global warming is a myth!

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Grakatt - << Global warming is necessary for our survival here you numbskull.>>

This kid ain't gunna last long if 'numbskull' is the best he can do. ;)
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
69,519
4,941
126
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: Napalm
I am not a global warming expert, but I am a scientist - so I feel that I am qualified to make a couple of simple points regarding the article:

1) Not a single point in the article is properly referenced - the norm for any scientific paper
2) It was not originally published by a peer reviewed journal - the norm for any scientific paper
3) It was published by the Wall Street Journal - a source that might have some sort of commercial bias in slagging global warming
4) The authors were chemists - not experts in climate change

Fluff IMHO...

N
Two words... Kyoto Accord.
Meaning?
he's just comparing fluff to fluff. which of course doesn't justify fluff.

but really, u'd think europe would adopt and impliment kyoto regardless of whether others did it if it were so good and reasonable. they do have controlling green parties after all. course they didn't, its just another anti american bash effort.
Something had to be done and Kyoto was to be just a start. Without certain key players the attempt becomes pointless as the problem is Global and not Local. AFAIK many European countries will still implement it, but unless others do something outside of Kyoto, the implementation will be in vain.
bull. as you said, just a start. if the european countries impliemented it, nothing would happen? i don't think so, they'd atleast have a cleaner enviroment and the moral high ground and leadership. if its the right thing to do, why does it matter if others dont. it would be just a start. the european countries didn't impliement it because they knew it was just an antiamerican political move. with giant double standards for other polluting countries like china to be completely exempt from the law. if its a global problem then allowing exemptions should make it pointless. well.. thats true. its quite pointless and unfair.
It is a Global problem, not a Local one. If you can't accept even that there's no point continuing the discussion.
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,862
84
91
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: Napalm
I am not a global warming expert, but I am a scientist - so I feel that I am qualified to make a couple of simple points regarding the article:

1) Not a single point in the article is properly referenced - the norm for any scientific paper
2) It was not originally published by a peer reviewed journal - the norm for any scientific paper
3) It was published by the Wall Street Journal - a source that might have some sort of commercial bias in slagging global warming
4) The authors were chemists - not experts in climate change

Fluff IMHO...

N
Two words... Kyoto Accord.
Meaning?
he's just comparing fluff to fluff. which of course doesn't justify fluff.

but really, u'd think europe would adopt and impliment kyoto regardless of whether others did it if it were so good and reasonable. they do have controlling green parties after all. course they didn't, its just another anti american bash effort.
Something had to be done and Kyoto was to be just a start. Without certain key players the attempt becomes pointless as the problem is Global and not Local. AFAIK many European countries will still implement it, but unless others do something outside of Kyoto, the implementation will be in vain.
bull. as you said, just a start. if the european countries impliemented it, nothing would happen? i don't think so, they'd atleast have a cleaner enviroment and the moral high ground and leadership. if its the right thing to do, why does it matter if others dont. it would be just a start. the european countries didn't impliement it because they knew it was just an antiamerican political move. with giant double standards for other polluting countries like china to be completely exempt from the law. if its a global problem then allowing exemptions should make it pointless. well.. thats true. its quite pointless and unfair.
It is a Global problem, not a Local one. If you can't accept even that there's no point continuing the discussion.

if you can't save all the burning buildings, why save any at all right? why use catylitic converters in car or non leaded gasoline when others won't stop huh? the eu esp france always wants to be the leader, well here was their chance, and they pissed it all away. why not set an example if the protocol is reasonable? you fail to address this. only capable of doing the right thing when others do too? thats no excuse for anything. a global problem? then why allow certain countries to pollute through double standards? defeats the entire purpose as you've said. if you can't admit that kyoto was rife with politics, and double standards that would allow poorer countries to pollute, theres no point in discussing this with you.
 

rahvin

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,475
1
0
Originally posted by: Wolfdog
Just this last year the ozone hole split into two. We have drastic ice melting in the arctic regions, with weather and climate changes everywhere. Ice shelfs are melting away and no one seems to care. The Robinson report is wrong, plain and simple. Made by morons, for the morons that believe them. We have the technology to cut emmisions vastly, but won't since it costs money. If not now then when? When the planet is so screwed up that it won't matter? We have seen the direct result of this these few last summers. They are getting hotter and hotter a few tenths of degrees every year. Winter weather is also been shown to be shifting. By people in the know.

Even if you cast all that aside, the environment is getting flushed down the toilet. There is acid rain killing natural habitants in lakes and rivers. Now I'm not a environmentalist by any means, but I would like to see some overall improvement in the way that things are done. This is the US and we should be leading the way in technology. There is no wonder why cancer rates are increasing, we are pumping more into the air and into the water than most of the other industrialized nations combined. The report was probably paid by Bush, since he didn't even care about the kyoto treaty. Which would have helped curb pollution on a worldwide scale. Oh it costs too much. Way to lead the way Bush! :(
Doom and gloom, doom and gloom. According to some estimates the cost of doing nothing and continuing on the path we are on is 5 trillion dollars (about half the US GDP). The cost of doing something about it ranges from 8trillion to 33 trillion (depending on how severe the measures are). From simply an economic perspective it will damage the world economy more to try to stop global warming than the global warming itself.

But lets be clear about something, global warming is a necessity for the survival of this planet. Without it we would be a large chunk of ice. Throughout the life of this planet the planet has ranged from big ball of ice to lush tropical oceans without polar ice caps. All the fossil fuels we are burning now are the dead organic material from the past, carbon that USED to be in the atmosphere and is currently trapped. On the scale of millienia the planets environment has varied drasticly from one end of the scale to the other. There is fairly concrete evidence that the change in average daily temperature since the 1700's has resulted in a 1.7^C increase over the past 300 years or so. This has resulted in exactly what?

Your post reads as if the world will end and all species will go extinct as a result of global warming. That is pure unadulterated fear mongering. Increased levels of CO2 benefit vegetation, it will result in a more lush environment. Even in the worst case scenario which is a 5^C increase in average global temperatures the global climate models predict (with 98% confidence) that the antartic ice shelf will remain in tact thereby preserveing average mean sea level.

So what is the real threat of global warming? The biggest threat is more violent weather. With more energy trapped in the system it will be expressed in the form of more violent and larger storms. Over the past century there has been an increase in the number and category of hurricanes off the US coasts, this is likely a direct result of global warming. A secondary threat is the movement of ecosystems, under the worst scenario the US corn belt would likely move into canada with other associated movement of ideal crop zones around the world. Are these serious and imminent threats to all life on the planet and the survivial of humanity? HARDLY

The single biggest threat to humanity would be a rising of average mean sea level (MSL), no current climate model predicts that occurance under the worst case assumption with any level of reasonable confidence. Ecosystems will adjust no matter how humans alter the environment of this planet. Life will survive and adapt to the environment. So next time you buy in whole heartedly to the doom and gloom prophecies why don't you put on your thinking cap and actually consider the real evidence?

Quite simply I'm a technologist, I believe humanity is on the verge of several major breakthroughs that will alter our impact on this planet drasticly. If we stifle progress in the name of saving the planet we will likely delay these breakthroughs, possibly indefinately and in the long run do MORE damage to the planet as we know it. Within 20 years the US will be on a hydrogen economy, fossil fuels will likely be on the way out as we transition to fission/fussion and renewable sources. The drive to these breakthroughs will be severely compromised if we crush our economy in the name of saving the planet when saving the planet will be driven by that economy.
 

Wolfdog

Member
Aug 25, 2001
187
0
0
I think technology has carried us far. Even comparing back as little as 30 years. Automobiles went from major polluters, to what they are today. Putting out a hundreth of what they did. There are however some key industries that could introduce higher purity air scrubbers to clean up thier emmisions. Which could be done without the major overhaul costs. It is however the lack of autohority that the US has taken that has become troublesome. It isn't just CO2 emmisions that come out from those smoke stacks. Doing nothing isn't an option any longer. Those trillions of dollars paid now would also create millions of jobs for people to both manufacture and install more ecologially safe measures. I have lived in places where it is unfit for you to go outside due to air pollution. It isn't a good feeling. Businesses aren't going to do it by themselves, so lay down a timeline to have it completed by. The technology is here right here and now. All we need is someone with the balls to make it happen. Not some guy who is pandering to the corporations.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
69,519
4,941
126
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: Napalm
I am not a global warming expert, but I am a scientist - so I feel that I am qualified to make a couple of simple points regarding the article:

1) Not a single point in the article is properly referenced - the norm for any scientific paper
2) It was not originally published by a peer reviewed journal - the norm for any scientific paper
3) It was published by the Wall Street Journal - a source that might have some sort of commercial bias in slagging global warming
4) The authors were chemists - not experts in climate change

Fluff IMHO...

N
Two words... Kyoto Accord.
Meaning?
he's just comparing fluff to fluff. which of course doesn't justify fluff.

but really, u'd think europe would adopt and impliment kyoto regardless of whether others did it if it were so good and reasonable. they do have controlling green parties after all. course they didn't, its just another anti american bash effort.
Something had to be done and Kyoto was to be just a start. Without certain key players the attempt becomes pointless as the problem is Global and not Local. AFAIK many European countries will still implement it, but unless others do something outside of Kyoto, the implementation will be in vain.
bull. as you said, just a start. if the european countries impliemented it, nothing would happen? i don't think so, they'd atleast have a cleaner enviroment and the moral high ground and leadership. if its the right thing to do, why does it matter if others dont. it would be just a start. the european countries didn't impliement it because they knew it was just an antiamerican political move. with giant double standards for other polluting countries like china to be completely exempt from the law. if its a global problem then allowing exemptions should make it pointless. well.. thats true. its quite pointless and unfair.
It is a Global problem, not a Local one. If you can't accept even that there's no point continuing the discussion.

if you can't save all the burning buildings, why save any at all right? why use catylitic converters in car or non leaded gasoline when others won't stop huh? the eu esp france always wants to be the leader, well here was their chance, and they pissed it all away. why not set an example if the protocol is reasonable? you fail to address this. only capable of doing the right thing when others do too? thats no excuse for anything. a global problem? then why allow certain countries to pollute through double standards? defeats the entire purpose as you've said. if you can't admit that kyoto was rife with politics, and double standards that would allow poorer countries to pollute, theres no point in discussing this with you.
Sigh. China and others were exempt to allow for Economic developement. Though they would eventually become a problem, by the time they were a problem the Industrialized world would have(probably) developed the technologies needed to address the problem. At that time China and others could use that technology, if they hadn't already started to use it.

As I said, Kyoto was just the begining, as it wouldn't solve the problem, just get closer to the solution. So, in the future other agreements/goals/conditions would be negotiated, at those times issues like China and what not could be addressed as well.

Why, when the US has already rejected it, do you insist on bashing Europeans for not doing so as well? They certainly intended to go ahead anyway, but recent events have made the Unilateral action even more pointless. It seems to me that peoples energy would be best applied to starting from scratch again, so that whatever is done can be done in an effective manner.
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,862
84
91
just a lot of double talk justifying the lack of backbone by the EU. why the EU? chief promoters of kyoto and denouncers of america for not adopting the protocal. if your going to talk the talk and not walk the walk you deserve to be bashed. not even bothering to adopt it and prove others wrong through example. tthey are just cowards. and allowing certain groups to skate by on their responsibility on a global issue that as you have already stated would be pointless if not everyone was aboard is a rather inconsistent. its rather desperate. the arguement that one will not and should not adopt a good enviromental policy because others will not is a rather pathetic arguement. an unworkable and fundamentally flawed protocol is not worth fixing and the EU knew that. they just needed to blame someone else so they could reject it under cover.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
69,519
4,941
126
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
just a lot of double talk justifying the lack of backbone by the EU. why the EU? chief promoters of kyoto and denouncers of america for not adopting the protocal. and allowing certain groups to skate by on their responsibility on a global issue that as you have already stated would be pointless if not everyone was aboard is a rather inconsistent. its rather desperate. the arguement that one will not and should not adopt a good enviromental policy because others will not is a rather pathetic arguement. an unworkable and fundamentally flawed protocol is not worth fixing and the EU knew that. they just needed to blame someone else so they could reject it under cover.
They were going ahead with it until Russia pulled out.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY