Global Warming is a hoax.

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='zwergel88' date='Jan 30 2006, 09:58 PM'] There are many things that we could do to improve the situation such as signing the Kyoto Protocol to reduce carbon emisions but your friends in Washington won't sign. 
[/quote]

(my assumption is that this was directed at Bush...most people take that stance on the issue)

Why should Bush sign it? Clinton declined to sign it as well.

It's all moot since the senate voted unanimously not to sign it either:

On July 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was to be negotiated, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95–0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98), which stated that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States".

Edited January 31, 2006 by Cow of Shame

[Iacobus]

Clinton didn't sign it but the US still tried to obey it. They were not legally obliged to do so but sought to at least try. Bush said it wasn't even worth trying and in the act kind of killed the Kyoto Protocol in the US.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

I tend to think global warming is a bunch of hype.

[JP2Iloveyou]

My only question then is, "Why are we experiencing the mildest winter in decades?" I love snow, and I can't remember the last winter that we've seen a considerable amount of snow in my area (Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, states that traditionally receive a good deal of snow).

Honestly, I had a science professor who was very honest about the whole situation this year. He said that there is evidence to show that it is happening, but that it has not been proven. Further, he said that the climate increase in a given year cannot be blamed for hurricanes, or one extrememly warm or cool season. It is something that happens over time. Then, I read an article in the paper where this guy who traveled across Antartica said that temperatures were routinely 80 below zero. He went on to say that in our lifetime, if we don't stop global warming, we'll have to take a boat across. Given that ice melts at 33 degrees, and taking 33 plus 80, that gives us 113. So, this guy wants to claim that the Earth's temperature is going to rise 113 degrees in our lifetimes. I think not. I do think, however, from casual observance on my own part that winters are getting warmer on average. This may be part of a cycle, it may be part of a bigger problem. If it is part of a bigger problem, can we legitimately ignore it and hope that it goes away?

[Aloysius]

evidence shows that it is part of a cycle. your very own statement "the mildest winter [i]in decades[/i]" shows that

the hurricaine season this year is analogous to huricain seasons earlier this century. same with the mild winter, the storm season, et cetera, they all have parallels to things that have happened before. science, being an observer of patterns, has no reason to think that this time is any different than the continuous pattern that has spanned the lifetime of the earth.

and since all of this fluctuates so greatly, the minor addition of human beings to the atmospheric "pollution" caused naturally by volcano eruptions and other natural phenomena, has little to no effect. we have not taken the levels of gases in the atmosphere of the earth to anywhere near where they have not been before. and we certainly haven't taken them accross some imaginary threshold by which a catastrophic global effect would result. that threshold is much farther away than our capabilities can reach. considering the conditions that the earth has gone through before, the amounts of volcanic blasts and earthquakes that have already been put up into the air, the only way a catastrophe could occur for the earth's climate is by natural forces. or, of course, by a nuclear war

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jan 31 2006, 03:51 PM']the hurricaine season this year is analogous to huricain seasons earlier this century. 
[/quote]
That is what I am saying, I think it was Time that was positiing that Global Warming increased the number of hurricanes. I thought that some year in the earlier part of the 20th century saw more than we did this year. I was like ...give me a break...

Edited January 31, 2006 by Paphnutius

[Azriel]

[quote name='philothea' date='Jan 30 2006, 08:46 PM']I think being efficient, clean, and responsible in energy use and emissions is wise choice.  Efficiency, cleanliness, and responsibilty are good in [i]anything[/i].

But I'm not convinced of global warming.  Even if it is happening, I don't know that the predicted results are reliable.  The systems involved are incredibly complex.  We have only a sample of one, and little good data on that sample.
[right][snapback]870536[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I think that this bears repeating. Personally, I've no idea about global warming - what is clear though is that we need to be responsible stewards of this Earth that God has given us.

Hear, hear Philothea!!

[God's Errand Girl]

Well, we all know who to blame for this "global warming"....that darn El Nino.

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='God's Errand Girl' date='Jan 31 2006, 07:29 PM']Well, we all know who to blame for this "global warming"....that darn El Nino.
[right][snapback]871388[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

At first I read "....that darn Elmo", which I agree with [b]much[/b] more than what you actually wrote.

