Global earth warming up

[heavycola]

Jay please explain why the overwhelming majority of climatologists (who agree that we are changing the climate of this planet with our fossil fuel addiction) are wrong? They were saying this years before the politicians got involved, too.
I would like to know why they are all wrong, and how you know more about climatology than 90% of scientists.

They are probably being "financially reimbursed" by politicians.

Last night I was listening to M. Savage. He had a scientist on that said Gore is full of hot air. He also said that the Gore charts that showed that "increases in temperature correlates with the increase of CO2" were actually REVERSED, and that the charts actually show the CO2 increasing BEFORE the temperature started to rise.

In essence Gore was stating that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is leading to higher global temperatures, when if fact the higher temperatures are leading to an increase in CO2.

So you are accusing the vast majority of world climatologists of being crooks. Does it never occur to you that they might be right?

And Jay, i know Al Gore is a democrat, but that is what 90% of scientists - including the 2,000 who put their names to the Un report -are saying SCIENTIST

[jay_a2j]

Jay please explain why the overwhelming majority of climatologists (who agree that we are changing the climate of this planet with our fossil fuel addiction) are wrong? They were saying this years before the politicians got involved, too.
I would like to know why they are all wrong, and how you know more about climatology than 90% of scientists.

They are probably being "financially reimbursed" by politicians.

Last night I was listening to M. Savage. He had a scientist on that said Gore is full of hot air. He also said that the Gore charts that showed that "increases in temperature correlates with the increase of CO2" were actually REVERSED, and that the charts actually show the CO2 increasing BEFORE the temperature started to rise.

In essence Gore was stating that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is leading to higher global temperatures, when if fact the higher temperatures are leading to an increase in CO2.

So you are accusing the vast majority of world climatologists of being crooks. Does it never occur to you that they might be right?

And Jay, i know Al Gore is a democrat, but that is what 90% of scientists - including the 2,000 who put their names to the Un report -are saying SCIENTIST

Look, if you want to trade your car in for a bicycle be my guest! There are many more like you who have fallen into the "Oh my God! We are destroying the planet!". I don't live in fear.... I don't buy the non-sense.... but this is my choice....you want to live in fear, go ahead.... just leave my SUV alone! (I don't really have an SUV...someday maybe)

[vtmarik]

Look, if you want to trade your car in for a bicycle be my guest! There are many more like you who have fallen into the "Oh my God! We are destroying the planet!". I don't live in fear.... I don't buy the non-sense.... but this is my choice....you want to live in fear, go ahead.... just leave my SUV alone! (I don't really have an SUV...someday maybe)

I get it, your confusing the concept of human-caused/accelerated global warming with the reality of actual global warming.

The planet is heating up. That's just the nature of the beast. We aren't the cause, however, nor are we kicking the planet when its down.

Global warming exists, regardless of what you want to believe or who is getting blamed for it.

And if you want to pay $50-60 to fill your SUV with gas every 350 miles, that's just groovy. I'll invest in a hybrid and spend half that every 500 miles.

[Aimless]

Likewise, those who claim that global warming is entirely caused by human activity are ignoring the strong correlation between climate and solar output, and the fact that Mars and Jupiter are both showing signs of warming that match ours.

I know that isn't true since we have no way of knowing temperatures on those planets. Especially since Mars has no atmosphere, and any attempt to know temperature on Jupiter would result in a downed spacecraft.

False.

Mars Warming

Jupiter Warming

[unriggable]

False.

Mars Warming

Jupiter Warming

Okay, I've been humbled.

Look, if you want to trade your car in for a bicycle be my guest! There are many more like you who have fallen into the "Oh my God! We are destroying the planet!". I don't live in fear.... I don't buy the non-sense....

...said the man who was persuaded by a priest to become catholic, that he'll go to hell if he doesn't.

It just seems pretty straightforward. Heat increases with high CO2 levels, cars and factories give off CO2. Am I missing something? I know the Earth heats and cools naturally, but this isn't anything like we've seen before.

[Nobunaga]

... But this IS something we've seen before. The hottest decade of the 20th Century was the 1930's, and it was hotter than this decade by many degrees, for consecutive years (Dust Bowl, etc...)

