The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

[Wolf2000me]

^^^ I was talking about "man-made global warming". The current "environmentalists" say its because of CO2 put in the air by humans. You rebutt with claims of "enormous amounts of substances in the atmosphere that don't belong there". Are you talking about CO2?

Man made or not man made. Your government, in bed with Exxon, doesn't want to reduce anything. I'm not just talking about CO2. CO2 is one thing we put up in the air. There are millions more.

The price of "not doing something about it"? We are doing somethiung about it.

Right. I'm confident that by the end of the next year more fuel will have been used compared to last year in the states. Exxons revenue will have increased too.

Its the knee jerk over-reactions that I'm concerned about. The throw money at the wind solutions that are done with great spirit and get diddly-doo-squat results. Like the Prius. Overpriced, highly polluting batteries, short service life, but its touted as "environmentally friendly"... even though it just about dies at 80,000 miles and doesn't even produce the mileage it was originally claimed to produce.

Some attempts fail as with any effort. I think trying and learning is a whole lot better than not trying and giving the money to the oil companies.

Who killed the electric car?

In the meantime, China builds a new coal-fired power plant every ten days.

Let's point to the country wiping its @ss the most with the environment to make ourselves feel better...

You say its the opposition to environmentalists that make it political and that's blatantly untrue. The UN is a political body and they're front and center on this whole thing.

blatantly untrue? I think not. Yeah, the UN is a political body. And so is your government who doesn't seem to be lacking the $$-motivation to go against it. The oil lobby doesn't influence them or what?

How about this then huh?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/...004399,00.html

I'm glad to see you're pulling away from Al Gore. By the way, he's a politician.

Pulling away is a bit strong don't you think? Of course he's a politician, that's what I've said several times already. Like I said, he is one guy. And I'm pretty confident that if he were to have become president your country would certainly be less addicted to oil. But who knows. Maybe he'd fall for the oil lobby cash too.

Its not just CO2 that's the problem? Are we talking about man-made global warming or environmental issues in general? I'm all for cleaning up our act when it comes to preserving our planet better than we do, but let's at least try not to mix issues.

You claim that the environmentalists are too focused on CO2 yet you can't stop talking about it. Of course it's not just CO2, far from it. I'm talking about environment issues in general. Those go hand in hand with GW and with fuel usage. Reduce the latter helps a lot on many environment issues. Its scope is even bigger than environment issues.

[Dutchcedar]

^^^ I can't stop talking about CO2 in a thread about The Great Global Warming Swindle... imagine that...

We difer in opinions... imagine that too. You think its Exxon and the US government trying to fleece the world. I think its the UN trying to fleece the world. At least we can agree there's a conspiracy.

As to the Guardian piece, please explain why its OK to fund research that supports the man-made global warming agenda but not the other way around. And also, please explain the "close link" to the Bush administartion of the AEI and why, if its even true, that it somehow or another makes the research not worthy. I think you're only supporting the claim I made earlier:

I'm noticing the rebuttals to scientists who oppose the idea that global warming is a result of humans creating an excess of CO2, are attacks on their credibility.

[Mjölnir]

See what I mean! The sky is falling...I'd like to see their report as well, and right now wonder why 'Global Warming' has entered the Doomsday Clock at all.

Look at all the media about it, see how often terms like 'catastrophic', 'irreversible', 'devestation', etc are used. Are you scared yet? I'm much more worried about our control of nuclear weapons than a couple of degrees rise in tempeature.

Meanwhile I think there's many things we could do to adapt to a couple of degrees warming. Living in Montana I can see a few benefits as well as a few drawbacks. But my main local or regional concern is precipitation rather than temperature, that's an annual statistic that effects us much more than any variance in temperature.

Traditionally a lack of resources or a desire for more of them has been a trigger for war. One expected follow-on from global warming is diminishing supplies of resources.

I'm more scared of the effects of global warming. At least nuclear warfare is localised. Global warming is not.

I'm not so sure we can adapt if the temperature rises. 70% of the earth's surface is water. When the earth's temp rises, so does the level of water vapour in the atmosphere. Water vapour is also a major contrubutor to global warming. On top of that, various sources have linked the rise in global temps to a population decline in various animals and insects. As you can probably appreciate, this could lead to a massive disruption of the food chain. Insect decline is particularly worrying because they're nature's own recycling service.

[smoked trout]

heh MJ, you're more worried about global warming where I can remember the nuclear bomb drills in school, the stories of "nuclear winter", ad infinitum. So my frame of reference is biased. I don't think the two are close in comparison.

However, given the doomsday scenarios constantly bandied about (like your insect example) I just have a hard time taking them seriously. I will admit their possibility, just as I'll admit the possibility of earth being struck by a comet or asteroid. And I'm of the opinion we should be taking care of this place, for other reasons as well as global warming. Pesticide over-use, habitat loss, forest mismanagement, too many people (right Dutch!), industrial pollution, genetic manipulation, bird flu, Yellowstone exploding, the list is endless. For Man caused issues (like global warming) I think it's only prudent to take practical measures to reduce or even minimize our impact. So in a lot of ways I'm on your side.

