Al Gore = pwned?

[NeoV]

"The amount of CO2 we pump into the environment pales in comparison to the amount that a single volcano can put out in a year. It would seem that we are producing a statistically insignificant amount of greenhouse gasses. "

WTH are you talking about? Let me guess, this is some anti-GW talking point somewhere?

How about this "The fact of the matter is, the sum total of all CO2 out-gassed by active volcanoes amounts to about 1/150th of anthropogenic emissions."

If you are going to argue against GW, at least use an somewhat intelligent talking point!

Pacfan - the whole 'the sun is causing this' stuff has been debunked many times as well - stop it.

Just a sample of that discussion "The best way to detect changes in the output of the sun -- versus changes in the radiation reaching the earth's surface through clouds, smoke, dust, or pollution -- is by taking readings from space.

This is a job for satellites. According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978, when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has not changed."

Can we stop with the 'sun is causing this stuff' now?

Also - the recent trend is not a 'cooling one', stop the non-sense.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Exactly. The Sun is burning hotter, the last 60 years according to THIS article, and many others

What....does anyone truly think that makes no difference?

Of course it does but that is not an arguement against there also being other influences on the climate... it's a clear logical fallacy to claim otherwise...

If you want the other side of that arguement - please explain how you can put billions of tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere and not affect the temperature? You can't. It's a recognised effect.

Oh but the sun is so much more powerful you say - our few billions tons of gas and pitifully thin atmosphere can't possibly have as much effect as the sun - well explain why Venus is hotter than Mercury then, despite being further away from said sun?

 

[smokeyjoe]

Originally posted by: Leafy

Originally posted by: smokeyjoe

Originally posted by: Leafy
Disprove this graph.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...erature_Comparison.png

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckit...search/APEC-hockey.pdf

Done.

First of all, linking to a PDF that is 18 pages long is not a valid argument. This isn't the legal realm, you don't just dump work on other people and make them read it all. Cite specific points. I could just as easily dump a 100 page paper on you and make you read the whole thing.

All I see in that is an economics [teacher/student/???] complaining about how the data the IPCC gathered was gathered under questionable methodology. The main argument seems to be that we're just coming out of a ice age, so therefore it should be heating up.

While that's valid to an extent, the science behind greenhouse gasses has been proven. Unless you want to disprove it, of course. I'd be open to any references that disprove radiation scattering. More heat-trapping CO2 = more heat. Even if we don't see the effects, we will.

well, linking a graph from wikipedia is not really very sound.. I made a graph too with no references on it! And I'm sorry if you don't want to read the reports .. they are interesting, you should when you have some spare time.

It is still debatable if CO2 is the cause of temperature increase or a result; and the "perceived effect" is debatable as well.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy....cientific_briefing.pdf

Also, where does methane fit into the equation?

http://www.rsc.org/chemistrywo...6/January/12010601.asp

To be clear, I am not saying that our pollution is not having an affect on the environment.. I am saying that the issue is far from settled and has been highly politicized.

I am for reducing particulate matter in the air, against dumping chemicals in ponds and other shit like that.. the WAY the politicians are going about getting "green" is ridiculous. A cap-and-trade system basically creates a commodity market for carbon and a way for companies to make a profit. People like Al Gore stand to make a lot of money off of this system.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: NeoV

Pacfan - the whole 'the sun is causing this' stuff has been debunked many times as well - stop it.

EVERYTHING has been debunked many times. Including man-made GW, the sun's effect, EVERYTHING.

And it's all still being debated/debunked.


That is exactly why I don't buy into the man-made GW argument. I don't completely discount it, either, but to say that the argument is over and it's an absolutely fact that isn't debatable....is totally false.

It is NOT an absolute fact, and it is VERY MUCH still being debated. A fact would be something like "the earth is not flat". "Yesterday was January 29". "Obama is the President". All facts, not even remotely debatable.

GW is not in that category.

The real fact is, that there is a lot of money potentially to be made off of GW. That potential is plenty reason to cause facts and logic to be twisted to help further the "cause".

Anyone who doubts that such forces are already in play is blind, regardless of what the real facts are.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Exactly. The Sun is burning hotter, the last 60 years according to THIS article, and many others

What....does anyone truly think that makes no difference?

Of course it does but that is not an arguement against there also being other influences on the climate... it's a clear logical fallacy to claim otherwise...

