Climate Group: Kilimanjaro a 'wake-up call'

[dropoutdave 0]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

------------------------------------------------------
May Contain Nut traces......

[billvon 3,006]

>Global warming is about political power and money.

Who makes money? Solar power companies? There is FAR more money to be made in claiming that climate change doesn't exist, and we don't need to reduce emissions, go to cleaner sources of power etc. If you look at it from an economic point of view, 99% of the money is pushing the climate change deniers.

>Based on what I have learned we are just in the warm part of a cycle.

Agree 100% - but we are driving this particular cycle, via mechanisms that are ordinarily driven by other events (massive volcanic activity, methane clathrate releases etc.) The question is - do we want to do that? Do we want to use those mechanisms of our ecosystem to change our climate?

[markd_nscr986 0]

I feel there is not enough good science to support it.Some climatological models "support" global warming others do not.There are still a lot of unanswered questions,and still others think it is part of a natural cycle if it is actually occurring

Some of the proponents of the green-house gas global warming theory, are the same ones that got the public to buy into R12 destroying the ozone layer......one thing that has never been explained to my satisfaction.......how a heavier-than-air gas can magically "migrate" 30+ miles into the upper atmosphere......and destroy ozone

Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004

[rushmc 23]

Quote

I feel there is not enough good science to support it.Some climatological models "support" global warming others do not.There are still a lot of unanswered questions,and still others think it is part of a natural cycle if it is actually occurring

Some of the proponents of the green-house gas global warming theory, are the same ones that got the public to buy into R12 destroying the ozone layer......one thing that has never been explained to my satisfaction.......how a heavier-than-air gas can magically "migrate" 30+ miles into the upper atmosphere......and destroy ozone

Part of the R12 story I have.

Dupont held the patent on R12. When R12 neared the end cycle , Dupont funded a study that came to the conclusion that R12 was destroying the ozone, (which some now question) Anyway, they got R12 banned. Guess who held the patent for the main replacement of R12?

I will leave conclusions to you.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Whom, or what countries would benefit if the US economy was crippled by un needed policies to "fix" the environment?

The biggest polluteing country in the world is exempt from the all important pollution treaty. Why is that?

Global warming is not happening from people. That is what I believe........until there are facts to change my mind

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Gravitymaster 0]

Can someone tell me what the correct temperature of the earth should be?

How will we know when we have reversed the effects of global warming?

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

The biggest polluteing country in the world is exempt from the all important pollution treaty. Why is that?

Because we opted out. Who exactly is going to make us comply? It is not some world government mandate. It is a treaty.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[billvon 3,006]

>Whom, or what countries would benefit if the US economy was
> crippled by un needed policies to "fix" the environment?

Innovative countries/companies that have the talent and the vision to meet the needs of the new market. The ones that can't change, that insist on making buggy whips when everyone is buying cars, will go under. Like always.

Do you really believe that we just can't compete when it comes to talent and vision?

>The biggest polluteing country in the world is exempt from the all
> important pollution treaty. Why is that?

We emit more CO2 than any other country, period.

>Global warming is not happening from people. That is what I
> believe........until there are facts to change my mind

You'll have them. There are more every day. But by the time enough evidence accumulates to convince even the most obstinate deniers, the deniers will change their tune to something along the lines of "well, we couldn't have stopped it anyway; it's all China's fault." Or they'll blame Clinton.

[billvon 3,006]

>Can someone tell me what the correct temperature of the earth
>should be?

There is no temperature the earth "should" be. It changes all the time. It is very foolish of us, though, to make it change as fast as we can possibly drive it. Nature makes changes when the climate changes drastically; often it adjusts through mass extinctions.

Now, these mass extinctions happen with some regularity. One eliminated all the dinosaurs. The next one may eliminate the mammals. Do you really think there's nothing wrong with hastening the next extinction?

Forest fires happen all the time. It's still dumb to set your back yard on fire.

>How will we know when we have reversed the effects of global
> warming?

We don't need to reverse anything. We just need to stop making it worse.

We'll know we're making progress when the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere stops rising exponentially. The first goal is to get it to rise just linearly - that means let it keep rising but at a steady rate. The next goal is to reverse the trend i.e. let it keep rising but at an ever-slower rate. The almost-final goal is to get it to level out. If we get there and the climate is still reasonable - it's a good bet that we can keep it there without too much further disturbance.