But my point about the hype is just that: The sensationalism associated with global warming reminds me of the WMD sensationalism, or the super-volcanoe hype, acid rain, etc. It seems people don't think anyone will take them seriously unless they predict the end of the world, or at least life as we know it. The older you get the more of these things you see. Maybe I'm just numb.

[AMDScooter]

I had posted this in "rolleyes". Think you guys might get a kick out of it also.



Penn And Teller Get Hippies To Sign Water Baning Petition



This is pretty damn funny... well to me at least...

[darkknight]

I had posted this in "rolleyes". Think you guys might get a kick out of it also.



Penn And Teller Get Hippies To Sign Water Baning Petition



This is pretty damn funny... well to me at least...

Penn and Teller two of my favorites!
thanks for the link!

[Mjölnir]

heh MJ, you're more worried about global warming where I can remember the nuclear bomb drills in school, the stories of "nuclear winter", ad infinitum. So my frame of reference is biased. I don't think the two are close in comparison.

Fortunately I wasn't around to experience that. Australia's had a relatively unthreatened existence, bar Japan in WWII. Maybe my frame of reference is biased too. I rarely watch commercial TV or listen to commercial radio, and as a result I end up watching lots of documentaries on things like global warming and then reading more on the WWW. I've been watching doco's like this since I was in primary school and have noticed them becoming more frequent and now more widely covered (by politicians and commercial media).

However, given the doomsday scenarios constantly bandied about (like your insect example) I just have a hard time taking them seriously. I will admit their possibility, just as I'll admit the possibility of earth being struck by a comet or asteroid. And I'm of the opinion we should be taking care of this place, for other reasons as well as global warming. Pesticide over-use, habitat loss, forest mismanagement, too many people (right Dutch!), industrial pollution, genetic manipulation, bird flu, Yellowstone exploding, the list is endless. For Man caused issues (like global warming) I think it's only prudent to take practical measures to reduce or even minimize our impact. So in a lot of ways I'm on your side.

It's funny. I saw a show last week about potential asteroid strikes and how we might prevent one. We have a 1:45,000 chance of getting hit by a big one. Even a lottery has greater odds! In the end, there's only so much we can do about ELE's like supervolcanos and massive asteroids, but we sure can minimise our own impact, as you said.

On a different note, here's an interesting theory on the evolution of man you might like to read about, based on the Indonesian super volcano Toba Caldera eruption ~70,000 years ago. (link).

But my point about the hype is just that: The sensationalism associated with global warming reminds me of the WMD sensationalism, or the super-volcanoe hype, acid rain, etc. It seems people don't think anyone will take them seriously unless they predict the end of the world, or at least life as we know it. The older you get the more of these things you see. Maybe I'm just numb.

Hmmm. I know what you mean, but is it safe to consider it as hype as it happens? Take a look at how close the Cold War got to nukes being launched. In hindsight it was worth stressing about. On the other hand, can we really protect ourselves against volcanos and asteroids? Say we knew it was imminent in our lifetime. I'm not gonna be preaching theories on how to save ourselves. I'll be looking to shack up with a hot wench or two. Make the most of those last moments.

How many of you were in a bunker when Y2K came around? Now that was hyperbole at it's best.

The further the discussion on environmental issues goes, the more conclusive the evidence seems to get. We're already seeing the effects of global warming. The big debate is (still) "did we cause it"... Conclusive evidence is something that was never present with things like super volcanos and asteroids. From what I gather, acid rain is also localised to a large extent (not totally global).

[Wolf2000me]

^^^ I can't stop talking about CO2 in a thread about The Great Global Warming Swindle... imagine that...

I didn't say you couldn't talk about CO2, lol. I'm saying it would be naive to point to CO2 all the time. If the CO2 problem doesn't do it for you all the other chemicals that go into the air should. That's what I'm saying, by cutting down on CO2 we also cut a lot down on the other chemicals that are released with it. And there are quite a few harmfuls, actually. I've been saying this for a while and yet you keep hammering the CO2. I'm not a scientist, I don't know what CO2 in the atmosphere actually does. I do know that inhaling car emissions is not a very healthy thing to do.

We difer in opinions... imagine that too. You think its Exxon and the US government trying to fleece the world. I think its the UN trying to fleece the world. At least we can agree there's a conspiracy.

Well if we weren't in disagreement this whole thing would be rather pointless

What would a body like the UN be gaining by fleecing the world like you say. Where's the motive?
Your government and the oil companies do have a stronger motive, don't you think? Some cash related motive.

As to the Guardian piece, please explain why its OK to fund research that supports the man-made global warming agenda but not the other way around. And also, please explain the "close link" to the Bush administartion of the AEI and why, if its even true, that it somehow or another makes the research not worthy. I think you're only supporting the claim I made earlier:

I'm noticing the rebuttals to scientists who oppose the idea that global warming is a result of humans creating an excess of CO2, are attacks on their credibility.

Don't give me the standard issue denial speech. After almost two Bush terms it is really getting old. Lobby --> $$ ---> political influence. It's obvious.
If a body like the UN frees money to research our impact on the environment, it is done with the purpose of our human well being in mind.
When scientists and economists are funded to undermine the previously mentioned group it is done with the purpose of getting and keeping $$. That's where it's different, that's where the OK and the NOK comes from.
Concerning your previously made claim. You make it seem that the UN based scientists are attacking the credibility of the Exxon scientists, when it is totally the other way around. Big difference.

[Dutchcedar]

I didn't say you couldn't talk about CO2, lol. I'm saying it would be naive to point to CO2 all the time.

Again... this is about global warming claimed to be caused by man that's attributed to... drum roll please... CO2.

I do know that inhaling car emissions is not a very healthy thing to do.

I'll stop inhaling them then.

What would a body like the UN be gaining by fleecing the world like you say. Where's the motive?
Your government and the oil companies do have a stronger motive, don't you think? Some cash related motive.

The UN's motives range from power and influence to cold, hard cash.
If you find blame in motives and see them in the US because of taxes grabbed by our government on oil products, OK... that must mean your own government is in on it too, 'cause they charge much, much higher taxes on oil products. Truth is, the largest chunk of Belgian petrol prices goes to your government. They must be guilty.

Don't give me the standard issue denial speech.

If you want to tell someone what to do or not to do... try another person, especially if ya want to tag my responses as "standard issue", which they certainly are not. Bye, bye.

[Mjölnir]

I didn't say you couldn't talk about CO2, lol. I'm saying it would be naive to point to CO2 all the time. If the CO2 problem doesn't do it for you all the other chemicals that go into the air should. That's what I'm saying, by cutting down on CO2 we also cut a lot down on the other chemicals that are released with it. And there are quite a few harmfuls, actually. I've been saying this for a while and yet you keep hammering the CO2. I'm not a scientist, I don't know what CO2 in the atmosphere actually does. I do know that inhaling car emissions is not a very healthy thing to do.

I agree with this. CO2 accounts for the larger share of greenhouse gases that we humans emit but there are a lot of other gases that we also contribute. One common theory is that water vapour is the most aboundant gas contributing to global warming. If that's the case, I see it as quite feasible that we'd have a point of no return where the global temperature is at a point where we can't reverse the global warming cycle because of the amount of water vapour going up into the atmosphere. I also see it as feasible that we have already passed that point. On a more positive note, I also like to think that we haven't reached that point and have a chance at slowing/stopping/reversing global warming - if we can act quickly.

The UN's motives range from power and influence to cold, hard cash.

I don't fully buy that. I agree to some extent but if the UN were really that way inclined, why didn't they jump into Iraq? We all know that the Middle East has one of the most valuable resources on the planet. Take a look at the movements of Germany and Japan in WWII. They were working towards the Middle East and various Allied leaders have stated that if they got the Middle East, they would have had the balance of power. That gets me thinking about why Israel is really there and why the US (and coalition forces) have such an interest in the area. And of course why the UN haven't jumped in there yet. The same applies to East Timor and some other countries, but to a lesser extent. Seems to me that the UN aren't as much about a cash and power grab as many countries on their own are.

[MrSeanKon]

by cutting down on CO2 we also cut a lot down on the other chemicals that are released with it.

I agree.
When I visit large cities here e.g. Athens fumes rulez everywhere.

[Wolf2000me]

Again... this is about global warming claimed to be caused by man that's attributed to... drum roll please... CO2.

So you really are a scientist then. Knowing for sure that the only element to be taken into consideration is CO2.

I'll stop inhaling them then.

Then you'd better buy yourself a Whacko Jacko(tm) breathing mask. Car emissions and burned fuels are everywhere these days.

The UN's motives range from power and influence to cold, hard cash.
If you find blame in motives and see them in the US because of taxes grabbed by our government on oil products, OK... that must mean your own government is in on it too, 'cause they charge much, much higher taxes on oil products. Truth is, the largest chunk of Belgian petrol prices goes to your government. They must be guilty.

US gas tax is laughable. Ours is a lot higher and motivates the people to leave the car more often at home and use public transportation. Which has been made a lot cheaper.
And I'll say it again. Exxon --> Lobby ---> $$$ ---> influence.
Our taxes from petrol are very high, they go into the national treasury, big difference than ones own pocket. The oil companies don't have our government on strings. And we did sign and ratify the Kyoto protocol in case you missed that.

If you want to tell someone what to do or not to do... try another person, especially if ya want to tag my responses as "standard issue", which they certainly are not. Bye, bye.

The major theme in your reply was denial. That kind of denial has become standard issue with the Bush admin. Don't take it so personally, it isn't.

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

[Dutchcedar]

Wolf, what kind of car (or truck) do you drive?

[Wolf2000me]

Wolf, what kind of car (or truck) do you drive?

I have a Seat Cordoba built in 2003.

http://www.mcautorent.com/fleet/show_en.php?show_ID=75

1200cc petrol. However I use the train to go to work. It has an average consumption of 7 liters per 100 km. I'm sorry for the metricness, I guess I'm lazy

[Dutchcedar]

^^^ I don't remember seeing one of those before.

One of my favorite things about going back to see family is checking out all the different kinds of stuff they drive in Holland. Especially the small trucks and sports cars.