If you want the other side of that arguement - please explain how you can put billions of tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere and not affect the temperature? You can't. It's a recognised effect.

Oh but the sun is so much more powerful you say - our few billions tons of gas and pitifully thin atmosphere can't possibly have as much effect as the sun - well explain why Venus is hotter than Mercury then, despite being further away from said sun?

You can conveniently pick and choose your arguments as you claim I have.

All I said was, "does anyone truly think that makes no difference". Where did I say "it's the only thing that's causing GW"?????

I'm open to some real proof of GW and man's effect on it, but I am NOT open to saying that man is the ONLY thing that's causing it. Man is not the only reason, and that IS a fact. And I think it's debatable that man is even a big reason.

 

[SAWYER]

THALL SHALL NOT QUESTION THY GORACLE

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Exactly. The Sun is burning hotter, the last 60 years according to THIS article, and many others

What....does anyone truly think that makes no difference?

Of course it does but that is not an arguement against there also being other influences on the climate... it's a clear logical fallacy to claim otherwise...

If you want the other side of that arguement - please explain how you can put billions of tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere and not affect the temperature? You can't. It's a recognised effect.

Oh but the sun is so much more powerful you say - our few billions tons of gas and pitifully thin atmosphere can't possibly have as much effect as the sun - well explain why Venus is hotter than Mercury then, despite being further away from said sun?

You can conveniently pick and choose your arguments as you claim I have.

All I said was, "does anyone truly think that makes no difference". Where did I say "it's the only thing that's causing GW"?????

I'm open to some real proof of GW and man's effect on it, but I am NOT open to saying that man is the ONLY thing that's causing it. Man is not the only reason, and that IS a fact. And I think it's debatable that man is even a big reason.

Oh - I just assumed you thought it was an arguement against all man made warming because you seemed to be disagreeing with people who agree with the climate scientists.

Like this:

That is exactly why I don't buy into the man-made GW argument.

But from what you say above you now appear to be in complete agreement with the climate scientists and myself that man made warming does exist. You won't find anyone claiming the sun does not affect the temperature of the earth... find me someone saying that and I'll show you someone who is not a scientist...

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
The real fact is, that there is a lot of money potentially to be made off of GW. That potential is plenty reason to cause facts and logic to be twisted to help further the "cause".

Do you think there is more money to be made from pushing green policy, or from supporting the oil companies?...

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Exactly. The Sun is burning hotter, the last 60 years according to THIS article, and many others

What....does anyone truly think that makes no difference?

Of course it does but that is not an arguement against there also being other influences on the climate... it's a clear logical fallacy to claim otherwise...

If you want the other side of that arguement - please explain how you can put billions of tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere and not affect the temperature? You can't. It's a recognised effect.

Oh but the sun is so much more powerful you say - our few billions tons of gas and pitifully thin atmosphere can't possibly have as much effect as the sun - well explain why Venus is hotter than Mercury then, despite being further away from said sun?

You can conveniently pick and choose your arguments as you claim I have.

All I said was, "does anyone truly think that makes no difference". Where did I say "it's the only thing that's causing GW"?????

I'm open to some real proof of GW and man's effect on it, but I am NOT open to saying that man is the ONLY thing that's causing it. Man is not the only reason, and that IS a fact. And I think it's debatable that man is even a big reason.

Oh - I just assumed you thought it was an arguement against all man made warming because you seemed to be disagreeing with people who agree with the climate scientists.

Like this:

That is exactly why I don't buy into the man-made GW argument.

But from what you say above you now appear to be in complete agreement with the climate scientists and myself that man made warming does exist. You won't find anyone claiming the sun does not affect the temperature of the earth... find me someone saying that and I'll show you someone who is not a scientist...

I don't see how you can infer that from what you quoted above, but:

I don't buy into the claim that man alone is responsible, and can reverse, GW.

I do disagree with lots of people who agree with climate scientists. Even lots of climate scientists disagree with pro-GW climate scientists. Which is exactly why I refuse to jump on the bandwagon.....there's too much evidence that GW is NOT caused by man. Are we making it worse? Debatable. Are we even affecting it? Debatable. If we are affecting it, by how much? VERY debatable.

So, no, I'm not in complete agreement that there is man-made GW. As I said before, I am open to the possibility, but not at the cost of refusing to consider other causes, which is exactly what most of the pro-GW crowd seems to want. So, I am leaning towards not believing that man is a major cause of GW, might not even be affecting it much at all.
The planet has been much warmer, and it's been much colder.
I'm leaning towards this being more of the "latest fad", as opposed to a real crisis. Just like the "new ice age" was when I was teenager.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
The real fact is, that there is a lot of money potentially to be made off of GW. That potential is plenty reason to cause facts and logic to be twisted to help further the "cause".

Do you think there is more money to be made from pushing green policy, or from supporting the oil companies?...

Absolutely. It's brand new (relatively speaking) technology. There's still plenty of money in oil, to be sure, but if the whole planet jumped feet-first into GW and "green" technology, it'd likely dwarf what oil is now.

 

[smokeyjoe]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
The real fact is, that there is a lot of money potentially to be made off of GW. That potential is plenty reason to cause facts and logic to be twisted to help further the "cause".

Do you think there is more money to be made from pushing green policy, or from supporting the oil companies?...

It's not about which is more profitable, it's about who is profiting. Both industries have, for the most part, separate interests and they are not necessarily the same groups of people.

Regardless of which makes more money, the "green" industry is fairly new with much economic potential.

edit: it seems I just reiterated what Pac just said :beer:

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Exactly. The Sun is burning hotter, the last 60 years according to THIS article, and many others

What....does anyone truly think that makes no difference?

Of course it does but that is not an arguement against there also being other influences on the climate... it's a clear logical fallacy to claim otherwise...

If you want the other side of that arguement - please explain how you can put billions of tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere and not affect the temperature? You can't. It's a recognised effect.

Oh but the sun is so much more powerful you say - our few billions tons of gas and pitifully thin atmosphere can't possibly have as much effect as the sun - well explain why Venus is hotter than Mercury then, despite being further away from said sun?

You can conveniently pick and choose your arguments as you claim I have.

All I said was, "does anyone truly think that makes no difference". Where did I say "it's the only thing that's causing GW"?????

I'm open to some real proof of GW and man's effect on it, but I am NOT open to saying that man is the ONLY thing that's causing it. Man is not the only reason, and that IS a fact. And I think it's debatable that man is even a big reason.

Oh - I just assumed you thought it was an arguement against all man made warming because you seemed to be disagreeing with people who agree with the climate scientists.

Like this:

That is exactly why I don't buy into the man-made GW argument.

But from what you say above you now appear to be in complete agreement with the climate scientists and myself that man made warming does exist. You won't find anyone claiming the sun does not affect the temperature of the earth... find me someone saying that and I'll show you someone who is not a scientist...

I don't see how you can infer that from what you quoted above, but:

I inferred from:

And I think it's debatable that man is even a big reason.

...and your apparent refusal to answer the question:

please explain how you can put billions of tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere and not affect the temperature?

...that you would not argue that man is not having some effect on the temperature of the earth. Do you wish to argue that?

I don't buy into the claim that man alone is responsible

Again, nobody's saying that, it's just made up to give anti-green people something to argue against.

and can reverse, GW.

Reverse? Purely by cutting emissions? That would be extremely hard. Slow down? Almost certainly. That will have to be enough until we can cool the planet using other technology.

I do disagree with lots of people who agree with climate scientists. Even lots of climate scientists disagree with pro-GW climate scientists.

Real climate scientists disagree that the greenhouse effect exists, people release greenhouse gasses, and therefore people have some effect on the temperature? I seriously doubt it. Find me one - a real one.

Which is exactly why I refuse to jump on the bandwagon.....there's too much evidence that GW is NOT caused by man. Are we making it worse? Debatable. Are we even affecting it? Debatable.

No that is not debatable. If you think it is then go ahead and debate it - explain to me how the greenhouse effect does not exist.

As I said before, I am open to the possibility, but not at the cost of refusing to consider other causes, which is exactly what most of the pro-GW crowd seems to want.

Why do you think people are refusing to consider other casues? I've not seen that. The debate is usually 'man made warming exists' vs 'man made warming does not exist'.

 

[zinfamous]

To say that humans bear the sole responsibility for Global Warming is lunacy. To deny that humans have an impact on the global climate is perhaps even more idiotic.

 

[sandorski]

I give Deniers props for their sticktoitiveness. They're still horribly wrong though.

 

[smokeyjoe]

Originally posted by: sandorski
I give Deniers props for their sticktoitiveness. They're still horribly wrong though.

I give Accepters props for their indiscreet, err acceptance. They're still horribly wrong though.

:beer:

 

[Pacfanweb]

Atheus,

There are so many wrongs in what you just posted that it's mind-boggling. And it's too convoluted to quote, so I'll just do it this way:

Yes, there are people saying that man is primarily responsible for GW. Not reasonable people, but there are some.

There is, and never will be in ours or our kid's lifetimes, technology to "cool the planet".
That's science fiction.
Unless you consider a nuclear winter "cooling the planet".

When you say, in reference to scientists disagreeing about the man-made greenhouse effect, you end with saying "find me a real one"....which would of course be an impossibility because people like you would say that any scientist who disagrees with it isn't a "real" one.

What I hear is, the debate on whether greenhouse gases are a significant cause of GW....not whether they exist. That theory IS most certainly debatable.

Of course the greenhouse effect is real....it's always been there since the earth came to be. It's natural. But there is a question whether mankind is SIGNIFICANTLY affecting it to the point that it's causing temps to rise, or if it's just a natural phenom that would be happening anyway.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Who cares about global warming and where it comes from?

For me, the issue is sustainability. We need to be less wasteful. We need to recycle. We need to develop sustainable energy sources that don't require imports from foreign enemies.

I agree. We need to be more efficient and conserve our resources anyway. If it also happens to reduce pollution and our dependance on other countries (especially the more hostile ones), then we'd be silly not to pursue fuel and material alternatives.

Right now I think that radical spending on preventing global warming, assuming we could anyway, is a huge gamble.

 

[Gothgar]

THIS IS NOT P&N

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Gothgar
THIS IS NOT P&N

THIS

IS

SPARTA!!!

 

[Leafy]

Originally posted by: PacfanwebAs I said before, I am open to the possibility, but not at the cost of refusing to consider other causes, which is exactly what most of the pro-GW crowd seems to want.

What other causes are there other than man-made? If there are other causes, they will be naturalistic. If they are naturalistic, chances are we can't control them (coming out of an ice age, sun flare, etc). The only things we can control are man-made emissions. Can I evoke a pascal's wager-esque argument?

By choosing to ignore the man-made side of global warming, you are continuing to pollute the environment and by negligence are contributing to the continued ignorance.

Worst case, I'm right and man-made GW is a reality. You have now created a hostile environment for life. Enjoy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming

Best case, you're right and man-made GW is an exaggeration. So what? The other possibilities are things we can't control. You lose nothing. Literally. The pro-green movement will minimize pollution to the environment.

You're right: 0 loss. I'm right: major loss.

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Yes, there are people saying that man is primarily responsible for GW. Not reasonable people, but there are some.

Are we those people? No. So stop knocking down straw men.

Originally posted by: PacfanwebThere is, and never will be in ours or our kid's lifetimes, technology to "cool the planet".
That's science fiction.

Back up your claims. There are already air filtering devices that use (some chemical, I can't remember, it's a liquid) to rapidly convert CO2 to O2 and Carbon. No, there is no technology to directly fire liquid cooling into the atmosphere, but I've never heard anyone suggest that. Indirectly, we can lower the temperature by lowering the amount of greenhouse gases. Tell me you don't deny this.

You don't even have to look hard to find devices to convert carbon dioxide to usable or at least not harmful products.

[1] Solar Energy to convert CO2 to Fuel (Carbon Dioxide -> Carbon Monoxide -> Fuel)
[2] Convert Carbon Dioxide to [baking soda, hydrogen, and chlorine] using water and salt.
[3] Convert Carbon Dioxide to methanol

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
When you say, in reference to scientists disagreeing about the man-made greenhouse effect, you end with saying "find me a real one"....which would of course be an impossibility because people like you would say that any scientist who disagrees with it isn't a "real" one.

So it's a category error then? I'm sure I can find scientists that believe the earth is flat. Come up with a criterion to say that scientist X is credible, and we can debate the criterion until we find one that fits. Then you will see that no scientist is credible when using that criterion. I'll start it off:

A credible scientist [on the field of (ecology|atmospheric science)] is:
1. educated in the field of Ecology or Atmospheric Science, with a degree from a reputable (recognized or accredited) college.
2. Published at least 1 peer-reviewed paper.