[JP2Iloveyou]

OK, so another couple of questions then. One thing my professor showed us was data taken over the last 200 years or so, the time period right before the industrial revolution and all the years following. In that time span, the number of parts per million of carbon atoms in the atmosphere has doubled. He also showed a chart that seems to indicate that the recent trends have been beyond what are traditionally seen in the "cycles" that the Earth goes through. So, my question is, what are we to make of the data showing the clear rise in of carbon parts per million in the atmosphere? Also, could someone please post a link to the claim about volcanoes? Throwing a claim out without evidence to back it up is exactly what the global warming end-of-the-world-is-upon-us people do. I would like some type of link showing that this claim is supported by someone in the scientific community.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Azriel' date='Jan 31 2006, 06:27 PM']I think that this bears repeating.  Personally, I've no idea about global warming - what is clear though is that we need to be responsible stewards of this Earth that God has given us. 

Hear, hear Philothea!!
[right][snapback]871304[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I am not saying that we shouldn't be responsible and I don't think anyone here is.. I think everyone here knows we should be responsible, so it's common knowledge so I didn't need to mention it. I do not understand why it bears repeating unless you think that we are saying to pollute.

In no way shape or fashion am I saying that we should pollute. I am saying simply that "global warming" is not something cause by humans as the media and a hand full of scientists who get paid for saying it.

[u][b]I might be misunderstanding your intent, and if I am then just disregard this, [/b][/u]but this is what I mean by some people here pulling more out of my posts than what is there.

An analogy that might help show my point would be this...
If I wrote: "The Catholic Church centers on Christ"
And someone else wrote: "Why do you neglect the Father and Holy Spirit?"

That is the way it makes me feel when people imply I meant something that I do not even imply. I think the misinterpretations are due to stereotypes propagated by the media about conservative republicans who disagree with them.

It gets very aggravating. I'm just trying to explain my point of view to you, I am not trying to attack you in any way shape or fashion.


God Bless,
ironmonk
[url="http://www.CatholicSwag.com"]http://www.CatholicSwag.com[/url] <- Catholic shirts for Responsible Catholics

[Aloysius]

wait.. ... where was your shameless t-shirt advertising in that post? hahaha

[ironmonk]

[quote name='JP2Iloveyou' date='Jan 31 2006, 10:45 PM']OK, so another couple of questions then.  One thing my professor showed us was data taken over the last 200 years or so, the time period right before the industrial revolution and all the years following.  In that time span, the number of parts per million of carbon atoms in the atmosphere has doubled.  He also showed a chart that seems to indicate that the recent trends have been beyond what are traditionally seen in the "cycles" that the Earth goes through.  So, my question is, what are we to make of the data showing the clear rise in of carbon parts per million in the atmosphere?  Also, could someone please post a link to the claim about volcanoes?  Throwing a claim out without evidence to back it up is exactly what the global warming end-of-the-world-is-upon-us people do.  I would like some type of link showing that this claim is supported by someone in the scientific community.
[right][snapback]871597[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I would be interested in the source of that research and how they actually measured it two hundred years ago.

Carbon dioxide was discovered in 1771...

We didn't have the periodic table of elements until 1869.

It wasn't until the 1960's that we had tools to measure carbon in the air.
(ref: [url="http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm"]http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm[/url] - the first greenhouse gas scare)

If they actually had a tool to measure the carbon in the atmosphere, how accurate was it. How did they measure it many miles up?

From what I have studied about chemistry, I highly doubt the validity of what your professor presented because it just doesn't add up.

God Bless,
ironmonk
[url="http://www.CatholicSwag.com"]http://www.CatholicSwag.com[/url] <- Catholic Shirts that make no attempt to measure the methane that you might be producing that is causing global warming so you will not be fined by the UN when they rule the world.

[JP2Iloveyou]

IM, I don't know for sure, but I suspect that it has to do with carbon dating. Presumably, if carbon can be used to determine how old something is, we could do the process in reverse by taking something that we know the age of and figuring out how much carbon is contained in it. Do the math and we could figure out how much there was at a given point in history. Again, I am just speculating. I don't have the textbook anymore or access to the study. I am just trying to intellectually honest. Like yourself, I think that there are far more important things to worry about, but I would like some credible information to combat the greens on this topic. Any fair debate (and in order to strengthen our own arguments) requires that the opposition be fairly represented.

[philothea]

I just started reading an article about global warming in my favorite magazine, that wacky liberal publication, [i]Fortune[/i]. It does not seem that they doubt the evidence of it.

Details later.