Global Warming is a lie

[at9]

Let’s face it, the truth about both global warming and the war in Iraq depend solely upon your political point of view. The "is it is, or is it aint" position is driven by the agendas of both the far left (socialists) and the far right (conservative).

Some very wise words here. But never mind global warming, let's take a slightly different view.

There is no doubt that the US has been badly hit by the rise in oil price. This depends heavily on some nasty Arabs and some equally nasty Russians and Venezuelans. (Apologies to any of these who are reading, this isn't aimed at you personally unless you happen to be an oil baron) It is blindingly obvious that reducing reliance on imported oil in a sensible way will be good for the economy and the environment at the same time. Both sides should be supporting it in a big way. Corn to ethanol is a bad solution because the numbers don't add up properly. Nuclear might be a good solution but it's politically sticky. Fusion is still a scientific maybe. Passive solar is a complete no-brainer; why pay for energy that you can get for free. Large scale solar thermal power generation and potovoltaic in the sunbelt states would be superb. Hydrogen may be useful as a means of storing and transporting energy but it's not an easy technology and would need a huge infrastructure. Wind and wave can work but need to be done on a large scale to make an impression.

As a minor(?) bonus, if the US wasn't so worried about oil supplies it could save the odd trillion $$$ and many lives by not having to fight in Iraq.

I'm not making a conservative or a liberal case here, purely a commonsense economic one. The US is extremely well placed here, with lots of land and lots of sun. So are southern Europe, much of Africa and the Middle East. Northern Europe and the UK is not so well off for sun though we've got wind and wave energy.

The point of all this is that there's a darn good economic case for green energy so why aren't we doing it in a big way. Conservatism? Lack of imagination? Pressure from the oil business? Stupidity? The US could easily lead the world in this, just as it does in many high tech fields.

[Bubba136]

at9 posted, in part:

The point of all this is that there's a darn good economic case for green energy so why aren't we doing it in a big way. Conservatism? Lack of imagination? Pressure from the oil business? Stupidity? The US could easily lead the world in this, just as it does in many high tech fields[./quote]

Political will and a public currently unwilling to support any alternative solutions that are already available. The general public will only act once it begans to feel the real "pinch" of high energey prices. As long as their pocketbook can absorbe the shock, grumbling will exist. but action will not be forthcoming.

And, while the US is the world leader in so many areas, why is the rest of the world waitingfor us? After all, the entire European continent is just as vulnerable as is the North American continent.

[at9]

....why is the rest of the world waitingfor us? After all, the entire European continent is just as vulnerable as is the North American continent.

The Danes are probably world leaders in wind power. About 25% of their electricity comes from wind which is about the practical maximum for wind and a stable grid. The French are probably the world leaders in nuclear, with around 80% of their electricity generated that way. Some is exported to the UK via an undesea cable. The UK is possibly world leader in wave power though that's not saying much, seeing as it's hardly got started again. The government sabotaged research into viable schemes (look up Salters Duck) way back in the early 1970s, before the last big oil price shock. The Germans and Scandinavians have building codes that mandate really good thermal efficiency for their houses. Iceland has fortunate geography that gives them more geothermal energy than they can use. They effectively export some of it by having aluminium smelters there. Norway again has fortunate geography and generates the bulk of its electricity from hydro. Some may be exported to the UK soon via undersea cable.

The US and Israel, possibly others, are starting to make significant investment in solar thermal electricity but it's painfully slow.

[hoverfly]

If you plan on doing that, please wait until after I depart.

All we really need is a few volcanoes having major eruptions. Or continue spewing small particulate matter in the air.

[yozz]

All we really need is a few volcanoes having major eruptions. Or continue spewing small particulate matter in the air.

How about a few underground nuclear tests in Yellowstone national park to set off

the supervolcano. That will really cool down the planet. Estimates are by more than

10 degrees centigrade. There are of course a few side effects, like wiping out the

whole of the USA, but on the positive side: that will reduce oil consumption a lot.

And the people in North Africa may experience a white Christmas.

