrorism is a little ahead of Global warming.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='ThomasDM' post='1236843' date='Apr 9 2007, 09:56 PM']An open reply to Anomaly in the efforts to better educate him on the topic:

[i]
Other Countries have used it as a way to attack more powerful and successful nations.
[/i]
Could you please provide a source for such rhetoric? Or is it, dare I say, rhetoric? I don't know which countries you speak of, and which benevolent powerhouses have been crippled by the facts...but say you're correct...do you mean to tell me that the amount of disparity between nations is acceptable? Do you mean to tell me that Americans are so rich because they're hard workers, and that Africans are all lazy and that is the cause of their circumstance? Or look at the middle east where one country can be extremely rich, and the other very poor...all due to the placement of oil resources. Please indulge me in how such a huge gap between the rich and the poor is what Jesus would have favored.[/quote]Rhetoric? To dismiss the difference of opinions concerning the US between Venezuela and Mexico as mere rhetoric is silly. Do you really think that Americans are so rich because they've ONLY taken from others? There are not, nor could be other socio-economic factors or circumstances that may have contributed other than rampant greed? Why has Iraq, Iran, and Afgahnistan's economies not been equivalent with Kuwait, UAE, or Saudi? Only American greed? What about Africa? Are the problems in Darfur, Tibor, and the Congo due to American greed causing the disparity between the health of their economies?
[quote][i]Some people believe countries and people need to be 'punished' for past environmental 'crimes'.
[/i]
Why should people be punished for defacing private property, but not for destroying vast tracks of endangered habitat and aboriginal peoples' homes? The Inuit have nearly lost their culture and are being forced away from their melting homeland because of Global Warming.[/quote]Please provide some facts (other than Al Gore's movie) that demonstrates that Inuit have lost their culture because of Global Warming. Are we to believe there aren't other factors, such as communication with the outside world and the younger generation wanting to have a different lifestyle? Please provide some factual evidence.
[quote][i]Some people just see it as a way to destabilize the economies of the large developed countries.
[/i]
You've just repeated a previous point, this is not a separate argument. Please see point number 2.[/quote]Maybe. You don't think there are large groups of people who have philosophical differences with the type of economies or religous values? Do you believe other Countries, such as those that have Socialist or Communist philosophies would wish to destabalize economies with enterprise based economic structures?
[quote][i]Some people are not very discerning and have fallen victim to half truths, media hype, poor science, and power of conviction, but really do not KNOW what the truth is.
[/i]
You speak of poor science...but in the last 10 years not a single shred of evidence has been published in a peer reviewed science journal that disputes Man-made Global Warming. The science that supports the theory of Global Warming is very good indeed, the evidence is published in peer reviewed journals so that it may be criticized, tested, disputed etc. Why haven't people who dispute Global Warming published anything with such integrity? Are they afraid of being cross-examined?[/quote]Are you really serious? This is a debated topic. You don't think the recent professer from MIT (who was quoted in Al Gore's move) challenging some of the assumptions made have any weight? The meteorologists can't predict the activity of a hurricane season, but they can suddenly forcast what will happen in ten, twenty or thirty years. I've repeatedly asked you, what you define Global Warming is? How many degrees of change in what period of time? How do we know that is beyond the normal cyclical variance? What climate changing factors were identified and how were they measured? Were teutonic plate shifts studied and compared for the last 300 years? What evidence was gathered to guage solar activity for the last 300 years? What climatology models were used to predict the weather for the next 50 years? How were they proofed? How accurate were they if fed historical data form 75 years ago when historical records of 25 years ago were compared to their prediction?

[quote][i]Some people think it's a good idea, but have not considered (and may not be willing) practical and logical consequences of actions.
[/i]

Okay I'm going to bite the bait and answer your point 2, and this all in one fell swoop all using Logic.

Switzerland is rated as having the most competitive economy in Europe.

"The World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Report currently ranks Switzerland's economy as the most competitive in the world." [url="http://www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/gcp/Global%20Competitiveness%20Report/index.htm"][Source][/url]

And they've already met their goals for Kyoto"

"Switzerland due to its size is heavily active in recycling and anti-littering bans, all garbage (except dangerous items, batteries etc.) in Switzerland must be disposed of in government approved bags which can only be bought from local shops and grocery stores. These special bags include a pollution tax thereby urging people to use less. Swiss health officials and police often open up garbage which has been deposited in the wrong bags. They search for evidence such as old bills which connect the bag to the household/person they originated from. Fines for not using proper bags range from 200-500 Francs. Switzerland is one of the top recyclers in the world with roughly 98% of all recyclable items being recycled. Switzerland is also the only country in the Kyoto Treaty to have met their CO2 emission goals." [[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland#_note-14"]Source][/url]

Many countries have already drastically reduced their dependence on fossil fuels.[/quote]Come on. Dig a bit deeper before you make assumptions. What are the criteria used to measure 'competitiveness'? What is the standard of living and productivity of the citizens? What is their economic resources? Comparing Switzerland to the US is a joke. It's comparing a bushel of apples to and orchard of apples? What may work on a small scale, is not necessarily workable on a large scale. What percentage of Switzerland's GDP is based on processing raw resources into consumer goods? What percentage of their GDP is generate from service industries? What are their trade policies? Is their tarriffs or trade agreements that provide certain protection from world markets?

[quote][i]Where is the data that gives a measurement of what is 'normal' CO-2 emission levels?
Where is the data that quantifies the CO-2 emissions that come from various sources? How much does cattle ranching, composting organics, power plants, factories, countries, people, volcanoes, solar flares, cyclical natural circumstances, etc., contribute to CO-2?
[/i]

Since the rise of life, the earth reached an equilibrium...a Carbon Cycle that was stable. The average was 280 PPM of Carbon in the Atmosphere to keep this going, and it stayed like that for a long time. Since we started dumping all of those fossil fuels in the Atmosphere its jumped up to over 350 PPM.

