Can anyone show me how CO2 released by humans causes GW?

[Silverhandorder]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztvxGbH8Mqw

I tend to agree with these guys. Where is the proof that 2% of CO2 that humanity produces has any effect. Where is the science behind it? Where are the concrete numbers that show exactly by how much we increase it?

[Carl Ragadamn]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztvxGbH8Mqw

I tend to agree with these guys. Where is the proof that 2% of CO2 that humanity produces has any effect. Where is the science behind it? Where are the concrete numbers that show exactly by how much we increase it?

Just do the research yourself, it is easy.

Step 1: Collect 3 months worth of farts in jars

Step 2: ??????

Step 3: Profit

[Toxic Waste]

Just do the research yourself, it is easy.

Step 1: Collect 3 months worth of farts in jars

Step 2: ??????

Step 3: Profit

Step 4: Post steps on forumfall so some other idiotic fuck will try it.

[ExiliuM]

Those Chuck Norris roundhouse kicks aren't cheap. Only one needs the power supply of Australia for 44 minutes, out of its sheer force

Step 4: Post steps on forumfall so some other idiotic fuck will try it.

Bahahahahaha. I wonder if it works though..

[Rigan Pere]

Interesting video.

Does make me now wonder why the media and government are all "global warming, everyone cut back!!!"

hmmm, what conspiracy could there be involving global warming.

[Elemancer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztvxGbH8Mqw

I tend to agree with these guys. Where is the proof that 2% of CO2 that humanity produces has any effect. Where is the science behind it? Where are the concrete numbers that show exactly by how much we increase it?

heh, unfortunately, all you're going to get is discredit of those two gentlemen and the fact that global warming is a scientific consenus known worldwide except by those who are religious, republican, fascist, or a combination of any three...

I tend to agree that it's REALLY REALLY hard to connect the dots to human CO2 causing the global warming trend. I've read white papers from various scientists, and it's so hard to even interpret the results without having some sort of agenda. The data right now is within 2 std devs for global warming that it's hard to tell if it's a trend or simply a slight variation. Then, to correlate that to CO2 output is even further blurry, but these people taken it a third step and link causation to not only CO2, but the specific CO2 emitted by humans.

These people would be better served to make the arguement that our environmental impacts are causing global weather change patterns that we just don't know what will happen. Now, THAT's a bus I could potentially jump on.

[ExiliuM]

PutinTank (http://putintank.ytmnd.com/) will end global warming.

That's your solution to everything.

It works though.

[DocGonzo]

ummm...there's much more to it all than just CO2

but i know that some don't like what passes for their "thinking" to be cluttered up with shit like....facts

[Silverhandorder]

ummm...there's much more to it all than just CO2

but i know that some don't like what passes for their "thinking" to be cluttered up with shit like....facts

What is this much more?

[DocGonzo]

the Persecution rests...

[Silverhandorder]

So why you in this thread? Just to show off that you are a retard that can't build an argument?

[Toxic Waste]

What is this much more?

Well, logically speaking I think that by saying it's "much more" we can eliminate things like "much less" and "a lower number than." Also, you might want to consider striking "equal to" and "about the same number as" off your list, as these clearly do not fit into the "much more" category. Hope that helps.

[Leonon]

I personally think any major effect that humans have on the environmental temperature would be caused by large stone or metal structures. Freaking heat batteries.

[Silverhandorder]

Well, logically speaking I think that by saying it's "much more" we can eliminate things like "much less" and "a lower number than." Also, you might want to consider striking "equal to" and "about the same number as" off your list, as these clearly do not fit into the "much more" category. Hope that helps.

So there is no evidence as to what this much more is? So you waste your breath acting like a retard?

[Elemancer]

I personally think any major effect that humans have on the environmental temperature would be caused by large stone or metal structures. Freaking heat batteries.

DING DING DING DING

We have a billion zimbabwe dollar winnar right here!

The fact that deforestation to put those cities there also accelerates erosion and other natural processes. Then again, I believe humans > * and whatever it takes to get us going in the short term will enable us to live and adapt for the long term.

[Toxic Waste]

So there is no evidence as to what this much more is? So you waste your breath acting like a retard?

:( I thought I was helping. However, let me note that I no breath was wasted typing that reply, as I was not... you know... talking.

As for evidence, how about I post something you can understand. (http://epa.gov/climatechange/kids/index.html)

[rwp80]

I'm far too lazy to find links for all this...

A British scientist proved that temperature levels are affected by the sun, not CO2 levels.
So CO2 has no effect on temperature, hence Global Warming (and "Carbon Footprint") is bullshit.

Also, the temperature of the planet has a delayed knock-on effect that dictates the CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
So CO2 is caused by temperature, which is controlled by the sun.

Sun -> Temp. -> CO2

Humans are not in the loop. That's what everybody is afraid to admit.

Global Warming is a worldwide multi-million (billion?) dollar scam to get people to obey. Seriously, all it exists for is yet another way to make the masses subservient. It's just mass manipulators trying to flex their muscles. It's scary how everyone just follows like sheep. Quite sad actually.

TLDR: Global Warming is bullshit.

[Vessol]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztvxGbH8Mqw

I tend to agree with these guys. Where is the proof that 2% of CO2 that humanity produces has any effect. Where is the science behind it? Where are the concrete numbers that show exactly by how much we increase it?

While I'm apathetic about humans causing "global warming" or whatever. I have a question for you.

Is it bad that we assume that we are causing at least harm to the world(not talking about global warming). But I mean: deforestation, massive using of resources that cannot regenerate, widespread farmland which erodes and makes the soil useless, etc.
Obviously none of these are good for the environment and have potential problems themselves.
Do you think that we should try to stop these problems? Try to cut down on the clear cutting of forests and exploitation of resources, etc?

Remember, this is NOT an question about global warming or anything. But rather of ecological preservation.

[Elemancer]

So there is no evidence as to what this much more is? So you waste your breath acting like a retard?

Actually, many papers point to water vapor as being the number 1 contributor to global warming. However, (big caveat here) increased water vapor, with increased particulates (especialyl from those evil coal power plants) should/does lead to greater cloud cover...This cloud cover is thought to reflect light to a much greater extent than the ground or even ocean surfaces.

Hopefully, I don't have to connect those dots from here, but yea, doc isn't giving you both sides of the story.

He'll also refer you to the methane that's been released from farm animals, which cause temperatures to heat just enough to melt the permafrost that's holding in other methane and such. It's all conjecture at the moment, in that this stuff IS happening, but there's not a great deal of correlation or even causation for that matter to human's impact over the years.

[Silverhandorder]

:( I thought I was helping. However, let me note that I no breath was wasted typing that reply, as I was not... you know... talking.

As for evidence, how about I post something you can understand. (http://epa.gov/climatechange/kids/index.html)

Exactly what I was not looking for. It does not show by how much the CO2 effects the atmosphere.

While I'm apathetic about humans causing "global warming" or whatever. I have a question for you.

Is it bad that we assume that we are causing at least harm to the world(not talking about global warming). But I mean: deforestation, massive using of resources that cannot regenerate, widespread farmland which erodes and makes the soil useless, etc.
Obviously none of these are good for the environment and have potential problems themselves.
Do you think that we should try to stop these problems? Try to cut down on the clear cutting of forests and exploitation of resources, etc?

Remember, this is NOT an question about global warming or anything. But rather of ecological preservation.
Which makes all the Climate Change rhetoric irrelevant. I am concerned about those things. I don't like to be fed lies however.

[nathanpinard]

Uhhh, wait. I thought the whole global warming thing was cause by the various fumes by various polluting industries that supposedly eat up the ozone layer, causing more of the suns radiation to come through and melt the polar icecaps eventually from the heat.

Sooo...they are saying CO2 is the cause? They know that that gets absorbed by vegetation right?

The only arguement in this case, is that the rain forest isn't as big as it used to be, as it's the biggest O2 producer in the world.

[Toxic Waste]

Exactly what I was not looking for. It does not show by how much the CO2 effects the atmosphere.

-_-

"I don't think he gets it," I say to myself.

"Yeah," I respond to myself. "I think you're right."

[Elemancer]

While I'm apathetic about humans causing "global warming" or whatever. I have a question for you.

Is it bad that we assume that we are causing at least harm to the world(not talking about global warming). But I mean: deforestation, massive using of resources that cannot regenerate, widespread farmland which erodes and makes the soil useless, etc.
Obviously none of these are good for the environment and have potential problems themselves.
Do you think that we should try to stop these problems? Try to cut down on the clear cutting of forests and exploitation of resources, etc?

Remember, this is NOT an question about global warming or anything. But rather of ecological preservation.

I agree with this guy, to the extent that it does not cause excessive regulation and impede the progression of the human race. Essentially, when it comes to environmentalism, you have two camps: The conservatives and the progressives.

Remember, it takes oil, coal, and atomic power to power those research efforts into other renewable energy sources...The moment you start restricting those resources is the moment you're impeding progress to a varying extent.

[Silverhandorder]

Uhhh, wait. I thought the whole global warming thing was cause by the various fumes by various polluting industries that supposedly eat up the ozone layer, causing more of the suns radiation to come through and melt the polar icecaps eventually from the heat.

Sooo...they are saying CO2 is the cause? They know that that gets absorbed by vegetation right?

The only arguement in this case, is that the rain forest isn't as big as it used to be, as it's the biggest O2 producer in the world.

Pollution is a seperate issue from Global Warming. I am against polution. However CO2 is what liberals are after.


Actually, many papers point to water vapor as being the number 1 contributor to global warming. However, (big caveat here) increased water vapor, with increased particulates (especialyl from those evil coal power plants) should/does lead to greater cloud cover...This cloud cover is thought to reflect light to a much greater extent than the ground or even ocean surfaces.

Hopefully, I don't have to connect those dots from here, but yea, doc isn't giving you both sides of the story.

He'll also refer you to the methane that's been released from farm animals, which cause temperatures to heat just enough to melt the permafrost that's holding in other methane and such. It's all conjecture at the moment, in that this stuff IS happening, but there's not a great deal of correlation or even causation for that matter to human's impact over the years.

Exactly. This is why it pisses me off when people scream consensus when there is so little evidence and proof.

[DocGonzo]

the oceans are the biggest O2 producers, actually

take a look at what's happening to those ecosystems, add in deforestation, look at ALL the compounds the works of Man produce and one would have to be simple minded to not think there is SOME detrimental effect on global conditions

one person dumping their sewage into a river is not a big deal...a million doing it kills everything in and near the water...

nuff said...

[Silverhandorder]

-_-

"I don't think he gets it," I say to myself.

"Yeah," I respond to myself. "I think you're right."


My sarcasm and humor detectors are turned off today.

the oceans are the biggest O2 producers, actually

take a look at what's happening to those ecosystems, add in deforestation, look at ALL the compounds the works of Man produce and one would have to be simple minded to not think there is SOME detrimental effect on global conditions

one person dumping their sewage into a river is not a big deal...a million doing it kills everything in and near the water...

nuff said...

Currently the only arguments I hear from GW crowd is that we must reduce CO2 emissions.

[Vessol]

So you all are in agreement that under reasonable regulation we should try to step towards a more preservationist approach to the environment? We need to take a lot of steps back though, the number 1 of them being reducing our population..though with the recent food shortages that might be what happens next.

If it is our fault or not, we should at least take responsibility for keeping the environment together and properly functioning.

People who focus on CO2 alone are pretty retarded, it's a lot of issues that are fucking up our environment. Saying that environment is perfect and we've done nothing detrimental to it is retarded as well.

[The Cougar]

I'm far too lazy to find links for all this...

A British scientist proved that temperature levels are affected by the sun, not CO2 levels.
So CO2 has no effect on temperature, hence Global Warming (and "Carbon Footprint") is bullshit.

Also, the temperature of the planet has a delayed knock-on effect that dictates the CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
So CO2 is caused by temperature, which is controlled by the sun.

That's some ignorant stuff, I'm assuming you're concluding this by yourself from loose bits of information picked up from somewhere.

Obviously temperature is affected by the sun. Any 3 year old knows that, no British scientist is needed. However, it's been shown several times how the correlation between the sun and the global warming trend stopped in the 1970s, where the modern global warming trend began. The point is that CO2 levels in the atmosphere also affects the temperature.

Simplifying the current argument of the global warming advocates, CO2 levels in the atmosphere is certainly raised when the temperature is going up, but the opposite is also true, meaning that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere affects the temperature as well by trapping more heat from the sun. This leads to a feedback loop where more CO2 leads to higher temperatures and higher temperatures leads to more CO2. It's a pretty simple argument, and it's entirely what the global warming advocates are relying on right now.

[DocGonzo]

Currently the only arguments I hear from GW crowd is that we must reduce CO2 emissions.

"only" and "I hear" demonstrate just why you make ignorant statements

[Silverhandorder]

So you all are in agreement that under reasonable regulation we should try to step towards a more preservationist approach to the environment? We need to take a lot of steps back though, the number 1 of them being reducing our population..though with the recent food shortages that might be what happens next.

If it is our fault or not, we should at least take responsibility for keeping the environment together and properly functioning.

People who focus on CO2 alone are pretty retarded, it's a lot of issues that are fucking up our environment.

As long as it is done by rational people.

Industries don't really need regulation. Pollution is illegal last I checked. If they are posisoning te air they should be shut down.

[DocGonzo]

As long as it is done by rational people.

Industries don't really need regulation. Pollution is illegal last I checked. If they are posisoning te air they should be shut down.

so when it's good business to dump a million in pollution per day at the cost of a $25k per day max fine...then it's ok with you?

this happens every day, at coal plants and in our oceans...to name just a few

your Faith in your Master's is truly staggering...

[Silverhandorder]

"only" and "I hear" demonstrate just why you make ignorant statements

Please show me an argument made by Al Gore that doesn't cry about CO2. For that matter any other panel that doesn't site CO2 as the problem.

[Silverhandorder]

so when it's good business to dump a million in pollution per day at the cost of a $25k per day max fine...then it's ok with you?

this happens every day, at coal plants and in our oceans...to name just a few

your Faith in your Master's is truly staggering...

It is illegal, the bussiness wil be shut down and people arrested. It is an enforcement problem not a regulation problem.

[Vessol]

As long as it is done by rational people.

Industries don't really need regulation. Pollution is illegal last I checked. If they are posisoning te air they should be shut down.

It's not illegal, you are only supportively allowed to pump out so much pollution, but it is usually not even enforced.
It's cheaper to not have any regulation and allows more profit, that's why it needs regulation if you want to take a preservationist stance. Why should a free market capitalist give a shit about the environment if he is making a huge profit now?

If you don't you might as well chop down all the trees in the world as they are for the free market to make timber. Regulation is for pussies. Chop 'em all down.

[Carl Ragadamn]

DING DING DING DING

We have a billion zimbabwe dollar winnar right here!


wait he won $0.25 ?

[The Cougar]

Actually, many papers point to water vapor as being the number 1 contributor to global warming.
It's a major contributor indeed, though I feel obliged to point out it's not a forcing factor. Levels of water vapor in the atmosphere is a direct function of temperature. If more CO2 in the atmosphere makes the temperature go up [which it does, since it's a greenhouse gas], the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere also goes up, further raising the temperature. CO2 as a greenhouse gas doesn't only raise temperature all by itself, it also has a bunch things causing 'positive feedback', one of them being water vapor.

[Silverhandorder]

It's not illegal, you are only supportively allowed to pump out so much pollution, but it is usually not even enforced.
It's cheaper to not have any regulation and allows more profit, that's why it needs regulation if you want to take a preservationist stance. Why should a free market capitalist give a shit about the environment if he is making a huge profit now?

If you don't you might as well chop down all the trees in the world as they are for the free market to make timber. Regulation is for pussies. Chop 'em all down.

If it is private land he can chop as many trees as he wants to. However if he is pumping gas on his private land that then pollutes my air that is illegal. It is a precedent set in court long ago.

[DocGonzo]

It is illegal, the bussiness wil be shut down and people arrested. It is an enforcement problem not a regulation problem.

it's perfectly legal..look it the fuck up

they bring the EPA guy out on the barge's with them, they come by daily to some of the coal plants... they do it, and pay the fines as part of their overhead costs

the real costs are western New England's trees covered in mercury at certain times a year, and billions of pounds of shit pumped into our air or dumped into the oceans...

just to name a few...but you don't "hear about" that..and it never occurs to you to doubt your Master's and look for yourself...much less think it through, and so continue and pollute any decent things you might have to contribute with the doleful bleats of an indoctrinated dittohead sheeple mentally asleep and cozy in Mommy's basement with no intrusion form the real world...


:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

[Silverhandorder]

It's a major contributor indeed, though I feel obliged to point out it's not a forcing factor. Levels of water vapor in the atmosphere is a direct function of temperature. If more CO2 in the atmosphere makes the temperature go up [which it does, since it's a greenhouse gas], the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere also goes up, further raising the temperature. CO2 as a greenhouse gas doesn't only raise temperature all by itself, it also has a bunch things causing 'positive feedback', one of them being water vapor.

By how much? Last I checked there is an equilibrium going. So CO2 is being re-absorbed at faster rate also.

