The Hoax of Global Warming

[skiny]

Exactly when did "The rapid warming since the late 1970s has occurred even though other factors that can warm the planet, such as the sun's intensity, have remained constant." start meaning that "sunspots and sun intensity are the same thing?" Where did I say that they're the same thing? That's right! I didn't! Notice how the quotation marks you used to show what I said stop just before "Sunspots and sun intensity..."? Well that means that everything else after the second quotation mark is what you said, not me.

The point is saying the suns intensity hasnt changed is irrelevant. The amount of sunspots plays a direct roll on the earths climate. Not the only roll but a direct roll.

Thats right! You didnt say it. I did. Your statement was inside the quotation marks right where they belong.

Actually, I was quoting Mr. Pearce but that's only part of it. The colored portion of the statements in that post are the links to the supporting articles for each of the statements. Had you clicked it, you wouldn't have tried to put words in my mouth such as "sunspots and sun intensity are the same thing". You said that not me. I said "such as the sun's intensity", not sunspots = sun's intensity. A phrase like '"such as the sun's intensity" is generally regarded as if "among other factors" or a similar addendum, followed and not that anything else, including sunspots, is equal to or the same as it. But since you bring it up, allow me to quote Mr Pearce, again: "for the time period for which we have direct, reliable records, the Earth has warmed dramatically even though there has been no corresponding rise in any kind of solar activity." (Including sunspots.) Capiche?

Actually we do have correlating evidence between the earths climate and sun spot activity. In fact sun spot activity correlates better with the earths climate than the Co2 levels do.

Considering the 100 list actually includes such nonsense as, "2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.", the basis for it's refuting the legitimacy of man's contribution to global climate change relying entirely upon expressing man's CO2 output, since the beginning of man, a few hundred thousand years, give or take, as a percentage of the CO2 output of the earth's mantle (???) during geological history (or the age of the earth, itself, about 4.5 billion years), is a statement so ridiculous that the other 99 statements on that list become null and void from total lack of credibility by association to 2)! As if the earth's mantle was the sole emitter of CO2 since the earth formed until man showed up or that every molecule emitted by everything since then is still intact, today, in it's original form. So if you stack up man's emitted CO2 inito a puny little pile and compare it to this HUGE earth's mantle CO2 pile over here... Really?!? Never mind that the comparison is completely irrelevant. Are you defending that?

I didn't even post the list. I answered your statements in regards to the list. I haven't even read the list. Your point was that it was a silly comparison between man's and contribution of Co2 to the atmosphere and the contribution of volcanoes. My point is that it may well be so but again that's irrelevant because neither of them are large contributors compared to the Co2 contributed by things like decaying organic material, water vapor. In fact maybe the fact that there are 100 times more people breathing and dying and decaying than there was a hundred years ago is increasing the Co2 levels. Maybe we should stop breathing and stop dying.

Semantics notwithstanding, I still don't see your point. Or does my handling of your objections diminish it to moot? Are you arguing to say that we shouldn't address global climate change because it's all BS and the earth's just going to warm and cool because of factors we have no control over?

Your handling of my objections change nothing. As I said at the start of this thread, "keep the planet as clean as possible" but don't turn climate change which has been happening since the beginning of time and something we know very little about into a 3 ring circus where scientists toss out logical scientific practices, hide data and allow politicians to turn bad science into a huge tax grab. Because that is what this is all about. Do you seriously believe that Al Gore who produces 10 thousand times as much Co2 as I do really gives a rat's ass about the climate? Do you really think the proposed carbon tax by the Canadian liberals was introduced to reduce tax emmisions? About the same as the huge tax I pay on cigarettes is supposed to keep me from smoking. And the temporary Goods and Services tax that was imposed to pay down the Canadian deficit and 10 years after the deficit was paid down the tax still existed. And 10 years after that the deficit is back. It's all about money.


I'll answer the rest of your post later. Right now I have to burn some over taxed gas to get some over taxed cigarettes.

 

[clj7221]

Global Warming, the hoax that made Maurice Strong the Billionaire that he is.

 

[bryand]

All kidding aside, as I follow this thread I am continually amazed at the vast knowledge and insights of its participants. Who would have thought a discussion so rich could be held on a gaming forum?

Allow me to play thread moderator for a moment.

We all seem to agree on a few points. Many factors influence climate change including solar activity, greenhouse gasses, ocean temperature, the degree of orbital rotation, the size of ice caps and so on. The first question to be resolved seems to be the extent of human influence on climate change.

Can we first focus and try to agree on the question: What percentage of total greenhouse gasses is being caused by human activity?

 

[bernynhel]

All kidding aside, as I follow this thread I am continually amazed at the vast knowledge and insights of its participants. Who would have thought a discussion so rich could be held on a gaming forum?

Allow me to play thread moderator for a moment.

We all seem to agree on a few points. Many factors influence climate change including solar activity, greenhouse gasses, ocean temperature, the degree of orbital rotation, the size of ice caps and so on. The first question to be resolved seems to be the extent of human influence on climate change.

Can we first focus and try to agree on the question: What percentage of total greenhouse gasses is being caused by human activity?

I haven't the foggiest notion. I don't think anyone knows that number or ever will know. I don't even know if the whole argument can be reduced to, simply, what percentage of greenhouse gasses man is responsible for. So what if knew that we weren't responsible any of it but that we do know, with certainty, that all of the dire predictions of melting ice caps and NYC under 70 feet of the Atlantic are still true? And what if, though not responsible for the impending destruction in any way, we thought, maybe, there was a slim chance that we could halt its advance by eliminating whatever greenhouse gasses we do produce in hopes that it's not too little too late? That's why I think you ask the wrong question, but, hey, it's your thread.

And I'd be the first to admit that I'll be 10 kinds a mad if it ever comes out that one shred of the science that supports that man's significant contribution to climate change was fudged by the researchers involved for ulterior motives.

That said, either we trust the science enough to be proactive in trying to arrest the situation before it reaches a tipping point or we don't. And if we'd like to believe the science but are skeptical, whether because there are individuals whom we also trust who cry "hoax" or for other reasons, then we should weigh the pros and cons of acting and not acting to halt global climate change. The pros: man's contribution to climate change is a fact and if we act now we can avoid a whole shit storm we really would prefer to avoid if at all possible. The cons: it's all a bunch a hooey contrived by evil, greedy scientists and others who stand to directly benefit from a world focused on and spending like mad to stop climate change.

My position: If man is causing the climate change and if the repercussions from doing nothing will be as dire as many are predicting, then, obviously we need to address it. If it's all B.S. we probably won't know, with any certainty, for years and if it's not B.S. and we do nothing, some will be saying "Ha, I told you so!" from the porches of our beachfront rentals while vacationing at the seashores of Arizona and Tennessee. While it would be really shitty recovering from the costs of what the world would have spent, needlessly, scrambling to halt climate change, it would be a far better position to be in than if we don't and find out, too late, that we should have.

So, really, any further of proof, for or against, is really not the issue. The results of inaction in the case that demands it would be catastrophic as opposed to inconvenient if there is no emergency and we merely acted as if there were.

 

[bryand]

I haven't the foggiest notion. I don't think anyone knows that number or ever will know. I don't even know if the whole argument can be reduced to, simply, what percentage of greenhouse gasses man is responsible for. So what if knew that we weren't responsible any of it but that we do know, with certainty, that all of the dire predictions of melting ice caps and NYC under 70 feet of the Atlantic are still true? And what if, though not responsible for the impending destruction in any way, we thought, maybe, there was a slim chance that we could halt its advance by eliminating whatever greenhouse gasses we do produce in hopes that it's not too little too late? That's why I think you ask the wrong question, but, hey, it's your thread.

I am not implying that the whole argument boils down to my question. This is not an attempt to trap anyone into admitting anything. I am hoping to lead the discussion in an organized way because there are so many variables. I realize it is possible that the percentage of human contribution may be a nonfactor. Can we discuss the flooding of lower Manhattan a little later?

And I'd be the first to admit that I'll be 10 kinds a mad if it ever comes out that one shred of the science that supports that man's significant contribution to climate change was fudged by the researchers involved for ulterior motives.

In reality, you and I will be long gone before the answer is known with certainty.

That said, either we trust the science enough to be proactive in trying to arrest the situation before it reaches a tipping point or we don't. And if we'd like to believe the science but are skeptical, whether because there are individuals whom we also trust who cry "hoax" or for other reasons, then we should weigh the pros and cons of acting and not acting to halt global climate change. The pros: man's contribution to climate change is a fact and if we act now we can avoid a whole shit storm we really would prefer to avoid if at all possible. The cons: it's all a bunch a hooey contrived by evil, greedy scientists and others who stand to directly benefit from a world focused on and spending like mad to stop climate change.

I am not saying that the lack of agreement regarding motives is cause for inaction. We may never know the true agenda of activists on either side of the argument.

My position: If man is causing the climate change and if the repercussions from doing nothing will be as dire as many are predicting, then, obviously we need to address it. If it's all B.S. we probably won't know, with any certainty, for years and if it's not B.S. and we do nothing, some will be saying "Ha, I told you so!" from the porches of our beachfront rentals while vacationing at the seashores of Arizona and Tennessee. While it would be really shitty recovering from the costs of what the world would have spent, needlessly, scrambling to halt climate change, it would be a far better position to be in than if we don't and find out, too late, that we should have.

So, really, any further of proof, for or against, is really not the issue. The results of inaction in the case that demands it would be catastrophic as opposed to inconvenient if there is no emergency and we merely acted as if there were.

Great! Act how??? How in the hell do we try to fix something we don't understand? Surely you don't believe we should stop debating the science and start killing all the livestock. Just think for a moment. If the activists really thought humans were causing climate change, would they have traveled to Copenhagen in private jets and be driven around in limousines?

 

[skiny]

Great! Act how??? How in the hell do we try to fix something we don't understand? Surely you don't believe we should stop debating the science and start killing all the livestock. Just think for a moment. If the activists really thought humans were causing climate change, would they have traveled to Copenhagen in private jets and be driven around in limousines?

Well, if you go back to the original math, if I recall correctly the Co2 has increased from 280 to 350 ppm but we only contribute about 15 pmm. This was the entire basis of my original argument. Even if we produce zero it's still nowhere near 280 ppm.

And on top of that, any so called solution will just be just like any other tax grab, ripped off the backs of the poor and middle class tax payers while the rich continue to fly around in private jets and cruise around in limousines. I'm not worried about a one world government. At the rate we're going we're turning Canada and the US into a two class system. Rich and poor. Most of the middle class are already so far in debt they'll probably never truly own anything.

In a few months Ontario will merge it's provincial sales tax with the federal goods and services tax which basically means everything that was exempt from either one of them will be taxed on both. Another huge tax grab.

And now what? We start trading Co2 tickets paid for with federal tax money. An outright carbon tax so that everything that produces Co2 is taxed directly? Every country has it's breaking point. Maybe in a few years you'll all be gathering in Boston and throwing your Co2 emmissons in the harbor.

 

[bernynhel]

...This is not an attempt to trap anyone into admitting anything...

I didn't take it like that. We're cool.

...Can we discuss the flooding of lower Manhattan a little later?...

...In reality, you and I will be long gone before the answer is known with certainty...

Word!

...If the activists really thought humans were causing climate change, would they have traveled to Copenhagen in private jets and be driven around in limousines?

"Uh, heh-heh. Yeah! Heh-heh-heh! Limousines! Heh-heh! And private jets! Heh-heh!" - Beavis and Butthead

Well, if you go back to the original math, if I recall correctly the Co2 has increased from 280 to 350 ppm but we only contribute about 15 pmm. This was the entire basis of my original argument. Even if we produce zero it's still nowhere near 280 ppm.

Actually, the 350 ppm ship has already sailed. Try 383 ppm. And with no significant natural factors since it was 280, that makes our contribution 103 ppm, not 15 ppm. More bad news: See chart, below.

And on top of that, any so called solution will just be just like any other tax grab, ripped off the backs of the poor and middle class tax payers while the rich continue to fly around in private jets and cruise around in limousines...And now what?

Easy, friend! It's not that crazy. Reduction of deforestation practices and aggressive efforts at reforestation over the next 50 years, combined with the phasing out of non-co2-capturing coal burning plants, applying emerging technologies in the fields of wind, sun, biology and many more and the gradual phasing out of fossil fueled passenger vehicles, will easily put us on track back to below 350 ppm co2. OK. Maybe it is life changing. But it's gotta come sooner or later, so why delay it until it's a complete crisis and we need to make a 180 and really put the hurt on ourselves, in the process?

Consider James E Hansen's, Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies letter drafts to Gorden Brown and Angela Merkel:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[bryand]

The truth is out there.....


Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) today asked the Obama administration to investigate what he called the greatest scientific scandal of our generation the actions of climate scientists revealed by the Climategate files, and the subsequent admissions by the editors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).

Senator Inhofe also called for former Vice President Al Gore to be called back to the Senate to testify.

In [Gore's] science fiction movie, every assertion has been rebutted, Inhofe said. He believes Vice President Gore should defend himself and his movie before Congress.

Just prior to a hearing at 10:00 a.m. EST, Senator Inhofe released a minority staff report from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, of which he is ranking member. Senator Inhofe is asking the Department of Justice to investigate whether there has been research misconduct or criminal actions by the scientists involved, including Dr. Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University and Dr. James Hansen of Columbia University and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

This report, obtained exclusively by Pajamas Media before todays hearing, alleges:

[The] Minority Staff of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works believe the scientists involved may have violated fundamental ethical principles governing taxpayer-funded research and, in some cases, federal laws. In addition to these findings, we believe the emails and accompanying documents seriously compromise the IPCC -backed consensus and its central conclusion that anthropogenic emissions are inexorably leading to environmental catastrophes.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[jetset]

An interesting development that seems to have been largely ignored by the mainstream media so far.

You were right in your predictions that governments would seize on the global warming issue to levy new taxes.

The government in my country (like most governments, always hungry for extra revenues due to overspending) has just announced a carbon tax on new vehicles as part of the latest budget.

 

[footdr]

Mars, Saturn and Earth are having parallel Global Warming

The information below relates to the effect of the Sun on our entire Solar System, not just earth. Interesting....

Evidence of a solar system wide effect is detectable on Mars and the ice caps of Saturn, as well.
Global warming extends to Mars, where the polar ice cap is shrinking, where deep gullies in the landscape are now laid bare, and where the climate is the warmest it has been in decades or centuries.
"One explanation could be that Mars is just coming out of an ice age," NASA scientist William Feldman speculated after the agency's Mars Odyssey completed its first Martian year of data collection. "In some low-latitude areas, the ice has already dissipated." With each passing year more and more evidence arises of the dramatic changes occurring on the only planet on the solar system, apart from Earth, to give up its climate secrets.
"Mars has global warming, but without a greenhouse and without the participation of Martians," he told me. "These parallel global warmings -- observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth -- can only be a straightline consequence of the effect of the one same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance."
The sun's increased irradiance over the last century, not C02 emissions, is responsible for the global warming we're seeing, says the celebrated scientist, and this solar irradiance also explains the great volume of C02 emissions.
"It is no secret that increased solar irradiance warms Earth's oceans, which then triggers the emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."
Dr. Abdussamatov goes further, debunking the very notion of a greenhouse effect. "Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated," he maintains. "Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."
The real news from Saint Petersburg -- demonstrated by cooling that is occurring on the upper layers of the world's oceans -- is that Earth has hit its temperature ceiling. Solar irradiance has begun to fall, ushering in a protracted cooling period beginning in 2012 to 2015. The depth of the decline in solar irradiance reaching Earth will occur around 2040, and "will inevitably lead to a deep freeze around 2055-60" lasting some 50 years, after which temperatures will go up again

Not a "happy story". Seems we should be stop worring about CO2 and the development of costly infastructure expense to provide "Electric Stations" to recharge our new "electric cars", increasing the cost of electricity to heat/cool our homes and businesses and run our electric appliances. Increasing taxes on Manufacturers and Corporate/Small Businesses during a Recession is not smart for obvious reasons. Aside from that, is the Government going to "guarantee that the additional taxes they collect will be spent for the purpose they contend? Seems more tax revenue usually equals more spending, waste and growth of Government including Federal employees!

Until Business sees their income increase, not decrease by higher taxes and more "regulation", jobs will not grow. Also, we won't see the price of "solar panels, energy efficient appliances, heating and air conditioning systems declining to a point where individuals can afford them!

I say no to Tax and Trade. It is another redistribution of wealth tactic and the cost will not be beared equally by U.S. Citizens. The Waste, Fraud and mismanagement by our Government has caused this financial disaster. Let them cut Federal Jobs. As a past Federal employee(V.A.) I have seen how it works. Can't fire anyone without writing a book about them after they have worked for l year. It is no joke, a job that Private business would assign to one worker takes 2+ workers in the Government. Vacation and Sick leave days build up fast! Employees are slow....moving, many just taking up space and collecting a check. Vacations, 3 weeks for me after 5 years employement and 7+ sick days after 1 year. Plus you are guaranteed, barring an act of God, to get a substantial "raise" each year.

They should be receiving the same average salary as private sector employees performing the same duties. There is no reason for them to receive more, they don't pay into Social Security or Medicare and their benefits are excellent.

 

[bernynhel]

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK)...

What separates Inhofes fixation from similar conservative crusades is just how brazenly it ignores what scientists know with confidence about global warming.

 

[footdr]

What Scientist's know

More information regarding the Sun's effect on Earth's climate:

Ice ages also correlate with magnetic activity on the Sun.

According to Mukul Sharma, Assistant Professor of Earth Sciences at Dartmouth, the Sun displays a 100,000-year cycle of magnetic activity that corresponds to the Earth's ice age history.

Sharma's calculations suggest that when the Sun is magnetically more active, the Earth experiences a warmer climate, and vice versa, when the Sun is magnetically less active, there is a glacial period. Right now, the Earth is in an interglacial period (between ice ages). This is also a time of high solar activity.

This cycle appears to match the 100,000-year ice-age cycle first theorized by Milutin Milankovitch, which suggests that ice ages correspond to the cyclical varations in the Earth's orbit around the Sun. (Earth & Planetary Science Ltrs, Vol. 199, issues 3-4, June 10, 2002).

Underwater volcanoes and surface eruptions also change the climate in shorter cycles. But retrieval of beryllium from Antarctic ice indicates the hotter sun is a bigger factor which outweighs dust and green houses gases.

 

[footdr]

What the Liberal's Ignore

What separates Inhofes fixation from similar conservative crusades is just how brazenly it ignores what scientists know with confidence about global warming.

Typical comment from Liberals/Progressives. I think what Liberals ignore is there is no Scientific Data that proves without a doubt that humans are changing the natural cycle of the Earth's Climate and that we can significantly stop or slow the cycle, which Scientific research suggests would be insignificant even if we did away all fossil fuels. Global Warming, or should I use the new term, "Climate Change"(they stopped calling it Global Warming when they determined the earth might actually be cooling) is not so emergent as to raise taxes on Business and Individuals that are already struggling financially due to mistakes made by the Federal Government and it's failure to make sound Economic decisions when spending tax revenue; and creating more Federal Programs that require more taxation and more regulation of Business and our lives.

Developing alternative energy is going to happen anyway. Once business starts developing these alternatives and can find ways to bring the cost down. making these sources competitive and hopefully less costly then gas or electric; the Green Jobs will come and consumers will buy solar panels, energy efficient appliances, etc. In my opinion, at this time they are cost prohibitive for the average person/family. The "tax-credit" is minimal given the cost.

 

[bernynhel]

Typical comment from Liberals/Progressives...

When backed into a corner, Inhofe's arguments have necessarily grown more and more desperate.

In Inhofe's continued, curious crusade against Mann, Inhofe refers only to "the hockey stick graph, constructed by Dr. Michael Mann and colleagues," multiple other scientists have produced similar analyses. And even if all of these were to be overturned, that would hardly upend the conclusion that humans are currently heating the planet - a robust scientific finding based on several different lines of evidence.

In fact, Inhofe's latest foray against Mann throws into question the competence of the senator's scientific-research apparatus. Inhofe charged that recent critics, arguing in the scientific literature, have called Mann's hockey-stick work "just bad science." But the critics in question weren't attacking the "hockey stick" at all. Rather, they were challenging an entirely different paper by Mann and a colleague, and the disagreement concerns the period between 1971 and 1998 -- not the past 1,000 years. It looks as though Inhofe went rifling through the scientific literature to find someone criticizing Michael Mann without even bothering to understand the context of that criticism.

Yet Inhofe's latest speech stoops even lower than this. The senator also implied, on the slender basis of a Washington Post cartoon (which he misinterprets), that some "alarmists" think climate change triggered the recent Asian tsunami. "Are we to believe now that global warming is causing earthquakes?" Inhofe asked rhetorically.

Uh, to believe that would be, er, bad, right, Inhofe?

Most of the above paraphrased and/or borrowed from Link Removed (invalid URL)

 

[vinylweatherman]

An interesting development that seems to have been largely ignored by the mainstream media so far.

You were right in your predictions that governments would seize on the global warming issue to levy new taxes.

The government in my country (like most governments, always hungry for extra revenues due to overspending) has just announced a carbon tax on new vehicles as part of the latest budget.

Just goes to show how LITTLE government know about the issues. This, surely, will DISCOURAGE the move to newer and more fuel efficient cars, and motorists will hang onto older, less efficient, cars for longer.

The UK government are doing things a little better, road tax is higher the more CO2 a vehicle emits per Kilometre travelled. Electric cars pay no tax, and there are now a very few small petrol cars that just squeak into the zero tax band. On the other hand, the fuel guzzling monsters are charged hundreds of pounds per year. Fuel taxes also encourage the use of more efficient vehicles. There is NO disincentive to upgrading to a new car, and the scrappage scheme, although really implemented to get car sales moving again, has the effect of replacing older vehicles with newer ones.

One argument has been against all this though, and it has centred on the initial carbon cost of producing a new vehicle, and whether there IS a saving in overall CO2 production by upgrading to an efficient car as soon as possible, rather than running the less efficient car until it reaches the end of it's natural life. Scrappage has been criticised because perfectly good cars are being scrapped, with the carbon cost of their creation being wasted by their premature scrapping.

 

[AussieDave]

I'll maybe viewed as an ignorant git. Honestly know about as much as the next layperson when it comes to carbon effects or green house gas issues.

However since moving the South Australia from Victoria, it's certainly a state of Australia that has water issues. Lakes that once supported small townships are all but dried up.

The Murray River is Australia's largest river. It runs for 2,375Km (1,476 miles) and winds its way through NSW, Victoria and South Australia. Up until 10 years or so ago it supported a wide range of water activities and also provided much needed irrigation for farms along its path. Although one can still go boating, sailing, fishing and water skiing, the water levels in some parts make any of these hobbies impossible.

I recall my father telling me when he was a kid he'd seen Murray cod caught up to 80lb in size. However these days the cod are all but gone, in their place carp that have all but taken over the river system.

In Adelaide our water crisis is so bad the Government is building a declination plant. Hopefully that will be completed by 2012. Right now we're on water restrictions and has been like since we arrived in 2008.

The people on the land in NSW and QLD have been hit with years of droughts. And then devastating floods that wipe out everything the scorching sun didn't kill.

The season here like other parts of the world are changing. Hot when it should be cold and visa versa.

As I said I don't know too much about this thread topic or the arguments put for and against throughout by posters. All I know is that Australia and her weather patterns have changed considerably since I was a boy.



Cheers



Dave

 

[jetset]

Growing numbers of small coastal municipalities are starting to look to desalination plants to provide buffer stocks against drought-depletion, which is becoming a very serious problem in some areas.

Unfortunately the water produced by the process, which is excellent, is also relatively expensive. Hopefully improvements in reverse osmosis technology - or perhaps new technology - will start to bring that down.