Al Gore just went to Congress:

Gore insisted that the link is beyond dispute and is the source of broad agreement in the scientific community.

>> Consensus is not science, and it is very much in dispute.

"The planet has a fever," Gore said. "If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor. If the doctor says you need to intervene here, you don't say, `Well, I read a science fiction novel that told me it's not a problem.' If the crib's on fire, you don't speculate that the baby is flame retardant. You take action."

>> And this is the kind of simplification that stupid, reality-TV addicted slobs can digest. Science is beyond them.

... Check out the article:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1153AP_Gore.html

... Science and politics is a dangerous mix. He MIGHT be right, sure, but stop with the "If your baby has a fever" metaphors for idiots.

... This article is a perfect example of how Global Warming is caught up in political intrigue and political motivations... and not a lot more.

... And people just refuse to even consider ideas they've already decided MUST be true. It becomes a "moral" issue. It's even a Republicans / Democrats, or a Liberal vs Conservative issue . . . which speaks volumes of how far this is from true scientific concern for the planet we give our kids.

[foolish_yeti]

I love how people try and argue that we don't have an impact on our environment. We are organisms within an ecosystem. Every organism has an impact. With technology, humans have a massive impact...you can't raze acres of forest and pave kilometers of the earth without having and impact. You can't release tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere without having an impact. People really need to start getting the notion that nothing comes from nothing and something comes from something. All of your actions have implications. You want that SUV? You need the metal to construct it, so you need to mine that. You need the plastic for that. So you need to drill for oil. You need the energy to build it. Electricity- depending on how it's generated you need more resources (most likely nuclear or coal in the west). Okay, so now you want to drive your SUV. Now you need roads. What resources does that take? Then you need gas. More oil.... And that's an insanely simplified version. People really need to start thinking of the real costs of their actions... everything has an impact. Everything comes from something.

... But this IS something we've seen before. The hottest decade of the 20th Century was the 1930's, and it was hotter than this decade by many degrees, for consecutive years (Dust Bowl, etc...)

Also have to skeptical about this....same as you are talking about with Gore. Depending on who you ask it's either the 30's or the 90's. To assume that science is objective is a mistake for both sides.

[Aimless]

People really need to start thinking of the real costs of their actions... everything has an impact. Everything comes from something.

You're right! Gee, everything I do uses oil. I'm think I'm going to go live in a cave now, and become a hermit, since this is the only way I can stop global warming.

If only there were enough caves for everyone to become a caveman again, then all of our global warming problems would be solved.

[foolish_yeti]

You're right! Gee, everything I do uses oil. I'm think I'm going to go live in a cave now, and become a hermit, since this is the only way I can stop global warming.

If only there were enough caves for everyone to become a caveman again, then all of our global warming problems would be solved.

Yours is a typical defensive response. Nobody worth their salt is suggesting we revert back to living like we did at any period. What people are suggesting is we find a new way that works. Take a look at things such as energy consumption and population trends and you'll soon find out that our way is coming to an end sooner rather than later. Global warming may be the political hot topic of conversation at the moment, but it's by far not the only issue. Look at freshwater, species extinction (e.g. keystone species), carrying capacity, topsoil degredation...There is no way we can continue on this path- people will have no choice but to change.

I see you're not a fan of global warming...well you could also look at oil as a non-renewable resource. Do you think it's smart to base your entire lifestyle on a form of energy that will soon run out? How do you think an entire global economy based on oil will fare as supply problems begin to occur? Any developed country cannot survive without mass amounts of imports. Either from a nation to nation perspective or even a community to community one.

[unriggable]

You're right! Gee, everything I do uses oil. I'm think I'm going to go live in a cave now, and become a hermit, since this is the only way I can stop global warming.

If only there were enough caves for everyone to become a caveman again, then all of our global warming problems would be solved.

The thing is, we are not really at the controls here. Our country is run by corporations now (the proof for this statement is that the company that was hired by the government to build the dividing wall between US and Mexico hired illegal immigrants to do so). They can do whatever they want, as long as it makes money. What the government needs to do is set laws, and thresholds (sp?) on such things as carbon dioxide output of cars, and they need to start funding construction of solar powered panels on such places as the Arizona desert. I don't see why the hell not anyways - most of the smog emitted from coal-fired plants lingers in the near atmosphere and poisons the air - just look at Mexico city, where there is no law for putting filters on automobile exhausts - and we definitely have enough money to support solar powered research, after all, we spend upwards 451 billion dollars a year on the military alone.