[Dr. Shoe]

Let’s face it, the truth about both global warming and the war in Iraq depend solely upon your political point of view. The "is it is, or is it aint" position is driven by the agendas of both the far left (socialists) and the far right (conservative).

There are both truths and falsehoods on both sides. Each side "spins" available information to support achievement of their objectives. While I don't think there has been enough "facts" uncovered to prove beyond a doubt that global warming is occurring to the degree the ALGORE lovers would lead you to believe, there is enough truth there to cause us to consider its effect. Likewise, the degree of success in Iaraq isn't as great as the supporters of the war in Iraq want you to accept, there has been a great deal of success in that country.

What is needed is an "unbiased" dialogue to examine all of the information available on both issues. At this time in history, however, strident expression of views is the norm with a shoot first and ask questions later the result.

As has been pointed out in several of the posting in this thread, discussion of either issue, here isn’t productive. Or, is the discussion of other issue s, like terrorism, political systems, religion, etc., because our membership is do diverse and widely located across the entire globe our opinions are bound to be culturally, regionally and politically divergent to such an extent as to make total agreement impossible .

The truth about all of these issues will surface with the passing of time. And, perhaps in the next millennium, humanity (if it is still on earth) will look back on our successes and/or failures and will cause historians of the "next generation" to say.....what a bunch of dummies and or what a bunch of intelligent people, lived back then.

What I actually meant was that there were people on this forum who were predicting that oil prices would fall, that weapons of mass destruction and Al Qaeda training camps will be found. There were also people who were saying that the Iraqis would fight coalition forces to a standstill with massive losses on both sides and that Iran and Syria would join in. The historical FACTS are somewhere inbetween and I can't help but feel that the same is true about global warming.

[Dr. Shoe]

True that politics uses the climate change momentum for their own good, but not true in the sense that my (or many people's) opinion on climate follows my political alignment. I'm very liberal (in the traditional meaning, not in the US political one) in my views on economics and about midway otherwise. Not compatible with either the Democratic or Republican message in the US, but nevertheless I'm strongly pro-economy. That is supposed to mean for climate change: "it doesn't exist".

And my opinion is: "There is a fair chance it exists. Let's tackle it for the other reasons and take the climate change risk benefit as a bonus".

Kind of turning a liability into an asset, the carbon free economic model that is. And then we start a company around that and Black Gold 2.0 is among us!

Woah! Now we're confusing two totally different concepts. "Climate Change" is different from Global Warming. Climate change is all about climates in individual regions CHANGING, in other words a Maritime climate becoming a Continental one or a tropical climate become a temperate or Sub-tropical one for example.

Though it is true that a major elevation of the Mean Global Temperature will have the EFFECT of increasing temperate temperatures to levels currently associated with tropical regions, they will still be located in temperate regions. It's just that the benchmark temperature that qualifies a tropical climate will be higher. The only way that climates will changing is if the planet's tilt alters. This does happen at a rate of about 0.003deg per decade which means that climates will change with or without Global Warming.

[tallguyinheels]

http://acuf.org/issues/issue62/060624cul.asp

[Dr. Shoe]

I think I mentioned that before... this is exactly why I contend that you cannot predict the direction that the MGT is going to go...

However, this could just be a blip or it could be that MGT has reached its peak we just don't know

[Arctic]

Woah! Now we're confusing two totally different concepts. "Climate Change" is different from Global Warming.

I'm not challenging that but from economic perspective it can be considered equivalent in this context.

The two terms are also used interchangibly in all but the most specialized media.

PS I didn't have time to respond to one of your posts below, things are going a little too hard here.

That said, I think we don't differ so much in opinion. I am not qualified enough to assess the global warming evidence myself, but with growing consensus of people in the know that we are dealing with a man-made issue here makes me take the position that we now should make the move to the next technological generation and absorb the cost.

And to others about why it hasn't been done before: because - as mentioned earlier - the cost of extracting oil is approaching zero, and will always be cheaper than producing it or a comparable product. Oil companies have a duty towards their shareholders, and that does not involve daydreaming about what some day might be (unless it costs nothing or is a PR exercise).

[Bubba136]

I am not qualified enough to assess the global warming evidence myself, but with growing consensus of people in the know that we are dealing with a man-made issue here makes me take the position that we now should make the move to the next technological generation and absorb the cost.

The science of global warming/tempreture chang is just that. A science. Theories in science are postulated and then worked through by "scientists" until they arrive at either a positive, proven conclusion or a negative realization that the theory isn't true.

Results of scientific theories are never, ever, never-ever proven by "consensus" and just because they're accepted as true by "consensus" doesn't prove them to be true."

And, anyone that believes a scientific theory is true because a consensus was reached by a bunch of egg headed, ivory tower, snippy nosed, intellictually superior acting guys, with a political ax to grind and socialist agenda to implement, that have been sitting around smoking cigars and drinking singal malt whisky, is just as wacky as the guys reaching the "consensus."

Now, if you really believe that the "consensus" reached by such a group is factual, there is no hope for you and you deserve to be associated with such a group.

Besides anyone that has half a brain already knows it's all George Bush's fault.

[Arctic]

If we start challenging the contribution of science to the improved living standard we all enjoy today (vs. any moment in the past) then I think indeed we have no point discussing this further. Science doesn't work by being always right. It makes three steps forward and two steps back. Scientists publish their theories to the public domain for the specific purpose of have them tested by their peers and rivals. So undermining the credibility of the science process by pointing out their inability to be correct at all times is pointless, as it is supposed to work this way. Even if the scientific community were made up of a bunch of drunken monkeys, when their ideas allow for the greatest wealth creation opportunity since the invention of electricity, I think we should take it, no? Are there that many ideas at hand that create millions of jobs? Last one I could think of was the internet in mid nineties. Besides that, we have only one planet and if the chance that we are doing irreversible damage to it is, say, 1 out of 10, isn't that a good enough reason to consider our options? You being a skeptic, would you put the number at 1 out of 100? Take again the seatbelt analogy: how many thousands of car trips does even the unluckiest man take before he needs them? Say it is one out of 10000. Do you feel like seatbelts, or airbags, or rolling cages for that matter are a waste of time and energy? I can see the ads already ... John Doe, Des Moines, Iowa testifies: "I have driven Buicks for 40 years and never needed any seatbelts and I am not going to need them now... they are a scam, I tell ya!..." Serious, if outfitting a car with thousands of Euros worth of safety features for the odd chance you smack into something makes any sense, then I say that doing a similar thing for the only ecosystem we have is only smart. And manufacturing seatbelts and airbags is big business supporting tens of thousands of jobs. Even though the vast majority of seatbelts and airbags gets never any use.

[yozz]

The science of global warming/tempreture chang is just that. A science. Theories in science are postulated and then worked through by "scientists" until they arrive at either a positive, proven conclusion or a negative realization that the theory isn't true.

Results of scientific theories are never, ever, never-ever proven by "consensus" and just because they're accepted as true by "consensus" doesn't prove them to be true."

And, anyone that believes a scientific theory is true because a consensus was reached by a bunch of egg headed, ivory tower, snippy nosed, intellictually superior acting guys, with a political ax to grind and socialist agenda to implement, that have been sitting around smoking cigars and drinking singal malt whisky, is just as wacky as the guys reaching the "consensus."

Please Bubba calm down. It is very nice to give the Hollywood version of scientists,

but the people I know in that field are not at all like that. They are responsible beings

who will tell you exactly what is fact and what isn't, they don't smoke, and in the

street will look like normal people (don't know any wearing heels).

Fact: CO2 goes up.

Fact: statistical extrapolation shows temperature going up.

Fact: Human consumption of fossil fuels is skyrocketing.

Question: are they correlated? It could be. But one has to be careful with that. Years

ago I saw two graphs: One of the sunspot activity and one of the number of GOP

senators in the USA. Perfect match.

Most scientists don't have an axe to grind. They enjoy the research by itself.

Nearly 100% of things done in climate physics cannot be proven. It can only be made

plausable. And indeed, it is not democracy. The majority can be wrong. But that doesn't

mean that if you are one of the few saying something different, you must be right.

You must have some pretty good arguments (or even theorems and proofs) to

overcome such odds.

With the proof of climate change and the possibility of human involvement, there is

no proof that would hold up in the equivalent of a criminal court. But try to compare

it with the following: If somebody is accused of being a serial murderer and the

prosecution thinks they had a good case against this person but the jury claims

the proof isn't beyond a reasonable doubt and hence he is acquitted, would you

send your daugther on a vacation with this innocent person?

The problem is, we have only one earth, we suspect a correllation, we think that if

we wait too long we may not be able to do anything. What is the wise thing to do?

This is why scientists say we have to change our habits. The problem is that then

politicians try to use this for personal purposes and industry tries to play with our

sentiments to get our money. But because they do that and we see that, that doesn't

mean the scientists are wrong.

<step down from soap box>

<whisky (also single malt) and smoke give me a migraine headache>

<I wonder where my social agenda is. Oh, I forgot, I don't have one.

Gotta write that down somewhere>

Y.

[Bubba136]

In my post, I didn't challenge their "facts." What I said was that true science isn't proven by "consensus." The group reaching "consensus can say we believe this is what happens. But, to come out and speak of their theories as factually, proven science isn't correct. It is blaitently misleading and the people making the statements either have a social agenda to achieve or want their 15 minutes of fame. Like I also said, if you believe true sicence is proven by "consensus, then, you deserve to be associated in the same group of people.

[Arctic]

In my post, I didn't challenge their "facts." What I said was that true science isn't proven by "consensus." The group reaching "consensus can say we believe this is what happens. But, to come out and speak of their theories as factually, proven science isn't correct. It is blaitently misleading and the people making the statements either have a social agenda to achieve or want their 15 minutes of fame.

It seems this is getting nowhere so this is my last comment to you:

1) I don't think any scientist of decent caliber has stated that he knows for a fact that global warming is caused by humans. As a matter of fact, the most quoted scientific statement from the world's leading climate body (the IPCC, that is) is "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate"

And whether or not it is real is not my point (wasn't that clear yet?). Do you understand probability? Well, whatever.

2) Science is driven by consensus - sorry. Today there is consensus that smoking kills. There is consensus that too much fat and lack of exercise is unhealthy. There is consensus that the big bang occurred 14 something billion years ago. That doesn't mean there has been consensus all the way, but at some point in time, when the debating slows, the majority of scientists (although not all) adhere to a certain view (as those above).

And that there will always be people challenging those views is just essential to ensure that we get closest possible to the "truth". And if new views appear, things get revised.

Like I also said, if you believe true sicence is proven by "consensus, then, you deserve to be associated in the same group of people.

3) A pretty strong statement from somebody who doesn't have the faintest clue who I am, what I do, what I know, what I have on my record. I have to say that I would not have expected this from you..! Too bad for you I am not easily insulted - try harder. Or, don't, because it would be waste of bandwith which could be used by someone for pirating B-movies instead.

[Dr. Shoe]

1) I don't think any scientist of decent caliber has stated that he knows for a fact that global warming is caused by humans. As a matter of fact, the most quoted scientific statement from the world's leading climate body (the IPCC, that is) is "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate"

It is perfectly possible for the drinks industry to produce "evidence" that alcohol is good for you. It is also possible for the anti-drinks lobby to produce "evidence" that alcohol is bad for you. A government run body funded by organisations with a vested interest in man-made global warming is bound to find this evidence.

2) Science is driven by consensus - sorry. Today there is consensus that smoking kills. There is consensus that too much fat and lack of exercise is unhealthy. There is consensus that the big bang occurred 14 something billion years ago. That doesn't mean there has been consensus all the way, but at some point in time, when the debating slows, the majority of scientists (although not all) adhere to a certain view (as those above).

No it isn't. There once was a "consensus" that the Earth was flat but scientific fact has proven that it is not.

Science is driven by hypothesis based on evidence to hand. This is then proven by testing and so becomes a theory.

And that there will always be people challenging those views is just essential to ensure that we get closest possible to the "truth". And if new views appear, things get revised.

