71% of the Public don't believe in Man Made Global Warming [Archive]

Mark in Oshawa

26th June 2007, 23:25

http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=AY2638954S&news_headline=three_quarters_believe_global_warmin g_a_natural_occurrence

here you go:

ALMOST three quarters of people believe global warming is a 'natural occurrence' and not a result of carbon emissions, a survey claimed today.

This goes against the views of the vast majority of scientists who believe the rise in the earth's temperatures is due to pollution.

The online study which polled nearly 4000 votes found that a staggering 71 percent of people think that the rise in air temperature happens naturally.

And 65 percent think that scientists' catastrophic predictions if pollution isn't curbed are 'far fetched'.

Emma Hardcastle, publisher at Pocket Issue which carried out the research, said: "If 71% of people feel that Man has nothing to do with the recent change in our climate then those same people are not going to buy into any movement to reduce their carbon footprint.

"We need to make it clear that there is nothing natural about the significant rise in both carbon emissions and global temperatures since the industrial revolution.

"Pocket Issue’s brief is to help people to understand the facts, encouraging them to click through to a carbon counter as a result.

"Pocket Issue feel that the poll highlights the need for government and influential bodies to concentrate on getting the public to understand the facts about global warming and ‘why’ rather than ‘how’ they should reduce their carbon footprint."

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which represents most scientists, stated earlier that the increase in global temperatures is 'very likely due to the observed increase of man-made greenhouse gas concentrations'.

They define very likely as 'more than 90 percent certain'.

Copyright © 2006 National News +44(0)207 684 3000

Of course, instead of making the 71% "understand the facts," maybe the powers that be should realize that the jury will remain out. There are people who doubt the theory who are not: Dumb, unwashed, stupid or uninformed. The fact that no one is willing to buy this theory after all the propaganda save for the same minority who always vote for more government in our lives says a lot doesn't it? Ok, start tossing the tomatoes... I am used to it.

Ian McC

26th June 2007, 23:37

People aren't willing to give up what they've got just because it rains a bit more, the human race has a nasty habit of not seeing past the end of their noses.

BDunnell

26th June 2007, 23:45

I don't know what will ever make some people believe in it. I think it largely boils down to self-interests of various types.

Drew

26th June 2007, 23:53

I'm sceptical on the whole thing, but whether that's due to self interest I don't know.

I think a whole lot of people don't have trust for the government and other departments, so just dismiss the idea.

race aficionado

27th June 2007, 01:10

71%???
dang! nobody asked me.

I would have lowered that percentage with my answer.

Rollo

27th June 2007, 01:16

If you ask people questions in the right way you can make people say pretty much anything. One classic example is the evil of Dihydrogen Monoxide http://www.dhmo.org/environment.html

My experience is that in general scientists are pretty smart buggers who've been to Uni to learn stuff. The general public who are ignorant must be the people who hold all the knowledge in the world because there's more of them right?

The Earth is flat isn't it?

Hawkmoon

27th June 2007, 04:44

I'm somewhat sceptical about the extent that humans are contributing to the warming of the planet. A few years ago we were headed for an ice age. Remeber the movie The Day After Tommorrow? That was made when the scientists believed that the pollution in the atmosphere would cool the planet by keeping the sun's rays out.

Know the scientists say that we are heating the planet with the same pollution. The planet has gone through periods of climate change before. I mean, there were trees in Antarctica in the time of the dinosaurs so the plant was a lot hotter then and a human wasn't to be seen for many millions of years yet.

Then we had an ice age which covered half the planet with snow and ice. Again, humans had no part in causing this era of climate change. Then the place warmed up and the ice melted. I'm pretty sure that humans who had only recently discovered fire had no effect here either.

There certainly appear to be climate cycles that the planet goes through. Whether we have altered the natural cycle in the last few hundred years with our polluting habits is not a definite yes for me.

That's not to say that I think we should keep stinking up the place like we do now. We shouldn't. Pollution, whether it's in the form of carbon emmissions, chemicals dumped into water ways or the destruction of forrests and other environments has to stop. We are stuffing up the place by chucking the waste of our modern lives into any old convenient, out of the way place.

Mark in Oshawa

27th June 2007, 06:22

This assumption has been "well the majority of the Earth's Scientests think so" so it must be true. What is missing of course is they will agree to a lot if it keeps funding their pet projects. Remember, everyone thought Albert Einstein was nuts with a paper he wrote in 1905. In 1924, his theory of Relativity, that same paper won him a NOBEL. Only ONE scientest has to be right, and there is more than one out there saying that global warming is NOT caused by man. Is there Global warming? Ya, I don't think that 71 Percent would say there wasn't, but most of us are skeptical enough to know that it isn't conclusive man is causing it. Man isn't on Mars, and the average global change there is mirroring our own. Also, for ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere, for any meaningful change of statistical significance, you would have to pump out a LOT more CO2 than we have been. We may have raised the total of ppm maybe up by one or two in the last 80 years, and that is ONE or two parts PER MILLION! Think long and hard about that.....and then tell me it makes a difference.

Should we pollute? No. Should we add CO2 into the atmosphere? Ideally no, but I wont turn my economy upside down, put people of work, or give billions of dollars to 3rd world nations who WONT care about CO2 to salve the personal theory of Al Gore or any other Kyoto loving moron. The cleanest nations for pollutants and cleaning up pollutant messes are the same ones that are now supposed to feel guilty for CO2. The nations that have treated Mother Earth like a garbage can,the former Communist bloc and China are not heeding any of this climate change hysteria and yet it is now supposed to be the responsibility of the West to fix this?

oily oaf

27th June 2007, 07:12

There's a very short and concise answer to this one.
NOBODY KNOWS!
The scientific world are inexorably divided and so to a lesser degree is the humble "man on the Clapham omnibus"
On the one hand you have the Al Gore/David Attenborough camp who believe that it is the incontrovertible truth that every time Del Boy fires up his Reliant Robin the grim spectre of Armageddon looms ever larger on the horizon. On the other hand there's the Jeremy Clarkson school of thought which teaches us that a cow farting in a field does more harm to the ozone layer than a fleet of 20 ton juggernauts with faulty emission control.
Me? I tend to side with Clarkson.
After all he does own a Ford GT.

In the meantime could I make a humble request to the planning beaurocrats in this blessed Albion.
Stop building people's houses on flood plains you dozy mugs.

fandango

27th June 2007, 09:08

"Hottest Summer In 100 YEARS" is the typical headline you see to prove we are destroying the planet. But it always makes me wonder what happened 100 years ago to make it hotter? There was no talk of global warming then. So I think it's not proven. However, it's a good idea to pollute less, if only to deal with the other problems of water supply and overpopulation.

As for "those other countries are polluting more than us so why should we stop?", this is not a logical argument. We only have one planet....

raybak

27th June 2007, 10:10

What Global Warming, I got stuck in a blizzard this morning and i wasn't even in the snowfields.

I agree that we are going through climate change, but it all works in cycles so I wouldn't be stressing too much. At least if the sea levels rise I'm pretty safe in Canberra.

Ray

Donney

27th June 2007, 10:26

Wether or not it is a definite truth, I think in any case it is a wonderful idea to reduce Co2 emissions.

555-04Q2

27th June 2007, 13:22

You have to remember that the majority of the worlds inhabitants (over 50%) cannot read or write. Take "global" opinions with a pinch of salt.

Camelopard

27th June 2007, 13:43

I have to agree with Rollo here.
As usual with all statistics you have to take the results with a grain of salt. Without knowing the number of people surveyed, where they lived, what they did, their level of education etc it would be hard to make a concrete decision based on the results.

janneppi

27th June 2007, 13:54

A somewhat similar study, with 1100 Finns gave pretty different answers.
9/10 thought climate change is real
7/10 though man was responsible for it
2/3 though it's the biggest challenge in the future.

You get what you ask for. :)

Andrewmcm

27th June 2007, 14:39

In 1924, his theory of Relativity, that same paper won him a NOBEL.

He won the Nobel prize in 1921 for his work in theoretical physics, particularly on his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect.

luvracin

27th June 2007, 15:24

Mark in Oshawa

27th June 2007, 16:01

Luv, you have it right. These people WANT to convince that 71%. They WANT us to believe. It is turning into a psuedoreligion, but alas, I am going to sit on the side of the Oily Oaf on this one. Blame it on the cows....which means this is just a bunch of smelly BS....