[Vessol]

If it is private land he can chop as many trees as he wants to. However if he is pumping gas on his private land that then pollutes my air that is illegal. It is a precedent set in court long ago.

Psh, more regulation. All land is open to being used by companies, or it should be. They should be allowed to chop down anything they want, but no, you want regulation that only allows them to cut down trees on their own land. Damned socialists, always wanting more and more regulation.

The free market is about PROFIT, not about laws or regulation. You should be able to do anything that makes a profit, even if its cheaper to pump shit in the air and clear cut trees.

[Silverhandorder]

it's perfectly legal..look it the fuck up

they bring the EPA guy out on the barge's with them, they come by daily to some of the coal plants... they do it, and pay the fines as part of their overhead costs

the real costs are western New England's trees covered in mercury at certain times a year, and billions of pounds of shit pumped into our air or dumped into the oceans...

just to name a few...but you don't "hear about" that..and it never occurs to you to doubt your Master's and look for yourself...much less think it through, and so continue and pollute any decent things you might have to contribute with the doleful bleats of an indoctrinated dittohead sheeple mentally asleep and cozy in Mommy's basement with no intrusion form the real world...


:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:


You are being intelectually dishonest as always. My point still stands. I am not familiar with the problem. However common sense would dictate that they should be arrested once they dump the material. It is illegal to pollute your neighbor's property.

Your problem is not with regulation it is with enforcement.

[Silverhandorder]

Psh, more regulation. All land is open to being used by companies, or it should be. They should be allowed to chop down anything they want, but no, you want regulation that only allows them to cut down trees on their own land. Damned socialists, always wanting more and more regulation.

Public land is not private. There can be as much regulation as the government (public) wants.

[DocGonzo]

You are being intelectually dishonest as always. My point still stands. I am not familiar with the problem. However common sense would dictate that they should be arrested once they dump the material. It is illegal to pollute your neighbor's property.

Your problem is not with regulation it is with enforcement.

you are simple minded...

it IS illegal to dump, the MAXIMUM fine is $25k, business owners know that and dump millions worth of shit and pay the $25k as part of operating costs...

every day....

for decades....

learn2read

[Vessol]

Public land is not private. There can be as much regulation as the government (public) wants.

Government regulation? Socialist. A free market society has no regulation.

[Silverhandorder]

you are simple minded...

it IS illegal to dump, the MAXIMUM fine is $25k, business owners know that and dump millions worth of shit and pay the $25k as part of operating costs...

every day....

for decades....

learn2read

And I am telling you that it should be enforced more thoroughly. Jail comes to mind. Which is an enforcement problem.

In any case this is not an example of regulation. An example of regulation would be telling this company how to manufacture their goods.

Government regulation? Socialist. A free market society has no regulation.

I am not sure you and me follow the same Paul :).

[Vessol]

I am not sure you and me follow the same Paul :).

I follow Big Brother. Ron Paul is a pussy for regulation, wanting individual rights, compared to Big Brother he is Karl Marx, a damned socialist.

[Silverhandorder]

I follow Big Brother. Ron Paul is a pussy for regulation, wanting individual rights, compared to Big Brother he is Karl Marx, a damned socialist.

That is a canundrum because Big Brother is total state of regulation.

[DocGonzo]

And I am telling you that it should be enforced more thoroughly. Jail comes to mind. Which is an enforcement problem.

In any case this is not an example of regulation. An example of regulation would be telling this company how to manufacture their goods.


it IS being enforced , to the maximum that current regulatory laws allow...there is NO jail time on the books for this, just the fine

regulation = setting maximums on ho wmuch shit can be spewed

enforcement = levying the fines according to the law

what's broken = not setting strict enough penalties for breaking the regulatory statutes

i can't make it any simpler...

[Vessol]

That is a canundrum because Big Brother is total state of regulation.

Regulation is withholding profit. Big Brother does not withhold profit, he is a free market capitalist.

[Silverhandorder]

it IS being enforced , to the maximum that current regulatory laws allow...there is NO jail time on the books for this, just the fine

regulation = setting maximums on ho wmuch shit can be spewed

enforcement = levying the fines according to the law

what's broken = not setting strict enough penalties for breaking the regulatory statutes

i can't make it any simpler...

We are arguing two different things. There should be no regulation when you are breaking the law.

The example you bring up is detailed in Ron Paul's book. He says that there is no need for regulatory bodies in this example because this has been settled in court.

Pollution has been for long time handled in courts. Pollution effects people's private property and therefore without their consent is not allowed. With this case it also affects people's public property.

Therefore any pollution no matter how little should be persecuted by the law. First comes a fine. Then comes jail.

What I have a hard time comprehending is why you would think I would be alright with someone dumping pollution and only getting same fine as long as they do it. No sane government works like that. In this case regulation is actually the problem. It sets an illegal act which should be punishable and preventable by the law into a static fine. This is a case of a said company buying out the regulatory bodies. Maybe you should bitch and how bad of a system it is?

[DocGonzo]

i AM saying the systemics are at fault... and you appear oblivious as to the why and how of it, merely confirming you aren't worth the electrons wasted from your typing

[Silverhandorder]

Regulation is withholding profit. Big Brother does not withhold profit, he is a free market capitalist.

Read up on John Locke and Adam Smith. There is a difference between liberty and dictator ship. Big Brother is not an individual and can not have more rights then an individual.

Free markets work under the premise that anyone is free to do their bussiness as they wish.

Profit should only be protected when it is obtained through will full trade of goods between two individuals.

i AM saying the systemics are at fault... and you appear oblivious as to the why and how of it, merely confirming you aren't worth the electrons wasted from your typing

Semantics? The system you advocate works as good as mine but at the cost of individual liberty.

Doc you should just agree that you do not understand the works of Adam Smith and John Locke. The examples you provide can be explained completly by those works.

It is you who has hard time comprehending the things you talk about.

Here is a clue, when we both agree on the problem and the solution and disagree on implementation then I can't be so far gone as to not even constitute an argument from you. You are just running away from things on which you are not qualified to discuss. Throw is some adhomiems to derail the argument too. You do ths constantly. One only needs to press long enough to get you do that.

Now to wait until Doc runs in here and starts screaming to let forumfall decide.
3
2
1

[Barbarossa]

I fart.

A lot.

I am PROUD to contribute to greenhouse gases.

Just doing my part by contributing a fart.

[palo god]

Regulation is withholding profit. Big Brother does not withhold profit, he is a free market capitalist.

Even in a free market you're not allowed to damage(pollute) public or private property without the consent of the owners of those property's.

[DocGonzo]

Doc you should just agree that you do not understand the works of Adam Smith and John Locke.

read them long before you were born, it's a shame you don't appear to be able to read and comprehend simple type

[Silverhandorder]

read them long before you were born, it's a shame you don't appear to be able to read and comprehend simple type

Its ok both of what we said is out there.

[Synaptic]

My lifestyle is not negotiable k ?

[MotionSickness]

Um if co2 dosent effect warming why are the most poluted citys on the planet with there awsome smog hazes, Also the warmest citys at night ?

Could it be because the heat dosent get to disapate, during the cool of night due to the smog of co2 ?

If so does this help to the build up the overall planets temp considering how many 5 mil + smog hazed citys we have now.. ?

Its not just co2 though to blame of course

Its a combination of events,
1. we removed 1/2 the world's tree allrdy, when ya look at farmland around the world, it was nealy all woodlands and forests, cleared over the last 200 years( this in some areas, has to lead to instant deserts. see Western Australia salinty salt plains problems, cause water table was disrupted bringing salt which killed everying for 100k's around)

2. we are pumping large volumes of co2 into the atmosphere, which was not dont 200 years ago

3. the oceans are now filthy, completly filthy beyond what average people even understand, isent a square kilometer of ocean with out rubish from humans now

http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=598914 <-- watch this and tell me it dosent make you sad. Also understand it's not just Hawaii, I'ts also Africa, South American beaches which have currents drive into them. Just think how long that rubish took to travell there, and realize even if we stop today rubish will be washing up on beaches for another 100 years +

4. as the temp rises ever so slightly, ice melts this makes global warming even faster, not slower(oil companys allrdy fighting over artic oil and gas, being unlocked profitering off the wrolds decline)... currently the perma frost for alska and canada is under 1 degree of melting, the warmest it has been in 100's of thousands of years it holds and stores a volume of co2 which would = the last 100 years of co2 emmisions in one go

5. if the world has been stable for thousands of years over 50 thousand then isent that evidence enough , as humans go forth towards the 7 billion mark, we do have an effect

6. If it isent co2 or our own polution which causes the planet downfall isent that really to big of a risk to do nothing about anyways...


on a finall note, all these people who say it's all bull shit.. does that mean you accept and want to live in a world of garbage and poluted air, because its only accumilating at this current stage, So say i agree with you its all crap is no global warming, YaY i have a future of smog and plastic beaches ?

