think how dangerous a bunch of people are who are convinced they are doing what is right when really they are completely misguided.
Ohhh, the correlation between Co2 and temp increase is certainly high. HOwever, the correlation and the *direct* link between man's release of Co2 and the corresponding increase is not only not measurable, but if it were would be a dubious correlation at best.
And how many times in history according to the Vostok cores have we gone through a cycle like we are now? How many times has Co2 peaked *higher* than it had peaked before? Several in fact. The earth is random and drawing direct correlations is stupid, especially when nobody has done a proper statistical analysis of Man's effect.
Thats because, according to the Vostok cores, we were at a peak some 1,000 years ago, we are just higher than the last peak. However, that doesn't mean *WE* caused that higher peak or we have extended it, it could just mean that the Earth has changed in some other way or it could be that the Sun, as mentioned above, is outputting more heat?
I find it amazing how arrogant people are to think they know exactly what the Earth is doing and they think that they have figured out ALL variables in a multi-variable regression and can firmly say that they have determined that randomness is not random, but ordered and directly influenced.
Only those ignorant to statistics would claim anything but random until a proper analysis is carried out.
What science? The one that can't prove conclusively that black holes exist or another form of body makes black holes? Or the one that can conclusively say that x causes y, no matter that y is a random variable that has fluctuated over the past 600-700 thousand years?
GW is a theory. It cannot be replicable on a global scale nor has Man's influence been statistically proven. It just cannot be. Why? Because the current Co2 and temperature peak started tens of thousands of years ago, long before Henry Ford started manufacturing cars on an assembly line. Ohh, but thats right, those acient civilizations that numbered in the tens of thousands worldwide burned so much wood that they caused this current spike.
Lets not forget the dinosaurs farting so much that they caused the last one.
You people are so gullible, you swallow and head in the direction that anybody points you in, forgetting reason, statisitics, and truthful science. You listen to select theories rather than a broad-base. You refuse to acknowledge that the ice caps weren't in existance before nor will they always be there in the global cyclical pattern. You refuse to acknowledge that the ice caps are getting thicker in the middle but smaller along the periphery. You fail to acknowledge that the Sun's ouput has increased over the past 30 years when we finally have had accurate readings. You fail to acknowledge that the Vostok cores show that peaks and valleys existed long before man.
Yet I acknowledge that whatever we are doing, no matter if it has a GW impact or not, is not good and I fully acknowledge that we need to stop. I despise SUVs and the attitude that we shouldn't care at all and I fully advocate all alternative energy sources while diminishing any Co2 or other harmful gas production. As somebody mentioned before, don't crap where you eat.
I just refuse to acknowledge that man's Co2 = GW, because no matter what you say, it is *NOT* scientifically nor statistically proven.
You people are nothing more than robots of Gore, pathetic in your lack of understanding of statistics and blind to the reality that the Earth has been doing this stuff long before we got here.
Your 3rd link... Mr. Dodds..
John Dodds
Head of Finance
John started his career as a financial controller in a multinational oil exploration company. Then as a financial director in a further energy company he was the financial lead in successfully taking it through public floatation. John then spent 20 years as a financial director and general manager in a number of small and medium sized enterprises including fast growth consulting practices. John brings expertise in mergers and acquisitions and financial control in fast growth companies to ROCELA. John is married with two sons.
Your 1st link... Mr. Idso...
Signers of Environmental Statement Funded by ExxonMobil
....
In all, ExxonMobil's gave $715,000 in 2005 to organizations with singers of the ISA document. Following is a list of organizations, the amount of funding they received from ExxonMobil in 2005, and the individuals from the organizations that signed the ISA statement.
--The Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty; $50,000; Research Fellow Jay W. Richard.
--American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research; $240,000; Visiting Fellow Kenneth Green and Weyerhauser Fellow Steven F. Hayward.
--Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change; $25,000; President Sherwood B. Idso and Chairman Craig D. Idso.
--Competitive Enterprise Institute; $270,000; President Fred L. Smith, Jr.