 

[felicie]

Probably shouldn't even join in on this but can't sleep so whats a girl to do?

First, do any of you remember back to 60's and 70's in Los Angeles (or maybe your particular area) driving in from the beaches or coming down from the north how suddenly your eyes would burn like hell, then a puny kind of burning smell would hit you and then you'd see this baby poop color smeared across the bottom of the horizon and you'd know you were almost to L.A. ??

Well thats what I think caused so much cancer and in fact more than these overly taxed smokes but thats not my point.

My point is that now the icky stuff we call smog is pretty much gone compared to the 60s and 70s and is that because of the laws on emission control and cracking down on companys that polute etc. or, just earth changes? and,

it seems to me the govt, scientists etc. who researched and came up with all that stuff did so in a more honest, good for us, good for the earth kind of way and it worked didn't it?
What would have happened if they hadn't made us smog our cars and quit blowing crap out the smoke stacks? (and boy a lot of us fought those stupid smog devices cause they made our cars run like crap LOL)

I guess we just don't know who to believe nowadays so maybe the first thing to be done is find people we do believe in who actually I don't know maybe majored in this sht at good schools, like the old days. which of course cuts out politicians or people that want to divert all of so. california's water elsewhere for a stupid little insect thats going extinct or something to that effect.

Like I said, not arguing with any of you, just throwing in some things that puzzle me sometimes about our earth. Thank you.

p.s. when you get done with this, whats your opinion(s) on that sheik making new islands. Doesn't that have an effect on things?

 

[bernynhel]

Yeah smog was bad. We thought it might be and scientists confirmed it. But it went away without much of a fight from conservatives cuz the EPA focused on regulations for automakers and big industry polluters to clean up their act so Republicans had no need to attempt to debunk sound science in that case as they couldn't see any tax hikes or other personal, out-of-pocket expenditures on the horizon as a result of the Clean Air Act, et al. If they had, they'd a fought tooth and nail for smog the consequences be damned.

 

[bryand]

Yeah smog was bad. We thought it might be and scientists confirmed it. But it went away without much of a fight from conservatives cuz the EPA focused on regulations for automakers and big industry polluters to clean up their act so Republicans had no need to attempt to debunk sound science in that case as they couldn't see any tax hikes or other personal, out-of-pocket expenditures on the horizon as a result of the Clean Air Act, et al. If they had, they'd a fought tooth and nail for smog the consequences be damned.

These are two different matters IMO. Every doctor and scientist on earth agree that smog is a major health hazard.

 

[bernynhel]

These are two different matters IMO. Every doctor and scientist on earth agree that smog is a major health hazard.

Really?!?! You don't really think that smog was a commie plot or really caused by volcanoes or the subterranean instantaneous combustion of fossil fuels? Well blow me down!

 

[cpdnd31]

Would earthquakes be part of Global warming?

If so there have been alot allready this year.


Here is something strange I heard on radio. Goverment messages with website info on how to put a emergency kit together. Ive never heard these before. I live in Illinois and it seemed strange to me. If it was CA or a coastal region I could understand these messages but in IL. Kinda makes you think HMMMMMMM.

 

[bryand]

Would earthquakes be part of Global warming?

If so there have been alot allready this year.


Here is something strange I heard on radio. Goverment messages with website info on how to put a emergency kit together. Ive never heard these before. I live in Illinois and it seemed strange to me. If it was CA or a coastal region I could understand these messages but in IL. Kinda makes you think HMMMMMMM.

We're actually having a statistically normal year for earthquakes.

 

[bernynhel]

Earthquakes are not attributed to global warming.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

The climate has been warming, again, since the end of the last ice age - why they called it the "end of the last ice age." And there's been more than one.

I don't doubt the science that says man is accelerating global warming but what I don't get is if we weren't, how long would it take for the climate to change for Manhattan to be under water, naturally? I know there's computer models to show different projections based on how much we are heating things up or cooling things down. I just don't know what the difference is when comparing the outcome if things were left as they are, without any effort to curtail our carbon footprint vs a time-line to the same point, climate-wise, if, say, man didn't exist, at all, or at least if we never made it out of the stone age.

 

[skiny]

I was actually reading a few months ago before I stepped out of this debate that man's addition to the natural co2 may be what's keeping us out of another ice age. Apparently we're about due for one.

Personally I'd rather not be under 3 feet of ice either.

 

[bernynhel]

I was actually reading a few months ago before I stepped out of this debate that man's addition to the natural co2 may be what's keeping us out of another ice age. Apparently we're about due for one.

Personally I'd rather not be under 3 feet of ice either.

"About due", in meteorological time-lines, like geologically, could mean a few hundred years, or more. Don't run out and squander dough on snowshoes and ice axes.

 

[skiny]

That's true but since we're not really pin pointing these things to the decade it could also mean a 30 degree drop over the next 30 or 40 years.

 

[vinylweatherman]

It has been the COLDEST winter in the UK for 31 YEARS. A bit of an "inconvenience" for the politicians The winter of 1963 was FAR worse though. 31 years ago, there was talk of us entering another ice age, and catastrophic global COOLING was the "hot topic".

The "Clean Air act" had some unexpected consequences though. the pollution had an overall COOLING effect, by keeping the heat of the sun OUT, so it didn't make it in to get trapped by the CO2. With the pollution gone, more energy from the sun gets in, and CO2 has more energy to trap. CO2 is still rising, but there has been a 10 year pause in the warming trend. It has at least bought TIME to act. What is important is to find out WHY there has been this pause. Pollution has NOT returned, and current plans do NOT take into account this pause. If it really IS just a pause, then we should continue efforts to reduce CO2 emissions, however, IF it is a marked global COOLING trend, the CO2 might actually be SAVING us.

The problem seems to be that "climate change" has become a "religion" rather than a science. Anyone who tries to argue that we are NOT heating up the world through CO2 emissions is called a "heretic", and duly silenced by discrediting their integrity, rather than their argument. The government here have even refused to release scientific data and opinion based on it "not being in the national interest". By this, they mean that "climate change" MUST NOT BE DISPROVED, so whenever their is a danger of this happening, debate has to be stifled, and refusing to release data prevents proper scientific debate. THIS is what I mean by saying it has become a religion to be followed faithfully, rather than a scientific theory that one day might be found to be wrong.

In any case, climate change or not, the fossil fuels will run out if we keep on burning them at the current rate. We have used in about 2000 years almost our ENTIRE supply, which was supposed to last our species "forever", since these fuels take MILLIONS of years to be created. Almost ALL this use has been in the last couple of HUNDRED years.

The growth of population plays a major part. Even of we to halve our personal emissions, the doubling of the population will mean we are globally emitting just as much as now. By 2050, the population is expected to have doubled, and we are given a similar target for the drastic reduction of our emissions. It won't happen, the reductions per head will be cancelled out by population growth, and even accelerated by the developing world increasing it's per head consumption of fossil fuels.

Rather than trust the politicians, buy a house on a hill (and certainly not one of those built in the flood plain that only get past local planners because the developers have the right "friends in high places"), and well away from the coast. Make sure it is energy efficient, and as self sufficient as possible, such as fitting solar panels having made sure the roof faces south (that's North for you AussieDave) Unless your job requires it, don't buy a house in a place that already has regular water shortages.


PS - This damn spellchecker is trying to KILL ME!!!!!

It keeps wanting to replace CO2 with CARBON MONOXIDE

 

[bernynhel]

Hopw bout if everybody just ACTS like we wanna still be here in 10,000 years and start treating this planet like our HOME and not our worst enemy's toilet?

 

[Dangerous53]

It has been the COLDEST winter in the UK for 31 YEARS.

It was the warmest winter ever on record here in Vancouver, perfect setting for the "Spring Olympics" Last year was brutal though.

I did by a house on a hill, perhaps in a couple of decades I'll have beach front property?

 

[maxd]

Hopw bout if everybody just ACTS like we wanna still be here in 10,000 years and start treating this planet like our HOME and not our worst enemy's toilet?

Excellent suggestion!

 

[skiny]

Maybe if someone replaced all those tshirts and bumper stickers that say "Save the planet" with "Save our asses..."