Are those people who say global warming is a myth. Would they still like to live in a pristine clean air enviroment with the greenies anyway ???


For me at the end of the day your stupid debates over warming not warming co2 not co2, dont matter, because common sense prevails, and I want to live in a clean enviorment.. so we are going to clean it up regradless, of what it effects right ?

[Mhorham]

Are you guys serrious?

Do they not teach the carbon cycle in science class anymore?

Check out stuff like The Younger Dryas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas) and other climatic events of recent history for some clues.

[Silverhandorder]

Well motionsickness I never disagreed with importance of not poluting our world.

I still can't see how CO2 specifically is connected. Smog is not CO2 alone.

Further more how can a greenhouse gas keep air warm at night when it traps light? Maybe I am being picky because it can easily be suggested that you meant the ammount that was trapped during the day shows with higher temperatures at night. I am still skeptic considering the ammount of other emmisions that the city sends out. Heat is also generated at night by the inhabitants.

Also about deforestation. There was about the same ammount of forest during the dinasour age but the temperatures were on avg much hotter. So I don't see how deforestation can blamed for rising temperatures.

In any case if you have any concrete numbers about CO2 I would love to see them.

Are you guys serrious?

Do they not teach the carbon cycle in science class anymore?

Check out stuff like The Younger Dryas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas) and other climatic events of recent history for some clues.

That was informative thank you.

[Nexus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztvxGbH8Mqw

American news anchors are complete twats, no offense to the rest of you.

They act like very opinionated, self-entitled goons that prematurely warp their fucktarded opinions into fact as they sneer out the slivers of news.

EDIT : Also, check out the graph on the right http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Completely negates what little points those scientists had.

[Silverhandorder]

American news anchors are complete twats, no offense to the rest of you.

They act like very opinionated, self-entitled goons that prematurely warp their fucktarded opinions into fact as they sneer out the slivers of news.

EDIT : Also, check out the graph on the right http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Completely negates what little points those scientists had.


I am not denying that the globe is getting warmer. Is it the human CO2?

[Dirty l3um]

I am not denying that the globe is getting warmer. Is it the human CO2?

since the C02 caps on mars are melting (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html) i think their correct about the sun. Why would mars and earth be warming? wow thats weird isnt it, its happening in other places that are affected by the sun? wow, so we cant control everything??? lol we think we the gods of our existence... fricking retarded

heres 30,000 scientists that are against (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ&NR=1) global warming

[Slypieguy]

All the charts that the global warming alarmists use show a grand total of like the last 100-200 years, which is a drop in the fucking bucket in terms of climate. OMG you mean the Earth's climate has patterns and we're right where we should be??!
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/8/8f/Ice_Age_Temperature_Rev.png
http://www.itpi.co.in/Resources/Climate_change/global_temperature_co2.jpg

I think one of the main problems is that politicians/idiots don't really understand the scale that the Earth operates on.

[DocGonzo]

All the charts that the global warming alarmists use show a grand total of like the last 100-200 years, which is a drop in the fucking bucket in terms of climate. OMG you mean the Earth's climate has patterns and we're right where we should be??!
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/8/8f/Ice_Age_Temperature_Rev.png
http://www.itpi.co.in/Resources/Climate_change/global_temperature_co2.jpg

I think one of the main problems is that politicians/idiots don't really understand the scale that the Earth operates on.

a fair point...

but one that is counterbalanced by the simpletons who think that the closed loop systemics of our biosphere can absorb an infinite of shit before negative feedback occurs...

[Hashbrownz]

you know i once tried to figure out how many trees we could stand to lose before we ran out of oxygen.

i found that around 22 trees supplys enough oxygen for one human being, and somewhere around 18 people can live off of 1 acre of forest.

well its almost inconclusive to even try and find an exact number of trees in the world. but if you go any tree hugging hippie website the number of acres/trees they say is in the world compared to what the above study says, would mean everyone would be suffocated to death years ago.

i thought that was intresting.

as for global warming... dont you guys remember y2k? same thing different name.

to think the atmosphere will stay the same forever is stupid, but to think we will doom it is stupid also. it wont happen in your lifetime, your kids, your grandkids, or your grand grandkids. so i mean wtf, why care.

out of sight, out of mind.

[Slypieguy]

a fair point...

but one that is counterbalanced by the simpletons who think that the closed loop systemics of our biosphere can absorb an infinite of shit before negative feedback occurs...

What "negative feedback?" Glaciers melting and sea levels rising.... like they've done all throughout history?

[DocGonzo]

What "negative feedback?" Glaciers melting and sea levels rising.... like they've done all throughout history?

ask a brontosaurus....or the dodo bird...

could be severe changes in atmospherics, could be a virus that targets the offending species...maybe sexually transmitted and obstructing the immune system....could be 8 foot tall cockroaches...could be massive algae die off, changing the very mixture of the air

Nature is a bitch, piss Her off at your own peril, imo

[Slypieguy]

ask a brontosaurus....or the dodo bird...

could be severe changes in atmospherics, could be a virus that targets the offending species...maybe sexually transmitted and obstructing the immune system....could be 8 foot tall cockroaches...could be massive algae die off, changing the very mixture of the air

Nature is a bitch, piss Her off at your own peril, imo

Just because we've gotten used to how things are during our short stay on Earth doesn't mean it's the "right" way for them to be. Please tell me how normal shifts in temperature are going to create some new disease or make algae die off... algae has survived a hell of a lot of climate change already, lol. I would argue that keeping the climate from changing (not that we have the ability to do it anyway) would be more dangerous, because it could create some sort of bubble, and we all know how painful it can be when bubbles pop.

Also, the leading theory on dinosaurs continues to be the meteor theory, not climate change. And we're a little more adaptive than a dodo bird :p

[Weeking]

Temperature increases -> water gets saturated with gas and expel it

The world is like a bottle of carbonated water.

Researchers are mostly full of shit and are only after money and rely on the unscientific bullshit method you see almost every day in the newspaper: CORRELATION.

[DocGonzo]

/sigh

the algae won't die off from atmospheric changes...but from pollution and overfishing fucking up the food chain

you asked how negative feedback works in our closed loop biosphere...i gave random examples

and there's a high probability it will come about in a way no one had thought of, chaos principle and all of that...

my point is really simple... one should not shit in one's own bed and be surprised when it starts to smell and you don't sleep well...

all of the things that Man has overdone and thought that it wouldn't matter add up after a while...check lands that history tells us were fertile, but poor farming practices and sheep/goats chowing have made them deserts... check oceanographers and their study of coral and "dead zones" in the ocean

plenty of things if you take your blinders off...things WE can do something about, but don't...instead some lobby to make it worse for short term gains

i'm betting i'll be dead before the shitstorm...i'm olde, after all...

[Slypieguy]

/sigh

the algae won't die off from atmospheric changes...but from pollution and overfishing fucking up the food chain

you asked how negative feedback works in our closed loop biosphere...i gave random examples


I was asking with respect to global warming, not pollution/etc

[DocGonzo]

I was asking with respect to global warming, not pollution/etc

and you don't think there is ANY causal relation?

remember, dumping gases, mercury, lead and the like into the atmosphere is one form of pollution...it's not just about garbage

there is also destruction of biosphere...actual physical destruction, poor farming techniques eroding topsoil, clear cutting hundreds of thousands of square miles

as bad a we have done in the West, how much will that be multiplied by China and India , among other emerging countries?

you can't just isolate and focus in on only one Variable in the overall equation and even get close to accuracy

[Slypieguy]

and you don't think there is ANY causal relation?

remember, dumping gases, mercury, lead and the like into the atmosphere is one form of pollution...it's not just about garbage

there is also destruction of biosphere...actual physical destruction, poor farming techniques eroding topsoil, clear cutting hundreds of thousands of square miles

as bad a we have done in the West, how much will that be multiplied by China and India , among other emerging countries?

you can't just isolate and focus in on only one Variable in the overall equation and even get close to accuracy

Any causal relation between what?

[DocGonzo]

Any causal relation between what?

this...

I was asking with respect to global warming, not pollution/etc

[Ceosan]

cows are the number 1 offenders. so not technically human...
and dead grass is bad.

bottom line:
never mow ur lawn and dont let a cow to eat it

[Slypieguy]

this...

No, I don't think pollution causes global warming, or at least not enough to matter. This is still veering off from my initial question though; what is so bad about global warming?

[DocGonzo]

No, I don't think pollution causes global warming, or at least not enough to matter. This is still veering off from my initial question though; what is so bad about global warming?

ask Venice....

as for "not enough to matter", take a drink out of the East river sometime, or watch the Arthur Kill catch on fire....again

[Slypieguy]

ask Venice....


See this is what I'm talking about. Because people settled on some land that would be wiped out, this makes global warming "bad for the planet?" Coastal lands have been swallowed up and reborn tons of times over the Earth's history, and it's too bad for those who built in the danger zones. This is not an inherent "bad effect" of global warming. I think artificially trying to keep temperatures lower to protect our precious coastal lands would be more dangerous than letting nature run its course.


as for "not enough to matter", take a drink out of the East river sometime, or watch the Arthur Kill catch on fire....again

And those have what to do with global warming? I never said pollution has no bad effects, I just said it doesn't cause global warming, or not enough to matter.

[Rhambo]

wait he won $0.25 ?

he said billion not trillion, silly

[DocGonzo]

See this is what I'm talking about. Because people settled on some land that would be wiped out, this makes global warming "bad for the planet?" Coastal lands have been swallowed up and reborn tons of times over the Earth's history, and it's too bad for those who built in the danger zones. This is not an inherent "bad effect" of global warming. I think artificially trying to keep temperatures lower to protect our precious coastal lands would be more dangerous than letting nature run its course.



And those have what to do with global warming? I never said pollution has no bad effects, I just said it doesn't cause global warming, or not enough to matter.

just to clarify..i never said "bad for the planet"

i say bad for humans

but, whatever...i know there is no convincing some folks... so no worries

[Sbrafk]

Carbon dioxide levels do have an impact on global weather patterns, and most assuredly causes a greenhouse effect. When people (politicians) start spouting off their doomsday scenarios about some runaway greenhouse catastophy or start comparing Earth to Venus or whatever, then they're just BSing.

Earth was much warmer during the Eoscene.. but that was when CO2 levels were 20 times higher than today. Even then, no runaway greenhouse effect occured.


In fact, I think us humans warming up the Earth is a good thing, because we're due for another ice age pretty soon.

[Vidav]

CO2 emissions are a problem because their presence depletes ozone concentration in the atmosphere. Ozone reflects some of the light coming in from the sun back into space.

CO2 reacts with Ozone (Activation energy provided by sunlight) to produce a product that does not reflect as much of the sunlight. More sunlight going through the earth's atmosphere heats the Earth.

Global warming MIGHT fix itself. More sunlight = more plant photosynthesis = more production of 02 and glucose from C02. More sun light will also cause more evaporation from the oceans. Extra water vapor in the atmosphere might help block sun rays.

[BlueElf]

Apparently, global warming is real and we are only making it worse.


But what i want to know is this.

Why is global warming not only here on earth, but happening everywhere. Mars, Venus,Saturn blah blah

All the planets.

Seems it has something more to do with the sun and not all the CO2 stuff they are saying . UNLESS, we are causing so much pollution its affect all planets. that could be it.

.. Just saying

[Broockle]

i don't believe that global warming is due to CO2 release from fossil fuels or whatever. But i am disapointed that we still use them. I mean the technology is so inefficient, u have to refill a car after jsut about 5 hours of driving, plus it's expensive, also it's not nice polluting the air people breath, it can causeoxygen defiency and is even worse for people with asthma, also Alot of things absorb this CO2, like concrete walls which turn black over time due to CO2 exposure, and or materials also suffer from it.
I don't think that the world will go down due to fossil fuels but we shouldn't use that as an excuse to not quit fossilfuels anyway, there are enough other reasons.

[PirateGlen]

Therefore any pollution no matter how little should be persecuted by the law. First comes a fine. Then comes jail.


So... when someone drives by my house ejaculating exhaust from their vehicles and it wafts onto my property, they should be persecuted?

[Silverhandorder]

So... when someone drives by my house ejaculating exhaust from their vehicles and it wafts onto my property, they should be persecuted?

Technically yes. Realistically people do not enforce it and not enough people complain about it. However if you go to court and prove a factory is ruining your air the court will order the company to either filter their exhaust or shut down. At least it was like this 20 years ago.

just to clarify..i never said "bad for the planet"

i say bad for humans

but, whatever...i know there is no convincing some folks... so no worries

I agree with you on this. This means we have to attack the problem of pollution and not some mysterious CO2 connection. I am not disputing that CO2 is a green house gas. I just want to see the science that shows how much of this global warming change is caused by us.

CO2 emissions are a problem because their presence depletes ozone concentration in the atmosphere. Ozone reflects some of the light coming in from the sun back into space.

CO2 reacts with Ozone (Activation energy provided by sunlight) to produce a product that does not reflect as much of the sunlight. More sunlight going through the earth's atmosphere heats the Earth.

Global warming MIGHT fix itself. More sunlight = more plant photosynthesis = more production of 02 and glucose from C02. More sun light will also cause more evaporation from the oceans. Extra water vapor in the atmosphere might help block sun rays.


I found this article (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/shindell_05/) which seems to connect CO2 to Ozone depletion. However I don't know if you implied so originally or not it is done through different mechanisms then CO2 directly breaking down Ozone like CFCs did.

They are trying to say that CO2 helps to carry water vapor to upper levels of atmosphere and water breaks down homolyticaly to react with Ozone. However this seems unlikely because there has been a time as mentioned previously where we had far more CO2 in the atmosphere and we still have Ozone. They have several predictions tied in this report that seem contradictory to their findings in several places. They observe anomaly where upper atmosphere is getting cooler and Ozone is in a constant level and then they say Ozone is depleting and the atmosphere is getting warmer O__O.

There are indications that Methane has a bigger impact on ozone levels then CO2. Again this is an interesting take on the pollution issue and I would like to follow it closely for some time. Right now they do not provide the science behind the predictions and I need to see that to be convinced.

i don't believe that global warming is due to CO2 release from fossil fuels or whatever. But i am disapointed that we still use them. I mean the technology is so inefficient, u have to refill a car after jsut about 5 hours of driving, plus it's expensive, also it's not nice polluting the air people breath, it can causeoxygen defiency and is even worse for people with asthma, also Alot of things absorb this CO2, like concrete walls which turn black over time due to CO2 exposure, and or materials also suffer from it.
I don't think that the world will go down due to fossil fuels but we shouldn't use that as an excuse to not quit fossilfuels anyway, there are enough other reasons.

Actually aside from nuclear energy the fossil fuels are most efficient medium for storage of energy. Problem is our technology is not even advanced enough to use all this energy. The combustion engine only uses 15% of the energy from burning of the fuel.

If anything I would love to see a car that uses 100% of the energy and does not emit any CO2. This is technically possible.

[PirateGlen]

Technically yes. Realistically people do not enforce it and not enough people complain about it. However if you go to court and prove a factory is ruining your air the court will order the company to either filter their exhaust or shut down. At least it was like this 20 years ago.


I think it's unrealistic to be able to keep air pollutants from escaping into other's property. Businesses and individuals are much better off under what is currently in place: emission standards. (regulations)

[StainlessSteelRat]

American news anchors are complete twats, no offense to the rest of you.

They act like very opinionated, self-entitled goons that prematurely warp their fucktarded opinions into fact as they sneer out the slivers of news.

EDIT : Also, check out the graph on the right http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Completely negates what little points those scientists had.

lawl you are refuting a Harvard astrophysicist w/ a wiki link. Priceless.

http://www.look-to-the-skies.com/global_warming.htm

Just some additional information.

Doc - you seem very concerned w/ forests/pollution etc. Those are micro issues that are already heavily regulated and not really germaine to this 'issue'. Sure, pollution and complete deforestation should be held in check but neither really plays a role in the GW conspiracy.

[StainlessSteelRat]

ask Venice....

as for "not enough to matter", take a drink out of the East river sometime, or watch the Arthur Kill catch on fire....again

This is what I mean. ^^ is micro pollution issue. Nothing to do w/ GW.

[Silverhandorder]

I think it's unrealistic to be able to keep air pollutants from escaping into other's property. Businesses and individuals are much better off under what is currently in place: emission standards. (regulations)

That is the beauty of the system, if it is unrealistic to keep pollutants from escaping then make sure you don't let them escape into air in the first place.

Glen my system one voice can make a difference. Your system is broken (current regulations aid bussiness) and will not be fixed any time soon.

edit: Plus it is immoral!

[DocGonzo]

This is what I mean. ^^ is micro pollution issue. Nothing to do w/ GW.

Slippery Jim...

it's the interconnectedness of our closed loop biosphere that gives concern, imo

we truly are only scratching the surface in these areas, and this "micro" that you speak of are NOT being properly looked after due to the old white guy xtian "ethic" of the world being the domain of Man to use as our cesspool

this is now being expanded geometrically with China and India getting into the game... how much can the system take before negative feedback occurs?

a degree or two temp rise, compositional change of the atmosphere, dead zones in the oceans, deforestation....none of these alone are of too much concern...says the experts paid by those doing the fucking up

as they add together and interact, the system will push back...and for all the destructiveness of Man, we pale in comparison to what the system can do when it "corrects"

synthesis > analysis , imo

btw... another of my political bets paid off, 20 year old port cask Balvenie arrived today.... w00t!

[StainlessSteelRat]

Slippery Jim...

it's the interconnectedness of our closed loop biosphere that gives concern, imo

we truly are only scratching the surface in these areas, and this "micro" that you speak of are NOT being properly looked after due to the old white guy xtian "ethic" of the world being the domain of Man to use as our cesspool

this is now being expanded geometrically with China and India getting into the game... how much can the system take before negative feedback occurs?

a degree or two temp rise, compositional change of the atmosphere, dead zones in the oceans, deforestation....none of these alone are of too much concern...says the experts paid by those doing the fucking up

as they add together and interact, the system will push back...and for all the destructiveness of Man, we pale in comparison to what the system can do when it "corrects"

synthesis > analysis , imo

btw... another of my political bets paid off, 20 year old port cask Balvenie arrived today.... w00t!

I'm not advocating that we ignore these micro issues, but they aren't really relevant to the GW debate in its current form.

All the macro level changes occurring at this time are cyclical and have occurred before. Pro-GWs claim human CO2 emissions are accelerating the changes. Anti-GWs claim the whole thing is a snake oil sale. And judging by the money being made/spent and the potential (gov't spending......trillions) that can be made, it's pretty much a scam and actually detracts from the issues you mention.

[DocGonzo]

I'm not advocating that we ignore these micro issues, but they aren't really relevant to the GW debate in its current form.

All the macro level changes occurring at this time are cyclical and have occurred before. Pro-GWs claim human CO2 emissions are accelerating the changes. Anti-GWs claim the whole thing is a snake oil sale. And judging by the money being made/spent and the potential (gov't spending......trillions) that can be made, it's pretty much a scam and actually detracts from the issues you mention.

looking at just the data... is it impossible that dumping all these gasses (not just CO2) into the atmosphere are having some detrimental effects?

if there is ANY possibility of harm, would it not then make sense to do less harm, for sheer safety's sake?

that the part that boggles my mind, if ANY harm is caused, then why not work to minimize/eliminate said harm? find a way, it's merely a problem to be solved

the reason those vested interests don't want to is that it's hard, and will cut into their profits....so they do things like offer a cash bounty for ANY propaganda written against GW to discredit any possibility of there being any correlation and to muddy the waters

i cite the W administration doctoring their own figures and analysis as a case in point, and there was $15k offered by the "clean coal" consortium for any published article arguing against GW...no matter how specious...

that should be more than enough to sound alarm bells, imo

but, as i said... to me, ANY chance to do less harm should be taken

is it so bad to require say...50 mpg vehicles?

or tightening the regulations on power plant/factory emissions into the atmosphere?

on and on...but i think i've made my point decently enough

[Morthor]

Don't get me wrong. I'm open to new ideas, but what reason would the media / politicians have for hyping up global warming, if it doesn't exist? I mean, its the goverments that will have to sort alternative power sources. It seems pointless, why would they lie?

[StainlessSteelRat]

Don't get me wrong. I'm open to new ideas, but what reason would the media / politicians have for hyping up global warming, if it doesn't exist? I mean, its the goverments that will have to sort alternative power sources. It seems pointless, why would they lie?

$$$$$$

[Morthor]

$$$$$$

What would be the point, if all they do is spend it on renewable energy? Still don't see how the government could profit, it would just be more headaches for them.

[StainlessSteelRat]

looking at just the data... is it impossible that dumping all these gasses (not just CO2) into the atmosphere are having some detrimental effects?

Which data?

According to Professor Bob Carter,an environmental scientist at James Cook University who studies ancient climate change:

"The salient facts are these. First, the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric C02."

if there is ANY possibility of harm, would it not then make sense to do less harm, for sheer safety's sake?

that the part that boggles my mind, if ANY harm is caused, then why not work to minimize/eliminate said harm? find a way, it's merely a problem to be solved

No. There is a possibiliby that you will die in a car crash - modify your driving habits. That's the logic you want to apply here.

the reason those vested interests don't want to is that it's hard, and will cut into their profits....so they do things like offer a cash bounty for ANY propaganda written against GW to discredit any possibility of there being any correlation and to muddy the waters

i cite the W administration doctoring their own figures and analysis as a case in point, and there was $15k offered by the "clean coal" consortium for any published article arguing against GW...no matter how specious...

that should be more than enough to sound alarm bells, imo

GW is just going to replace 1 vested interest w/ another. I'm all for kicking out the current vested interests but have no wish to replace them.

but, as i said... to me, ANY chance to do less harm should be taken

is it so bad to require say...50 mpg vehicles?

No, but no reason to spend trillions of my tax money in order to make someone else rich doing it.

or tightening the regulations on power plant/factory emissions into the atmosphere?

on and on...but i think i've made my point decently enough

The regulations exist and once again, tightening them will only increase my cost w/ no apparent benefit.

[Sabbathius]

Proof? Easy.

Go into a large room. Sit down. Bring one guy and feed him beans until he starts passing wind like he's trying to generate electricity from a turbine. Would it be uncomfortable? Yeah, a little. But doors and windows would take care of it. Now put 20 people there and feed them beans. Now the doors and windows aren't doing too good. Next, fill the room with people, and people will start to pass out from the fumes. Same with global warming, it took 130 years to go from 1 billion to two, before that the population was measured in millions. But in the last 80 years we went from 2 billion to 7 billion, and still growing. You telling me this has no impact on the planet?

[StainlessSteelRat]

What would be the point, if all they do is spend it on renewable energy? Still don't see how the government could profit, it would just be more headaches for them.

The government won't profit. They will tax us and 'green' companies will become rich. Gov't officials will profit through increased campaign donations, perks, out right bribery, etc. Individuals will become rich (Al Gore - already made a killing).

And we, the 'middle class', will be stuck w/ the tab and we are shrinking thanks to gov't spending scams just like this one.

[StainlessSteelRat]

Proof? Easy.

Go into a large room. Sit down. Bring one guy and feed him beans until he starts passing wind like he's trying to generate electricity from a turbine. Would it be uncomfortable? Yeah, a little. But doors and windows would take care of it. Now put 20 people there and feed them beans. Now the doors and windows aren't doing too good. Next, fill the room with people, and people will start to pass out from the fumes. Same with global warming, it took 130 years to go from 1 billion to two, before that the population was measured in millions. But in the last 80 years we went from 2 billion to 7 billion, and still growing. You telling me this has no impact on the planet?

Your farting in a room model tells you it does?

Of course there is an impact. This issue is determing what that impact truly is, whether it's negative or not, whether we can do anything about it or not, etc.

If pure population is the issue, should we start implementing population control regulations? 2 babies and then your tubes are tied? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106950/

The GW debate is based on human generated CO2 causing an increase in global temps. This is simply not the case.

[Slisk]

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf

Here is your proof.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has taken all relevent data, analysed and now synthesised an assessment-report on the state of things. It's about looking at the big picture not just saying I believe what this guy says so the other guys must be lying. Sure some peoples well collected data may conflict with the global consensus but that doesn't NEGATE the fact that the vast bulk of research into global warming demonstrates clearly that 1) It exists. 2) It is "very likely" caused by anthropogenic green house gasses.

Suck it up puppies. Daddy is wrong about this one. Let it go.

[StainlessSteelRat]

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf

Here is your proof.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has taken all relevent data, analysed and now synthesised an assessment-report on the state of things. It's about looking at the big picture not just saying I believe what this guy says so the other guys must be lying. Sure some peoples well collected data may conflict with the global consensus but that doesn't NEGATE the fact that the vast bulk of research into global warming demonstrates clearly that 1) It exists. 2) It is "very likely" caused by anthropogenic green house gasses.

Suck it up puppies. Daddy is wrong about this one. Let it go.

"Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures
since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the
observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.8
This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most
of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to
have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations” (Figure
2.5). {WGI 9.4, SPM}

8 Consideration of remaining uncertainty is based on current methodologies."

Assumption is the mother of all fuck ups. This basically says that our model is built on the premise that GHG is responsible and when we plug in the 'data', it confirms that it is the case. That's like me telling my comp that I think 2 is really 3 and when I plug in 3 + 3 and the computer gives me 4; I have shown that 2 is really 3 in reality.

"It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic
warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent
(except Antarctica) (Figure 2.5). {WGI 3.2, 9.4, SPM}
The observed patterns of warming, including greater warming
over land than over the ocean, and their changes over time, are
simulated only by models that include anthropogenic forcing. No
coupled global climate model that has used natural forcing only
has reproduced the continental mean warming trends in individual
continents (except Antarctica) over the second half of the 20th century.
{WGI 3.2, 9.4, TS.4.2, SPM}"

So, the one location that isn't warming is the same location used to provide the CO2 level data. Does that seem like proper scientific due diligence to you?

And again, the whole basis for the claim is that CO2 causes increased temp and this is pure theory. The opposite is, according to many, more likely the case.

The only factual data I've seen so far is that the Earth is warming which is not in dispute. Most of the charts etc. in that report are based on models, models built to factor in man-made CO2 emissions as a factor. The model is going to show whatever you want based on the formulas and causal relationships you tell it to use. The issue or problem the naysayers have is that these formulas and causal relationships are theory and not proven.

[Sabbathius]

Your farting in a room model tells you it does?

Of course there is an impact. This issue is determing what that impact truly is, whether it's negative or not, whether we can do anything about it or not, etc.

If pure population is the issue, should we start implementing population control regulations? 2 babies and then your tubes are tied? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106950/

The GW debate is based on human generated CO2 causing an increase in global temps. This is simply not the case.

It's not humans only generating CO2, it's humans themselves, and common sense tells you that. Whenever a population grows without a natural check, and being on top of the food chain and with many natural checks broken or significantly delayed by the advances of science, bad things happen.

An extra five BILLION humans walking around generates heat, and not just CO2. Where previously you had 1 person with a body temperature of 37 degrees, you now have 6 people with body temperature of 37 degrees. Add to that the heat of cooking, heating, exercise, machinery needed to support them, and overall heat generated per human being is probably 10x what it was two hundred years ago. All that adds up. As does garbage, most of it unrecyclable, while we're burning irreplaceable hydrocarbons and base our entire economy on that.

And at a risk of derailing the thread from global warming to human rights, on some level you must realize that such population growth is not sustainable, and pretty soon checks will appear that we can't deal with, such as wars, starvation, etc. And as for population control, even the Chinese already realized it's going to be a problem. And yes, I watched Fortress. But human history has plenty of examples of population control already, astronauts on the space station are not allowed to reproduce, for example, because their environment is not equipped to deal with it. Is that an encroachment on their reproductive rights? So what happens when the same rules are applied to cities? If you want to live you New York, you can't have more than one kid. Don't like it? Piss off. But if New York is the best, safest, cleanest place to live at that time, you either follow the rules or die. So stuff like Fortress has about as much relevance to real life as Star Wars.

In short, YES, humans are to blame. Nothing else on Earth or around it increased 600% in the last 200 years, only humans and human made and caused things did.

[StainlessSteelRat]

It's not humans only generating CO2, it's humans themselves, and common sense tells you that. Whenever a population grows without a natural check, and being on top of the food chain and with many natural checks broken or significantly delayed by the advances of science, bad things happen.

An extra five BILLION humans walking around generates heat, and not just CO2. Where previously you had 1 person with a body temperature of 37 degrees, you now have 6 people with body temperature of 37 degrees. Add to that the heat of cooking, heating, exercise, machinery needed to support them, and overall heat generated per human being is probably 10x what it was two hundred years ago. All that adds up. As does garbage, most of it unrecyclable, while we're burning irreplaceable hydrocarbons and base our entire economy on that.

So what caused the world to warm before we were around?

http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm

Guess this same shit was going on for over 4000 years....

And at a risk of derailing the thread from global warming to human rights, on some level you must realize that such population growth is not sustainable, and pretty soon checks will appear that we can't deal with, such as wars, starvation, etc. And as for population control, even the Chinese already realized it's going to be a problem. And yes, I watched Fortress. But human history has plenty of examples of population control already, astronauts on the space station are not allowed to reproduce, for example, because their environment is not equipped to deal with it. Is that an encroachment on their reproductive rights? So what happens when the same rules are applied to cities? If you want to live you New York, you can't have more than one kid. Don't like it? Piss off. But if New York is the best, safest, cleanest place to live at that time, you either follow the rules or die. So stuff like Fortress has about as much relevance to real life as Star Wars.

Poopy diaper? You are free to think pop control that you describe is acceptable. Most won't agree with you however. As such, it will probably be you pissing off.

In short, YES, humans are to blame. Nothing else on Earth or around it increased 600% in the last 200 years, only humans and human made and caused things did.

So because we populated the planet we are to blame for natural warming and cooling cycles that pre-exist said population by 1000s of years? Let me guess, you also support gun control and universal health care? They tend to use similar logic....personally, I gave up the 'just because' argument somewhere in the 3rd grade or so.

BTW - common sense should tell you that a human is an insignificant ant within the cosmos and our power to change worlds geophysically speaking is still a thing of fantasy.

[Entreri]

I look at it this way. If we try to prevent global warming and it isn't real, we don't lose anything. If we don't try to stop it and it is real, we are screwed. Seems like a pretty easy choice to me. We have all the smartest people on the planet spending years of their life researching it and then telling me their conclusion, should I just ignore that and do what my political affiliations incline me to do?

If a cop came to your door and told you a gunmen was in the neighborhood and you should stay in your house, would you walk outside and look for the gunmen so you knew for a fact there was one, or would you play it smart and stay inside? You don't really need any hard numbers to tell you what to do here, don't let political bias get in the way of what to do about global warming if it exists or not.

[Honest Bill]

I look at it this way. If we try to prevent global warming and it isn't real, we don't lose anything. If we don't try to stop it and it is real, we are screwed. Seems like a pretty easy choice to me. We have all the smartest people on the planet spending years of their life researching it and then telling me their conclusion, should I just ignore that and do what my political affiliations incline me to do?

If a cop came to your door and told you a gunmen was in the neighborhood and you should stay in your house, would you walk outside and look for the gunmen so you knew for a fact there was one, or would you play it smart and stay inside? You don't really need any hard numbers to tell you what to do here, don't let political bias get in the way of what to do about global warming if it exists or not.

While i agree with you to a certain extent. I would also want to know, who is going to be paying for it. Green taxes make it a lot harder for people to agree with your sentiment

[NewRage]

I look at it this way. If we try to prevent global warming and it isn't real, we don't lose anything. If we don't try to stop it and it is real, we are screwed. Seems like a pretty easy choice to me. We have all the smartest people on the planet spending years of their life researching it and then telling me their conclusion, should I just ignore that and do what my political affiliations incline me to do?

If a cop came to your door and told you a gunmen was in the neighborhood and you should stay in your house, would you walk outside and look for the gunmen so you knew for a fact there was one, or would you play it smart and stay inside? You don't really need any hard numbers to tell you what to do here, don't let political bias get in the way of what to do about global warming if it exists or not.

What if a cop knocks on your door and says there is a chance that the sidewalk is now acidic so you can't walk on it anymore? Will you avoid concrete for the rest of your life?

[Silverhandorder]

I look at it this way. If we try to prevent global warming and it isn't real, we don't lose anything. If we don't try to stop it and it is real, we are screwed. Seems like a pretty easy choice to me. We have all the smartest people on the planet spending years of their life researching it and then telling me their conclusion, should I just ignore that and do what my political affiliations incline me to do?

If a cop came to your door and told you a gunmen was in the neighborhood and you should stay in your house, would you walk outside and look for the gunmen so you knew for a fact there was one, or would you play it smart and stay inside? You don't really need any hard numbers to tell you what to do here, don't let political bias get in the way of what to do about global warming if it exists or not.

Except if we do it your way many individuals will get rich of it at the cost of many others. The chances your scenario will pan out is very small and there are many other alternative scenarios that are far more likely to happen.

[DocGonzo]

why do you hate capitalism so much?

:ninja:

[Silverhandorder]

I don't that is why I am being smart and not falling for a sham. Last I checked in capitalism no one is puting green taxes on me.

[StainlessSteelRat]

I look at it this way. If we try to prevent global warming and it isn't real, we don't lose anything. If we don't try to stop it and it is real, we are screwed. Seems like a pretty easy choice to me. We have all the smartest people on the planet spending years of their life researching it and then telling me their conclusion, should I just ignore that and do what my political affiliations incline me to do?

If a cop came to your door and told you a gunmen was in the neighborhood and you should stay in your house, would you walk outside and look for the gunmen so you knew for a fact there was one, or would you play it smart and stay inside? You don't really need any hard numbers to tell you what to do here, don't let political bias get in the way of what to do about global warming if it exists or not.

You don't stay in your house forever. You wait til they catch the guy or wait til the next day and leave your house again......

Bad analogy.

How do you know they are the smartest? Have you checked the credentials of all the proponents and opponents?

Don't ignore, educate yourself. Don't believe some BS docudrama made by a politician w/ a degree in religion. Read stuff published by actual scientists that have no political or monetary stake in the results of their work.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE5DB113CF936A35752 C1A967958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

For example.

Typically, any gov't entity or ngo or un entity is going to be influenced by outside forces. Even if its the entire G8 working as a whole; that's obviously the Illuminati pushing their NWO agenda.

[Desperado[1G]]

I look at it this way. If we try to prevent global warming and it isn't real, we don't lose anything.

Tell that to the tax payers in DC who shelled out 4 million dollars to replace all of the city's light bulbs with "green" light bulbs.

After a couple months of inquiring about what kind of progress they've made, climatologists discovered that the impact would be "negligible".


I am not some nature-hating asshole. If we are damaging the world we live in, we should make efforts to lessen it, but there is so much hyperbole being thrown around about how our planet is going to end and it's irritating as all hell. It doesn't help when our scumbag politicians blow this out of proportion to further their agenda. Gore and his legion of quacks make $100 million a year in "carbon offsets".

Yea, he's doing it for the environment :rolleyes:

[Painweaver]

So if I hyperventilate, I could start a hurricane somewhere...brb

[PirateGlen]

That is the beauty of the system, if it is unrealistic to keep pollutants from escaping then make sure you don't let them escape into air in the first place.

Glen my system one voice can make a difference. Your system is broken (current regulations aid bussiness) and will not be fixed any time soon.

edit: Plus it is immoral!

Well you're more green than I thought. I guess we can shut down all the cars, most of the powerplants, pretty much anything with fossil fuels... What a beauty such a system would be!

[Silverhandorder]

Well you're more green than I thought. I guess we can shut down all the cars, most of the powerplants, pretty much anything with fossil fuels... What a beauty such a system would be!

Again that is not enforced. If it is a problem society will enforce it. Under your system you open the system for abuse.

[Vessol]

Everyone knows that the reason for Global Warming is because of less and less pirates.
http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.gif

So instead of bitching about CO2 or any of that crap. Look at Somalia and all the new pirates and go "Hey Somalia! Thanks for doing your part in saving the global climate!

[PirateGlen]

Again that is not enforced. If it is a problem society will enforce it. Under your system you open the system for abuse.

I could say the same about the current system: "If it is a problem, society will enforce it." Current trends seem to indicate stricter emission standards. Yay, the system works?

[Silverhandorder]

I could say the same about the current system: "If it is a problem, society will enforce it." Current trends seem to indicate stricter emission standards. Yay, the system works?

Then why create a beuracracy?

[PirateGlen]

Then why create a beuracracy?

You have a beuracracy either way, either in the courts or in the executive. At least this way there is a preventative measure, rather than only a reactionary measure to the problem.

[Slisk]

;2038182']Tell that to the tax payers in DC who shelled out 4 million dollars to replace all of the city's light bulbs with "green" light bulbs.

After a couple months of inquiring about what kind of progress they've made, climatologists discovered that the impact would be "negligible".


I am not some nature-hating asshole. If we are damaging the world we live in, we should make efforts to lessen it, but there is so much hyperbole being thrown around about how our planet is going to end and it's irritating as all hell. It doesn't help when our scumbag politicians blow this out of proportion to further their agenda. Gore and his legion of quacks make $100 million a year in "carbon offsets".

Yea, he's doing it for the environment :rolleyes:

The tax costs for carbon trading and reduced emissions are peanuts compared to the cost of the current financial meltdown as a result of bad banking practice (regardless of wether it was due to too much or too little regulation). $700 Billion dollar US bail out and a host of other countries with equally massive (compared to GDP) bailouts. Obama's new deal to buy his way out with big infastructure investments is going to be equally expensive.

So when the financial market fails due to human missmanagement everyone sucks it up and shells out the cash. But when the global environment is failing noone gives a shit because its dollar value is harder to quantify and because nobody "owns" the environment.

Shit for the cost of the war in Iraq america could have converted most of its energy dependance to renewables.

[Silverhandorder]

The tax costs for carbon trading and reduced emissions are peanuts compared to the cost of the current financial meltdown as a result of bad banking practice (regardless of wether it was due to too much or too little regulation). $700 Billion dollar US bail out and a host of other countries with equally massive (compared to GDP) bailouts. Obama's new deal to buy his way out with big infastructure investments is going to be equally expensive.

So when the financial market fails due to human missmanagement everyone sucks it up and shells out the cash. But when the global environment is failing noone gives a shit because its dollar value is harder to quantify and because nobody "owns" the environment.

Shit for the cost of the war in Iraq america could have converted most of its energy dependance to renewables.

Don't get me wrong and I think I speack for a lot of people who are gainst GW, we do care abou environment. The problem is that there is a right way to do things and a wrong way. The wrong way brings more harm then good often times. Making a hysteria over CO2 is the wrong way to handle the problem.

You have a beuracracy either way, either in the courts or in the executive. At least this way there is a preventative measure, rather than only a reactionary measure to the problem.

They still have to go through courts often times so all that these regulatory bodies ammount to is extra expenses and more red tape.

[Slisk]

"Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures
since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the
observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.8
This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most
of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to
have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations” (Figure
2.5). {WGI 9.4, SPM}

8 Consideration of remaining uncertainty is based on current methodologies."

Assumption is the mother of all fuck ups. This basically says that our model is built on the premise that GHG is responsible and when we plug in the 'data', it confirms that it is the case. That's like me telling my comp that I think 2 is really 3 and when I plug in 3 + 3 and the computer gives me 4; I have shown that 2 is really 3 in reality.

"It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic
warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent
(except Antarctica) (Figure 2.5). {WGI 3.2, 9.4, SPM}
The observed patterns of warming, including greater warming
over land than over the ocean, and their changes over time, are
simulated only by models that include anthropogenic forcing. No
coupled global climate model that has used natural forcing only
has reproduced the continental mean warming trends in individual
continents (except Antarctica) over the second half of the 20th century.
{WGI 3.2, 9.4, TS.4.2, SPM}"

So, the one location that isn't warming is the same location used to provide the CO2 level data. Does that seem like proper scientific due diligence to you?

And again, the whole basis for the claim is that CO2 causes increased temp and this is pure theory. The opposite is, according to many, more likely the case.

The only factual data I've seen so far is that the Earth is warming which is not in dispute. Most of the charts etc. in that report are based on models, models built to factor in man-made CO2 emissions as a factor. The model is going to show whatever you want based on the formulas and causal relationships you tell it to use. The issue or problem the naysayers have is that these formulas and causal relationships are theory and not proven.


Attributing causality in any complex system is a tough task. This is why there is no 100% sure announcement. Just a "very likely" (which equates to >90% likely).

This isn't just one model or one data set we are talking about. This is a collation of the worlds scientific data on climate change. The synthesis of this data has indicated that human GHG's are very likely to be causing the climate change that is observed. GLOBAL DATA. not one data pool. GLOBAL.

Sure there is a margin for error and perhaps global warming is more likely to be caused by natural phenomena such as solar fluctuations. That having been said it is clear that Humans are having a profound effect on the planet with the highest rates of extinction in 65 million years, profound impact on local and global ecological systems. There is plenty of data showing strong correlation between CO2 and Global temperature and the majority of climate moddeling which attributes a causal link.

Truth is that you will never have a 100% guarentee of causality with something as complex as the global climate. I feel you have to act with the best information you are given and keep questioning and searching. I applaude those who do genuine research that counters conventional wisdom. The sad truth is that a lot of the anti-global warming crew are reactionary conservatives who don't like the idea of taxes or government interferrance and will do anything to "prove" that global warming isn't man made.

[tehghost132]

Can anyone show me how CO2 released by humans causes GW?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/14324/gasexplanation.jpg

and thats how it happens.

[Ungraylessness]

Global warming is a symptom of overpopulation. Once human cloning goes mainstream we can start harvesting bodies to feed the growing masses. Animals will be gone and all the survivors will be wearing life support on their backs connected to their insides via tube.

[tehghost132]

Global warming is a symptom of overpopulation. Once human cloning goes mainstream we can start harvesting bodies to feed the growing masses. Animals will be gone and all the survivors will be wearing life support on their backs connected to their insides via tube.

Too much matrix and fallout 3

[Ungraylessness]

Too much matrix and fallout 3

You forgot "THE ISLAND" and "SOYLENT GREEN", because it's not possible that I have a thought of my own.

[tehghost132]

You forgot "THE ISLAND" and "SOYLENT GREEN", because it's not possible that I have a thought of my own.

pretty much.

[Vidav]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/14324/gasexplanation.jpg

and thats how it happens.

zLULz!!!! that's Lovely