Captain VXR

27th June 2007, 16:59

96% of co2 released into the atmosphere per year is not man made. Did you know that the sun's radiation levels are increasing to a solar maximum in 2011? If the temperature starts dropping then, then we'll know it is the sun's radiation levels

N. Jones

27th June 2007, 17:07

Hmmm.... who do we believe - the plebs or the scientists?

Dave B

27th June 2007, 18:29

71% of the public, or 71% of the American public?

CharlieJ

27th June 2007, 18:37

Yes, the Earth warms and cools in cycles. It's all there in the geological records.

But... average temperatures are currently rising far quicker than at any time in the past. So are CO2 levels, which can also be traced through geology.

And what's different to those other times?

Us! Our homes and factories and power stations and transport.

Coincidence? That's the cop-out answer.

And since temperatures are rising rapidly, whatever the root cause, I recommend that everyone reads "Six Degrees - our future on a hotter planet" by Mark Lynas to prepare themselves for the worst case scenario. (Even the best case scenario ain't great!).

Woodeye

27th June 2007, 19:56

Weather is crazy around the globe:

South Africa:
http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=312447&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__national/

Sweden:
http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/jonkoping/story/0,2789,1104919,00.html

UK:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/weather/Story/0,,2112689,00.html

Romania:
http://www.nineoclock.ro/index.php?page=detalii&categorie=homenews&id=20070626-6987

And this only today! But hey, it must be just coinsidence, we have nothing to do with it. I saw the inconvenienve truth by Al Gore a while ago. It just strengthened by beliefs that we are in serious problems at the moment.

I really wouldn't want to be Dutch and follow the news about melting ice bergs in the arctic...

Hazell B

27th June 2007, 20:39

96% of co2 released into the atmosphere per year is not man made.

How do you know that's right? You don't, and neither do I, but you've chosen to believe it and think it's therefore 96% not our fault.

Sensible choice VXR, but when somebody can prove to me that the 4% we may or may not produce isn't the 4% that will break the earth forevever I too will stick my head in the sand and hope it all goes away.

The 'sluggish' jet stream is currently leaving 1300 people homeless and many more thousands flooded, let alone at least four people dead, here. Some say it's global warming (the name doesn't just mean getting warmer ;) ) some say natural weather conditions. But all the authories say we should expect it more often now. All is more than 71% :)

Ian McC

27th June 2007, 20:45

Take smoking, at worst it kills, at best you smell like an astray, how many people still smoke? With people not giving a toss about what they do to their insides do you really think they will make an effort to save the planet?

(best Dads Army voice)

We're doooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooomed! :D

Hazell B

27th June 2007, 20:49

I smoke yet am probably one of the most intentionally green people here :p :

That's green and silt-coloured as we're flooded at the moment ... thanks to global warming :mark:

BDunnell

27th June 2007, 22:24

I have noticed that there is a tendency for people who are interested in things that may be in some way affected by global warming, such as aviation or cars, to somehow believe the science that states that global warming isn't a major problem, rather than the science that says that it is. This surely isn't just a coincidence. Neither would it seem to be based on much.

schmenke

28th June 2007, 00:03

... The nations that have treated Mother Earth like a garbage can,the former Communist bloc and China are not heeding any of this climate change hysteria and yet it is now supposed to be the responsibility of the West to fix this?

Yep.
These countries are not to blame... They are merely producing the consumer goods that the western world craves... cheaply.

Hawkmoon

28th June 2007, 04:08

Yep.
These countries are not to blame... They are merely producing the consumer goods that the western world craves... cheaply.

Assuming that man made emmissions are the cause of the problem, there is a bit of a problem here. On the one hand, it's a bit rich for the West to tell the developing world not to pollute as that's exactly what the West has done for a few hundred years in order to get where we are today. The developing world is only doing what the West has done in a bid to catch up. How can the West deny them the right to improve themselves?

On the other hand, should not the developing world take heed of the mistakes the West has already made in order to not repeat them? If China and India don't curb their emmissions then it makes absolutely no difference what a small country like Australia does. Even if we cut our emmissions to 0, the global volume of carbon emmissions will still increase if the Chinese do nothing.

I don't know what the solution to this problem is. I do know that it isn't going to go away any time soon.

janneppi

28th June 2007, 06:26

I don't know what the solution to this problem is. I do know that it isn't going to go away any time soon.
Do your best in your own backyard and try to buy products only made in a environmentally safe fashion.

BDunnell

28th June 2007, 11:33

Yep.
These countries are not to blame... They are merely producing the consumer goods that the western world craves... cheaply.

To be fair, none of the east European Communist countries had any awareness of the damage they were doing to the environment, compared with their Western counterparts — this was discovered when Communism fell. The classic example is the comparison between East and West Germany. So, it is likely that nations such as China were doing quite a lot of damage before their current economic booms.

schmenke

28th June 2007, 14:44

True, yes, but much of China's economic boom is currently fueled by Western demands for cheaply-produced goods. If you want China to curb its carbon emissions then you're best to start at the end consumer... i.e. consume less :mark:

Flat.tyres

28th June 2007, 16:01

this reminds me of a little joke.

A mother is invited to her sons new flat for dinner where she is convinced that her son is sleeping with his flat mate.

On quizzing her son, he denies it and his mother leaves later that evening after a lovely meal.

The flat-mate comes up to the son the next day and complains that the Iron is missing. They cannot come up with an where it could possibly be apart from the only logical conclusion that the sons Mother took it.

The Son sends a sh1tty email to his mother saying

"Im not saying you did take the iron, and Im not saying you didnt take the iron, but the fact of the matter is that since your visit, the irons missing."

The Mother writes back saying

"Im not saying you are sleeping with your flaymate and Im not saying your not sleeping with your flat mate but the fact of the matter is that if you were in your own bed, you would have found the iron."

nobody knows the truth about global warming but the "evidence" (signs if you like) point to the fact that were going through a change in the weather globally and were putting a lot of crap into the environment.

dont know about you but i dont feel too good when ive been cycling through a city or spent too much time stuck in traffic. it makes my eyes water and makes me cough. I also know that trees help produce oxygen and were cutting them down like theres no tomorrow.

Now, I don't know if were causing damage to this planet by the amount of pollution were churning out but the chances are, were not helping.

shouldnt we at least try to cut down on the causes of pollution, recycle resources and use non polluting energy sourses as much as possible? Seems to make sense to me.

Mark in Oshawa

28th June 2007, 16:46

To be fair, none of the east European Communist countries had any awareness of the damage they were doing to the environment, compared with their Western counterparts — this was discovered when Communism fell. The classic example is the comparison between East and West Germany. So, it is likely that nations such as China were doing quite a lot of damage before their current economic booms.
They knew. It is a bit silly to think they didn't. Look how they tried to hide the catastrophe of a nuke blowing up in the Ukraine. Just a little incident. They hid it from their own people. The Communist bloc nations knew exactly what they were doing and they didn't care because no free press would hold them accountable, and they controlled what people knew. We in the West knew, but no one cared in the East.

As for China, and how we buy their goods, Schmenke, my antipathy towards Communist China is well known. I hate the thought we do business with them and I make a conscious effort to NOT buy anything from mainland China, but I do realize that is a bit hard nowadays.

We have to be sensible about global warming. First off, Al Gore has exaggerated beyond belief a lot of would could happen in his movie. He has no more idea than I do of what the effects of global warming are. I don't discount that global warming is happening, a Canadian would have to be a fool to deny that it isn't happening at all, for we see know from ancedotal experience on how our winters are balmier in many parts of our country.

So ok, we have global warming. Now, what is causing it. I have read many posts from those who believe that it is CO2 that is causing it. They spout off lots of books and stats I can look up and it is all well and good, but the fact remains there are climate experts all over the world that refuse to buy into this phenomena. The PPM of CO2 is NOT radically higher now than it was in the 70's. Yes it is up, but when people say it is up a lot, it is up maybe 10ppm ...but that is PARTS PER MILLION. 10 on top of 380 makes 390 PARTS PER MILLION.

It is a minute amount. Furthermore, many climatologists will tell you that the world's climate is so complex to computer model, they have no way of knowing what variable is causing the warming, but it is also known the sun's actual effect on earth is likely stronger now too. You know what provides us with our heat right? The big ole star 93 million miles away? You really think that isn't a factor? IF it cools down half a percentage point, we are in an ice age. It is rather arrogant to think we can mess with mother nature so easily.