[i][/quote]Please check around on the 'net, and get a better idea regarding you numbers. First off, the theory that ice cores correctly reflect CO2 levels is debateable. The theory and assumptions does not properly consider climatice events (weather) that cause the CO2 to be trapped in the ice. What type of snow (according to humidity) has been common at the time? Wind speed also affect how much atmospheric gasses are trapped during a weather cycle. The amount and type of ice/snow build up also affect the ice and how well it maintains an accuate level of trapped CO2. If the relationship between CO2 levels and global warming was linear as many assume, the period of time in the 40's should have coorelated to global warming, when in fact, a period of cooling had begun. It has also been long established that CO2 levels are not a linear causitive agent. In other words, there is a decreasing rate of effect for subsequent additions of CO2 to the atmosphere. This is important, because CO2 caused Global Warming theorists cannot establish clear guidelines of how much CO2 affects the atmosphere, so it is impossible to do a cost analysis for different methods. For example, should the US economy spend 300 billion dollars to capture CO2 gas from power plants and bury it in the ground like the EU is going to do, or is the 300 billion dollars more effectively used to develop nuclear and solar power generation?

[quote][quote]For example, it has been claimed that incandescent light bulbs use more electricity to illuminate a room and keep the room cool than flourescent light bulbs. Some cities in other countries have now passed laws to ban incandescent light bulbs. The reality is, flourescent light bulbs use more energy to create, more natural resources, and also concentrates mercury, which will then end up in waste dumps and will likely cause severe problems as mercury is introduced into the ecosystem.
[/i]
Yes they take more energy to make, but they use MUCH less energy through their life span than incandescents. An incandescent light bulb only converts 3% of its electricity to light, all the rest is wasted.

Accounting for the energy consumption disparity between the two, the incandescent with cause much more mercury to be released into the ecosystems [in a much more harmful form - particulate mercury from the coal plants] than a florescent.[/quote]Provide some evidence that measure's today's energy costs for manufacturing for both incandescent and florescent lighting sources. You don't have any. Now let's talk about Mercury. What's better? Mercury being generated at a power station whose emissions can be better controlled to capture the Mercury, or.... mercury in millions of florescent bulbs being dumped in land fills in thousands of locations with a 'soil liner' to contain the heavy metals.

[[quote]i][/quote]I remember the bans on DDT because they caused fragile bird eggs, but that has now been debunked. The sad thing is, deaths from malaria and mosquito borne diseases (west nile virus) has skyrocketed because of the DDT ban. Instead of controlled use, further study, solid science, hundreds of thousands of people have died because people have erred on the 'safe side'.
[/i]
You remember that do you? Do you also remember how mosquitoes develop an immunity to DDT after about 6 years, and how it was being used way too much so as to create the perfect conditions for immune mosquitoes to develop? In fact that was one of the main purposes of the ban, to prevent the facilitation of mosquitoes immune to DDT, so that it could still be used to fight malaria. The international ban allowed for it's medical preventative use, it banned widespread agricultural use because that was doing more harm than good. Plus other pesticides were found to be less harmful and more resistant to facilitating immunity.

"The Stockholm Convention, ratified in 2001 and effective as of 17 May 2004, calls for the elimination of DDT and other persistent organic pollutants, barring health crises. The Convention was signed by 98 countries and is endorsed by most environmental groups. However, a total elimination of DDT use in many malaria-prone countries is currently unfeasible because there are few affordable or effective alternatives for controlling malaria, so public health use of DDT is exempt from the ban until such alternatives are developed."
Read what the Malaria foundation has to say about the DDT ban before you try to politicize things. [url="http://www.malaria.org/DDTpage.html"][Source][/url][/quote]Read what I wrote. I claim it was political hysteria, not scientists, that generated a precipitous ban on DDT. Note is said "Instead of controlled use, further study, and solid science..." I don't deny that DDT use should have been modified for solid scientific reasons, but it became a political tool for people. Even your quote of the Stockholm Convention supports that. You weren't around in the 70's, but I was. DDT was blamed for thin eggs, human cancer, and massive fish kills. These fears were based on poor science and hysteria. The sad thing was, PCB's were the greater danger, but was overshadowed by the hysteria surrounding DDT.

[i]
What about the Ozone Layer? Freon, and certain other aerosol propellants were banned because of concerns to the ozone layer, but further studies showed they had a smaller impact than feared. Furthermore, the new types of coolants and freon require more energy to produce, are not as efficient, and due to the energy requirements to produce these products or cool buildings, more energy and pollution is the result. Mean while, other gasses from styrofoam and other products were discovered to be a more serious threat, but now where is the regualation?
[/i]
You demonstrate a poor grasp of the Ozone hole threat. When CFC's get high into the atmosphere, UV rays break off the Chlorine molecule, which when floating free can destroy upwards of thousands and thousands of Ozone molecules which protect us from the harmful UV rays of the Sun. The ban of CFC's was very successful, promoted industry innovation to compensate, and many companies ended up saving money because of it. And the Montreal Protocol Ban on CFC's is working. Look at the facts, NASA scientists are seeing a gradual, but wholesome rebound in the Ozone Layer. [url="http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005GL025232.shtml"][Source][/url]

[i]
The Coming Ice Age. I'm old enough to have lived through the hype about that. All the scientists agreed the new ice-age was coming. Greenland was being lost to advancing glaciers, was becoming more inhabitable, and would have to be abandoned in my life time. European countries to the north would become practical wastelands causing massive migrations south while farmable food producing lands would shrink, combined with a shorter growing season, would cause massive world wide starvation and territorial wars.
[/i]

That was in the 70's. The science has become more refined, more data is coming in, and we're getting a better picture of things. Progress moves forward, don't forget that.

[i]
Garbage Islands. In the 70's, we worried that there would be so much garbage, we couldn't get rid of it and the oceans would die from dumping trash in the sea causing massive floating garbage islands that would wash up on shore and destroy complete environments.

Water Shortage. In the 80's and 90's we were told that fresh water was a limited resource and that we would experience a water shortage would trigger a salinization of fresh water, causing people and crops to die. This was also tied into the New Ice Age fear.
[/i]
There are many places that are grossly over polluted in the world, and there are many places with water shortages and the threat of desertification. Research agriculture in Australia and how it's becoming ever more difficult with Global Warming. Please I beg of you, research things....

[i]
This stuff hasn't happened, but the world has wasted time and effort for the wrong things.

