Global Warming

[JimG.]

How do you suggest we prove it? Do nothing and see what happens?

HPD, how many times have I mentioned in this thread that it makes sense for everyone to conserve and be environmentally responsible?

This is what irks me about these debates...folks try to stick you in a box depending on a single issue. Just because I said I am not convinced about the degree of human effect on global warming, you're sticking me in a box and trying to imply that I'm some kind of nutjob who is promoting a scorched earth policy on environmentalism.

And that's just not right.

 

[highpeaksdrifter]

HPD, how many times have I mentioned in this thread that it makes sense for everyone to conserve and be environmentally responsible?

This is what irks me about these debates...folks try to stick you in a box depending on a single issue. Just because I said I am not convinced about the degree of human effect on global warming, you're sticking me in a box and trying to imply that I'm some kind of nutjob who is promoting a scorched earth policy on environmentalism.

And that's just not right.

I'm not trying to stick you in a box or trying to imply anything derogatory about you or your beliefs. I'm asking you a question whose answer I believe helps my side of the debate that is all.

 

[andyzee]

If you count, you will see that there are more than two or three seasons :wink:

2002-2003
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006

and

2001-2002

Heck, I will also throw in 2001-2002 in there as well. That season was very warm and dry. So that's five. May be a blip, but most scientists agree that there is climate change, the debate lies as to what is causing that change.

OK, I take full blame. I started skiing in 2001-2002 and have been skiing more each year since. I hope it's not all the farts I've been blowing on the slopes.

 

[ctenidae]

http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/easterbrook/20060517.pdf

Pretty good paper from a very well respected organization and a guy who knows what he's talking about. The title sums it up pretty well: "Case Closed: The Debate About Global Warming is Over."


There's pretty good evidence that we have added more CO2 of late than is usual. Granted, concentrations naturally cycle up and down dramatically on a several hundred thousand year cycle, and we're at the top of a naturally occuring cycle now, but the run up to this level has been faster than ever before, and we seem to be sitting at the top of the cycle longer than is usual.

Did we cause it? Maybe not, be we sure as shooting aren't helping any.

 

[Marc]

Everyone is missing something very important in this debate. Stop claiming global warming harms the Earth or threatens the Earth or the planet this, the planet that... blah, blah, blah. Maybe the plants and animals (humans included) are in question, but certainly not the planet. Two points of order and then I'll be on my way, as I am no climatologist, meteorologist, geologist, anthropologist, nor any other expert in any field that would make my contribution to this debate meaningful. However,

1) Aside from the tons of space dust we accumulate and the radiation conversions from the sun, humans don't produce anything that wasn't here before. We just happen to rearrange all the elements that were here into materials and processes that happen to make life easier for us. Or to blow each other up. One of the two for sure.

and.....

2) From "How to Destroy the Earth":

Destroying the Earth is harder than you may have been led to believe.

You've seen the action movies where the bad guy threatens to destroy the Earth. You've heard people on the news claiming that the next nuclear war or cutting down rainforests or persisting in releasing hideous quantities of pollution into the atmosphere threatens to end the world.

Fools.

The Earth is built to last. It is a 4,550,000,000-year-old, 5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000-tonne ball of iron. It has taken more devastating asteroid hits in its lifetime than you've had hot dinners, and lo, it still orbits merrily. So my first piece of advice to you, dear would-be Earth-destroyer, is: do NOT think this will be easy.

:dunce:

 

[ctenidae]

Marc, shockingly, has come pretty close to the actual point. We're not going to destroy the earth. That's not really a worry. We could very well kill ourselves off, though. Dont' save the planet, save the humans.

Stephen Hawkings said at a conference in Hong Kong yesterday- If humans can avoid killing themselves in the next 100 years, they should have space settlements that can continue without support from Earth.

 

[highpeaksdrifter]

. Maybe the plants and animals (humans included) are in question, but certainly not the planet.
:

I agree, but it's the plants and animals (humans included) that I am concerned with as (IMO) is everyone else.