If we do start to see really nasty climate changes, then we go to the final goal, which is a gradual reduction in atmospheric CO2. At that point it may be too late. We'll see.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

I feel there is not enough good science to support it.Some climatological models "support" global warming others do not.There are still a lot of unanswered questions,and still others think it is part of a natural cycle if it is actually occurring

Some of the proponents of the green-house gas global warming theory, are the same ones that got the public to buy into R12 destroying the ozone layer......one thing that has never been explained to my satisfaction.......how a heavier-than-air gas can magically "migrate" 30+ miles into the upper atmosphere......and destroy ozone

Oxygen is heavier than nitrogen, so why is there any nitrogen at the Earth's surface? CO2 is denser than both, so how come we don't all suffocate unless we climb mountains?

Just because YOU can't understand the science doesn't make the science wrong. The evidence for CFCs being responsible for ozone depletion is overwhelming.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

I feel there is not enough good science to support it.Some climatological models "support" global warming others do not.There are still a lot of unanswered questions,and still others think it is part of a natural cycle if it is actually occurring

Some of the proponents of the green-house gas global warming theory, are the same ones that got the public to buy into R12 destroying the ozone layer......one thing that has never been explained to my satisfaction.......how a heavier-than-air gas can magically "migrate" 30+ miles into the upper atmosphere......and destroy ozone

Part of the R12 story I have.

Dupont held the patent on R12. When R12 neared the end cycle , Dupont funded a study that came to the conclusion that R12 was destroying the ozone, (which some now question) Anyway, they got R12 banned. Guess who held the patent for the main replacement of R12?

I will leave conclusions to you.

What a load of rubbish. The ozone depletion process has been verified independently by many scientists, including those at NOAA.

Interesting that the two Republicans who tried to prevent regulations controlling CFC emissions were named Delay and Doolittle.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"This is a wake-up call and an unequivocal message that a low-carbon global economy is necessary, achievable and affordable," said Steve Howard of the Climate Group charity"

How does showing the lack of an icecap on Killi demonstrate unequivocably that a low carbon economy is 'achievable and affordable'. That particular demonstration is somewhat elusive at the moment. All pictures like the one discussed do is to show the effects, the symptom but not the cure, if you like.

Anyways, you don't really need a picture of Killi...

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/rising-seas.html

.........for something a little more immediate to most of the regulars here.....especially the Floridians.

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

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[rushmc 23]

I never said or implied that R12 had/has anything to do with ozone, but the story I gave you is true.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[GTAVercetti 0]

This is not directed at billvon, I just picked his to reply to.

The thing I do not understand is even if you do not believe in global warming, despite the facts, why would you NOT want to reduce pollution?

Maybe you think global warming is a crock, but you cannot tell me that the smog levels in cities like Mexico City and the consequent health problems are.

I just don't understand why anyone would actively opposed cleaner air and less pollution when we know it CAN be done.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[rushmc 23]

Inovation caused by regulation??? Go figure that this is the best solution for an imagined problem

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Only "some" at NOAA support the ozone depletion theory. Others at NOAA, (those the news does not interview) have serious doubts because of the way the studies are done and then reported.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"I just don't understand why anyone would actively opposed cleaner air and less pollution when we know it CAN be done. "

Wonga, loot, denero, filthy lucre, think of the shareholders! It is, and always has been cheaper to be messy with many industrial processes. Hell, even I can remember when it was cheaper and safer to simply burn excess natural gas from oil platforms rather than ship it ashore for domestic consumption, spike it into the oil stream, or re-inject it into reservoirs. Burn rates of this 'waste gas' could be measured in hundreds of millions of cubic feet of gas per day from each installation.

Pretty shameful really.

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

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[penniless 0]

Quote

Only "some" at NOAA support the ozone depletion theory. Others at NOAA, (those the news does not interview) have serious doubts because of the way the studies are done and then reported.

Name names of the doubters at NOAA.