Where is the development of nuclear or geothermic energy?
What about the more efficient use of electricity?
What about effective and efficient desalinization plants?
What about effective biodegradable products and minimal packageing?
[/i]
Those things you list are what many environmentalists want, but many business interests in North America fight those innovations tooth and nail because they're not always as profitable as gluttony. Better things are happening in Europe where people are not so opposed to innovation at the cost of a little convenience.

[i]
These good ideas have been abandoned for the more exciting fear-mongering. That's why most of my family wastes 3 cups of fresh water washing out an alumin can for recycling and drinking bottled water from a PET bottle instead of drinking filtered water from a tap in a paper cup even though the fiddler system can be made with abundant silicones and paper cups are made from a renewable resource and are bio-degradable garbage that could be burned to create energy.
[/i]
You and people like you who make this argument against recycling seem to assume that the metal ores are already above ground, in a pile, waiting for us to process them. Please research how much oil an open pit mine takes and how much pollution is caused by smelting ore.

[i]
hmmmm......

If we only had access to the NewsWeek magazines for the last 35 years, we'd see how much time, money, and human energy is wasted in over-reacting to the wrong thing because we wanted to believe people only wanted to do good...
[/i]
The source of your misinformation is duly noted.
[/quote]

[Anomaly]

[quote name='ThomasDM' post='1236843' date='Apr 9 2007, 09:56 PM']An open reply to Anomaly in the efforts to better educate him on the topic:

[i]
Other Countries have used it as a way to attack more powerful and successful nations.
[/i]
Could you please provide a source for such rhetoric? Or is it, dare I say, rhetoric? I don't know which countries you speak of, and which benevolent powerhouses have been crippled by the facts...but say you're correct...do you mean to tell me that the amount of disparity between nations is acceptable? Do you mean to tell me that Americans are so rich because they're hard workers, and that Africans are all lazy and that is the cause of their circumstance? Or look at the middle east where one country can be extremely rich, and the other very poor...all due to the placement of oil resources. Please indulge me in how such a huge gap between the rich and the poor is what Jesus would have favored.[/quote]Rhetoric? To dismiss the difference of opinions concerning the US between Venezuela and Mexico as mere rhetoric is silly. Do you really think that Americans are so rich because they've ONLY taken from others? There are not, nor could be other socio-economic factors or circumstances that may have contributed other than rampant greed? Why has Iraq, Iran, and Afgahnistan's economies not been equivalent with Kuwait, UAE, or Saudi? Only American greed? What about Africa? Are the problems in Darfur, Tibor, and the Congo due to American greed causing the disparity between the health of their economies?
[quote][i]Some people believe countries and people need to be 'punished' for past environmental 'crimes'.
[/i]
Why should people be punished for defacing private property, but not for destroying vast tracks of endangered habitat and aboriginal peoples' homes? The Inuit have nearly lost their culture and are being forced away from their melting homeland because of Global Warming.[/quote]Please provide some facts (other than Al Gore's movie) that demonstrates that Inuit have lost their culture because of Global Warming. Are we to believe there aren't other factors, such as communication with the outside world and the younger generation wanting to have a different lifestyle? Please provide some factual evidence.
[quote][i]Some people just see it as a way to destabilize the economies of the large developed countries.
[/i]
You've just repeated a previous point, this is not a separate argument. Please see point number 2.[/quote]Maybe. You don't think there are large groups of people who have philosophical differences with the type of economies or religous values? Do you believe other Countries, such as those that have Socialist or Communist philosophies would wish to destabalize economies with enterprise based economic structures?
[quote][i]Some people are not very discerning and have fallen victim to half truths, media hype, poor science, and power of conviction, but really do not KNOW what the truth is.
[/i]
You speak of poor science...but in the last 10 years not a single shred of evidence has been published in a peer reviewed science journal that disputes Man-made Global Warming. The science that supports the theory of Global Warming is very good indeed, the evidence is published in peer reviewed journals so that it may be criticized, tested, disputed etc. Why haven't people who dispute Global Warming published anything with such integrity? Are they afraid of being cross-examined?[/quote]Are you really serious? This is a debated topic. You don't think the recent professer from MIT (who was quoted in Al Gore's move) challenging some of the assumptions made have any weight? The meteorologists can't predict the activity of a hurricane season, but they can suddenly forcast what will happen in ten, twenty or thirty years. I've repeatedly asked you, what you define Global Warming is? How many degrees of change in what period of time? How do we know that is beyond the normal cyclical variance? What climate changing factors were identified and how were they measured? Were teutonic plate shifts studied and compared for the last 300 years? What evidence was gathered to guage solar activity for the last 300 years? What climatology models were used to predict the weather for the next 50 years? How were they proofed? How accurate were they if fed historical data form 75 years ago when historical records of 25 years ago were compared to their prediction?

[quote][i]Some people think it's a good idea, but have not considered (and may not be willing) practical and logical consequences of actions.
[/i]

Okay I'm going to bite the bait and answer your point 2, and this all in one fell swoop all using Logic.

Switzerland is rated as having the most competitive economy in Europe.

"The World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Report currently ranks Switzerland's economy as the most competitive in the world." [url="http://www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/gcp/Global%20Competitiveness%20Report/index.htm"][Source][/url]

And they've already met their goals for Kyoto"

"Switzerland due to its size is heavily active in recycling and anti-littering bans, all garbage (except dangerous items, batteries etc.) in Switzerland must be disposed of in government approved bags which can only be bought from local shops and grocery stores. These special bags include a pollution tax thereby urging people to use less. Swiss health officials and police often open up garbage which has been deposited in the wrong bags. They search for evidence such as old bills which connect the bag to the household/person they originated from. Fines for not using proper bags range from 200-500 Francs. Switzerland is one of the top recyclers in the world with roughly 98% of all recyclable items being recycled. Switzerland is also the only country in the Kyoto Treaty to have met their CO2 emission goals." [[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland#_note-14"]Source][/url]

Many countries have already drastically reduced their dependence on fossil fuels.[/quote]Come on. Dig a bit deeper before you make assumptions. What are the criteria used to measure 'competitiveness'? What is the standard of living and productivity of the citizens? What is their economic resources? Comparing Switzerland to the US is a joke. It's comparing a bushel of apples to and orchard of apples? What may work on a small scale, is not necessarily workable on a large scale. What percentage of Switzerland's GDP is based on processing raw resources into consumer goods? What percentage of their GDP is generate from service industries? What are their trade policies? Is their tarriffs or trade agreements that provide certain protection from world markets?