So we have global warming, but we fight over what causes it. So do we put people out of work on a maybe? Do we spend Billions on CO2 reduction while pressing problems such as childhood poverty, ethnic strife, dictators in search of nukes, and religious holy wars are in our headlines every day. I find it rather foolish to waste large sums of money trying to bury the problem of CO2 when we have concrete problems that we KNOW are issues. Listen, you want to reduce CO2, have at it. You want to spend your money on it, go for it. Don't be taking mine...and don't be telling me that it is my fault either. Canada is having a debate right now on trying to meet Kyoto targets that were set by a bunch of politicians who came home and did nothing for 13 years to meet the targets. A 10% reduction in our CO2 output based on our economy in 1991. To do this would basically involve shutting down most of our industry and pulling every car off the road. Do it, and it means nothing as China or India goes on with developing their nations. Ya right...Like I am supposed to buy into this?

If CO2 is a problem, then everyone has to be in on the solution, or we might as well just spend money on how to deal with the effects. You cant tell the Chinese to stop developing their economy, and we have no solution for burning fossil fuels that will work on a large scale. Hydrogen aint there yet. Solar is a panacea as is wind. Nukes are a solution, but most of the same people telling me to stop using CO2 wont allow nuclear power either. Well, I got news for them. I cant conserve past a point of stupidity, and our planet is gaining people every day. Something HAS to give. So lets drop the stupidity of this new religion right where it is, and let hard science work on theproblem. We can do our bit by not buying into the hysteria. This attitude of "if it is true, then we must" or "it cant hurt can it?" is a pile of rubbish. Chances are, we will be in 50 years hear people calling for an ice age, which is what the majority of scientests were trying to convince us in the mid 70's, and they said then the cause was man made CO2. I have no more reason now to believe them than I did THEN....

Flat.tyres

28th June 2007, 17:09

funny thing about the perils of nuclear fallout. nasty, nasty stuff that it it.

guess where the oldest living man and woman on the planet live?

Any ideas?

BDunnell

28th June 2007, 17:25

They knew. It is a bit silly to think they didn't. Look how they tried to hide the catastrophe of a nuke blowing up in the Ukraine. Just a little incident. They hid it from their own people. The Communist bloc nations knew exactly what they were doing and they didn't care because no free press would hold them accountable, and they controlled what people knew. We in the West knew, but no one cared in the East.

I was referring not to blowing up nuclear weapons, but lower-level pollution and damage, about which people in those countries knew less than did the West. After all, some western European nations were further ahead than others when it came to environmental issues in the 1970s and '80s.

So ok, we have global warming. Now, what is causing it. I have read many posts from those who believe that it is CO2 that is causing it. They spout off lots of books and stats I can look up and it is all well and good, but the fact remains there are climate experts all over the world that refuse to buy into this phenomena.

Equally, there are many — probably more — who do.

As you know, I refuse to share your apocalyptic economic vision of the effects of tackling global warming and have no problems with measures being taken in my own country because of this.

Sleeper

28th June 2007, 23:20

The only constant in climate is that it changes. I sometimes wonder what people will be saying in 30 years time about climate change, after all, 30 years ago Global Cooling was considered a problem by scientists. Personally I subscribe to the idea that global warming is caused by the sun and that in all likelyhood people will once again be worrying about the planet cooling again in my lifetime.

Mark in Oshawa

3rd July 2007, 15:38

As you know, I refuse to share your apocalyptic economic vision of the effects of tackling global warming and have no problems with measures being taken in my own country because of this.

I don't have apocalpytic visions of it, I know that the cost of doing "something" is just money wasted if one isn't sure on the concept. It would be Apocalptyic for Canada however to try to meet the Kyoto target. It was estimated it would put a half a million people out of work in Canada if we had to meet the targets exactly. What is more, much of the technology to reduce CO2 emissions really isn't workable. Not to mention the fact Canada is a large, cold nation. You want to spend your tax dollars on it Ben, that is fine, but considering the particulate pollution and problems we have with smog in Southern Ontario every summer, I wish the money was spent on pollution I KNOW is a problem, rather than on a concept that is said to be unshakable, but is questioned by many credible people.

It all comes back to the arguements Gannex had on a thread earlier this year. Should we ignore the pollution problems we KNOW are definate issues to fight global warming or should we spend the money on pollution and measures to help deal with global warming?

It isn't apocalyptic to ask questions, what is apocalytic is the shrill voices of those in the global warming movement....people like most of the entertainment world, who never met a private jet they didn't like....

race aficionado

3rd July 2007, 15:57

Now that we are at it, I wonder what percentage of our willing forum members believes in man made global warming.

Poll please?

options could be:
1) You do beieve in man made global warming
2) You don't beieve in man made global warming
3) ????? any other option you can think of??????? other than it's all Mark's fuming multi wheeler trucks fault? :p

:s mokin:

Mark in Oshawa

3rd July 2007, 16:33

Aint my fault..lol...been off the road on vacation till July 16....

I don't believe it is MAN's fault...it is happening and part of nature.....that makes me unhappy with both camps...

Alexamateo

3rd July 2007, 18:37

3) ????? any other option you can think of??????? other than it's all Mark's fuming multi wheeler trucks fault? :p

:s mokin:

It's all Mark's fault!!! Here's the video to prove it :eek: :p :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5Wa2Q3PckY

Ian McC

3rd July 2007, 19:20

Dave B

3rd July 2007, 19:30

How about:

Q) What's your stance on global warming?

1) It's real and it's man-made
2) It's real but it's part of a natural cycle
3) It doesn't exist
4) I'm not sure

Mark in Oshawa

3rd July 2007, 21:23

It's all Mark's fault!!! Here's the video to prove it :eek: :p :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5Wa2Q3PckY

That wasn't me....find the video of the big rigs racing up Pike's peak...lol...that IS more my speed.

Those drags are in this little jerk water town way up in the north of Quebec near Lake Timiskaming by the Ontario border. It is one of the biggest parties anywhere, and yes, shudder, CO2 is released!!!! Horrors.....believe me, the people in this burg want global warming. They have about 8 months of winter up there and 4 where the mosquitoes come out. That truck drag race through town is about the height of their social season.....

race aficionado

3rd July 2007, 22:26

How about:

Q) What's your stance on global warming?

1) It's real and it's man-made
2) It's real but it's part of a natural cycle
3) It doesn't exist
4) I'm not sure

There is also, I think, an option that states that:
It's real and it's part of both
a) natural cycle and
b) man is doing most of the screwing up.

:s mokin:

Drew

3rd July 2007, 22:46

I haven't seen a poll for ages :p :

race aficionado

3rd July 2007, 22:58

the poll has actually melted, but truth be told, the scientists assure us that no moderator has been asked to intervene. In this case, the scientists are actualy right.

Daniel

3rd July 2007, 23:12

How about:

Q) What's your stance on global warming?

1) It's real and it's man-made
2) It's real but it's part of a natural cycle
3) It doesn't exist
4) I'm not sure
1 or 2 definitely :)

Mark in Oshawa

3rd July 2007, 23:21

There is also, I think, an option that states that:
It's real and it's part of both
a) natural cycle and
b) man is doing most of the screwing up.

:s mokin:

it is a) and we are just spitting into the wind if we think by cutting back CO2 in developed nations (China and India wont stop) by about 10 % from 1990 levels will do something. If the problem is us (That is a big IF) then the time to have stopped was 1940......

Ian McC

3rd July 2007, 23:55

How about:

Q) What's your stance on global warming?

1) It's real and it's man-made
2) It's real but it's part of a natural cycle
3) It doesn't exist
4) I'm not sure

5) I don't care

Woodeye

4th July 2007, 09:03

5) I don't care

And that's why we are facing the point 1)

donKey jote

4th July 2007, 21:50

6) 71% of the "Public" believe God created the Earth and everything with it. Global Warming is clearly not man made but more likely to be God's modern day answer to, for example, homosexuality :eek: :p : :dozey:

jso1985

6th July 2007, 19:28

How about:

Q) What's your stance on global warming?

1) It's real and it's man-made
2) It's real but it's part of a natural cycle
3) It doesn't exist
4) I'm not sure

Until I get further proof, I'll stick with number 2

Vez

6th July 2007, 22:33

My feeling on Global Warming is this:

It's real, but it's more of a natural cycle than man-made, though, we as a whole maybe just very slightly speeding the process up a little but not by much.

Mark in Oshawa

7th July 2007, 03:56

VEZ....or we are just a Fart in a windstorm...

tinchote

7th July 2007, 06:40

race aficionado

7th July 2007, 17:38

. . . .

In the end, even if the current warming is caused by man's emissions, I don't think that the current paranoia is leading us to anything good. There are many more pressuring issues in the world these days, and to me it is annoying to see the amount of coverage that this issue is getting in the western countries, while famines and massacres and genocide keep happening on a daily basis.

Yes Tincho, a paid scientist can "prove" his findings for the right price - and fortunately, there are still some honest scientists out there that will forego that temptation. ;) :D

As for what I quoted from your post, yes there are many other pressing issues that require our inmediate attention and the way we treat our home should also keep on being addressed. I think that what we should really press on is the saving and sustainability of our "green areas" in our planet, like the Amazon Jungle for example- which are essentially our lungs and our guarantee that we will keep on breathing as we also seek to take care of the mayority of our human brothers and sisters that are in dire straights.

I stand as always by my sig.

:s mokin:

Mark in Oshawa

8th July 2007, 06:36

As a scientist myself, I'm not led to believe in scientists a lot. As a mathematician I have a decent understanding of how you can use statistics to make your experiments say whatever you want. It is enough to look at those scientists who are sponsored by certain pharmaceutical companies, and ("of course!") their results are usually in agreement with the company's interests.

The average person tends to look at scientists with some reverence. Sometimes this could be deserved, but in general it leads to huge misunderstandings, the most common being the catchy phrase "it's scientifically proven"; this phrase, which I have heard so many times - even in these forums -, cannot possibly come from the mouth of a scientist.

In the end, even if the current warming is caused by man's emissions, I don't think that the current paranoia is leading us to anything good. There are many more pressuring issues in the world these days, and to me it is annoying to see the amount of coverage that this issue is getting in the western countries, while famines and massacres and genocide keep happening on a daily basis.

Tinchote, welcome to the club of skeptical deniers. I am labeled a denier by those who worship at the altar of Global warming, and you have pointed out very aptly that there is agenda's in play here that are using the IPCC label as "proof". The joke of it is that the scientific community that didn't buy into this theory was basically kicked out of or left the IPCC. Furthermore, I have always believed that scientific theories shouldn't be a popularity contest. If only one scientest gets something right, it doesn't alter the fact he is right.

Anyhow, glad to see someoen who is from this world explaining why skepticism in this is a good thing, and that we should work on solutions to problems that are REAL.....

race aficionado

8th July 2007, 23:22

. . . .

Anyhow, glad to see someoen who is from this world explaining why skepticism in this is a good thing, and that we should work on solutions to problems that are REAL.....

As my wife would say, "don't be patronizing!" ;)

If the deforestation of our planet is not a REAL issue - and note that this is one the mayor reasons for our global warming - then I don't know what REAL means for you.

Skeptisism is a goood thing in terms of being watchful as to what BS some are trying to feed us, but to say that reasons for Global Warming fears are not real, and in this case the rapid careless and irresponsible deforestation of our planet, then our "realities", yours and mine, in this scenario are polar opposites.

And that is allright in my book. To each his own and as long a we put our money where our intentions are, I will continue doing my best to make a difference and help on this critical issue.

peace, and more trees please.

:s mokin:

Mark in Oshawa

9th July 2007, 17:49

Race, I don't where you got the idea I am for tearing down the rainforest. I know it is a BAD thing to be tearing up jungle, but this is NOT the cause of global warming either.

My point in this thread and ones similar is while we should all not waste resources or advocate rampant destruction of ecosystems, we should also realize that CO2 is by no means the lead pipe, slam dunk cause of global warming, and man-made (or rather man releases) CO2 may not be anything more than a fart in a windstorm. I have been adamant that I will not watch the eco-terrorists use this to complete gut the economy of the Western Nations to only watch China, India and the developing nations blindly polllute at will. There is just too much political gamesmenship going on behind this, and the blatant propaganda put out by the likes of Al Gore and his hysterical ramblings say to me that this is yet another way for the libreal/socialist elites to try to control the levers of power by convincing the world we will all die if we do not follow their lead.

Only look at the 7 concerts on 7 continents BS on the weekend. Convince the youth that Al Gore and his disciples are all right, and follow them.....meanwhile many serious scientific studies and experts don't agree with the IPCC.

It is one thing to be compassionate to the earth, it is another thing to prey on the public by using it to brain wash the masses into following you....

race aficionado

9th July 2007, 18:11

Race, I don't where you got the idea I am for tearing down the rainforest. I know it is a BAD thing to be tearing up jungle, but this is NOT the cause of global warming either.
.
No, I don't see you as a tree cutter - and I don't see you as a tree hugger either. :p :

It is one thing to be compassionate to the earth, it is another thing to prey on the public by using it to brain wash the masses into following you....

I don't agree with you on the Gore brain washing scheme but I will not try to fight you on what we both know are our own personal opinions on this issue.

Any thing we can agree on? I'm sure we have a lot of those on other areas.

:s mokin:

Woodeye

9th July 2007, 18:24

I really don't care if scientists agree about the reason behind the global warming. And I really don't understand why to debate about the cause?

Anyway, whatever the reason behind global warming might be, can someone give me reason NOT to reduce emissions, pollution and destroying the nature? Can someone say why we should just sit and watch while the pollution and emissions destroy forests and seas? I don't see anything to debate about that.

race aficionado

9th July 2007, 18:32

. . . . I know it is a BAD thing to be tearing up jungle, but this is NOT the cause of global warming either.

Mark, if you wish, check out this artice.
http://www.worldwildlife.org/climate/forests.cfm

Protecting Forests That Help Mitigate Climate Change

:s mokin:

tinchote

9th July 2007, 19:45

Anyway, whatever the reason behind global warming might be, can someone give me reason NOT to reduce emissions, pollution and destroying the nature? Can someone say why we should just sit and watch while the pollution and emissions destroy forests and seas? I don't see anything to debate about that.

I don't think anyone is saying "not to reduce emissions" here. The issue is how much effort should be put into it. Is it the most pressing issue for mankind? No way. Then, it is annoying that it is getting so much publicity, while almost nothing is done with a lot of concrete daily suffering around the World.

Woodeye

9th July 2007, 20:31

I don't think anyone is saying "not to reduce emissions" here. The issue is how much effort should be put into it. Is it the most pressing issue for mankind? No way. Then, it is annoying that it is getting so much publicity, while almost nothing is done with a lot of concrete daily suffering around the World.

If you don't care about the emissions, why to reduce them? If you don't think that global warming is creating problems, why trying to control it?

Warming of this planet is the most pressing issue of the mankind. If we don't find out ways to reduce the heating, it is justified to say that it will create lot of other problems, including this daily suffering you mentioned.

I think that it has been calculated that if the sea level should rise for 1 meter, it would force hundreds of millions to leave their homes and move away from the coasts. Do you think that resetlementing of this mass would create some issues?

If you think that hunger is the most critical issue, try to imagine what is the situation if the climate in the souther hemisphere, especially in Africa, turns even dryer than it is now, what effect it would have in the soil. If people cannot farm even the little than they are able to farm now, where will they get the food? From EU? What about the floods in Europe that are predicted to take place when the warming up continues...

tinchote

10th July 2007, 06:11

I think that it has been calculated that if the sea level should rise for 1 meter, it would force hundreds of millions to leave their homes and move away from the coasts. Do you think that resetlementing of this mass would create some issues?

That's precisely what I'm talking about. The money should be spent in solving issues like such relocation (should that happen, which I don't belive it, but that's something else). Instead, Gore and many here in Canada want to spend the money in carbon credits and crippling the economy. Then there will be less money available to help those affected by catastrophes.

Woodeye

10th July 2007, 06:37

That's precisely what I'm talking about. The money should be spent in solving issues like such relocation (should that happen, which I don't belive it, but that's something else). Instead, Gore and many here in Canada want to spend the money in carbon credits and crippling the economy. Then there will be less money available to help those affected by catastrophes.

Why trying to affect the outcome when you can also affect to the cause?

What comes to crippling the economy with ecology, that's nonsense. Companies are able to to have exactly the same results with using some additional filters in manufacturing process or whatever, but they are just not willing to do the investments. After the technolgical investments would be made, the manufacturing process would carry on like it used to go.

I find it odd btw, that the Canadians here are critizing the theory of man causing the global warming the most. Now what's that then..? :D

tinchote

10th July 2007, 16:21

Why trying to affect the outcome when you can also affect to the cause?

That's the point: there is no proof that the cause can be affected. Largely, because the cause is unknown, and it could very well be the same cause that in all the past warmings.

What comes to crippling the economy with ecology, that's nonsense. Companies are able to to have exactly the same results with using some additional filters in manufacturing process or whatever, but they are just not willing to do the investments. After the technolgical investments would be made, the manufacturing process would carry on like it used to go.

Now, sorry but [that's nonsense. You seriously think that companies can add sophisticated methods to reduce emissions at no cost? Or you think that if everything becomes 5% more expensive, the economy won't notice?

And, "manufacturing process"? :eek: Emissions are basically caused by burning stuff. That has nothing to do with manufacturing. Basically, you have a fire, and a chimney. It's not about a "cheap filter".

Also, emissions are not just a problem of a few private factories. Probably the biggest contributor to emissions of CO2 is power generation (still today, the most common method to generate electricity is to burn stuff, be it natural gas, or fuel oil, or coal). The western governments would happily put "filters" to their generation plants, if it were that easy.

One other very big contributor to emissions are cars and vehicles. Now, for many years now, cars have sophisticated and expensive "filters" (usually called catalytic converters) but this is not enough.

If you really think there is a simple solution to this, you are delluding yourself.

I find it odd btw, that the Canadians here are critizing the theory of man causing the global warming the most. Now what's that then..? :D

I don't see your point. But even if it is completely proven that gw is caused by man, that doesn't make solutions any simpler. Among the biggest contributors to world pollution are China and India. I've been in China more than once, and in big cities most days you cannot even see the sky because of the pollution. The main cause is the massive burning of coal, for heating and to generate electricity. How exactly do you suggest to change that?

Mark in Oshawa

10th July 2007, 16:28

If you don't care about the emissions, why to reduce them? If you don't think that global warming is creating problems, why trying to control it?

Warming of this planet is the most pressing issue of the mankind. If we don't find out ways to reduce the heating, it is justified to say that it will create lot of other problems, including this daily suffering you mentioned.

I think that it has been calculated that if the sea level should rise for 1 meter, it would force hundreds of millions to leave their homes and move away from the coasts. Do you think that resetlementing of this mass would create some issues?

If you think that hunger is the most critical issue, try to imagine what is the situation if the climate in the souther hemisphere, especially in Africa, turns even dryer than it is now, what effect it would have in the soil. If people cannot farm even the little than they are able to farm now, where will they get the food? From EU? What about the floods in Europe that are predicted to take place when the warming up continues...

Here is where Global warming takes you. If you believe that CO2 from man is the cause, then reducing CO2 production in any meaningful way will basically mean you end western civilization as we know it. Shut all all power plants that are not nuclear or from renewables. That means you just shut off 40% of the Grid in the US, and probably at least that much world wide. Then you have to build lots of nukes, because Solar and Wind wont be able to fill the gap no matter how much you think they are wonderful.

Then we have to take EVERY car off the road. At least, until we figure out how to do hydrogen. Hybrids help, but if you made them in numbers much greater than we do now, we would be out of Titanium in a hurry, and that is something the greenies don't get. Also, understand if we go to a hydrogen economy, you need even MORE electricity. It is NOT easy to create massive amounts of H2 to power cars. In short, you will have to completely disrupt the economy of the world to really have a meaningful reduction in CO2 to reverse the trend. This also assumes every nation is onside. China sure aint, neither is India, the two fastest growing economies on the planet and the two largest nations in population. I could shut Canada down and move everyone out and it wouldn't mean squat. CO2 production from China would counteract that in a year.

To get a handle on all of this, you have to get that CO2 is definately the problem and then figure out a way to make the change. CO2 may not be the reason, and may be a symptom of the greater temp. Note that Mars has had a higher temp in the last 40 years. No cars there...no industry..nothing. Solar radiation could be the cause, which means NOTHING we do will make a difference.

Doesn't it make more sense to hedge our bets and use the resources of money generated by our modern economies to do accurate research on how to deal with the problem? Let true scientific principles reign, rather than browbeating the scientests into a room, call it the "IPCC" and use it as a political weapon? So far, everyone keeps going on like this is a done deal. The same mentality and scientific community was saying we were in an ice age in the 70's. They are going on inaccurate and flawed reasoning to come to concrete solutions. That isn't good science.

Also, before you pin it on Industry for not doing enough, they have a responsbility to follow the law, but more important, they HAVE to make a profit. So they govern their industry to make money, and then take that and do research to do it better and cleaner. For governments and the public to say "its all your fault", make note they pay taxes, they live in the same communities and world as everyone else. No industrial economy has EVERY captain of industry scheming to rape the land and pollute.

This is a VERY complex problem, and global warming is something that not cut and dried. We know it is happening, but contrary to what many would like to believe, we cannot be sure CO2 from man is the cause. It is WAY more complex than Al Gore wants you to believe because his goal isn't about solving the problem, his goal is to politicize it. To solve the problem, you have to radically alter the economy of the world if you are 100% sure it is CO2 from mankind. I don't think it is, and I wont see my livelihood, or the economy dumped into a tizzy for a decade plus for a THEORY.

That is all it is. It is a THEORY. The world's climate has so many variables, that for anyone to say "this is what is causing it, man is putting too much CO2 in the air" and just run with it is bad science, and bad poltics. The title of the thread says to me that the public is smarter about this than the politicans are....

Mark in Oshawa

10th July 2007, 16:36

That's the point: there is no proof that the cause can be affected. Largely, because the cause is unknown, and it could very well be the same cause that in all the past warmings.

Now, sorry but [that's nonsense. You seriously think that companies can add sophisticated methods to reduce emissions at no cost? Or you think that if everything becomes 5% more expensive, the economy won't notice?

And, "manufacturing process"? :eek: Emissions are basically caused by burning stuff. That has nothing to do with manufacturing. Basically, you have a fire, and a chimney. It's not about a "cheap filter".

Also, emissions are not just a problem of a few private factories. Probably the biggest contributor to emissions of CO2 is power generation (still today, the most common method to generate electricity is to burn stuff, be it natural gas, or fuel oil, or coal). The western governments would happily put "filters" to their generation plants, if it were that easy.

One other very big contributor to emissions are cars and vehicles. Now, for many years now, cars have sophisticated and expensive "filters" (usually called catalytic converters) but this is not enough.

If you really think there is a simple solution to this, you are delluding yourself.

I don't see your point. But even if it is completely proven that gw is caused by man, that doesn't make solutions any simple. Among the biggest contributors to world pollution are China and India. I've been in China more than once, and in big cities most days you cannot even see the sky because of the pollution. The main cause is the massive burning of coal, for heating and to generate electricity. How exactly do you suggest to change that?

Tinchote, you said a lot of what I was saying...

Woodeye, you have to understand that to cut CO2 isn't just a feel good exercise where we all drive a little less and get rid of a few old light bulbs for newer ones. To cut CO2 in meaningful way you have to stop just about every activity man does. Tinchote has very accurately pointed out just about everything from power production, to getting to work, to heating your supper involves creating CO2. There isn't a damn thing you do that doesn't involve creating CO2. Believing that manmade CO2 is the problem means are truly doomed, and have been for 100 years. I refuse to be that pessimistic. I believe by using our wealth, and scientific community in a meaningful and intelligent way, we can counteract a lot of what might happen.

Daniel

10th July 2007, 16:40

Tinchote, you said a lot of what I was saying...

Woodeye, you have to understand that to cut CO2 isn't just a feel good exercise where we all drive a little less and get rid of a few old light bulbs for newer ones. To cut CO2 in meaningful way you have to stop just about every activity man does. Tinchote has very accurately pointed out just about everything from power production, to getting to work, to heating your supper involves creating CO2. There isn't a damn thing you do that doesn't involve creating CO2. Believing that manmade CO2 is the problem means are truly doomed, and have been for 100 years. I refuse to be that pessimistic. I believe by using our wealth, and scientific community in a meaningful and intelligent way, we can counteract a lot of what might happen.
Very true. I like to conider myself part of the group of people who consider that this could be a natural cycle. Doesn't mean we shouldn't change things though of course :)

Mark in Oshawa

10th July 2007, 16:45

Why trying to affect the outcome when you can also affect to the cause?

What comes to crippling the economy with ecology, that's nonsense. Companies are able to to have exactly the same results with using some additional filters in manufacturing process or whatever, but they are just not willing to do the investments. After the technolgical investments would be made, the manufacturing process would carry on like it used to go.

I find it odd btw, that the Canadians here are critizing the theory of man causing the global warming the most. Now what's that then..? :D

Woodeye, I hope you don't think I am picking on you, because it isn't my intention. However, this statement really is typical of many who are blindly believing in the global warming theories that are being used as a sure fire truth.

What you are saying is basically an echo of what you have been sucked into believing. That industry is bad, that man is bad, and only government can save us. Al Gore loves this idea, he was always trying to foist more government on the Americans. It is no coincedance that many who are leading the global warming crusade are of the political left.

Industry creates the wealth that gives people jobs, invests in other parts of the economy that gives other people jobs, and all of this activity is giving up a percentage of all of to government. Industry creates things we all either want or need. It follows what the market wants. No one is making products for the sake of their health. Therefore, when industry pollutes, they do it knowing that the government is going to regulate what they put out in pollution and they do it knowing that they, the owners and management have to live in the same community. This isn't the 1890's when the robber baron's didn't care. The world has changed a lot and business is part of the solution to any problem. They have to be. Governments cannot do anything efficiently so if you are going to have any mass solution, you have to work with business. Telling them that they are the problem wont cut it. Furthermore, as we have pointed out in our posts, CO2 is produced by everything man does, not just the guy down the way producing widgets for joe public.

To say it is a simple solution to reduce CO2 in a meaningful way is a LIE.

Mark in Oshawa

10th July 2007, 16:57

Oh yes, as for Canadians critical of global warming, Well Tinchote and I have been watching like every other Canadian the debate. What it boils down to is we have to cut our CO2 emissions to a 10% reduction from our 1991 output. Since then, Canada has grown about 4 million people. It's economy was one of the fastest growing in the G8 in the last 16 years. To meet that target we would have to basically shut down 20% of our economy to meet the targets for 2012. Now, do we commit economic suicide, put millions out of work or alter their life radically for a theory? One that the Chinese are paying little attention to? The same Chinese who are polluting their own nation with nasty pollution that would be simple to fix (according to some) without a care? The same Chinese that use their own people for organ harvesting when their politics don't agree with Beiijings?

See why a Canadian SHOULD be skeptical? The only people saying this is easy are politicians who that were in power for 13 years and DID NOTHING about the problem, but now in opposition to the current Prime Minister say it is an easy problem to fix and the economy would IMPROVE. Ya right....

Damn right Canadians are skeptical about Kyoto once they stop and think about it really means.

We love the outdoors, respect nature, and understand the change of seasons and climate better than most western economies. We are a nation that for the most part has seen a lot of the bad about global warming, at least for the people of the far north. So I, and I suspect Tinchote have listened to a lot of the rhetoric and used logic to separate the nonsense from the truth, and the truth is, the only thing we agree on is things are getting warmer. Everything else is supposition....

Woodeye

10th July 2007, 18:32

That's the point: there is no proof that the cause can be affected. Largely, because the cause is unknown, and it could very well be the same cause that in all the past warmings.

There's no proof, cause is not known? I would say that the vast majority of the research still points our clearly that the global warming is caused by humans. I think that we come to the level of beliefs on what researches we want to trust. You can trust on those that indicate that humans have no affect on warming whatsoever or those that clearly shown that humans are the main reason behind global warming.

It's a bit like discussion about evolution theory vs. creationism. You have clear proof on the other but still some like to belief to the other option.

What comes to sophisticated methods used by companies, no I don't believe that companies cannot reduce emissions without any costs. I'm trying to say that if they would invest once on improved technology, it would probably cost them, but most probably create some savings in the future also. I've seen this happening on the paper mills in Finland. They've invested big time to environmental friendly equipment on their processes and gained a lot from it. Not only they don't create as much pollution as they used to creat, but the whole process is much more efficient. If you don't invest at all, you don't gain anything.

Among the biggest contributors to world pollution are China and India.

This is something that this popular to point out nowdays. I still would like to remaind that the biggest polluter in the world is the sweet U.S. One of the richest countries in the world and still they don't what to lower their emissions. Sad.

Mark, we are going to run out of oil, gas and likes in the future. Don't you think that we should start to prepare for it while we still have time? I support nuclear power, that is something that should be developed. But using and supporting still coal and oil, that's like kicking horse that's dead already. Coal and Oil plant are really not that efficient compared to nuclear power for example Again another way to be efficient for industry. No sense of using unefficient and expensive ways to produce energy. Now you will state that use of wind and solar are still much more expensive than coal and oil, sure they are, at the moment. But we are going to need also those in the future. The first company that figures our efficient way of taking the energy from the sun is going to be rich one.

We are still living on planet earth, at least when I checked the last time, not in Mars. Comparing the earth climate with Mars is almost as far from the truth as saying that people don't have any part in this global warming.

Quite a long post. Now I need a beer, made from the fresh waters in Lapland. I'll try to enjoy it as long it is still possible, before the river dries out. :beer:

Mark in Oshawa

10th July 2007, 20:06

There's no proof, cause is not known? I would say that the vast majority of the research still points our clearly that the global warming is caused by humans. I think that we come to the level of beliefs on what researches we want to trust. You can trust on those that indicate that humans have no affect on warming whatsoever or those that clearly shown that humans are the main reason behind global warming.

It's a bit like discussion about evolution theory vs. creationism. You have clear proof on the other but still some like to belief to the other option.:

First off, science is NOT a popularity contest. If 100 scientests say it is Manmade CO2, and 10 say global warming comes from natural processes, and we find out later that the 10 were right, it just means 100 used the same flawed methodology. The same methodology that says CO2 is always higher when the earth's temps are higher, based on core samples taken from glaciers. Of course, if CO2 is a symptom, rather than the cause, then there goes your theory out the window. Everyone thought Albert Einstein was out his mind with his paper in 1905 on the theory of relativity. He was in a minority to say the least, but physics, like climatology is an EXACT science, it just is a matter of figuring out which variables effect the process. Einstein was of course proven right, but if went on the attitude that most agree, therefore it is clear proof, then Einstein would have been a footnote on history.

This is something that this popular to point out nowdays. I still would like to remaind that the biggest polluter in the world is the sweet U.S. One of the richest countries in the world and still they don't what to lower their emissions. Sad.:

The US is the greatest emitter of CO2 as of this moment (mainly because of the size of the economy. If you take the EU as a whole, it is about the same size and population as the US and puts out a pretty close amount of CO2), but by the end of this year China will be. As for the greatest polluter (a far different definition), I would wager it has been China for a long time. The Beiijing government has no public pressure to use better coal in their factories and power plants. The Beiijing government has no desire to spend money on scrubbers, and there is little or NO likelyhood this will change. The worst enviromental damage done to this planet has been done in Russia, and the Eastern Bloc. The Chinese, like their communist cousins in Eastern Europe see resources to be used, factories to be run, and the hell with what the people want because they don't have to be listened to. The toughest enviromental laws going are in nations such as yours, mine and yes, the scary old US. Anyone who has been to China and sucked in that awful polluted air will tell you that Los Angeles, or Houston has good air in comparsion. We wont even go into the many forms of chemical and enviromental damage that has occured in China. Tinchote has been there, you telling him American cities are more polluted? Good luck...we know better on THAT one...

Mark, we are going to run out of oil, gas and likes in the future. Don't you think that we should start to prepare for it while we still have time? I support nuclear power, that is something that should be developed. But using and supporting still coal and oil, that's like kicking horse that's dead already. Coal and Oil plant are really not that efficient compared to nuclear power for example Again another way to be efficient for industry. No sense of using unefficient and expensive ways to produce energy. Now you will state that use of wind and solar are still much more expensive than coal and oil, sure they are, at the moment. But we are going to need also those in the future. The first company that figures our efficient way of taking the energy from the sun is going to be rich one.

We are still living on planet earth, at least when I checked the last time, not in Mars. Comparing the earth climate with Mars is almost as far from the truth as saying that people don't have any part in this global warming.

Quite a long post. Now I need a beer, made from the fresh waters in Lapland. I'll try to enjoy it as long it is still possible, before the river dries out. :beer:

OK. First things first. IF SOLAR radiation is the cause ( you know, that big close star does HEAT the Earth in the first place) of global warming, that is a minute increase in the output of radiation from the sun causing our temps to go up, it would be reflected in the other planet most similar in atmosphere and relative distance to the Sun. What hits Mars hits us. If the Sun is 1% more powerful, it will be reflected in our temperatures going up, and it will also have the same effect on Mars. Since the monitoring of Mars's temps has gone on in the last 50 years, the average increase in temperature has gone up about the same amount. What is more, the ice caps there are melting. No man on Mars.....

As for your assertions that we need to quit using oil and fossil fuels, yes, I agree. How did you get to work today? The power plant that makes your electricity? Does Finland have NO coal fired, gas fired or oil fired power plants? Is there rampant use of electric cars there? In Winter, have you tried an Electric car ( they don't work, battery performance on electric cars goes in the toilet in cold temps ). The simple fact of the matter is that our society is dependent on fossil fuels for the next 50 years. No two ways around it. If the earth's population is going UP, ( and it will until it levels off according to the UN at about 7 billion in about 50 years from now ) then the use of EVERYTHING will go up. Now you see an apocalypse, I see opportunity. We, the world will have to use these 50 or so years wisely. Market forces are already starting to bring to bear on the unsustainablity of oil long term. As Gas goes up, people are going to smaller cars, and hybrids. Alternative fuels such as Bio Diesel and Ethanol are just the first wave. I have NO problem with this (other than burning food products that could feed someone, but it is more complicated than that)as a whole. I am all for conserving resources. I am also not truly against trying to limit the amount of CO2 released, but that doesn't mean I think it is the reason the world is getting warmer. I just don't think we should alter the atmosphere in any way if we can afford not to.

Hydrogen will be the solution, along with nuclear, but people have to get it into their heads it will be a long way down the road. 20 years maybe to see the first true solutions. As market demand for alternatives gets serious (the price of gas is way above where it is now), then industry will react to find the way to make the Hydrogen economy work.

To produce hydrogen though, you need massive amounts of electricity. As it is now, most parts of North America ( I cant speak for Europe ) are now close to the limit on power demand. Why? Anti-Nuclear activists and the green movement. The same people preaching about global warming and wanting alternatives to the fossil fuel economy. Solar and wind are great ideas provided 2 things: one, you can produce enough power to meet the demand and two, it can be done cheaply enough. Right now there is a pilot project to produce solar power for peak load demand that will be in operation in the next few years near Sarnia Ontario. It will produce enough power to maybe light 25000 homes. Great....only at peak times, and by the way, it will cost 45 cents a kilowatt hour to produce (to pay for the technology). It wont be that efficient on cloudy days of course, and useless at night. The power out a nuclear power plant is 1/8th of that to produce in costs. Yet the Greenies still think with conservation and a few solar power panels, ( and a few windmills....) we can close all the coal fired plants in Ontario and get by on nuclear and the hydroelectric stations we have. Great...and when THAT doesn't work, guess where the power comes from? We buy from the US....coal fired stations...that is if they are not at their top demand.

No solution is easy, and that is the whole problem the Global Warming fans are buying into. They just think we can do this, and it is industry and dummies like George Bush that are stopping it. IT is NOT easy to reduce CO2 to any significant level that would make any difference AT all for the next decade or two. This crap about buying Carbon offsets from other nations is a lot of spin to placate those polticians that know damned well they need an out for NOT meeting Kyoto targets. The Politicians that designed that piece of crap treaty in Kyoto all need an out because in their heart of hearts they know damned well that they may intend to make CO2 levels go down, but they need to get re-elected, and crippling the nation for the sake of a THEORY is just crap..

Now...as for that Finnish beer brewed with Lappland water, you will be drinking it for some time, even if everything you say is correct.....

Mark in Oshawa

10th July 2007, 20:15

Oh one more thing. For those who think we can just all cut back, that is great except for population growth. Even in a society such as Canada, with less than 2 birth's per family on average, is growing, due to immigration. All those people want cars, want housing, and need to heat and cool their homes with the season. Last time I looked, that is what anyone wants, no matter where they live. I have my car, my house, my A/C, I can turn down the heat or let the A/C stay off longer, and I can drive a smaller car, and DO just that, BUT it wont change the fact demand for EVERYTHING is going up. If you try to tell people they cant have it, they will ignore you. That is what China is doing RIGHT Now. They are growing their economy in leaps and bounds and to have the West try to tell them to stop and conserve resources and NOT allow car ownership....well you might as well put your finger in the dyke when the breach is big enough for a ship....

It makes far better sense to spend resources on technology to get us out of the carbon cycle that is usable, and it would be smart if we figured out ways to get water to parts of the earth that need it and give people the technology to be able to reuse it. Instead, the Global Warming crowd would cripple the ability to create the wealth to do all of this by basically handcuffing industry, and killing jobs, and THAT is what will happen......

Woodeye

10th July 2007, 20:41

First off, science is NOT a popularity contest.

But at the moment I think that the facts are showing that humans are causing the climate heating up. Just like you are thinking that we are not causing this. we can argue this forever, but it is still a matter of opinion and what theories you want to believe.

No man on Mars.....

No, but the climate is so different from earth that I really wouldn't draw too many conclusions from that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars

As for your assertions that we need to quit using oil and fossil fuels, yes, I agree. How did you get to work today? The power plant that makes your electricity? Does Finland have NO coal fired, gas fired or oil fired power plants?

I think that we agree on many things, we just have different angle looking at things. I got to work today by bicycle, just like every day for the past 4 weeks or so. Before that I used the tram. I think the electricity to my computer comes from nuclear plant. And yes, we do have coal and oil plants, but Finland is trying to reduce the use of those. We use them mainly on winter if the electricity supply is on the limit. As I said, I'm in the favor of nuclear power, that it green power IMO. That's what you stated also. And I'm against greenpeace, lets make that clear also.

If the earth's population is going UP, ( and it will until it levels off according to the UN at about 7 billion in about 50 years from now ) then the use of EVERYTHING will go up.

Again, that's one prediction. There are others too, and a bit more gloomy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_population

Now you see an apocalypse, I see opportunity. We, the world will have to use these 50 or so years wisely. Market forces are already starting to bring to bear on the unsustainablity of oil long term. As Gas goes up, people are going to smaller cars, and hybrids. Alternative fuels such as Bio Diesel and Ethanol are just the first wave. I have NO problem with this (other than burning food products that could feed someone, but it is more complicated than that)as a whole. I am all for conserving resources. I am also not truly against trying to limit the amount of CO2 released, but that doesn't mean I think it is the reason the world is getting warmer. I just don't think we should alter the atmosphere in any way if we can afford not to.

I don't see apocalypse at all. I see opportunities as well, great opportunities economically when all the greening starts really. Economies that will create solutions to reduce emissions, pollution and which can offer different solutions like biofuels, alternative energy sources and stuff like that will benefit for sure.

They just think we can do this, and it is industry and dummies like George Bush that are stopping it. IT is NOT easy to reduce CO2 to any significant level that would make any difference AT all for the next decade or two. This crap about buying Carbon offsets from other nations is a lot of spin to placate those polticians that know damned well they need an out for NOT meeting Kyoto targets.

If it's not GW and others like him, then what's stopping us? Greedy industry lobbyists maybe, greedy owners of the companies, greedy companies, greedy leaders. If all would just agree to cut the emissions it would be easy, thanks to U.S, Russia, China, etc. it is not eady at the moment. We are sh*tting the house that we are living in and some are argueing whether we should start to clean up.

Now...as for that Finnish beer brewed with Lappland water, you will be drinking it for some time, even if everything you say is correct.....

Yes, I hope that also. And I hope that my kids (if I ever get any) will able to get drunk with the same beer also. And their kids also.

race aficionado

10th July 2007, 20:59

[quote="Woodeye"]

Enjoy your beer Woodeye.
I'm enjoying the back and fourth discussion and thanks for "holding the fort" with your defense of our Earth issues that you and I stand firm on.