 

[SkiDog]

There is evidence that cows contribute alot to greenhouse gases with methane emissions.

That was in the article that was written by the "high school" kid.. ;-)

Whomever wrote the article I posted based it on referenced material...hence the fact that someone is attesting to seeing the same data..

eh whatever...this is way better than novells bordermanager book HA..

M

 

[SkiDog]

http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/easterbrook/20060517.pdf

Pretty good paper from a very well respected organization and a guy who knows what he's talking about. The title sums it up pretty well: "Case Closed: The Debate About Global Warming is Over."


There's pretty good evidence that we have added more CO2 of late than is usual. Granted, concentrations naturally cycle up and down dramatically on a several hundred thousand year cycle, and we're at the top of a naturally occuring cycle now, but the run up to this level has been faster than ever before, and we seem to be sitting at the top of the cycle longer than is usual.

Did we cause it? Maybe not, be we sure as shooting aren't helping any.

three words...THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION.....plain and simple...we've created "society" in such a way that many have become far too dependent upon industry....that dependency causes the overproduction of "greehouse" gases. Its very difficult to go backwards...I think there is one guy who tried to force us to at least look at what we as a society are doing...hes in jail now...very smart man...just slightly nutty...his names Ted Kaczynski..

I hope we begin to focus more energy on alternative fuel methods that don't harm the environment, but now that I think about it...Hydrogen power might not be the answer, because wouldn't that evaporation of water cause the .......oh forget it....

M

 

[Marc]

Marc, shockingly, has come pretty close to the actual point. We're not going to destroy the earth. That's not really a worry. We could very well kill ourselves off, though. Dont' save the planet, save the humans.

Stephen Hawkings said at a conference in Hong Kong yesterday- If humans can avoid killing themselves in the next 100 years, they should have space settlements that can continue without support from Earth.

And I'll probably be the first one they send to go live there.


"Marc! Go test the air first, make sure it's safe for the rest of us."

 

[YardSaleDad]

That was in the article that was written by the "high school" kid.. ;-)

Whomever wrote the article I posted based it on referenced material...hence the fact that someone is attesting to seeing the same data..

The references were magazine articles. The pirate graph has "data" too. No matter how many times you repeat something, it doesn't make it true.

:flame:
Just ask GWB about the WMD?

 

[SkiDog]

The references were magazine articles. The pirate graph has "data" too. No matter how many times you repeat something, it doesn't make it true.

:flame:
Just ask GWB about the WMD?

Please close this now LOL....here we go...

Im not touching that one...but when I do have some time I will find "real" articles and data that back up the claims I make...I just don't know why you find it so hard to believe...seems you don't like opposing claims..??? I guess magazine articles can't be "true" or "real"....? Funny...theres this magazine called Popular Science that might publish stuff like this thats actually backed with REAL data...oh yeah and another small publication ........?? OMNI?? Journal of American Medicine? I believe these are all MAGAZINES...should doctors not believe whats printed in them because they arent bound into "book" form...I think you just dont like the idea that this is SUPPOSED to happen to the planet...and WILL happen with or without US...

M

 

[Marc]

Please close this now LOL....here we go...

Im not touching that one...but when I do have some time I will find "real" articles and data that back up the claims I make...I just don't know why you find it so hard to believe...seems you don't like opposing claims..??? I guess magazine articles can't be "true" or "real"....? Funny...theres this magazine called Popular Science that might publish stuff like this thats actually backed with REAL data...oh yeah and another small publication ........?? OMNI?? Journal of American Medicine? I believe these are all MAGAZINES...should doctors not believe whats printed in them because they arent bound into "book" form...I think you just dont like the idea that this is SUPPOSED to happen to the planet...and WILL happen with or without US...

M

The publishing method doesn't matter. Peer review is the name of the game.


And IB4TL.

 

[Greg]

Just ask GWB about the WMD?

We're done.