[quote][i]Where is the data that gives a measurement of what is 'normal' CO-2 emission levels?
Where is the data that quantifies the CO-2 emissions that come from various sources? How much does cattle ranching, composting organics, power plants, factories, countries, people, volcanoes, solar flares, cyclical natural circumstances, etc., contribute to CO-2?
[/i]

Since the rise of life, the earth reached an equilibrium...a Carbon Cycle that was stable. The average was 280 PPM of Carbon in the Atmosphere to keep this going, and it stayed like that for a long time. Since we started dumping all of those fossil fuels in the Atmosphere its jumped up to over 350 PPM.

[i][/quote]Please check around on the 'net, and get a better idea regarding you numbers. First off, the theory that ice cores correctly reflect CO2 levels is debateable. The theory and assumptions does not properly consider climatice events (weather) that cause the CO2 to be trapped in the ice. What type of snow (according to humidity) has been common at the time? Wind speed also affect how much atmospheric gasses are trapped during a weather cycle. The amount and type of ice/snow build up also affect the ice and how well it maintains an accuate level of trapped CO2. If the relationship between CO2 levels and global warming was linear as many assume, the period of time in the 40's should have coorelated to global warming, when in fact, a period of cooling had begun. It has also been long established that CO2 levels are not a linear causitive agent. In other words, there is a decreasing rate of effect for subsequent additions of CO2 to the atmosphere. This is important, because CO2 caused Global Warming theorists cannot establish clear guidelines of how much CO2 affects the atmosphere, so it is impossible to do a cost analysis for different methods. For example, should the US economy spend 300 billion dollars to capture CO2 gas from power plants and bury it in the ground like the EU is going to do, or is the 300 billion dollars more effectively used to develop nuclear and solar power generation?

[quote][quote]For example, it has been claimed that incandescent light bulbs use more electricity to illuminate a room and keep the room cool than flourescent light bulbs. Some cities in other countries have now passed laws to ban incandescent light bulbs. The reality is, flourescent light bulbs use more energy to create, more natural resources, and also concentrates mercury, which will then end up in waste dumps and will likely cause severe problems as mercury is introduced into the ecosystem.
[/i]
Yes they take more energy to make, but they use MUCH less energy through their life span than incandescents. An incandescent light bulb only converts 3% of its electricity to light, all the rest is wasted.

Accounting for the energy consumption disparity between the two, the incandescent with cause much more mercury to be released into the ecosystems [in a much more harmful form - particulate mercury from the coal plants] than a florescent.[/quote]Provide some evidence that measure's today's energy costs for manufacturing for both incandescent and florescent lighting sources. You don't have any. Now let's talk about Mercury. What's better? Mercury being generated at a power station whose emissions can be better controlled to capture the Mercury, or.... mercury in millions of florescent bulbs being dumped in land fills in thousands of locations with a 'soil liner' to contain the heavy metals.

[[quote]i][/quote]I remember the bans on DDT because they caused fragile bird eggs, but that has now been debunked. The sad thing is, deaths from malaria and mosquito borne diseases (west nile virus) has skyrocketed because of the DDT ban. Instead of controlled use, further study, solid science, hundreds of thousands of people have died because people have erred on the 'safe side'.
[/i]
You remember that do you? Do you also remember how mosquitoes develop an immunity to DDT after about 6 years, and how it was being used way too much so as to create the perfect conditions for immune mosquitoes to develop? In fact that was one of the main purposes of the ban, to prevent the facilitation of mosquitoes immune to DDT, so that it could still be used to fight malaria. The international ban allowed for it's medical preventative use, it banned widespread agricultural use because that was doing more harm than good. Plus other pesticides were found to be less harmful and more resistant to facilitating immunity.

"The Stockholm Convention, ratified in 2001 and effective as of 17 May 2004, calls for the elimination of DDT and other persistent organic pollutants, barring health crises. The Convention was signed by 98 countries and is endorsed by most environmental groups. However, a total elimination of DDT use in many malaria-prone countries is currently unfeasible because there are few affordable or effective alternatives for controlling malaria, so public health use of DDT is exempt from the ban until such alternatives are developed."
Read what the Malaria foundation has to say about the DDT ban before you try to politicize things. [url="http://www.malaria.org/DDTpage.html"][Source][/url][/quote]Read what I wrote. I claim it was political hysteria, not scientists, that generated a precipitous ban on DDT. Note is said "Instead of controlled use, further study, and solid science..." I don't deny that DDT use should have been modified for solid scientific reasons, but it became a political tool for people. Even your quote of the Stockholm Convention supports that. You weren't around in the 70's, but I was. DDT was blamed for thin eggs, human cancer, and massive fish kills. These fears were based on poor science and hysteria. The sad thing was, PCB's were the greater danger, but was overshadowed by the hysteria surrounding DDT.

[i]
What about the Ozone Layer? Freon, and certain other aerosol propellants were banned because of concerns to the ozone layer, but further studies showed they had a smaller impact than feared. Furthermore, the new types of coolants and freon require more energy to produce, are not as efficient, and due to the energy requirements to produce these products or cool buildings, more energy and pollution is the result. Mean while, other gasses from styrofoam and other products were discovered to be a more serious threat, but now where is the regualation?
[/i]
You demonstrate a poor grasp of the Ozone hole threat. When CFC's get high into the atmosphere, UV rays break off the Chlorine molecule, which when floating free can destroy upwards of thousands and thousands of Ozone molecules which protect us from the harmful UV rays of the Sun. The ban of CFC's was very successful, promoted industry innovation to compensate, and many companies ended up saving money because of it. And the Montreal Protocol Ban on CFC's is working. Look at the facts, NASA scientists are seeing a gradual, but wholesome rebound in the Ozone Layer. [url="http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005GL025232.shtml"][Source][/url]

[i]
The Coming Ice Age. I'm old enough to have lived through the hype about that. All the scientists agreed the new ice-age was coming. Greenland was being lost to advancing glaciers, was becoming more inhabitable, and would have to be abandoned in my life time. European countries to the north would become practical wastelands causing massive migrations south while farmable food producing lands would shrink, combined with a shorter growing season, would cause massive world wide starvation and territorial wars.
[/i]

That was in the 70's. The science has become more refined, more data is coming in, and we're getting a better picture of things. Progress moves forward, don't forget that.