Here's a NOAA National Medal of Science winner who provided the proof of the CFC-ozone link. I know of no rebuttals to her work. The chemistry is indisputable.



www.chemheritage.org/EducationalServices/FACES/env/readings/solomon.htm


Are you a scientist?

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

"I just don't understand why anyone would actively opposed cleaner air and less pollution when we know it CAN be done. "

Wonga, loot, denero, filthy lucre, think of the shareholders! It is, and always has been cheaper to be messy with many industrial processes. Hell, even I can remember when it was cheaper and safer to simply burn excess natural gas from oil platforms rather than ship it ashore for domestic consumption, spike it into the oil stream, or re-inject it into reservoirs. Burn rates of this 'waste gas' could be measured in hundreds of millions of cubic feet of gas per day from each installation.

Pretty shameful really.

Oh, let me clarify. I was refering to the average person (ie some posters here, the guy on the street, etc). There are people who have no stake in industries that do the polluting (of course, I do not know if some posters here are in thse industries or not) who ADMANTLY oppose cleaning the enviroment or slowing air pollution.

If they are not monetarily involved with destroying the air, why the opposition to cleaning it?

Of course, we could argue about taxes, job loss and an economic ripple effect that would eventually lead back to someone indirectly, but I have a feeling most people do not think in such large terms.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"Of course, we could argue about taxes, job loss and an economic ripple effect that would eventually lead back to someone indirectly, but I have a feeling most people do not think in such large terms."

A lot of people here will argue on precisely those issues. Do a search, the same people come up again and again giving financial reasons not to clean up industry's act. After a while you will get to know who they are.....and you'll get used to the same asinine responses..
Its a natural thing.
There is no damage.
Its bad science.
We are not to blame.
We are not as bad as they are.
We can't afford to do it differently.
Who's going to pay for it?



"There are people who have no stake in industries that do the polluting "
If they are involved in consuming the products of those industries they will have to pay, one way or another, at the end of the day thats most of us.

Some of us have a little more intimacy with these industries though...

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

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

same people come up again and again giving financial reasons not to clean up industry's act.

Is this a consideration that should be overlooked?

Quote

Its a natural thing.

Global warming and cooling are not natural events?

Quote

We are not to blame.

Does nature have zero part in it?

Quote

Its bad science.

No. Bad conclusions. Good scientific conclusions tend to implicate no alternative reasonable explanations. I've seen plenty of alternative reasonable explanations. I need to see more before I'm convinced.

Quote

There is no damage.

I don't think anybody can legitimately claim that, or has.

Quote

We are not as bad as they are.

WHo is "we?" and who are "they?"

Quote

We can't afford to do it differently.

People on my side of the argument typically don't say that. What we DO say is that the argument that "something should be done no matter what the cost" is unacceptable.

Do we want more people dying from the cure than could die from the problem?

Quote

Who's going to pay for it?

That's kind of important, isn't it?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[TheAnvil 0]

I've climbed Kilimanjaro and enjoyed it immensely.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[markd_nscr986 0]

***Oxygen is heavier than nitrogen, so why is there any nitrogen at the Earth's surface? CO2 is denser than both, so how come we don't all suffocate unless we climb mountains?



Uhhh Kallend,

Since I am merely a non-practicing anthropologist/archaeologist,and you are a all-knowing all seeing Physics prof..

I could ask you a few questions........

Molecular wt. of air ?
Molecular wt. of R12 ?

And in terms that I can hopefully understand,how the heavy R12 stuff, floats up through the nice "light " air column

Quote

Just because YOU can't understand the science doesn't make the science wrong.



And you are absolutely correct Prof.

I do have trouble understanding "junk" science

and just because several theories are published with questionable data doesnt make the science right either

Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004

• Quote

[GTAVercetti 0]

Okay lawrocket,

ya lost me. A few posts back you said that the Kyoto treaty was not enough and that it was Bush's fault. Now you sound like you don't believe there is a problem.

I just need some clarification on what the hell you are talking about.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[lawrocket 3]

My previous posts were my facetious attempts at echoing ridiculous arguments I've heard. My arguments were SO bad that it appears many people bought that I was actually truthfully arguing those things.

It's a shame when the diatribe heard from hotheads is believeable, because I echoed what many people actually believe.

My wife is hotter than your wife.