--Congress of Racial Equality; $75,000; Senior Policy Advisor (energy and environment) Paul K. Driessen. (Drissen was one of the four authors of the ISA statement.)
--The National Center for Public Policy Research; $55,000; Vice-President David Ridenour.
AnitaPeterson
Diamond Member
- Apr 24, 2001
- 6,021
- 547
- 126
Amazing how some people (on AT and in the U.S., in general, if AT is a representative sample) can be against taking measures to prevent - or reverse - not only global warming, but also pollution and waste (although many such measures are simple, efficient and cost-effective), but they will advocate continuing the war in Iraq and what's generally known as the current "war on terror".
Amazing how reading comprehension of such apparently learned people is so low as they cannot see that *NOBODY* here has advocated not stopping current activities. Even more amazing is how dense people are in their polarization of an issue, where somebody like me who believes that man made co2 does not equal GW, is then labled as a polluter or a pro-Iraq war person.
Finally, I find it continually amazing that people are so willing to ignore data on either side of the issue and only result to a "them or us", "left vs right", "pro or anti bush", or some such pigeonholing bullcrap.
Get a damn clue. Just because I refuse to believe that man = GW doesn't mean I don't think we should stop what we are doing. In fact, I have yet to see one person say that pollution is good.
AnitaPeterson
Diamond Member
- Apr 24, 2001
- 6,021
- 547
- 126
Oh, really?
All I've seen in this thread is "shoot the messenger" knee-jerk reactions. I have yet to see one of you naysayers coming up with a reply like "Al Gore's film is full of crap, but it's making a good point, so here are things that I do, and everybody else should try".
I've seen the same (type of) people, a few years back, crapping all over Kyoto. Granted, it isn't the best deal we could hope for, but it's something to start with... From a strictly neutral standpoint, I find that the lack of care about the environment goes hand in hand with a certain political model of thinking currently prevalent in the U.S.
Mark my words, the Clinton administration will be perceived as a beacon of light in a few years, if the present trend continues.
All I've seen in this thread is "shoot the messenger" knee-jerk reactions. I have yet to see one of you naysayers coming up with a reply like "Al Gore's film is full of crap, but it's making a good point, so here are things that I do, and everybody else should try".
I've seen the same (type of) people, a few years back, crapping all over Kyoto. Granted, it isn't the best deal we could hope for, but it's something to start with... From a strictly neutral standpoint, I find that the lack of care about the environment goes hand in hand with a certain political model of thinking currently prevalent in the U.S.
Mark my words, the Clinton administration will be perceived as a beacon of light in a few years, if the present trend continues.
No, the vast majority of the replies are....
Correlation != causation. Man's limited increase of Co2 emissions compared to the levels natural in the cycle of earth does not mean that we are causing the planet to warm up.
Furthermore, I have yet to see anybody bash Gore to the point of calling his stuff complete baloney. I also have yet to see anybody say that his points as far as reducing pollution are complete baloney.
All I have seen from the GW zombies is "you guys are oil shills" or "you don't care". Please, if you want anybody like me to believe you you can take the following steps.
1. Come up with statistical proof that man's Co2 has definitely increased the temperature. To do this you must eliminate all extraneous variables, such as sun intensity increases, increased CO2 due to natural occurances, while focusing on man's CO2 emissions alone and the temperature increases. I bet your R2 for man's Co2 will be fekkin low.
2. Stop polarizing the issue. Nothing turns me off faster than somebody saying I don't care because I think their point isn't valid. *I DO CARE* as do most people here. I just don't make the link you do. You want to have people change? Stop polarizing them into pro Iraq-war junkies like you just did you polarizing pigeonholing whacko.
I am as anti-bush, anti-iraq, and anti-gas guzzlers as they come (my wife and i have 1 4-banger, she rides the subway after I drop her off). Yet some moron like you has to come along just because I don't believe in one stupid issue and label me as everything else.
In the end, you are no better than the polarizing fools like Rumsfeld, Cheney, or Bush. You are just opposite sides of the same ugly coin.
AnitaPeterson
Diamond Member
- Apr 24, 2001
- 6,021
- 547
- 126
LegendKiller,
I didn't call you a moron anywhere in my posts. I believe I maintained a civil tone throughout my input. But you obviously miss some civil education, so I'll take my gloves off as well.
You come across as a hysterical individual, clamoring for attention. And your incessant demands for utter and irrefutable proofs of human activity changing the climate, bleeting "correlation does not equal causation", do very little to convince me otherwise.
If you re-read my first post, I'm not even pointing a finger at you, or anyone else in particular. I said "some people here." Now, who's generalizing, Miss Hissy-Fits?
bah...
Sorry, everyone else, for the detour.
In the end, it boils down to this: Whether the climate change is caused primarily by humans or someone else, it is nonetheless true that we have the possibility to stop and prevent further damage to the eco-system, and there's no excuse for not doing so.
I didn't call you a moron anywhere in my posts. I believe I maintained a civil tone throughout my input. But you obviously miss some civil education, so I'll take my gloves off as well.
You come across as a hysterical individual, clamoring for attention. And your incessant demands for utter and irrefutable proofs of human activity changing the climate, bleeting "correlation does not equal causation", do very little to convince me otherwise.
If you re-read my first post, I'm not even pointing a finger at you, or anyone else in particular. I said "some people here." Now, who's generalizing, Miss Hissy-Fits?
bah...
Sorry, everyone else, for the detour.
In the end, it boils down to this: Whether the climate change is caused primarily by humans or someone else, it is nonetheless true that we have the possibility to stop and prevent further damage to the eco-system, and there's no excuse for not doing so.
Lets not forget the dinosaurs farting so much that they caused the last one.
-------------
nice.
again, what about this global warming on mars? wouldn't it be good science to be obsevring temp. changes on other planets to rule out the theory of solar warming, that the sun itself is producing more heat? no, that's heresy according to al gore. its inconvenient science, al.
-------------
nice.
again, what about this global warming on mars? wouldn't it be good science to be obsevring temp. changes on other planets to rule out the theory of solar warming, that the sun itself is producing more heat? no, that's heresy according to al gore. its inconvenient science, al.
Yeah, because well orgnized logic, such as asking for proof of correlation or high R2 is such a hysterical and poorly organized point that not one person has provided anything. Furthermore, your attempt at minimizing my argument by labeling it hysterics is laughable, you have no logical counter to anything I have stated, so your next fall-back point is to undermine my argument by assuming that I am hysterical. Great one sparky, talk about shooting the messenger, you just did what you accuse others of.
I don't care if your pointing the finger at me or not, your obvious backtrack only points out that you don't have any specific evidence of anything at all. Show one person who is obviously pro-pollution and pro-iraq.
What it boils down to is that we have limited impact on our environment. The last peak in Co2 and temperatures was not caused by us and it's pretty silly to say that we caused this one, especially since it began more than 10,000 years ago. You guys are taking 100 years and saying "wow, we have all of this evidence" or 300 years of spotty records and are trying to extrapolate some iron-clad conclusive fact.
If you want to stop a lot of greenhouse gas, kill everything that farts, including the dinosaurs that caused the last Co2 peak. That way you can have your pristine planet, except you'll be dead too.
CO2 levels did start rising about 10-20 thousand years ago, however this was following the normal trend of CO2 variations along with ice age cycles. The CO2 levels did not dramatically rise until the Industrial Revolution.
This is a very interesting claim since your views are at odd with the vast majority of scientists in this world.
This is irrelevant, because the current rate of melting will end up putting a much larger strain on humans than a long-term gradual melting would.
Again, this is irrelevant. All that matters is that the ice caps are melting faster than they are growing. At the current rate of warming, the global sea level could rise 20-40 feet within a century. This would displace hundreds of millions of people.
This is true, however, unlike the warming trend, there is no reason to believe it is unusual. Based on a longer record provided by tree rings and sunspots, fluctuations in the sun's output appear to be related to past warming/cooling cyclesl.
I believe there is only one Vostok Core, and it provides the exact data that has led scientists to conclude that the current warming trend is out of the ordinary. The current warming trend is not consistent with the temperature cycles over the past 400,000 years.
Scientifically the evidence is extremely strong. The current warming trend coincides with the current skyrocketing of CO2 levels AND with the Industrial Revolution. Graphs of the data are easy to find and the correlation between them is clear. The chance that this is all happening by coincidence (as you claim) is so small, that no rational human with knowledge of all the facts would consider it.
The sad thing about this claim is that even a thirty second glance at the data shows that the current warming trend is not consistent with any past climate activity on earth.
AnitaPeterson
Diamond Member
- Apr 24, 2001
- 6,021
- 547
- 126
Are we arguing over measured and calculable facts that support Mans' impact on global warming? CO2 release by human activities is a measurable quantity. CO2 is a green house gas. Venus is an example of a run-away process, Mars is an example on the lack of one.
As for the sun's fingers: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/09/15/global.warming.sun.reut/index.html
What other 'natural' causes of the present warming are still alive and kicking?
Of course, LegendKiller will typically note the last sentence. It doesn't really mattery what is growing increasingly likely to environmental scientists across the globe, it doesn't really matter that >50million years ago, when the levels of co2 were likely much higher than today- there were no humans to suffer the consequences- that we don't know very well what conditions prevailed on the globe then, or even if the lvl of co2 rose , naturally, as sharply as it is doing now- because some will not admit something exists even when it knocks them over the head.
We know co2 is a greenhous gas. Not the most important - that is water - but we aren't adding water to the atmosohere at a disastrous rate.
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_History_and_Flux-2.png
"
The net flux of carbon into the atmosphere before the rise of fossil fuel burning may be a natural fluctuation or it may also be related to human activities such as the clearing of forests or changes agriculture during the first industrial revolution. As seen at right, the modest changes from ~1750-1850 are largely within the margin of natural variability, but the subsequent accummulation of carbon dioxide far exceeds any concentration witnessed in the last 400,000 years and may have not occurred over the last tens of millions of years." How dangerous is it to think this is a 'coincidence'?
Notice how there isn't a 'Disputed' sign there.
What other 'natural' causes of the present warming are still alive and kicking?
Of course, LegendKiller will typically note the last sentence. It doesn't really mattery what is growing increasingly likely to environmental scientists across the globe, it doesn't really matter that >50million years ago, when the levels of co2 were likely much higher than today- there were no humans to suffer the consequences- that we don't know very well what conditions prevailed on the globe then, or even if the lvl of co2 rose , naturally, as sharply as it is doing now- because some will not admit something exists even when it knocks them over the head.
We know co2 is a greenhous gas. Not the most important - that is water - but we aren't adding water to the atmosohere at a disastrous rate.
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_History_and_Flux-2.png
"
The net flux of carbon into the atmosphere before the rise of fossil fuel burning may be a natural fluctuation or it may also be related to human activities such as the clearing of forests or changes agriculture during the first industrial revolution. As seen at right, the modest changes from ~1750-1850 are largely within the margin of natural variability, but the subsequent accummulation of carbon dioxide far exceeds any concentration witnessed in the last 400,000 years and may have not occurred over the last tens of millions of years." How dangerous is it to think this is a 'coincidence'?
Notice how there isn't a 'Disputed' sign there.
So what is Al Gore's Solution to stop, slow down, or prevent or reverse a global warming trend?
Pointing out a problem with no solution is a worthless endeavour.
Pointing out a problem with no solution is a worthless endeavour.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,792
- 6,351
- 126
Everyone in the discussion has pretty much picked their side and is sticking to their position. Be glad that the Naysayers are few, though quite influential, especially in the US. In the long run the US itself will likely find itself falling behind Technologically as Europe/Asia put resources towards dealing with this issue, but certain Industries have been following that path for awhile now so I suppose that's just the status quo.
The much maligned California and its' Governator have taken the lead in the US, again. Perhaps there's hope yet for the US.
Maybe if we built a gigantic ship that could make big blocks of ice we could dump ice in the ocean and slowly cool down the planet??
You know some places around the potomic or the east river there is some evidence of an area that had a 500 year drought.