[Skittles!]

"Oh my God!"

You put God's name in vain. NOW YOU ARE GOING TO HELL FOR ALL ETERNITY.
Tut tut Jay.

[foolish_yeti]

as if I made someone's sig....

[Skittles!]

You did, cause it made me laugh. Congrads.

Global warming is normal, but the other type of global warming is caused by Humans. Science people.

[unriggable]

Speakign of sigs skittles has the best one.

[Skittles!]

Woo. I win.

[qeee1]

The thing is, we are not really at the controls here.

The government doesn't relflect the views of the people. But America is a democracy, you get to vote, go democracy!

[Skittles!]

The thing is, we are not really at the controls here.

The government doesn't relflect the views of the people. But America is a democracy, you get to vote, go democracy!

... How many Americans do actually vote for the government? Half the population? 3/4 the population? 1/4 the population?

They should make it compulsory to know what the whole population wants, not just a few that are bothered to vote.

[Aimless]

Yours is a typical defensive response. Nobody worth their salt is suggesting we revert back to living like we did at any period. What people are suggesting is we find a new way that works. Take a look at things such as energy consumption and population trends and you'll soon find out that our way is coming to an end sooner rather than later.

And yours is a typical scarcity scare tactic. The human race is always running out of something. Equally, the human race is always coming up with something new to replace it. Overpopulation, peak oil, global cooling, global warming, whatever. There's always some new scare, some gloom and doom scenario.

Say that the world runs out of oil. Guess what - the market will adapt. That's what markets do. Does it bother me that my entire life style is based around the consumption of oil, and that oil is a non-renewable resource? No. Because non-renewable resources constitute a renewable resource. If we run out of oil, something else will take its place.

People have been saying that our way of life is coming to an end longer than we've had our way of life. It hasn't happened yet. It won't happen in the foreseeable future.

That doesn't mean that I'm against looking for alternatives to burning fossil fuels. For one thing, there's a lot of stuff we can do with fossil fuels that's more important than burning the stuff. For another, even aside from global warming, the less waste we vent into the atmosphere the better, for all of us.

But stop it with the chicken little crap. Global warming will not kill us all. Nor will overpopulation - agricultural technology is increasing our food production faster than our capacity to eat. Our way of life is not going to end - at least not any time soon.

As far as "not being a Global Warming fan" - I never said that. What I said was that I was not a fan of the Global Warming hype. Just like the hype that's been spewed in this thread.

Global Warming is a real phenomenon (although, it's better to term it climate change, since it is not strictly warming). To some degree, the human race is having an impact on our climate. I do not dispute this, nor do I minimize it. However, there is no scenario by which the human race can maintain its current level of technology and not affect the climate. Finding alternatives to fossil fuels will not solve this. Eliminating all of our CO2 emissions globally will not stop it. There is absolutely nothing we can do about the human races impact on the climate - except this :

Let the scientists do their work. Discover what drives the climate, why it behaves in the way it does. Figure out what the optimal climate for the human race actually is. (I suspect that it is a rather warmer Earth than today.) And then, engineer climate change to produce this climate.

None of this is easy. None of it can be done quickly. And despite the grandiose claims of the IPCC reports, we frankly still have no idea what's truly driving the weather we experience. (Read the report if you don't believe me. And pay special attention to the considerations left out of the models.) Fortunately, even if the worst of the chicken little scenarios is true, we have a couple of centuries to work on it. And the human race is good at adapting. It's why we're the dominant species on the planet.

[unriggable]

The thing is, we are not really at the controls here.

The government doesn't relflect the views of the people. But America is a democracy, you get to vote, go democracy!

... How many Americans do actually vote for the government? Half the population? 3/4 the population? 1/4 the population?

They should make it compulsory to know what the whole population wants, not just a few that are bothered to vote.

But we don't make the laws, the guys in the capitol do. Of course if you give power to the people you end up with fuckers wanting to ban DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE.

[Aimless]

The thing is, we are not really at the controls here. Our country is run by corporations now (the proof for this statement is that the company that was hired by the government to build the dividing wall between US and Mexico hired illegal immigrants to do so). They can do whatever they want, as long as it makes money. What the government needs to do is set laws, and thresholds (sp?) on such things as carbon dioxide output of cars, and they need to start funding construction of solar powered panels on such places as the Arizona desert. I don't see why the hell not anyways - most of the smog emitted from coal-fired plants lingers in the near atmosphere and poisons the air - just look at Mexico city, where there is no law for putting filters on automobile exhausts - and we definitely have enough money to support solar powered research, after all, we spend upwards 451 billion dollars a year on the military alone.

See, it's this type of unreasoned "do something!" cry that pisses me off.

Did you know that the amount of CO2 produced during the manufacture of modern solar panels is greater that the amount that will be saved by the energy production of that panel over the panel's lifetime?

And that we've had a perfectly safe, perfectly acceptable, and cheap alternative to coal power plants for half a century, and yet the environmentalists and NIMBYs have repeatedly killed attempts to implement it?

The government is the worst of all possible solutions to any given problem. Granted, there are times where government action is the only solution. But do not cry out for new government regulation without first considering that it's probably old government regulation that's creating the problem in the first place.

If it weren't for the extreme difficulty of acquiring all of the permits and jumping through all of the regulatory hoops (not to mention fending of the activist lawsuits) required to even get a nuclear reactor built, nuclear power would be by far the cheapest energy source and would have long since displaced coal. So why is the US grid still run on coal? Government.

[btownmeggy]

Did you know that the amount of CO2 produced during the manufacture of modern solar panels is greater that the amount that will be saved by the energy production of that panel over the panel's lifetime?

LINK?

[jay_a2j]

The thing is, we are not really at the controls here.

The government doesn't relflect the views of the people. But America is a democracy, you get to vote, go democracy!

America is not a Democracy it's a Republic.

[foolish_yeti]

Agreed, there has always been gloom and doom- but what if it's for real this time? Which I know sounds ridiculous. I'm for sure frightened for the future...and I don't think it's an irrational fear whatsoever. I am not so optimistic as you to our society's ability to solve the massive problems that are on the horizon ( or here, depending on who you talk to).

Say that the world runs out of oil. Guess what - the market will adapt. That's what markets do. Does it bother me that my entire life style is based around the consumption of oil, and that oil is a non-renewable resource? No. Because non-renewable resources constitute a renewable resource. If we run out of oil, something else will take its place.

Sure the market will try and adapt- but will it be fast enough? How will this transition affect global prices? I'd love to hear which non-renewable source is a feasible alternative to oil. The amount of energy we consume at the moment simply cannot be sustained.

But stop it with the chicken little crap. Global warming will not kill us all. Nor will overpopulation - agricultural technology is increasing our food production faster than our capacity to eat.

Any idea what monocultures do to soil? We are currently destroying topsoil at an alarming rate. How much of this production is dependent on oil? How much pesticides (poison) is used in farms? Take a look at global fish populations, already overfished. Our current agricultural practices are also unsustainable.

Increased food production= increased population. Not to mention population grows exponentially- the doubling time gets smaller and smaller each time. 6 billion now quickly becomes 12 billion (2050ish at current rates). What impact does 6 billion more people have on waste? Can our ecosystems support that? Cities are already in a bind over their waste- double their population....Where will these people live? If we are already experiencing overpopulation problems, how much worse will it get?

I for sure do not think this is chicken little stuff. These are serious problems facing us today and need serious contemplation and possible solutions...

America is not a Democracy it's a Republic.

I'd go for plutocracy.

[AAFitz]

America is not a Democracy it's a Republic.

I'd go for plutocracy.

goofycracy

[unriggable]

Sure the market will try and adapt- but will it be fast enough? How will this transition affect global prices? I'd love to hear which non-renewable source is a feasible alternative to oil.

Ethanol.

Pretty stupid, but apparently hydrogen is not nearly as explosive as it is made out to be. So hydrogen powered cars would not be as dangerous as they are said to be. (some of you guys might say "hey, unriggable, remember the hindenburg?" but the more flammable part of that flying blob of shit was the coating and the paint used. So cars could be pretty safe if they ran on oxygen and hydrogen.