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
What I hear is, the debate on whether greenhouse gases are a significant cause of GW....not whether they exist. That theory IS most certainly debatable.

Show me how.

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Of course the greenhouse effect is real....it's always been there since the earth came to be. It's natural. But there is a question whether mankind is SIGNIFICANTLY affecting it to the point that it's causing temps to rise, or if it's just a natural phenom that would be happening anyway.

How can you expect to produce tonnes of carbon dioxide and not expect it to contribute to the effect?

[1] http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...07/04/070418091932.htm
[2] http://science.howstuffworks.c...-save-environment1.htm
[2a] CO2 + H2O + NaCl > NaHCO3 + H2 + Cl2 (carbon dioxide + water + salt = baking soda + hydrogen gas + chlorine gas)
[3] http://www.siu.edu/~perspect/00_fall/methanol.html

 

[cKGunslinger]

Does anyone else notice that a wide variety of people seem to think that GW may be a real issue and something to discuss, while those who always scream and yell, "It's fake. A scam. La-la-lalal! You are all sheep!" tend to almost always be huge conservatives/republicans/"right-wingers"?

The very idea that this could even remotely relate to politics is disturbing. It can't seriously all stem from Al Gore, can it? Is he really that much of a polarizing demagogue? Do people really give him that much power?

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Atheus,

There are so many wrongs in what you just posted that it's mind-boggling. And it's too convoluted to quote, so I'll just do it this way:

Yes, there are people saying that man is primarily responsible for GW. Not reasonable people, but there are some.

You're changing key words to make yourself sound reasonable under pressure. Yes, some poeple believe we are the primarily the casue of current warming, which is not your original claim that so-called 'pro GW' people deny all other causes.

I won't answer the rest in detail because leafy has already picked it apart fairly thouroughly and said most of what I might have said. Just one thing though...

There is, and never will be in ours or our kid's lifetimes, technology to "cool the planet".
That's science fiction.
Unless you consider a nuclear winter "cooling the planet".

Simply releasing large quantities of water vapour into the atmosphere would cool the planet. That's feasible surely. The alternative could be to allow large parts of civilization to sink into the sea.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Simply releasing large quantities of water vapour into the atmosphere would cool the planet. That's feasible surely. The alternative could be to allow large parts of civilization to sink into the sea.

But water vapor is also a greenhouse gas.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Simply releasing large quantities of water vapour into the atmosphere would cool the planet. That's feasible surely. The alternative could be to allow large parts of civilization to sink into the sea.

How would you go about releasing large quantities of water vapor into the atmosphere? Sounds very energy intensive.

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: her209
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...iews_on_global_warming

Views on global warming
Despite having no educational or scientific credentials in meteorology, climatology, environmental science, or indeed any other scientific field or discipline, in the fall of 2007 Coleman described the current concern over global warming "a fictional, manufactured crisis, and a total scam." [3] His postings assessing the science behind global warming can be read at www.kusi.com. In fact, Coleman is not even a board-certified meteorologist or weather reader, the requirements for which are but several semester hours of successfully completed college coursework in meteorology or associated disciplines such as geology. In 2008 Coleman gave a speech of the same tone, before the San Diego Chamber of Commerce, blaming the "global warming scam" and environmentalist lobby, for rising gas and food prices. He also declared the scam "a threat to our economy and our civilization." [4]

Coleman has also made appearances on Fox News Channel and on the Showtime program, Penn & Teller: Bullshit!, to share his global warming views.

Coleman recently published an article entitled "The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam"[5] in which he promotes his personal view that many scientists and politicians have been embroiled in what amounts to scam based on incomplete science and a political motive for a world government. Coleman claims that the 'scam' was triggered by the claims of scientist Roger Revelle whose primary motivation was seeking increased funding for the Scripps Institute of Oceanography.

Coleman's global warming views are closely aligned with those of the International Climate Science Coalition, an organization of over 197 climate science specialists or scientists in closely related fields, who in 2008 in Manhattan N.Y., issued a declaration known as the Manhattan Declaration stating that ?Global warming? is not a global crisis [6] .

Is this the first owned thread of the year Nom for compuwiz1 :laugh:

good shit man. good shit.