Also scientists have estimated that around 75,000 years ago that a supervolcano caused a short ice age. I watched a very good show on this subject. 3 or 4 groups of sientists all studying in different areas of discipline, all came to the same independent conclusion.
Volcanoes can do a lot more damage than most factories. We keep making cars run cleaner and cleaner, and we also keep making them bigger and bigger.
You know I really hate large SUV's. However, I do wonder what kind of solutions would actually make an improvement. I think SUV's create more heat than the average car.
It is possible that every time we build a Mall, an airport, or a highway, that we are raising the temperature of the earth by making Cement or Blacktop cover what was once Grass or trees. This may have quite a significant impact. On a hot day, stand in a grassy area and then go stand in the middle of a large parking lot.
You know some places around the potomic or the east river there is some evidence of an area that had a 500 year drought.
Also scientists have estimated that around 75,000 years ago that a supervolcano caused a short ice age. I watched a very good show on this subject. 3 or 4 groups of sientists all studying in different areas of discipline, all came to the same independent conclusion.
Volcanoes can do a lot more damage than most factories. We keep making cars run cleaner and cleaner, and we also keep making them bigger and bigger.
You know I really hate large SUV's. However, I do wonder what kind of solutions would actually make an improvement. I think SUV's create more heat than the average car.
It is possible that every time we build a Mall, an airport, or a highway, that we are raising the temperature of the earth by making Cement or Blacktop cover what was once Grass or trees. This may have quite a significant impact. On a hot day, stand in a grassy area and then go stand in the middle of a large parking lot.
1. Co2 levels haven't raised dramatically outside the normal variation that has been seen through history. Furthermore, a deviation from a highly variable measurement isn't amazing.
2. I couldn't care less about what the "vast majority of scientists" believe. They get into a group-think mindset and just follow the flock instead of thinking about other things, like statistical proof. This is no different than fools who think the housing market isn't going to crash, which I said 2 years ago. Group-think rules logic and reasoning, if you let it.
3. I doubt you will see 20-40' raise in 100 years.
4. Again, you are assuming that history is a perfect predictor of the present and future. This is complete crap, as history can only be used as a guide and has to be acknowledged as an imperfect one.
5. You are saying that the industrial revolution has played a huge part, yet CO2 levels, measurable and extrapolated by man, have only increased dramatically in the last 80 years. How can you automatically assume that they are what has caused an increase? You can assume but you can't prove, yet you preach like it is proven.
6. It doesn't have to be consistant. No past cycle was the same as the previous, and IIRC, the last wasn't as high as the one before. It's called a "random walk", whereby you cannot predict it and the variations aren't explainable by any normal means.
Seriously, as I have mentioned before, show me an R2 of man's output of CO2 that can be directly measured and attributed and if it is high, then I might believe you. However, the independant and replicatable tests I have seen do not even come close. The one variable that people focus on is man, and that R2 has been low.
I just had to make the joke about dumping ice cubes in the ocean.
The temperatures in the oceans may have a lot more to do with any kind of warming effect than any other aspect that could affect the average mean temperature of the earth in any given year.
Also Sub-Surface Volcanic Activity may work in very long cycles.
The temperatures in the oceans may have a lot more to do with any kind of warming effect than any other aspect that could affect the average mean temperature of the earth in any given year.
Also Sub-Surface Volcanic Activity may work in very long cycles.
Of course everyone failed to mention that seismic activity and vulcanism is steadily increasing since 1875, and shows a VERY consistent overall pattern of increasing. Polar tilt (Chandlers Wobble) roughly correlates to the increase, though cause and effect are not entirely clear at the moment. It is not inconceivable that the wobble of he Earth on it's axis is the cause, and mans involvement though a nuisance, cannot change the inevitable.
Gases released from volcanoes dwarfs mans output in any comparison. The ratio is such that man is basically insignificant...at least statistically. We sure do think that we are important though. the Earth will survive with or without man. It doesn't care which.
Gases released from volcanoes dwarfs mans output in any comparison. The ratio is such that man is basically insignificant...at least statistically. We sure do think that we are important though. the Earth will survive with or without man. It doesn't care which.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter