billvon 3,071 #51 December 6, 2005 >Pollution does need to be controlled . . . We're talking about two different things bere. Pollution is sort of a separate issue. A 100% clean natural gas power plant exhausts nothing but CO2 and water, two natural components of the atmosphere. That would generally be seen as a non-polluting plant. In car terms, cars with a PZEV or SULEV rating are almost that clean; only CO2 and water come out of their tailpipe. The climate change thing is due to our releases of greenhouse gases -primarily water, CO2 and methane. Water's not much of an issue because the atmosphere has a way of getting rid of water fast (rain/snow.) We don't release really huge amounts of methane. But we do release billions of tons of CO2, and that _is_ a strong greenhouse gas. The question is no longer "are we changing the climate with our CO2 releases?" We are; 99% of scientists - heck, even Crichton - agree with that. The question is now "how bad will it get?" We have seen what stronger hurricanes can do. Soon we'll start seeing the effects of a rising ocean. If the solution were cheap, then it would be a no-brainer. Reduce CO2 emissions; it will help slow down the climate change. Unfortunately it's not, and you run into sort of a prisoner's dilemma. Sure, Katrina cost us a lot of money; $300 billion is one estimate. So on the surface it would seem to be a no-brainer to spend $150 billion to stop such hurricanes. But there's no cause-and-effect like that. If we reduce CO2 emissions massively now, it is quite likely that future hurricanes will be somewhat less intense. But does that mean we will stop the next Katrina? Might China's emissions help fuel the next Katrina? We can't predict weather that accurately. All we can do is reduce the odds of such hurricanes happening. And that's what all the fuss is about right now. No one wants to spend money to maybe reduce a hurricane's intensity in 20 years; they want their SUV (or their airplane, for you SUV proponents) right now. Whether that is a good approach or a bad one depends on your point of view, both of which have been expressed here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #52 December 6, 2005 Are you sniffing glue? You said my statement was unbelievable without the qualifier that they were "quoted and reported". If someone is not quoted and reported how am I supposed to know what they said? Please give me an example of someone who rebuts the claims of global warming, but make sure they've never been quoted or reported. Use your psychic powers I guess. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #53 December 6, 2005 QuoteAre you sniffing glue? You said my statement was unbelievable without the qualifier that they were "quoted and reported". If someone is not quoted and reported how am I supposed to know what they said? Please give me an example of someone who rebuts the claims of global warming, but make sure they've never been quoted or reported. Use your psychic powers I guess. I was thinking the same thingI'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #54 December 6, 2005 You missed my point. The only "virutlly every scientist" you must refer to are those the media reports about. One problem with the "virtually every scientist" statement is those that do not agree with the global warming theory do not get reported. You have to looking for them. Remember, you said that "virtually every scientist" supports the global warming theory. ( I paraphrase but you get the point) That statement is pure bullshit But if you think you can prove me incorrect then please produce a list of all the scientists studying global warming and all of thier positions"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #55 December 6, 2005 QuoteAre you sniffing glue? You said my statement was unbelievable without the qualifier that they were "quoted and reported". If someone is not quoted and reported how am I supposed to know what they said? Please give me an example of someone who rebuts the claims of global warming, but make sure they've never been quoted or reported. Use your psychic powers I guess. I was talking about quoted and reported in the media.........."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Diversgodown 0 #56 December 6, 2005 Quote(or their airplane, for you SUV proponents) That's funny you said that I was just about to ask if you are going to stop jumping out of planes to help curb the pollution of C02. ***Glory Favors the Bold*** Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #57 December 6, 2005 QuoteBut if you think you can prove me incorrect then please produce a list of all the scientists studying global warming and all of thier positions Do you have any sources that say other wise? and please name more then 1 or 2 because I am sure if you search hard enough you can find 1 or 2 people who think Elvis still alive and having sex with ET. I also don’t understand why people are so resistant to global warming? Who would it benefit if we took action? Who would it benefit if we didn’t do any thing? One thing is for sure if we do nothing we all suffer or maybe better put all our children and grand children will suffer. It is that simpleI'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,071 #58 December 6, 2005 >are those the media reports about. You really have to stop reading media accounts of global warming. SciAm is a good overview. The journals Nature and Science are better still. >One problem with the "virtually every scientist" statement is those > that do not agree with the global warming theory do not get > reported. You have to looking for them. They do in the above publications. >Remember, you said that "virtually every scientist" supports the > global warming theory. ( I paraphrase but you get the point) That > statement is pure bullshit Not in terms of true, published scientists. (Note - economists and fiction writers don't count.) >But if you think you can prove me incorrect then please produce a list > of all the scientists studying global warming and all of thier positions Well, posts are limited to 100K here, but here are a few: ----------------------------------- MERVC Reports – Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting, Verification, and Certification of Climate Change Mitigation Projects– Methodologies and Guidelines. States Guidance Document – Policy Planning To Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions,Second Edition(1998, EPA 230-B-98-002). Partnerships and Progress (1.1M pdf)– EPA State and Local Climate Change Program, 2001 Progress Report (2001, EPA #430-R-02-002). Framework Convention Documents United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change – The landmark international treaty unveiled at the UN Conference on Environment and Development (the Rio Summit) in June 1992. Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change – Text from the UNFCCC Third Conference of the Parties (FCCC/CP/1997/L.7/Add.1; 10 December 1997). Methodological Issues: Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (67K pdf) – Report on the second SBSTA workshop on land-use, land-use change and forestry – prepared by the UNFCCC Secretariat for the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (FCCC/SBSTA/1999/INF.5; 26 May 1999). IPCC Third Assessment Report: Contributions of IPCC Working Groups (2001). Summaries for Policymakers and Technical Summaries from the three Working Group reports: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis (2001). Summary for Policymakers (323K pdf) from the Working Group I report. Technical Summary (2029K pdf) Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (2001).Summary for Policymakers (153K pdf) from the Working Group II report. Technical Summary (423K pdf) Climate Change 2001: Mitigation (2001). Summary for Policymakers (374K pdf) from the Working Group III report., Technical Summary (797K pdf) Methodological and Technological Issues in Technology Transfer. (2000). A Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Bert Metz, Ogunlade Davidson, Jan-Willem Martens, Sascha Van Rooijen, and Laura Van Wie Mcgrory (Eds). Cambridge University Press, UK. pp 432.–Summary for Policymakers (339k pdf). Emissions Scenarios (2000). Emissions Scenarios (2000). A Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Nebojsa Nakicenovic and Rob Swart (Eds). Cambridge University Press, UK. pp 570. – Summary for Policymakers (1.2M pdf) Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry (2000). A Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Robert T. Watson, Ian R. Noble, Bert Bolin, N. H. Ravindranath, David J. Verardo and David J. Dokken (Eds). Cambridge University Press, UK. pp 375.– Summary for Policymakers (348k pdf). Aviation and the Global Atmosphere (1999). A Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Working Groups I and III in collaboration with the Scientific Assessment Panel to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. J.E. Penner, D.H. Lister, D.J. Griggs, D.J. Dokken, M. McFarland (Eds). Cambridge University Press, UK. pp 373. – Summary for Policymakers (333k pdf). The Regional Impacts of Climate Change– An Assessment of Vulnerability (1998). A special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Working Group II. R.T. Watson, M.C. Zinyowera, and R.H. Moss (Eds). Cambridge University Press, UK. pp 517. – The IPCC Regional Impacts report's Summary for Policymakers, Introduction, North America chapter, and selected Annexes are available on the IPCC site . IPCC Second Assessment Report: Climate Change 1995 (1995). A Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. R.T. Watson, M.C. Zinyowera, and R.H. Moss (Eds). IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. pp 64. The report includes: the IPCC Second Assessment Synthesis of Scientific-Technical Information Relevant to Interpreting Article 2 of the UNFCCC and the following Summaries for Policymakers from the three Working Group reports. The Science of Climate Change (1995). Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. J.T. Houghton, L.G. Meira Filho, B.A. Callender, N. Harris, A. Kattenberg and K. Maskell (Eds). Cambridge University Press, UK. pp 572.– Summary for Policymakers from the Working Group I report. Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change: Scientific-Technical Analyses (1995). Contribution of Working Group II to the Second Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. R.T. Watson, M.C. Zinyowera, R.H. Moss (Eds). Cambridge University Press, UK. pp 878. – Summary for Policymakers from the Working Group II report. Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change (1995). Contribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. J.P. Bruce, H. Lee, E.F. Haites (Eds). Cambridge University Press, UK. pp 448. – Summary for Policymakers from the Working Group III report. 28 Nov 2005 Implications of a 2°C global temperature rise for Canada’s natural resources Canada is a land of bounty. It is home to 10% of the world’s forests and freshwater resources; agriculture employs 15 million people and marine fisheries alone brings in an annual income of over CAN$2 billion. For a country where agriculture, forestry and fisheries make significant contributions to the national economy, Canada is especially susceptible to climate change. » Read more 28 Nov 2005 WWF has produced PowerSwitch! scenarios for countries and regions around the world - to prove that a switch from coal to clean is possible. » Read more (from s Canadian site, a list of papers) 25 Nov 2005 Global warming and the world's fisheries - case studies 25 Nov 2005 Impacts of global climate change on freshwater fisheries 25 Nov 2005 Effects of Global Climate Change on Marine and Estuarine Fishes and Fisheries 09 Nov 2005 ILEX report "The environmental effectiveness of the EU ETS: Analysis of caps" ILEX report "The environmental effectiveness of the EU ETS: Analysis of caps" and Executive Summary » Read more 09 Nov 2005 WWF Summary of ETS reports "Carbon Countdown" WWF summary of ETS reports lead by ILEX and ÖKO-Institut with 12 principles for better ETS and NAPs » Read more 09 Nov 2005 WWF ETS Phase 2 CAP paper "Tough caps on CO2" The paper provides CO2 emission cap levels for six key Member States: Germany, UK, Poland, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands. » 24 Oct 2005 Target 2020: Policies & Measures to reduce Greenhouse gas emissions in the EU 16 Sep 2005 ::The winds of change in the Phillipines:: In the Phillippines WWF, the global conservation organisation, is lobbying for tough renewable energy legislation. » Read more 09 Sep 2005 WWF's approach to building resilience to climate change Climate change requires a new conservation paradigm. 09 Sep 2005 The impact of climate change on Hawksbill Turtles climate change has turtle conservationists worried about the long-term survival of hawksbill turtles because it threatens to compound all other threats and potentially push the species over the brink of extinction » Read more 09 Sep 2005 Climate Change and Poverty Global warming threatens to reverse human progress, making the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) for poverty reduction unachievable. » Read more 09 Sep 2005 Building Coastal Resilience - Responses to climate change impacts Factsheet on how to improve mangrove growth in order to build coastal resistance to storms, floods and sea level rise » Read more 25 Aug 2005 Climate change and extreme weather events in Europe Climate change and extreme weather events in Europe » Read more 11 Aug 2005 WWF report: Europe feels the heat – Extreme weather and the power sector (self-starting file for on-screen viewing) A new report from WWF analyzes summer temperature data from 16 EU cities. The temperatures of Europe's capitals have risen by sometimes more than 2°C in the last 30 years. » Read more 11 Aug 2005 Extreme Weather – Summer temperature graphs for European cities Summer temperature graphs showing the warming trend in the EU capital cities » Read more 04 Jul 2005 Energy and Climate Issues in EU Foreign Policies Information on a project by WWF European Policy Office (April 2005 - April 2007) » Read more 01 Jul 2005 Climate change impacts in the Mediterranean resulting from a 2 degrees C global temperature rise The Mediterranean has captured human imagination and culture for thousands of years, giving expression to music and invention, spice and wine, oil and olives. » Read more 30 Jun 2005 Paradise Boiling? What a 2°C warmer world means for the Mediterranean. Summary Brochure. » Read more 28 Jun 2005 Climate Change & the Financial Sector: An Agenda for Action Climate change – a serious business risk for the financial industry. A publication of Allianz Group and WWF » Read more 28 Jun 2005 Climate Change & the Financial Sector: Exec summary Climate change – a serious business risk for the financial industry. A publication of Allianz Group and WWF » Read more 24 Jun 2005 G8 Technology Brief G8 Technology Brief - technical background on solutions to the climate change problem » Read more 24 Jun 2005 G8 Science briefing WWF Science Brief for the G8 Summit, 6 - 8 July 2005 » Read more 24 Jun 2005 G8 Policy Briefing Political Briefing by WWF on what the G8 leaders should achieve to fight climate change, at their Summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, from 6 to 8 July 2005. » Read more To save server space, here are some links for ya: http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/climateextremes.html#events http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/resourcecenterpublications.html#conf Impact of global warming on the US: http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/resourceCenterPublicationsSLRPotentialUSEffects.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #59 December 6, 2005 QuoteQuoteBut if you think you can prove me incorrect then please produce a list of all the scientists studying global warming and all of thier positions Do you have any sources that say other wise? and please name more then 1 or 2 because I am sure if you search hard enough you can find 1 or 2 people who think Elvis still alive and having sex with ET. I also don’t understand why people are so resistant to global warming? Who would it benefit if we took action? Who would it benefit if we didn’t do any thing? One thing is for sure if we do nothing we all suffer or maybe better put all our children and grand children will suffer. It is that simple I knew you someone would ask me for the proof I am not the one making the claim. My assurtion is you and those of like thinking have not convinced me. In this thread one posted that "virtually every scientist" supports global warming (or what ever) How can anyone make that blanket a statement and figure it will go uncontested?? I know there are many who believe and support this theory. There are those that don't too. And the only one the media likes to cover are those that................well hell , you tell me who they cover. To answer your questions? It depends on what you want to do. Most changes that I have seen proposed want to change a way of life........and those that want to do it the loudest, like the Airiana Hunningtons (sp) of the world want to change the way I live but not the way they live Clean things up? Of course I go for that. But the US is the cleanest country in the world. Should that stop progress? No, but tell me we are destroying the planet either. I am not so aragant as to believe we have that power........"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #60 December 6, 2005 Quote>are those the media reports about. You really have to stop reading media accounts of global warming. SciAm is a good overview. The journals Nature and Science are better still. >One problem with the "virtually every scientist" statement is those > that do not agree with the global warming theory do not get > reported. You have to looking for them. They do in the above publications. >Remember, you said that "virtually every scientist" supports the > global warming theory. ( I paraphrase but you get the point) That > statement is pure bullshit Not in terms of true, published scientists. (Note - economists and fiction writers don't count.) >But if you think you can prove me incorrect then please produce a list > of all the scientists studying global warming and all of thier positions Well, posts are limited to 100K here, but here are a few: ===================================== I never disputed there are many scientists but give me a break"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #61 December 6, 2005 Says it better than I can..... AND IT IS NOT NEWSMAX! http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/collective/A3590011"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,537 #62 December 6, 2005 QuoteBut the US is the cleanest country in the world. Should that stop progress? No, but tell me we are destroying the planet either. I am not so aragant as to believe we have that power........ We might be clean, but we use more resources per capita than any other country. Our trash heaps and garbage would support a lot of third-world poverty-stricken people. We do have the power to destroy the planet as we know it. To blow up Earth so that it's in lots of little pebbles? Nope. But to cause a nuclear holocaust that would make it uninhabitable by most humans and currently-known animals? Piece of cake. Plenty of other ways, too. We can do all kinds of stupid things. But having the money, desire, and the power doesn't make it the best thing to do. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,537 #63 December 6, 2005 That's a personal opinion page. Kind of like pointing to soemone's anti-global warming diatribe on dropzone.com and saying it's support for their argument. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #64 December 6, 2005 I know what is was.(I don't mean to be snotty) That author simply made my point better than I could! Here some other sites to consider CO2 Science Magazine www.co2science.org "A weekly review and repository of scientific research pertaining to carbon dioxide and global change." Managed by the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, a group critical of climate change claims. Information on the site includes data from the U.S. Historical Climatology Network, model experiments for measuring the effects of CO2 on plants, and journal and book reviews. Global Warming Information Page www.globalwarming.org The Cooler Heads Coalition is a subgroup of the National Consumer Coalition, and was founded by that group to "dispel the myths of global warming by exposing flawed economic, scientific, and risk analysis." Features of the site include economic arguments against the Kyoto Protocol and other climate change policy documents as well as regular legislative updates."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Darius11 12 #65 December 6, 2005 QuoteIn this thread one posted that "virtually every scientist" supports global warming (or what ever) How can anyone make that blanket a statement and figure it will go uncontested?? Instead of concentrating on what one person said and picking that apart why don’t you look at the facts in the article? 2000 international scientist say we have accelerated the Earth’s warming. What is your comment to that it is a conspiracy?I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #66 December 6, 2005 I know this link is 1998 but do you think all of them have changed thier minds? It say 15000 against Kyoto...... http://www.sepp.org/pressrel/petition.html"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Darius11 12 #67 December 6, 2005 Just one more thing I forgot to ask. What will it take to make you believe that man and his action are causing the earth to heat up more rapidly?I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,071 #68 December 6, 2005 >Most changes that I have seen proposed want to change a way of life...... Most that I have seen don't even dent your life. Some include: -replacement of coal power plants with nuclear power plants -greater usage of hybrids, ethanol and natural gas vehicles -greater usage of solar hot water heating -greater usage of solar power -greater usage of wind power -pumped storage for hydro power -better insulation -more efficient lighting -high speed trains replacing commuter airline routes -increased light rail usage in cities (has a lot of other benefits) How do any of those affect your 'way of life?' >But the US is the cleanest country in the world. Again, I think you're confusing pollution with climate change. We emit more CO2 than anyone else on the planet. >I never disputed there are many scientists but give me a break Hey, you ask for a list, I give you a list. The old "be careful what you ask for" adage comes to mind. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #69 December 6, 2005 Quote>Most changes that I have seen proposed want to change a way of life...... Most that I have seen don't even dent your life. Some include: -replacement of coal power plants with nuclear power plants -greater usage of hybrids, ethanol and natural gas vehicles -greater usage of solar hot water heating -greater usage of solar power -greater usage of wind power -pumped storage for hydro power -better insulation -more efficient lighting -high speed trains replacing commuter airline routes -increased light rail usage in cities (has a lot of other benefits) How do any of those affect your 'way of life?' >But the US is the cleanest country in the world. Again, I think you're confusing pollution with climate change. We emit more CO2 than anyone else on the planet. >I never disputed there are many scientists but give me a break Hey, you ask for a list, I give you a list. The old "be careful what you ask for" adage comes to mind. You and I have been hear before. I believe you have a very common sence way of looking at the issue. Some of your suggestions above I agree with. I think you also understand that I am not against being as clean as possible. With that said however, I belive that those who seem to be in control of this effort want to do way more that you list. With the biggest effort to see how much money can be dragged from the US to other countries. That is where the danger lies as much as some other plans......"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites storm1977 0 #70 December 6, 2005 Still amazes me that termites generate more atmospheric CO2 than all the fossil fuels burned in the world ... every year. When will you people realize that the GWT - is a money driven radical group whoses studies are flawed at best? I compare the the sponsors of the GWT to the members of PETA!!!! ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites storm1977 0 #71 December 6, 2005 The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change), the body behind the heavyweight promotion of GWT and the campaign for drastic preventive countermeasures now, is a shadowy body of virtually self-elected bureaucrats and pro-GWT environmentalists whose scientific reputations, and ultimately whose livelihoods, are utterly dependent on the worldwide acceptance of the GWT concept. Indeed, GWT is now essential to the worldwide Environmental Sciences movement to ensure a continuous flow of research funds. It is therefore hardly surprising that the IPCC predictions on the long-term effects of GWT are dire. More worryingly, however, is that those scientists who legitimately question the IPCC- imposed “consensus” on GWT find themselves subject to marginalisation and withdrawal of funding. The hard scientific evidence shows that the alleged c.0.5C change in average global temperatures over the last 100 years (based mainly on Northern hemisphere ground-based measuring stations) being used by GWT’s proponents to justify drastic action now can be observed due to random variations over timescales as short as two weeks. To ascribe temperature changes of this magnitude over the course of a century to GWT is therefore highly inadvisable. Meanwhile, satellite plus ground data evidence shows no evidence of global warming over the period 1914-1993; i.e. over the last 90 years. The computer models being used to predict global temperatures based on atmospheric CO2 concentrations, when applied to historical atmospheric concentrations of the gases’ global levels, do not accurately predict the observed historical global temperature variations. How then can one expect them to accurately predict future temperatures? The CO2-based atmospheric warming mechanism proposed by GWT’s supporters is not scientifically valid, and the atmospheric warming associated with a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels would be no more than 0.2C. The case for GWT rests on “evidence” that current atmospheric CO2 levels (c.350ppmv) are 26% higher than those in pre-industrial times. It is assumed that pre-industrial levels are accurately reflected in the CO2 concentrations in entrapped air bubbles extracted from glacier ice. Yet no experimental study has thus far demonstrated that greenhouse gas concentrations in old ice, or even in air from recent snow, in any way accurately reproduce atmospheric concentrations. Three further incredibly sweeping assumptions concerning the mechanism of air absorption into glacier ice are made: * The absorption process is essentially mechanical and the dissolution rates of the component gases (including CO2) remain proportional to their respective atmospheric concentrations. * The gas concentrations are permanently preserved in the polar ice sheets, irrespective of subsequent geological changes and handling during extraction for analysis. There are, in fact, some 20 physical and chemical processes occurring in the ice-sheets that make the gas samples unrepresentative of the original atmospheric concentrations. * The age of the gas is 80 to 200 years younger than the ice in which it is entrapped. This assumption is required because CO2 concentrations in 19th century ice cores are similar to present atmospheric concentrations. Ice-core data unsupportive of the GWT hypothesis are regularly ignored: some workers in this field have excluded up to 44% of the collected ice-core CO2 concentration data-points to ensure that only those supportive of the GWT proposition are reflected in the final analysis. Taken from the point of view of chemical exchange processes between sea and ocean; the partition coefficient for CO2 between atmosphere and ocean is 1 is to 50. This means that to sustain an equilibrium atmospheric CO2 concentration of double today’s level (as predicted by the IPCC by 2010) requires a 50-fold increase in the aquatic concentration of the gas. This would require a quantity of carbon significantly in excess of all known terrestrial fossil sources of the element. But perhaps the most damning scientific endictment of GWT is provided by workers investigating the influence of variation in sunspot cycle lengths on global temperatures. Separately, Friis-Christensen & Lassen in Finland & Butler in Eire have concluded that there is a very strong correlation between sunspot activity cycle lengths and global temperatures. In the July 1995 edition of the Journal of Applied and Terrestrial Physics(²), Friis-Christensen & Lassen have demonstrated that some 75% to 85% of global temperature variation between the last decades of the 16th century and the present day can be accounted for through variations in the length of sunspot cycles: the longer the timespan between periods of high sunspot activity, the lower the average global temperatures, and vice versa. Perhaps the most telling (& undoubtedly the most cynical) summation of the whole GWT roadshow was made by Matt Ridley in the Sunday Telegraph on December 10th, 1995: “Imagine that you have been toiling away at atmospheric physics for 30 years and suddenly along comes global warming. Next thing you know the United Nations is paying you hundreds of pounds a day to sit in Madrid sampling room service and appearing on Newsnight. Would you admit that the whole thing was nothing to worry about?” Well, would you? ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Darius11 12 #72 December 6, 2005 QuoteI compare the the sponsors of the GWT to the members of PETA!!!! I don’t see how you could compare a group that rises emotional issues (don’t hurt the animals) to a group that is providing facts using logic and science.I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,071 #73 December 6, 2005 > Still amazes me that termites generate more atmospheric CO2 than all >the fossil fuels burned in the world ... every year. So does decaying timber, and volcanic activity. The kicker is that the planet has been evolving to deal with all that CO2; it is cycled back into limestone at a steady rate. We are now generating more CO2 than the planet can recycle. Anyone with a chemistry kit can prove that CO2 concentrations are increasing. And anyone who can add and multiply can show that the increasing concentrations are due to our emissions of CO2. >I compare the the sponsors of the GWT to the members of PETA!!!! Hmm. I don't sponsor the GWT (whatever that is) and I don't support PETA. But I support reductions of CO2 emissions to mitigate climate change, and I support humane treatment of animals. And every year there are more people like me, as people see the tundras melt, the glaciers retreat, the forests burn and the hurricanes grow in power. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites storm1977 0 #74 December 6, 2005 I would agrue they are both working on emotions and not facts.... Their methodology and science is poor. They are assuming a conclusion(GW) and using science to try to prove it. They are not use science to find an answer to their questions. You are probably too young, but the environmentalists were screaming "The Sky is falling" about Global Cooling 30 years ago. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites storm1977 0 #75 December 6, 2005 We are now generating more CO2 than the planet can recycle. Anyone with a chemistry kit can prove that CO2 concentrations are increasing. First of all no they cant :-) I have been to school with some of those fools. Bill, if you want to put all the facts out there, put them all out there. In the Grand scheme of thisng CO2 concentrations are VERY low compared to previous historical and prehistoric times. Also, you said something earlier which I wasn't going to comment on, but will.... You made a point of H2O and CO2 being the major output of Industry and Vehicles ...etc. You said, Nature has an easy way of dealing with excess H20 Rain/Snow. That isn't exactly true.... An increase in H20 in the Atmosphere would lead to an increase in cloud cover. This cloud cover would actually work to reduce the Earth surface temperature. The 9/11 study of contrails was a good example of this. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 3 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
rushmc 23 #61 December 6, 2005 Says it better than I can..... AND IT IS NOT NEWSMAX! http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/collective/A3590011"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,537 #62 December 6, 2005 QuoteBut the US is the cleanest country in the world. Should that stop progress? No, but tell me we are destroying the planet either. I am not so aragant as to believe we have that power........ We might be clean, but we use more resources per capita than any other country. Our trash heaps and garbage would support a lot of third-world poverty-stricken people. We do have the power to destroy the planet as we know it. To blow up Earth so that it's in lots of little pebbles? Nope. But to cause a nuclear holocaust that would make it uninhabitable by most humans and currently-known animals? Piece of cake. Plenty of other ways, too. We can do all kinds of stupid things. But having the money, desire, and the power doesn't make it the best thing to do. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,537 #63 December 6, 2005 That's a personal opinion page. Kind of like pointing to soemone's anti-global warming diatribe on dropzone.com and saying it's support for their argument. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #64 December 6, 2005 I know what is was.(I don't mean to be snotty) That author simply made my point better than I could! Here some other sites to consider CO2 Science Magazine www.co2science.org "A weekly review and repository of scientific research pertaining to carbon dioxide and global change." Managed by the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, a group critical of climate change claims. Information on the site includes data from the U.S. Historical Climatology Network, model experiments for measuring the effects of CO2 on plants, and journal and book reviews. Global Warming Information Page www.globalwarming.org The Cooler Heads Coalition is a subgroup of the National Consumer Coalition, and was founded by that group to "dispel the myths of global warming by exposing flawed economic, scientific, and risk analysis." Features of the site include economic arguments against the Kyoto Protocol and other climate change policy documents as well as regular legislative updates."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #65 December 6, 2005 QuoteIn this thread one posted that "virtually every scientist" supports global warming (or what ever) How can anyone make that blanket a statement and figure it will go uncontested?? Instead of concentrating on what one person said and picking that apart why don’t you look at the facts in the article? 2000 international scientist say we have accelerated the Earth’s warming. What is your comment to that it is a conspiracy?I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #66 December 6, 2005 I know this link is 1998 but do you think all of them have changed thier minds? It say 15000 against Kyoto...... http://www.sepp.org/pressrel/petition.html"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #67 December 6, 2005 Just one more thing I forgot to ask. What will it take to make you believe that man and his action are causing the earth to heat up more rapidly?I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,071 #68 December 6, 2005 >Most changes that I have seen proposed want to change a way of life...... Most that I have seen don't even dent your life. Some include: -replacement of coal power plants with nuclear power plants -greater usage of hybrids, ethanol and natural gas vehicles -greater usage of solar hot water heating -greater usage of solar power -greater usage of wind power -pumped storage for hydro power -better insulation -more efficient lighting -high speed trains replacing commuter airline routes -increased light rail usage in cities (has a lot of other benefits) How do any of those affect your 'way of life?' >But the US is the cleanest country in the world. Again, I think you're confusing pollution with climate change. We emit more CO2 than anyone else on the planet. >I never disputed there are many scientists but give me a break Hey, you ask for a list, I give you a list. The old "be careful what you ask for" adage comes to mind. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #69 December 6, 2005 Quote>Most changes that I have seen proposed want to change a way of life...... Most that I have seen don't even dent your life. Some include: -replacement of coal power plants with nuclear power plants -greater usage of hybrids, ethanol and natural gas vehicles -greater usage of solar hot water heating -greater usage of solar power -greater usage of wind power -pumped storage for hydro power -better insulation -more efficient lighting -high speed trains replacing commuter airline routes -increased light rail usage in cities (has a lot of other benefits) How do any of those affect your 'way of life?' >But the US is the cleanest country in the world. Again, I think you're confusing pollution with climate change. We emit more CO2 than anyone else on the planet. >I never disputed there are many scientists but give me a break Hey, you ask for a list, I give you a list. The old "be careful what you ask for" adage comes to mind. You and I have been hear before. I believe you have a very common sence way of looking at the issue. Some of your suggestions above I agree with. I think you also understand that I am not against being as clean as possible. With that said however, I belive that those who seem to be in control of this effort want to do way more that you list. With the biggest effort to see how much money can be dragged from the US to other countries. That is where the danger lies as much as some other plans......"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #70 December 6, 2005 Still amazes me that termites generate more atmospheric CO2 than all the fossil fuels burned in the world ... every year. When will you people realize that the GWT - is a money driven radical group whoses studies are flawed at best? I compare the the sponsors of the GWT to the members of PETA!!!! ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #71 December 6, 2005 The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change), the body behind the heavyweight promotion of GWT and the campaign for drastic preventive countermeasures now, is a shadowy body of virtually self-elected bureaucrats and pro-GWT environmentalists whose scientific reputations, and ultimately whose livelihoods, are utterly dependent on the worldwide acceptance of the GWT concept. Indeed, GWT is now essential to the worldwide Environmental Sciences movement to ensure a continuous flow of research funds. It is therefore hardly surprising that the IPCC predictions on the long-term effects of GWT are dire. More worryingly, however, is that those scientists who legitimately question the IPCC- imposed “consensus” on GWT find themselves subject to marginalisation and withdrawal of funding. The hard scientific evidence shows that the alleged c.0.5C change in average global temperatures over the last 100 years (based mainly on Northern hemisphere ground-based measuring stations) being used by GWT’s proponents to justify drastic action now can be observed due to random variations over timescales as short as two weeks. To ascribe temperature changes of this magnitude over the course of a century to GWT is therefore highly inadvisable. Meanwhile, satellite plus ground data evidence shows no evidence of global warming over the period 1914-1993; i.e. over the last 90 years. The computer models being used to predict global temperatures based on atmospheric CO2 concentrations, when applied to historical atmospheric concentrations of the gases’ global levels, do not accurately predict the observed historical global temperature variations. How then can one expect them to accurately predict future temperatures? The CO2-based atmospheric warming mechanism proposed by GWT’s supporters is not scientifically valid, and the atmospheric warming associated with a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels would be no more than 0.2C. The case for GWT rests on “evidence” that current atmospheric CO2 levels (c.350ppmv) are 26% higher than those in pre-industrial times. It is assumed that pre-industrial levels are accurately reflected in the CO2 concentrations in entrapped air bubbles extracted from glacier ice. Yet no experimental study has thus far demonstrated that greenhouse gas concentrations in old ice, or even in air from recent snow, in any way accurately reproduce atmospheric concentrations. Three further incredibly sweeping assumptions concerning the mechanism of air absorption into glacier ice are made: * The absorption process is essentially mechanical and the dissolution rates of the component gases (including CO2) remain proportional to their respective atmospheric concentrations. * The gas concentrations are permanently preserved in the polar ice sheets, irrespective of subsequent geological changes and handling during extraction for analysis. There are, in fact, some 20 physical and chemical processes occurring in the ice-sheets that make the gas samples unrepresentative of the original atmospheric concentrations. * The age of the gas is 80 to 200 years younger than the ice in which it is entrapped. This assumption is required because CO2 concentrations in 19th century ice cores are similar to present atmospheric concentrations. Ice-core data unsupportive of the GWT hypothesis are regularly ignored: some workers in this field have excluded up to 44% of the collected ice-core CO2 concentration data-points to ensure that only those supportive of the GWT proposition are reflected in the final analysis. Taken from the point of view of chemical exchange processes between sea and ocean; the partition coefficient for CO2 between atmosphere and ocean is 1 is to 50. This means that to sustain an equilibrium atmospheric CO2 concentration of double today’s level (as predicted by the IPCC by 2010) requires a 50-fold increase in the aquatic concentration of the gas. This would require a quantity of carbon significantly in excess of all known terrestrial fossil sources of the element. But perhaps the most damning scientific endictment of GWT is provided by workers investigating the influence of variation in sunspot cycle lengths on global temperatures. Separately, Friis-Christensen & Lassen in Finland & Butler in Eire have concluded that there is a very strong correlation between sunspot activity cycle lengths and global temperatures. In the July 1995 edition of the Journal of Applied and Terrestrial Physics(²), Friis-Christensen & Lassen have demonstrated that some 75% to 85% of global temperature variation between the last decades of the 16th century and the present day can be accounted for through variations in the length of sunspot cycles: the longer the timespan between periods of high sunspot activity, the lower the average global temperatures, and vice versa. Perhaps the most telling (& undoubtedly the most cynical) summation of the whole GWT roadshow was made by Matt Ridley in the Sunday Telegraph on December 10th, 1995: “Imagine that you have been toiling away at atmospheric physics for 30 years and suddenly along comes global warming. Next thing you know the United Nations is paying you hundreds of pounds a day to sit in Madrid sampling room service and appearing on Newsnight. Would you admit that the whole thing was nothing to worry about?” Well, would you? ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #72 December 6, 2005 QuoteI compare the the sponsors of the GWT to the members of PETA!!!! I don’t see how you could compare a group that rises emotional issues (don’t hurt the animals) to a group that is providing facts using logic and science.I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,071 #73 December 6, 2005 > Still amazes me that termites generate more atmospheric CO2 than all >the fossil fuels burned in the world ... every year. So does decaying timber, and volcanic activity. The kicker is that the planet has been evolving to deal with all that CO2; it is cycled back into limestone at a steady rate. We are now generating more CO2 than the planet can recycle. Anyone with a chemistry kit can prove that CO2 concentrations are increasing. And anyone who can add and multiply can show that the increasing concentrations are due to our emissions of CO2. >I compare the the sponsors of the GWT to the members of PETA!!!! Hmm. I don't sponsor the GWT (whatever that is) and I don't support PETA. But I support reductions of CO2 emissions to mitigate climate change, and I support humane treatment of animals. And every year there are more people like me, as people see the tundras melt, the glaciers retreat, the forests burn and the hurricanes grow in power. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #74 December 6, 2005 I would agrue they are both working on emotions and not facts.... Their methodology and science is poor. They are assuming a conclusion(GW) and using science to try to prove it. They are not use science to find an answer to their questions. You are probably too young, but the environmentalists were screaming "The Sky is falling" about Global Cooling 30 years ago. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #75 December 6, 2005 We are now generating more CO2 than the planet can recycle. Anyone with a chemistry kit can prove that CO2 concentrations are increasing. First of all no they cant :-) I have been to school with some of those fools. Bill, if you want to put all the facts out there, put them all out there. In the Grand scheme of thisng CO2 concentrations are VERY low compared to previous historical and prehistoric times. Also, you said something earlier which I wasn't going to comment on, but will.... You made a point of H2O and CO2 being the major output of Industry and Vehicles ...etc. You said, Nature has an easy way of dealing with excess H20 Rain/Snow. That isn't exactly true.... An increase in H20 in the Atmosphere would lead to an increase in cloud cover. This cloud cover would actually work to reduce the Earth surface temperature. The 9/11 study of contrails was a good example of this. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
