For real: ***CONFIRMED*** & ***OFFICIAL*** Global Warming is REAL!

[Texmaster]

<< Huh?? That quote states that warming will continue due to human greenhouse gas emissions. Just because they can't quantify the exact amount of human greenhouse gas emissions doesn't mean their conclusions are invalid... >>



then it isn't "Official" or "Confirmed" is it?

 

[b0mbrman]

I remember when it was "officially confirmed" that global cooling was going on. Anyone else old enough to remember those days when we were all shown scientific proof that if we didn't change, another ice age was on the way?

 

[SuperCyrix]

<< stupid like a fox >>

hippie

 

[Modeps]

stfu

 

[jahawkin]

<<

<< Huh?? That quote states that warming will continue due to human greenhouse gas emissions. Just because they can't quantify the exact amount of human greenhouse gas emissions doesn't mean their conclusions are invalid... >>



then it isn't "Official" or "Confirmed" is it? >>



Can it ever be "official"?? No. It can be "highly probable" though.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

My 2 cents on my day off. First of all these race riots... Oops, wrong thread (Tex knows what I mean LOL)

Global warming needs to be taken seriously. Honestly, I have had a chance to review more data recently (not CNN but the real stuff) and I am satisfied that it is a real phenomena. The question is why is this happening, and how much of it is due to human activity. I have no idea. I can say that the man-made contribution ought to be reduced in a rational fashion. <gets soapbox> There are more ways to produce energy than fossil fuels. Time to get serious about it because of a host of reasons. This is going to require a large effort on the part of governments and academia, because it is not profitible (read non-funded) in the short term. Also remember there are emerging economies around the world. Imaging Russia, China, and a few others comsuming fossil fuels at the rate of the US? Unless there is an alternative, that is what is going to happen. If we are influencing the environment at all now, it will be far worse then. I would favor rational limits on fuel consumption. What if we set a LOWER limit on how much fuel a vehicle could burn? Different goals for trucks, cars, busses etc. These would be raised incrementally, and all NEW vehicles would have to meet that minimum. Detroit would know what is coming, and would have time to prepare. Also reward STOCKHOLDERS who invest in companies who meet R&D requirements for fuel cells etc. Have a sliding scale cut in capital gains taxes. More inventment, less paid in tax by those stock holders. Why do this? Well Ford or GM or whoever could not give a rat's behind about any of this, and will subvert any legislation to their advantage. One of the reasons for lawyers. BUT they want to keep stockholders happy. Stockholders in general are concerned about MONEY. So, give them what they want, and we all benefit from it.

 

[308nato]

<< No, see there is a consensus now. Everyone agrees that HUMAN induced global warming is happening. True, earth goes through warming and cooling cycles. Heck, we are expected to enter an ice-age within 600 years.

Do you guys simply not care that we are driving extinction? Or do you not believe it?

Human induced Climate Change was a controversial issue a few year ago but not anymore. >>




Geez, I must be rip van Winkle. When did everyone start agreeing on this? I missed it becoming uncontroversial as well? I gotta drink more coffee. Woops, my Braun coffee maker probably raises the ambient temp outdoors by 1 degree or so. If I mount my AlphaPal on it will the Ralph Nader and the SierraClub stay off my ass?

 

[Texmaster]

<<

<<

<< Huh?? That quote states that warming will continue due to human greenhouse gas emissions. Just because they can't quantify the exact amount of human greenhouse gas emissions doesn't mean their conclusions are invalid... >>



then it isn't "Official" or "Confirmed" is it? >>



Can it ever be "official"?? No. It can be "highly probable" though. >>



LOL No it can't. Its conjecture at best if you can't even measure the amount of human participation to lay it off on humans.

 

[Texmaster]

<< My 2 cents on my day off. First of all these race riots... Oops, wrong thread (Tex knows what I mean LOL)

Global warming needs to be taken seriously. Honestly, I have had a chance to review more data recently (not CNN but the real stuff) and I am satisfied that it is a real phenomena. The question is why is this happening, and how much of it is due to human activity. I have no idea. I can say that the man-made contribution ought to be reduced in a rational fashion. <gets soapbox> There are more ways to produce energy than fossil fuels. Time to get serious about it because of a host of reasons. This is going to require a large effort on the part of governments and academia, because it is not profitible (read non-funded) in the short term. Also remember there are emerging economies around the world. Imaging Russia, China, and a few others comsuming fossil fuels at the rate of the US? Unless there is an alternative, that is what is going to happen. If we are influencing the environment at all now, it will be far worse then. I would favor rational limits on fuel consumption. What if we set a LOWER limit on how much fuel a vehicle could burn? Different goals for trucks, cars, busses etc. These would be raised incrementally, and all NEW vehicles would have to meet that minimum. Detroit would know what is coming, and would have time to prepare. Also reward STOCKHOLDERS who invest in companies who meet R&D requirements for fuel cells etc. Have a sliding scale cut in capital gains taxes. More inventment, less paid in tax by those stock holders. Why do this? Well Ford or GM or whoever could not give a rat's behind about any of this, and will subvert any legislation to their advantage. One of the reasons for lawyers. BUT they want to keep stockholders happy. Stockholders in general are concerned about MONEY. So, give them what they want, and we all benefit from it. >>



Great Post

I also agree we need to get off fossil fuels but like you, I fall WAY short of blaming in a signifigant portion of global warming on humans.