[Dr. Shoe]

That's not true either. Believing the world is flat is a modern thing (another topic). People have been travelling around the world for thousands of years and knew it to be spherical.

That's exactly my point. However, anyone who said that it wasn't flat was burnt at the stake or pilloried at the very least.

[tightsnheels]

Let's take a differant hypothosis for a moment:

No one likes terrorism. (Fact?) It appears that most terrorist organizations come from major oil producing nations. So if we all rapidly convert to alternative energy sources we could effectivly cut off funds to terrorists. (Guess. However everybody remember this is a theory not a political stance.)

Now by extrapolation we eliminate (Nearly) the CO2 emmisions from fossil fuels and we eliminate terrorism. Sounds good to me do we have a consensous?

Also back to the movie (as Richie has said in another post) when dinosours roamed the earth it was a LOT hotter why? Because primordial earth and jurasic earth had a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere. What happened to all the CO2? Plants sequestered the excess gas within themselves then were for whatever reason trapped within the earths crust where they turned into coal etc. Oil is actually from a differant source but same overall effect. So when we burn these fuels we are releasing that sequestered CO2 back into the atmosphere. So naturally if it made it HOT before it will make it HOT again. The trick is to stop now before things get even worse and we need a major cosmic collision to cool things back off again.

By the way guys if anyone is curious I am a certified Heating and Cooling technician so warming, cooling, use of gases and the physics involved are just part of my job.

T&H

[roniheels]

I am by no means an expert on global warming. I do try to keep up on all of the theories and have talked to a friend of mine who is a physisist who said that the the amount of water from the glaciers is being monitored daily. This is one theory behind sudden inclement weather after the glacier water mixes with the ocean's salt water. Our planet has gone through so many climate evolutions, some say the next ice age is right around the corner. But, how long is right around the corner? But like I said, I'm no expert and I'm no scientist. What Roniheels is to physics, is what David Letterman is to astronomy.

[Arctic]

It is perfectly possible for the drinks industry to produce "evidence" that alcohol is good for you. It is also possible for the anti-drinks lobby to produce "evidence" that alcohol is bad for you.

As the tobacco companies did for a long time.

No it isn't. There once was a "consensus" that the Earth was flat but scientific fact has proven that it is not.

That is how it is supposed to work. Despite that we are talking here about hundreds of years ago, when there wasn't really such a thing as science, but more something like alchemy, the logic still stands.

Science works assumptions, and science corrects them as we go along. In the dark ages, a flat world was (perhaps) the best reflection of the situation. But that was adjusted to the more accurate model of a globe as soon as there was enough observational data and better theories to support it.

Point is that science, with all its shortcomings, has nevertheless produced the current insight into the mechanics of solar system and the rest of the universe.

Science is driven by hypothesis based on evidence to hand. This is then proven by testing and so becomes a theory.

More so, science can be driven by hypothesis based on the source of funding, political alignment or religious motives. But I believe that through debate and peer review, eventually, an accurate model will emerge that resembles the truth.

The mighty tobacco lobby could not prevent the prevailing of the message that smoking is bad.

In the same way I think the odds are good that we will have a pretty accurate insight in the workings of the climate by 2050, perhaps even earlier.

[Dr. Shoe]

As the tobacco companies did for a long time.

That is how it is supposed to work. Despite that we are talking here about hundreds of years ago, when there wasn't really such a thing as science, but more something like alchemy, the logic still stands.

Science works assumptions, and science corrects them as we go along. In the dark ages, a flat world was (perhaps) the best reflection of the situation. But that was adjusted to the more accurate model of a globe as soon as there was enough observational data and better theories to support it.

Point is that science, with all its shortcomings, has nevertheless produced the current insight into the mechanics of solar system and the rest of the universe.

More so, science can be driven by hypothesis based on the source of funding, political alignment or religious motives. But I believe that through debate and peer review, eventually, an accurate model will emerge that resembles the truth.

The mighty tobacco lobby could not prevent the prevailing of the message that smoking is bad.

In the same way I think the odds are good that we will have a pretty accurate insight in the workings of the climate by 2050, perhaps even earlier.

So if you agree that "science" can be flawed and that "consesus" doesn't mean fact why do you so fervently believe that global warming is man-made?

[Arctic]

So if you agree that "science" can be flawed and that "consesus" doesn't mean fact

Absolutely correct.

why do you so fervently believe that global warming is man-made?

I'm afraid you did not read my posts...!! I have said now several times that:

Issue number 1 - is Global warming caused by man?

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

1) Global warming is happening, that luckily nobody disagrees about. Is it the start of runaway effect? Start of a new ice age? I don't know.

2) There is a *chance*, I do not know how big, that it is caused by man. Obviously, there is also a chance that it is not man made.

Issue number 2 - should we do something before we have certainty?

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

1) As there is a risk it is man-made, and there is a risk we are causing irreversible damage, I suggest taking the precautionary path if it comes at little cost. There are generations coming after us. I have kids.

2) As we need new business opportunities to keep the people of the 21st century employed, this is about as great as they come. Why not kickstart a whole industry of guaranteed non-climate impacting energy generation and distribution?

Issue number 3 - science produces errors but still is valuable

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

1) science is flawed and it doesn't produce truth - although it is its ultimate goal. However, it is capable of advancing our knowledge of the world around us by having a system in place that encourages bold thinking, that DOES produce errors - all the time, but also corrects most as we go along. Science provides most of all insight, which is essential to be able to do any kind of engineering.

2) science works like a toddler learning to walk: by falling and getting up. If a toddler would have to be able to acquire walking skills before he would attempt walking, he would never learn.

So... before someone puts words in my mouth (like "that I fervently believe"): my opinions

1) caused by man: I do not know, I think odds are about 1/4-1/3

2) should we do something: YES. For two reasons. See above.

3) does science work: YES. But it doesn't provide universal truth.

If this doesn't get my point across then I don't know what will.

[at9]

Simplifying Arctic's notes:

All scientific knowledge is provisional and can be overturned in the light of new evidence.

This is a huge strength because science is a self correcting system which may make mistakes but can also correct them. Unfortunately it is often seen as a weakness, especially by those who claim with certainty to know the absolute truth. Usually by citing a deity of some kind. However not believing in (say) quantum mechanics doesn't stop all the transistors in the chips in your PC stop working. Science is also not appropriate for enquiring into ideas such as beauty and love though I'm sure some will disagree.

Actually overturn is a bit of strong term in many cases. For example Newtonian mechanics are a very good description of how things move. Good enough to send men to the moon. Einstein demonstrated that Newtonian mechanics are not the whole story, strictly speaking they are wrong. But still very useful and good enough for most purposes. One day somebody may find errors in relativity and the new knowledge will be incorporated into science once there is enough evidence.

Where does global warming fit into all of this? There are plenty of people with plenty of axes to grind on all sides of the argument. Much of Florida (Norfolk for us in the UK) may disappear under water dues to man's action or due to natural causes. It hardly matters what is the cause if you are paddling a boat around the remains of your house. The business opportunities are huge; there need be no conflict between good business and the green agenda. It is unfortunate that government instinct is usually to raise taxes as a response. That has little to do with science.

Much closer to home (for me) is London. There is a wonderful bit of engineering called the Thames Barrier that has saved London from flooding on a number of occasions. The trend is for it needing to be closed more and more often as the years pass. By 2030 it's quite likely that rise in sea level together with a storm surge will overtop the barrier and cause havoc in central London. Manhattan is also vulnerable. This sort of incident will make 9/11 and 7/7 look quite minor. Neither Londoners nor New Yorkers want to go swimming in the streets.

I'm not claiming that going green will prevent any of these disasters. But it might. Going green should be profitable and improve our standard of living. That's good enough for me, even without the possible environmental benefits.

[Arctic]

Simplifying Arctic's notes:

All scientific knowledge is provisional and can be overturned in the light of new evidence.

This is a huge strength because science is a self correcting system which may make mistakes but can also correct them.

That catches it very well.

For example Newtonian mechanics are a very good description of how things move. Good enough to send men to the moon. Einstein demonstrated that Newtonian mechanics are not the whole story, strictly speaking they are wrong. But still very useful and good enough for most purposes.

This is a useful illustration, because after that insight we actually continued to use the Newtonian system for all engineering applications with the sole exception of the GPS system (and now Galileo).

I'm not claiming that going green will prevent any of these disasters. But it might. Going green should be profitable and improve our standard of living. That's good enough for me, even without the possible environmental benefits.

Get rich saving the planet. Maybe someone should con a term for it, like ecocapitalism.

[JNR]

While I am one of those that agree that human activity does play a microscopic role in altering the climate of certain geographical locatons on earth (large cities and population centers, etc.), I don't believe that "global warming" per se, is caused by man. I believe that 99.99999999999% of climate change is occuring naturally. Rotation of the earth, changes to the earth's axis and affects of the sun on the earth's surface.

How about volcanic activity. If man has such a great influence on global warming, climate change, etc., how are proponents of global warming planning to handle volcanic eruptions and activity? After all, one single major valcanic erepution spews a larger volume of gasses into the earth's atmosphere than all of man's "harmful" discharges ever have. And, guess what? The earth has managed to survive in pretty darn good shape.

I am afraid, Arctic and at9, I strongly believe that man's activity doesn't cause significant global warming as you believe they do. And I don't believe any arguement me, Bubba136, or anyone else, can change your mind. And, I doubt that you will change his (or my) mind with your arguements, either. Sorry, but I just don't believe it.

USA - Kilauea volcano ( Hawaian islands)

April 9th , 2008

As of 8th of April, HVO informed that due to an elevated sulfur dioxide levels from Kilauea volcano and a change in wind direction Tuesday forced 2,000 people to leave Hawaii Volcanoes National Park on the Big Island. The park was closed, and those at campgrounds, the Kilauea Military Camp as well as the guests and staff at the 42-room Volcano House hotel were told to leave. As of 6th of April, several of the HVO data sources suggested that molten lava may reside at shallow depth within the new vent and may be rising very slowly in the conduit.

[Arctic]

I am afraid, Arctic and at9, I strongly believe that man's activity doesn't cause significant global warming as you believe they do.

Again: I have said that the odds that man is to blame is in my opinion 1/4 to 1/3. That means that I don't strongly believe that man is to blame, quite the opposite. Did you read my posts?

And again: It doesn't matter if it is happening or not. It doesn't matter who is to blame. What do we do going forward? Shouldn't we also plan for the unlikely scenario since so much is at stake? And get rich doing so?

[yozz]

How about volcanic activity. If man has such a great influence on global warming, climate change, etc., how are proponents of global warming planning to handle volcanic eruptions and activity? After all, one single major valcanic erepution spews a larger volume of gasses into the earth's atmosphere than all of man's "harmful" discharges ever have. And, guess what? The earth has managed to survive in pretty darn good shape.

I am afraid, Arctic and at9, I strongly believe that man's activity doesn't cause significant global warming as you believe they do. And I don't believe any arguement me, Bubba136, or anyone else, can change your mind. And, I doubt that you will change his (or my) mind with your arguements, either. Sorry, but I just don't believe it.

I am sorry, but I have to side with at9 and Arctic.

The fact that some industries have abused 'scientific' reports to 'prove' that smoking

isn't healthy, doesn't have anything to do with the research on climates. To say that

'if industry can twiddle things with such reports on smoking where research can

easily be manipulated

this will undoubtly be the case also with climate research' is comparing apples and

oranges. The data and the methods are completely public in climate research.

It is open to peer review where people often try their best to criticize each other.

And as said before: it isn't said (except for maybe by some journalists who don't

understand it) that it has been proven. It is said that it may well be the case.

The fact that governments and companies then abuse this to get more money out of

our pockets should not change the 'may well be the case' into 'cannot be the case'.

About the volcanoes. This is a very bad example. Time and again volcanoes have

heavily damaged the environment and it took the earth many years to recover.

Evidence is that at least once the total human population may have been reduced

to at most a few thousand. Probably very many species have been brought to

extinction. Volcanic eruptions like in the beginning of the 19-th century in Indonesia

have killed people worldwide by the hundred thousands by failed harvests etc.

I have read that in the sixth century the population of Byzantium was reduced in a few

years from a quarter million to a small fraction of that. Modern research shows that

it was probably due to a big volcanic eruption somewhere in the world. Lack of food

must have killed many. With the current world population, even a small fraction of that

kind of effect will kill many.

As people we do have a strong effect on the environment. Have a look at the

previously thought inexhaustible oceans. Many types of fish population are in danger.

The only healthy cod fish population near Europe is in the arctic ocean and diminishing

rapidly because of criminal fishing practices. We almost wiped out the whales.

Tuna becomes a serious problem. etc. etc.

The polution of the oceans is also becoming a serious problem. And what is still clean

will become polluted soon enough.

The tropical forests are disappearing rapidly. Look at what happens every year in

South-East Asia when people in Sumatra and Borneo burn down parts of the forests

and the whole of the region has trouble breathing. And next we have started to chop

down the forests in Siberia which recover even slower.

The idea that we are not influencing the climate is much harder to believe than the

opposite. It is just that many people don't want to change their way of living and

hence try to find arguments (rationalizations) to not do anything. And because our

governments and companies so often cheat us, it is easiest to say that this is the

case again.

And I think that we should use good arguments rather than the 'I believe'. Once you

start about believing, rational discussion stops. We may as well not have this

discussion at all.

Y.

[at9]

The planet itself won't mind one little bit what we do to it. It will survive just fine. Whether through our own actions or natural causes it may shake us humans off like a bad case of fleas.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JNR

I am afraid, Arctic and at9, I strongly believe that man's activity doesn't cause significant global warming as you believe they do.

Please read my contributions more carefully. I have never said that I strongly believe that man is to blame for global warming. Even if it turns out that we are entirely blameless it's still not a bad idea to harness the power of business in aid of the environment. What kind of crazy civilisation digs mucky black coal out of the ground and burns it to release all sorts of horrible stuff when the sun is providing lots of energy for free if we are clever enough to harvest it? What kind of crazy civilisation leaves itself at the mercy of all sorts of dubious regimes to satisfy a craving for oil?

[Guy N. Heels]

The planet itself won't mind one little bit what we do to it. It will survive just fine. Whether through our own actions or natural causes it may shake us humans off like a bad case of fleas.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JNR

I am afraid, Arctic and at9, I strongly believe that man's activity doesn't cause significant global warming as you believe they do.

Please read my contributions more carefully. I have never said that I strongly believe that man is to blame for global warming. Even if it turns out that we are entirely blameless it's still not a bad idea to harness the power of business in aid of the environment. What kind of crazy civilisation digs mucky black coal out of the ground and burns it to release all sorts of horrible stuff when the sun is providing lots of energy for free if we are clever enough to harvest it? What kind of crazy civilisation leaves itself at the mercy of all sorts of dubious regimes to satisfy a craving for oil?

I really love that cartoon depicting OIL as another high-priced prostitute. The wind is free, sunshine is free, tidal motions and river motions are free, so why are we paying an arm & a leg for muck we can't drink? The technology of our automobiles was obsolete 50 years ago! Whaasamatter, somebody asleep at the switch? We should have totally electric cars and anti-grav drives by now.

[Dr. Shoe]

The big problem is infrastructure. We could have had electric cars years ago, maybe 50 or more years ago, if there were places to plug them in and charge them. There would have to be charging points on every road and enough of them as it takes hours rather than minutes to charge a car. At the moment we have fuel pumps which are simple and convenient to use, we fill our car up in about a minute. Imagine what life would be like if we had to spend around an hour waiting for our car to charge? In practice there would be hundreds of charging bays in carparks so you just plug your car in and leave it while you do your shopping... But that costs enormous amounts of money. Just providing a dozen or so places adds a lot onto the cost of the development, costs running into 7 figures.