[i]
Garbage Islands. In the 70's, we worried that there would be so much garbage, we couldn't get rid of it and the oceans would die from dumping trash in the sea causing massive floating garbage islands that would wash up on shore and destroy complete environments.

Water Shortage. In the 80's and 90's we were told that fresh water was a limited resource and that we would experience a water shortage would trigger a salinization of fresh water, causing people and crops to die. This was also tied into the New Ice Age fear.
[/i]
There are many places that are grossly over polluted in the world, and there are many places with water shortages and the threat of desertification. Research agriculture in Australia and how it's becoming ever more difficult with Global Warming. Please I beg of you, research things....

[i]
This stuff hasn't happened, but the world has wasted time and effort for the wrong things.

Where is the development of nuclear or geothermic energy?
What about the more efficient use of electricity?
What about effective and efficient desalinization plants?
What about effective biodegradable products and minimal packageing?
[/i]
Those things you list are what many environmentalists want, but many business interests in North America fight those innovations tooth and nail because they're not always as profitable as gluttony. Better things are happening in Europe where people are not so opposed to innovation at the cost of a little convenience.

[i]
These good ideas have been abandoned for the more exciting fear-mongering. That's why most of my family wastes 3 cups of fresh water washing out an alumin can for recycling and drinking bottled water from a PET bottle instead of drinking filtered water from a tap in a paper cup even though the fiddler system can be made with abundant silicones and paper cups are made from a renewable resource and are bio-degradable garbage that could be burned to create energy.
[/i]
You and people like you who make this argument against recycling seem to assume that the metal ores are already above ground, in a pile, waiting for us to process them. Please research how much oil an open pit mine takes and how much pollution is caused by smelting ore.

[i]
hmmmm......

If we only had access to the NewsWeek magazines for the last 35 years, we'd see how much time, money, and human energy is wasted in over-reacting to the wrong thing because we wanted to believe people only wanted to do good...
[/i]
The source of your misinformation is duly noted.
[/quote]

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' post='1236047' date='Apr 9 2007, 11:42 AM']yes completely. the amount of land, energy and ultimately waste that comes from raising cattle is incredibly large.[/quote]

Yes, I know much about this. It takes tons of grain and lots of water to raise one cow, which ultimately gives a low output just for a pile of protein. I know there are plants that can give us the proper protein instead. One of the reasons why I gave up meat is because of the thousands of cows being crammed onto one parcel of land. Cows ruin the topsoil, make a huge smell and consume a lot in these conditions.
/Rant

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1236081' date='Apr 9 2007, 12:29 PM']Politics, baby. It's all about Politics, power, personal ideologies, etc.

Gore has used Global Warming as a political tool to advance his political career, and has been pretty successful at it.

Other Countries have used it as a way to attack more powerful and successful nations.

Some people believe countries and people need to be 'punished' for past evironmental 'crimes'.

Some people just see it as a way to destabalize the economies of the large developed countries.

Some people are not very discerning and have fallen victim to half truths, media hype, poor science, and power of conviction, but really do not KNOW what the truth is.

Some people think it's a good idea, but have not considered (and may not be willing) practical and logical consequences of actions.

Where is the data that gives a measurement of what is 'normal' CO-2 emission levels?
Where is the data that quantifies the CO-2 emissions that come from various sources? How much does cattle ranching, composting organics, power plants, factories, countries, people, volcanoes, solar flares, cyclical natural circumstances, etc., contribute to CO-2?

For example, it has been claimed that incandescent light bulbs use more electricity to illuminate a room and keep the room cool than flourescent light bulbs. Some cities in other countries have now passed laws to ban incandescent light bulbs. The reality is, flourescent light bulbs use more energy to create, more natural resources, and also concentrates mercury, which will then end up in waste dumps and will likely cause severe problems as mercury is introduced into the ecosystem.

I remember the bans on DDT because they caused fragile bird eggs, but that has now been debunked. The sad thing is, deaths from malaria and mosquito borne diseases (west nile virus) has skyrocketed because of the DDT ban. Instead of controlled use, further study, solid science, hundreds of thousands of people have died because people have erred on the 'safe side'.

What about the Ozone Layer? Freon, and certain other aerosol propellants were banned because of concerns to the ozone layer, but further studies showed they had a smaller impact than feared. Furthermore, the new types of coolants and freon require more energy to produce, are not as efficient, and due to the energy requirements to produce these products or cool buildings, more energy and pollution is the result. Mean while, other gasses from styrofoam and other products were discovered to be a more serious threat, but now where is the regualation?

The Coming Ice Age. I'm old enough to have lived through the hype about that. All the scientists agreed the new ice-age was coming. Greenland was being lost to advancing glaciers, was becoming more inhabitable, and would have to be abandoned in my life time. European countries to the north would become practical wastelands causing massive migrations south while farmable food producing lands would shrink, combined with a shorter growing season, would cause massive world wide starvation and territorial wars.

Garbage Islands. In the 70's, we worried that there would be so much garbage, we couldn't get rid of it and the oceans would die from dumping trash in the sea causing massive floating garbage islands that would wash up on shore and destroy complete environments.

Water Shortage. In the 80's and 90's we were told that fresh water was a limited resource and that we would experience a water shortage would trigger a salinization of fresh water, causing people and crops to die. This was also tied into the New Ice Age fear.

This stuff hasn't happened, but the world has wasted time and effort for the wrong things.

Where is the development of nuclear or geothermic energy?
What about the more efficient use of electricity?
What about effective and efficient desalinization plants?
What about effective biodegradable products and minimal packageing?

These good ideas have been abandoned for the more exciting fear-mongering. That's why most of my family wastes 3 cups of fresh water washing out an alumin can for recycling and drinking bottled water from a PET bottle instead of drinking filtered water from a tap in a paper cup even though the fiddler system can be made with abundant silicones and paper cups are made from a renewable resource and are bio-degradable garbage that could be burned to create energy.

hmmmm......

If we only had access to the NewsWeek magazines for the last 35 years, we'd see how much time, money, and human energy is wasted in over-reacting to the wrong thing because we wanted to believe people only wanted to do good...[/quote]

Interesting how you bring politics into this. I hope you think the Bush gov't is just as bad. I can see it from here up North. Unfortunately, we can be affected by it too. I shake my head at those people in Canada who get caught up in it.
/rant2

Other than that, interesting that you bring up the old trends of the environment. How do some so-called scientists reconcile this?

[quote name='ThomasDM' post='1236744' date='Apr 9 2007, 09:08 PM']I'm amazed by the lack of reason and logic in this debate.

We're taking millions and millions of years of carbon that's been locked away and out of the cycle for so long....and tossing it all into the atmosphere in only a few decades - declining to accept that it could upset any sort of balance?

The evidence on global warming keeps coming in. It's getting stronger and stronger, and the deniers of global warming are having the carpet pulled from under their feet.

Many of the arguments in denial of global warming are based on a misunderstanding of the way that climate works.

To deny that sending millions of years of carbon into the atmosphere in only a few decades will upset any balance shows a very huge lack of foresight or logic when dealing with the topic.

The computer models [which time has shown to be very, very accurate seeing as many of their predictions have already come true] predict the displacement of millions and millions of people...many deaths happening in the wake of all of this. So it's either the doing of mankind through global warming, or an act of God. And last I checked, God promised not to do something like that again.

To say that the science is irrelevant on this matter is frightening to say least. Many of the same PR firms and so called 'experts' that deny the human element of gluttony [a sin by the way, so please stop trying to justify it] in the onset of Global Warming are the very same people and PR firms that denied that Cigarettes are addictive or have any link to Cancer. It's the same tactic.

The Science is very important on this matter...and if you deny that, you're not being reasonable. Science is objective - it has to be, it's driven by evidence, not by rhetoric - whereas the Anti-Global warming Lobby as funded by Exxon has a very clear agenda.

To argue that the earth has always being going through huge changes is correct...but not many of those changes have been as global as the one that we're up against now. And in the past it was due to volcanoes...this time it's do to humans [the evidence leads to 90% certainty on this] and we have a chance to save the lives of millions and millions of people if we work to cut our emissions by 70% by 2050...that is what is needed to stabilize the climate. Millions of human lives are at stake, millions of animal species are threatened by extinction, and the worlds food producing regions will be some of the hardest hit. If we continue with this sin of gluttony - we'll greatly reduce the carrying capacity of our planet, causing many more to fall into starvation.

This is an issue where the worlds poorest are threatened the most. What would Jesus advocate in the face of such a thing? Ignore it and with 90% certainty allow so much more human suffering and starvation as well as destroying so much of the land that God gave to us? Or would he advocate making small changes in our lifestyle to do our part to help others, to fight starvation, to preserve the land etc...

All you have to do is walk a bit more, be more conscious of your purchases [smaller cars etc], keep efficiency in mind...etc. If you're sacrificing a bit of convenience by driving less you can use the money that would have been otherwise spent on gas and spend it instead on the poor, give to a charity, etc. It's a very noble cause and doesn't require us to give up any other noble causes to help out. We can still fight for God and for good everywhere we go. You can be environmentally friendly AND still stand for the rest of your morals. Trying to live a more humble, more efficient life - thus giving the money you save to the less fortunate and helping to fight displacement and starvation all at the same time is a very noble cause. What would Jesus do?

What do you have to loose? It requires a modest sacrifice on your part, and you can do so much good. Who would you be hurting by living more humbly and efficiently and with more concern for your fellow man?

Answer me that.

-Tom[/quote]

That is some good insight Tom. Even though I'm not totally in agreement with the global warming theory, I do not see the need to pollute the earth with our wasteful ways. I have mentioned earlier that we should work to live a cleaner lifestyle. It's not only good for the earth, but I think it does good for our souls too. Just offer it up.

[jeffpugh]

In light of the numerous replies I missed on the way to this one, I have to say that Tom did a good job responding to the old science sources, and in general answered Anomaly. Indeed, Anomaly is using a lot of "Ad Hominum" tactics. I don't know whether he will BUDGE from that one...

[Socrates]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' post='1237430' date='Apr 10 2007, 12:55 AM']oh one cool thing that you guys should check out. here in british columbia, there was recently a law passed that allowed people to sell "green" electricity(wind power, solar, etc) to the main power grid. makinging actually profitable to devote a certain amount of your lands, if you are on a farm or acreage, to energy production. ie 50 acres of windmills, one of which powers your houses enery needs and the rest you sell to the grid. i dont remember the figures but it can be incredibly lucrative to be environmentally concious. which is using capitalism (doing whatever costs less/makes more money) to improve the environment. after the initial costs of the equipment it would very little operating costs.

perfect, no?
would be interesting to see if this happens elsewhere.[/quote]
While they may be viable as supplementary energy sources, most "renewable energy sources" are extremely land-intensive and inefficient. It would take [i]400 miles [/i]of giant windmills to produce as much energy as a typical single powerplant. (And these windmills have been proven to be very deadly to flying birds and bats, which is why many environmentalists oppose them).
To produce the same amount a power with solar panels would require covering 127 square miles (twice the area of Washington D.C.) with movable solar panels (which would also require back-up power).
Biofuels would require many acres of farmland for this sole purpose.

"Renewable energy" on a significant scale would require using up much of our wilderness and/or farmland. (Not something most environmentalists would find appealing.)

I think nuclear energy is the way to go ultimately. (Nuclear plants already generate much of France's electricity.)

Edited April 11, 2007 by Socrates

[Guest T-Bone]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1238186' date='Apr 10 2007, 07:40 PM']Yes, I know much about this. It takes tons of grain and lots of water to raise one cow, which ultimately gives a low output just for a pile of protein. [b]I know there are plants that can give us the proper protein instead. [/b]One of the reasons why I gave up meat is because of the thousands of cows being crammed onto one parcel of land. Cows ruin the topsoil, make a huge smell and consume a lot in these conditions.[/quote]

"Proper protein"?

I'm sorry, but that statement is utterly ridiculous. Many people are deathly allergic to this "proper protein" that is contained in legumes. This is an incomplete protein and requires other foods to supplement it.

There are many problems with plant based protein, and the "facts" cited about the "evils of cattle" are overblown, and any truth out of them comes from the abusive "factory farms."

[Socrates]

[quote name='aalpha1989' post='1231908' date='Apr 5 2007, 10:23 PM']doesn't he say that urbanization [i]doesnt[/i] have as much of an affect? at least not a provable one? i dont remember that well, but i do think i remember that he gives teh temperatures of one metropolitan area which go up as the population goes up, then gives teh temperatures of another and they go down....the data is inconsistent, and so can't be attributed to urbanization. i thought thats what he said anyway. and also the connection between temperaturs and co2? its backwards....as the temperatures go up...four hundred years later, on average, co2 levels go up....that is really what the scientists found who were mentioned by al gore in an inconvenient truth. hey said that they found a link between co2 and temperatures but neglected to mention that its backwards.[/quote]
He says he suspects it has [i]more [/i]of an effect than acknowleged. Go back and read it.
He says this may be more of a factor than so-called "greenhouse gases."

The main point of the book is that the actual hard scientific evidence for CO2 and other emissions causing global warming is extremely spotty at best and is mostly pure hypothesis. He says global warming is actually extremely poorly understood, and more solid scientific research should be done before massively costly government "solutions" are invested employed on something based on an unproven hypothesis.

[ThomasDM]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1238197' date='Apr 10 2007, 09:07 PM']In light of the numerous replies I missed on the way to this one, I have to say that Tom did a good job responding to the old science sources, and in general answered Anomaly. Indeed, Anomaly is using a lot of "Ad Hominum" tactics. I don't know whether he will BUDGE from that one...[/quote]

Thank you for your support, reason and its propensity for open discussion is one of the most wonderful faculties given to us by our Creator.

I'll be preparing a rebuttal to Anomoly's last few points shortly, but I just got in from Freeline Skating in the cold and my fingers are rather slow right now.

Luckily my Grandmother brought over some hot chocolate! Mmmm Mmmm!

P.S. Good to see another veggie!

-Tom

Edited April 11, 2007 by ThomasDM

[ThomasDM]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1238206' date='Apr 10 2007, 09:20 PM']While they may be viable as supplementary energy sources, most "renewable energy sources" are extremely land-intensive and inefficient. It would take [i]400 miles [/i]of giant windmills to produce as much energy as a typical single powerplant. (And these windmills have been proven to be very deadly to flying birds and bats, which is why many environmentalists oppose them).
To produce the same amount a power with solar panels would require covering 127 square miles (twice the area of Washington D.C.) with movable solar panels (which would also require back-up power).
Biofuels would require many acres of farmland for this sole purpose.

"Renewable energy" on a significant scale would require using up much of our wilderness and/or farmland. (Not something most environmentalists would find appealing.)

I think nuclear energy is the way to go ultimately. (Nuclear plants already generate much of France's electricity.)[/quote]

Your facts are a little outdated concerning the windmills. All the new designs are bird friendly because they don't have any surfaces where birds could roost...which was the main cause of death to the critters, and the main cause of concern around them. As for flying into them, it's going to happen occasionally...but not too often, and the amount of bird species that we can save from extinction [3 in 5 species in many parts of the world face extinction because of global warming] is much greater than the few that would accidentally fly into windmills.

As for the endorsement of Nuclear Energy, I think it has it's uses...but ALL of the alternative energy options have their uses. We're not going to solve this by becoming very dependent on one type of energy [that's what got us into the mess we're in now] but rather we'll have to accept all of the different energy production options in a very eclectic mix. Energy production is likely to move away from the larger, more centralized model that we have now....and instead move towards a smaller more grassroots operation where smaller communities manage their energy production and usage.

And if you're going to argue against any of the alternative energy sources, you definitely cannot argue in favor of Nuclear...for it's the 2nd most expensive of all the energy sources...and it isn't projected to go down in cost because of how centralized it is...whereas the single most expensive [solar] will be one of the cheapest options in a decade or two. In fact prices are being slashed as we speak.

As for the amount of land that photo-voltaic energy requires...lets put it into perspective:

[img]http://www.treehugger.com/solar-world-jj-001.jpg[/img]

Those black dots represent all the land we would need to devote to Solar Panels to meet all of the worlds energy needs at an efficiency of 8%...but the really good news is that current solar panel technology has an efficiency of about 20%...so shrink those even more.

The market is tending towards the greener energy production options.

-Tom

Edited April 11, 2007 by ThomasDM

[Socrates]

[quote name='ThomasDM' post='1236744' date='Apr 9 2007, 07:08 PM']The computer models [which time has shown to be very, very accurate seeing as many of their predictions have already come true] predict the displacement of millions and millions of people...many deaths happening in the wake of all of this. So it's either the doing of mankind through global warming, or an act of God. And last I checked, God promised not to do something like that again.[/quote]
Computer models are actually a very poor predictor of complex systems like global climate. The truth is that different models have come up with wildly different conclusions from one another, and that they basically only give you what you put in them (which is often quite different and much more simplistic than the real world). It's essentially (as the old programmers say) garbage in-garbage out.
And it's simple fact that computer models cannot predict things like "displacement and death of millions of people."
And as they've only been around for a few decades, your claim of their accuracy record for predicting decades into the future is bizarre. (Were they accurate back in the days of "global cooling" and "new ice age" scares?)
And they can't even accurately predict short term. Remember how las year's hurricane season was supposed to be even worse than 2005's, yet was actually quite mild?

I don't have time to refute everything at the moment, but much of what you've said here is in fact overblown political rhetoric, lefty platitudes, and junk science, rather than proven scientific fact.