 

[LaBang]

I'm out for the day. I'll be back to argue later.

 

[rufruf44]

I can understand when some people got offensive if they've to give up their gas guzzler truck, but what the heck is wrong with the idea of more efficient auto (it pains me seeing FORD taking the 1st initiative though ), car-pooling, finding clear-energy alternative and reducing polution in general ? Everytime this topic comes out, it always got shot down by some people. Polution is never good, and we're not sitting in infinite amount of resources, so conversation is always a must. Guess we too stinkin ignorant and spoiled to do even that ?

 

[killface]

<<

BTW, lets read what the article REALLY said:

"We know that greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere, causing surface temperatures to rise," said committee chair Ralph Cicerone, chancellor, University of California at Irvine. "We don't know precisely how much of this rise to date is from human activities, but based on physical principles and highly sophisticated computer models, we expect the warming to continue because of greenhouse gas emissions."

They can't even state a majority of greenhouse gas is produced by humans! LOL!!!

Next time read the article. Save yourself the embarassment.

Dont make this so easy >>


This page has a pretty good breakdown of greenhouse gasses and the increase since the industrial revolution:



<< Carbon Dioxide
Prior to the industrial revolution in the 18th century, the earth's atmosphere was made up of 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv) CO2. Since that time, the combustion of fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas), land-use changes such as deforestation and the production of cement have increased that concentration to 355 ppmv.

Methane
Molecule for molecule, methane traps about 27 times more heat than CO2. Methane is thus referred to as having a 'global warming potential' of 27. Current atmospheric concentrations of methane are 1.72 ppmv (which is about double its pre-industrial concentration of 0.8 ppmv). Recent evidence indicates that the concentration of atmospheric methane gas, which was increasing by 1.1% per year in the 1970s, and 0.6% per year in the 1980s, has now levelled off, perhaps because of much tighter controls on methane wastage in Russia and Eastern Europe (New Scientist, 9 oct., 1993, 10).

Chloroflourocarbons (only generated by humans)
About 8% of the potential greenhouse warming to date has been caused by CFCs but this percentage is bound to increase in the future due to the long life of CFCs in the atmosphere.

Nitrous oxide
Nitrous oxide (N3O) is another important and long-lived greenhouse gas, responsible for about 3% of the potential warming to date. Currently, the atmospheric concentration of N3O is 310 ppbv which is about 10% greater than it was before the industrial revolution and is increasing at a rate of 0.25% per year. N3O has a global warming potential of about 150 >>

 

[jahawkin]

<<

<<

<<

<< Huh?? That quote states that warming will continue due to human greenhouse gas emissions. Just because they can't quantify the exact amount of human greenhouse gas emissions doesn't mean their conclusions are invalid... >>



then it isn't "Official" or "Confirmed" is it? >>



Can it ever be "official"?? No. It can be "highly probable" though. >>



LOL No it can't. Its conjecture at best if you can't even measure the amount of human participation to lay it off on humans. >>



I could come up with estimates on how much human CO2 emission there are in a year. Is that what you need??
Its a theory of global warming. Do you not believe in the theory of relativity just becuase it cannot be proven as fact??

 

[Entity]

Texmaster,

Where do you get your facts from that you base your opinions upon?

Just wondering. Honestly.

Rob (essentially agreeing that we need to take preventative measures but also that global warming will, at best, only be a scientifically accepted theory, and no more)

 

[ElFenix]

<< Imaging Russia, China, and a few others comsuming fossil fuels at the rate of the US? >>

china will do it in a decade or so, india will be right behind them, and neither has the sort of restrictions on emmissions that the US does. heck, even japan allows dirtier autos, if what i read here can be believed.




<< For something to be published in a reputable journal, it needs to be peer-reviewed. The studies are not wrong. >>

i've seen plenty of studies published in peer-reviewed economics journals that are easily shot full of holes. i don't know why any other field would be any different.

 

[Texmaster]

<< I can understand when some people got offensive if they've to give up their gas guzzler truck, but what the heck is wrong with the idea of more efficient auto (it pains me seeing FORD taking the 1st initiative though ), car-pooling, finding clear-energy alternative and reducing polution in general ? Everytime this topic comes out, it always got shot down by some people. Polution is never good, and we're not sitting in infinite amount of resources, so conversation is always a must. Guess we too stinkin ignorant and spoiled to do even that ? >>



I don't see anyone saying they want to keep pollutiing. In fact a few of us who reject this so called "study" have been vocal about change.

What I do see is a raction to people who try and oversimplify a problem and an arguemnt by blaming everything bad in the world on humans.

 

[Texmaster]

<<

<<

<<

<<

<< Huh?? That quote states that warming will continue due to human greenhouse gas emissions. Just because they can't quantify the exact amount of human greenhouse gas emissions doesn't mean their conclusions are invalid... >>



then it isn't "Official" or "Confirmed" is it? >>



Can it ever be "official"?? No. It can be "highly probable" though. >>



LOL No it can't. Its conjecture at best if you can't even measure the amount of human participation to lay it off on humans. >>



I could come up with estimates on how much human CO2 emission there are in a year. Is that what you need??
Its a theory of global warming. Do you not believe in the theory of relativity just becuase it cannot be proven as fact?? >>



If you give me the CO2 emissions on humans, give me the CO2 emissions from natual phomonea and animals before you can even come CLOSE to making a conlclusion on human intervenetion.

 

[Texmaster]

<< Texmaster,

Where do you get your facts from that you base your opinions upon?

Just wondering. Honestly. >>




Do a search for my name and global warming and you will see the links.

Jimbo's link on this page is a great example.

But the biggest source for this arguement on my side is the LACK of evidence on the opposing side against humans.

 

[Cyberian]

<< LOL No it can't. Its conjecture at best if you can't even measure the amount of human participation to lay it off on humans.{/Q]Then are you saying that humans do not contribute to the warming at all?

 

[Entity]

<< What I do see is a raction to people who try and oversimplify a problem and an arguemnt by blaming everything bad in the world on humans. >>


Tex,

I think you are misinterpreting one of the major points about global warming. It isn't about blame; it's about changing what we can.

I can't fathom considering myself responsible for the CO2 emissions of volcano eruptions across the world; I can, however, be more responsible for the CO2 emissions directly linked to myself. It may be a drop in the bucket, but it is, at the least, something.

Rob

 

[Entity]

<< Do a search for my name and global warming and you will see the links.

Jimbo's link on this page is a great example.

But the biggest source for this arguement on my side is the LACK of evidence on the opposing side against humans. >>


I've read Singer's page before, and it has several flaws in its assumptions which, in turn, can be used to support the global warming.

Theories are, generally speaking, ambiguous in their conclusions at best. Catastrophic predictions about the end of the world, or (god-forbid) California sinking into the ocean, are tenuous at best. Nevertheless, it comes down to the point I made earlier: reduce the probability by controlling what you can.

Rob

 

[Texmaster]

<<

<< What I do see is a raction to people who try and oversimplify a problem and an arguemnt by blaming everything bad in the world on humans. >>


Tex,

I think you are misinterpreting one of the major points about global warming. It isn't about blame; it's about changing what we can.

I can't fathom considering myself responsible for the CO2 emissions of volcano eruptions across the world; I can, however, be more responsible for the CO2 emissions directly linked to myself. It may be a drop in the bucket, but it is, at the least, something.

Rob >>



I dont mind change but for Many it is blame. And blame leads to programs that cost millions.

We are a very small cog in the global warming engine.

I have NO trouble getting rod of fossil fuel consumtion but many want to take it to the extreme.

 

[Texmaster]

<<

<< Do a search for my name and global warming and you will see the links.

Jimbo's link on this page is a great example.

But the biggest source for this arguement on my side is the LACK of evidence on the opposing side against humans. >>


I've read Singer's page before, and it has several flaws in its assumptions which, in turn, can be used to support the global warming.

Theories are, generally speaking, ambiguous in their conclusions at best. Catastrophic predictions about the end of the world, or (god-forbid) California sinking into the ocean, are tenuous at best. Nevertheless, it comes down to the point I made earlier: reduce the probability by controlling what you can.

Rob >>



I could give the same tired and general statement about the thread posted here.

Once again, the burden is on the people making the arguement. And since they can't even measure the amount humans cause, the conclusion that humans even contribute a signifigant amount is Null and viod.

 

[skace]

LaBang, you offended the LOL-god himself, Texmaster. Prepare to be assaulted with nonsense until you don't even remember nor care what you were originally talking about. Any intelligent conversations about the possibility of Global Warming in this thread are already forfeit

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

<< I can understand when some people got offensive if they've to give up their gas guzzler truck, but what the heck is wrong with the idea of more efficient auto (it pains me seeing FORD taking the 1st initiative though ), car-pooling, finding clear-energy alternative and reducing polution in general ? Everytime this topic comes out, it always got shot down by some people. Polution is never good, and we're not sitting in infinite amount of resources, so conversation is always a must. Guess we too stinkin ignorant and spoiled to do even that ? >>




There is nothing wrong with these ideas. Where people fail is in the art of persuasion. Tell me which sounds better

1) You friggin fool, dont you know your damn SUV is sucking the earth dry? What about your frigging kids you selfish asshole! What a moron!

or

2) I understand that you want to drive the kind of vehicle you want, but wouldnt it be better to have what you want made in such a way that would also help reduce our dependence on foreign oil and at the same time help to save the environment for the kids you love, or may have and cherish one day? Also, if you put a few bucks in your pocket instead of your tank that wouldnt hurt either.


Sometimes, it is fun to go with the first if you have a sucky day and want to vent, but it is going to get you flamed and the thread locked.

With number 2, if they see things as to their advantage, and that is the root your goal isnt it? Also, how do you effectively flame a constructive post, put in a non confrontational way? They flame you, they look like the idiot. But that is not the goal. It is to get someone to consider your view. They will not if they cannot see beyond their anger.