[ThomasDM]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1238213' date='Apr 10 2007, 09:27 PM']He says he suspects it has [i]more [/i]of an effect than acknowleged. Go back and read it.
He says this may be more of a factor than so-called "greenhouse gases."

The main point of the book is that the actual hard scientific evidence for CO2 and other emissions causing global warming is extremely spotty at best and is mostly pure hypothesis. He says global warming is actually extremely poorly understood, and more solid scientific research should be done before massively costly government "solutions" are invested employed on something based on an unproven hypothesis.[/quote]

On the contrary. The IPCC has just released their latest report which declares 80-90% certainty that Global Warming is a man-made phenomenon. The science is very, very strong on this matter. There is a consensus in the Scientific community that Global Warming is man-made.

For example, of the over 900+ scientific studies and reports published in peer reviewed scientific journals in the last decade...none of them dispute that Global Warming is man made...in fact all of them support it.

The term 'spotty evidence' is better aimed at the Climate Change deniers who haven't published a peer-reviewed scientific article supporting their claims in over 10 years.

-Tom

[Socrates]

[quote name='ThomasDM' post='1238225' date='Apr 10 2007, 09:39 PM']Your facts are a little outdated concerning the windmills. All the new designs are bird friendly because they don't have any surfaces where birds could roost...which was the main cause of death to the critters, and the main cause of concern around them. As for flying into them, it's going to happen occasionally...but not too often, and the amount of bird species that we can save from extinction [3 in 5 species in many parts of the world face extinction because of global warming] is much greater than the few that would accidentally fly into windmills.

As for the endorsement of Nuclear Energy, I think it has it's uses...but ALL of the alternative energy options have their uses. We're not going to solve this by becoming very dependent on one type of energy [that's what got us into the mess we're in now] but rather we'll have to accept all of the different energy production options in a very eclectic mix. Energy production is likely to move away from the larger, more centralized model that we have now....and instead move towards a smaller more grassroots operation where smaller communities manage their energy production and usage.

And if you're going to argue against any of the alternative energy sources, you definitely cannot argue in favor of Nuclear...for it's the 2nd most expensive of all the energy sources...and it isn't projected to go down in cost because of how centralized it is...whereas the single most expensive [solar] will be one of the cheapest options in a decade or two. In fact prices are being slashed as we speak.

As for the amount of land that photo-voltaic energy requires...lets put it into perspective:

[img]http://www.treehugger.com/solar-world-jj-001.jpg[/img]

Those black dots represent all the land we would need to devote to Solar Panels to meet all of the worlds energy needs at an efficiency of 8%...but the really good news is that current solar panel technology has an efficiency of about 20%...so shrink those even more.

The market is tending towards the greener energy production options.

-Tom[/quote]
Source please for the photo-energy map?
That is contrary to everything I've read on the topic (not just from "evil conservatives" but environmentalists as well).

Nuclear power would be initially expensive, but would be much more productive and less land-intensive than solar panels and windmills. The technology has improved much since the 1950s and 60s. It is actually advocated by more than a few serious environmentalists, though it still remains "politically-incorrect" in the larger Green culture.

[ThomasDM]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1238230' date='Apr 10 2007, 09:43 PM']Computer models are actually a very poor predictor of complex systems like global climate. The truth is that different models have come up with wildly different conclusions from one another, and that they basically only give you what you put in them (which is often quite different and much more simplistic than the real world). It's essentially (as the old programmers say) garbage in-garbage out.
And it's simple fact that computer models cannot predict things like "displacement and death of millions of people."
And as they've only been around for a few decades, your claim of their accuracy record for predicting decades into the future is bizarre. (Were they accurate back in the days of "global cooling" and "new ice age" scares?)
And they can't even accurately predict short term. Remember how las year's hurricane season was supposed to be even worse than 2005's, yet was actually quite mild?

I don't have time to refute everything at the moment, but much of what you've said here is in fact overblown political rhetoric, lefty platitudes, and junk science, rather than proven scientific fact.[/quote]

Global Climate Models have been able to reproduce trends that we've seen in the past...and this is a testament to their accuracy

"GCMs are capable of reproducing the general features of the observed global temperature over the past century [16]." [url="http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm"][Source][/url]

When we first started using computers to model climate trends...we didn't have as much information to input as we do today. I do recall the very flaws that you speak of. But the truth of the matter was that they didn't yet know about aerosols. Now that we can include the effects of aerosols in our atmosphere into the models they've become increasingly accurate.

Again, please don't refer to the science that we had the the 1970's [which is the era of the inaccurate models that you speak of] please look at the evidence that we have today. The supercomputers and networked 'cell' idea computer grids that we have working on the issue today are vastly superior to what we had in the 1970's.

Again look at that source that I posted.

And now I'll take this time to beg of you guys to start using sources. Sources to scientific papers [which have been peer reviewed] are very important in any such debate. It's important that we not neglect to use them.

-Tom

[Socrates]

[quote name='ThomasDM' post='1238233' date='Apr 10 2007, 09:49 PM']On the contrary. The IPCC has just released their latest report which declares 80-90% certainty that Global Warming is a man-made phenomenon. The science is very, very strong on this matter. There is a consensus in the Scientific community that Global Warming is man-made.

For example, of the over 900+ scientific studies and reports published in peer reviewed scientific journals in the last decade...none of them dispute that Global Warming is man made...in fact all of them support it.

The term 'spotty evidence' is better aimed at the Climate Change deniers who haven't published a peer-reviewed scientific article supporting their claims in over 10 years.

-Tom[/quote]
"Consensus reports" are not science, but are politically-influence documents.

There are actually many individual reputable climate scientists who doubt the current politically-correct orthodoxy on global warming. Their conclusions just happen to be politically inconvenient to those who publish U.N. reports and the like, and are thus conveniently ignored. (Contrary to propoganda, politics actually plays a [i]huge[/i] part in the "scientific community.")

Science is about testible, duplicatable concrete evidence.

How is it [i]proven [/i] that global warming is caused primarily by CO2?
It's not - it's pure hypothesis.

The climate has always been changing - since long before human-made "greenhouse gases" could have any serious effect. Once arctic glaciers stretched as far south as Ohio - that is scientific fact. The climate was not and never was stable, but is constantly fluctuating.