:s mokin:

Mark in Oshawa

10th July 2007, 21:15

Enjoy your beer Woodeye.
I'm enjoying the back and fourth discussion and thanks for "holding the fort" with your defense of our Earth issues that you and I stand firm on.

:s mokin:

Sure...don't tell mean old global warming isn't caused by man guy not to enjoy HIS beer....

race aficionado

10th July 2007, 21:29

enjoy yours too Mark ;)

DustyJones

10th July 2007, 21:31

They're one of the least accurate stat-gathering methods, so saying 71% of people believe ANYTHING, based on an internet poll, is silly.

Especially if people can vote more than once.

Mark in Oshawa

10th July 2007, 22:56

Dusty, I didn't think it was accurate, but I found it very interesting to see that, because the common belief that the popular media would have everyone believe is that 71% of the people think global warming is real and man made. I thought it was worthy of comment, and worthy of re-opening the debate on global warming and its causes (it never has been closed in my mind)

tinchote

11th July 2007, 00:44

Enjoy your beer Woodeye.
I'm enjoying the back and fourth discussion and thanks for "holding the fort" with your defense of our Earth issues that you and I stand firm on.
:s mokin:

You know, Race, when you say that, you are showing the kind of "religious" dogmatic attitude that many take on this subject.

For the record, I recycle every piece of paper, metal, glass, and plastic that enters my home. I walk to work (3km each way) every day of the year, including -40 weather. The heating bill at my home is about half of the average bill for houses in my neighbourhood, and about the same for the electricity bill.

I do care about the planet. But that doesn't mean that I have to buy the stupid things that Gore is saying.

The processes in the Earth's atmosphere are only partially understood. Weather prediction is done by mathematical modelling on computers, and constant tweaking of the model with current data. And still, weather prediction is basically useless more than a few days ahead. Knowing that, to say that it is a "scientific fact" that this or that will happen with the weather (things like extended draughts or floodings or whatever) in the long term, is stupid.

In almost everything that has been said in this thead, there is a basic misunderstanding of how science works. Science is based on making theories. A theory is a certain explanation of how things work. It is accepted as long as it explains know phenomena and predicts a few more. A theory is never "proven". If it lasts for a long time - surviving many new experiments - one says "well, this looks like a correct thing". It is still possible - and it happens - that a certain new experiment contradicts the theory, and then it is time to look for a new one or to improve the existing one. Bottom line is, a scientist cannot really tell that something is "for sure".

Assuming the previous paragraph is understood, now comes the kind of theories related to weather. Well, as I said before, these theories are on even shakier ground than others. The reason is, atmospheric processes are what mathematically is called "chaotic". Weather scientists have models; as I said, these models are computer programs that assumingly incorporate features of the World's (or local, for that matter) weather. These models are to be fed with data: and here comes the problem. Data, by definition, is innacurate. If you thermometer measures up to a 10th of a degree, you cannot say if the temperature was 25.6 or 25.65. Usually, this is irrelevant. That's because most physical models are stable: a little change in the data, produces little change in the output. But weather models are chaotic: a little change in the data, produces big changes in the output. Conclusion: weather prediction is - by definition! - innacurate.

In the end, what this all means is that, when scientists speak about the consequences of GW, they are basically stating an (informed, of course) opinion. These days it seems that a majority of scientists are of the opinion that GW is caused by man and that it will have terrible consequences. 30 years ago, a majority of scientists were of the opinion that we were going towards an ice age. Conclusion: the fact that a "majority" of scientists say that something will happen, doesn't mean too much. Particularly when those not in the majority tend to be silenced by political pressure, both at gubernamental level (knowledge that if you contradict the trend, you might lose your reserch grant) and at the publication level (knowledge that if you submit an article contradicting certain facts, it will likely be rejected independently of the content).

Woodeye

11th July 2007, 07:44

Cheers, Race. Although having a good debate needs good opponents too, thanks to Mark and tinchote. :up: Here we go again...

For the record, I recycle every piece of paper, metal, glass, and plastic that enters my home. I walk to work (3km each way) every day of the year, including -40 weather. The heating bill at my home is about half of the average bill for houses in my neighbourhood, and about the same for the electricity bill.

This is something that I do also. And what everyone should do. If someone's not recycling they should be burned.. face down! :mad: Those little things can really save energy, saving energy leads to lower consumption of it and thus hopefully to lowered needs burning coal and oil.

I do care about the planet. But that doesn't mean that I have to buy the stupid things that Gore is saying.

And this is where we come again to beliefs. You tend to believe that what Gore and others are saying is bull, I believe what they are saying is important and we all should act to prevent global warming. I think that even you and Mark are pointing out all the time that science hasn't really proved the cause of the global warming, you also partly want to believe so. That's why you've decided to support theories backing it. I know that's what I'm doing with the theories showing the correlation between global warming and CO2 emissions. As you said, scientists cannot really tell if something is "true" or not. That's why we need to belief and back-up their theories.

In the end, what this all means is that, when scientists speak about the consequences of GW, they are basically stating an (informed, of course) opinion. These days it seems that a majority of scientists are of the opinion that GW is caused by man and that it will have terrible consequences.

True, when a scientist is presenting something, they are most probably presenting an opinion. But the basics of the academy world state that you really cannot just tell opinion, you need facts to support it. And if the majority of the opinions are telling that global warming is caused by humans and these opinions are supported by facts, I really don't need any more proof. These men and women spend their lives researching global warming, I really don't have the guts to go tell them that what they are stating is false.

And still, weather can be chaotic from day to day, but that really doesn't explaing all the extreme phenomena that has been taking place recently. And the number of these extreme phenomena is rising all the time, you just need to follow the world media to see that. Floods, draughts, storms, tornados etc. That's what we will be facing every day in the future. And in the places where they shouldn't be happening. The weather going crazy is on of the reasons caused by global warming.

CharlieJ

11th July 2007, 08:20

Some science is based on making theories.

And some is based on observation.

Latest observation and some more theory:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6290228.stm

race aficionado

11th July 2007, 15:47

You know, Race, when you say that, you are showing the kind of "religious" dogmatic attitude that many take on this subject.

Yo Tincho! sorry if I sounded to you like a religious dogmatic tree hugger.
No ill intentions from me nor did I want to appear as a patronizing git.

My point is that skepticism in this dire case should not be front and center.
Yes, let's not trust all we hear but yes, let's trust what we are indeed witnessing and seeing with our own eyes. Things are rapidly changing and the easy way out for many is to say that "hey, we have not been carrying records of weather patterns that far back in time so this could be part of a pattern and soon everything will be alright and dandy."
Also there are many types of pollution that are hurting our planet and one that we haven't even mentioned is Nuclear radiation pollution and all it's unrecognized damage.
So no, I don't hold you as an ecological monster but yes, we do have our differences and that's why we discuss.

But Tincho, one of the things we do have in common is that we both recycle (and that in some places is a complete joke but that's a topic for another thread) but where we are attuned right now you and I is with your Argentinean team in the Copa America. What a great team you have! :)

:s mokin:

Mark in Oshawa

11th July 2007, 16:28

And this is where we come again to beliefs. You tend to believe that what Gore and others are saying is bull, I believe what they are saying is important and we all should act to prevent global warming. I think that even you and Mark are pointing out all the time that science hasn't really proved the cause of the global warming, you also partly want to believe so. That's why you've decided to support theories backing it. I know that's what I'm doing with the theories showing the correlation between global warming and CO2 emissions. As you said, scientists cannot really tell if something is "true" or not. That's why we need to belief and back-up their theories.

We don't NEED belief Woodeye. You can believe someone but you don't NEED to believe. That is faith, and that is bordering on religion, and last time I looked, that is what the global warming is man's fault gang is. They have tried to portray anyone not agreeing as someone who a)hates the planet and b) is in denial.

There is a coorelation between the earth's average temperature and CO2? Really? Funny, 1944 was one of the coldest years across the planet, and it was apparently one of the last times in the last century that CO2 was high also....I think this is WAY too complex to take all these newer theories to the bank...

True, when a scientist is presenting something, they are most probably presenting an opinion. But the basics of the academy world state that you really cannot just tell opinion, you need facts to support it. And if the majority of the opinions are telling that global warming is caused by humans and these opinions are supported by facts, I really don't need any more proof. These men and women spend their lives researching global warming, I really don't have the guts to go tell them that what they are stating is false..

Yes you do need to be more skeptical. What you are saying is "they are smarter than me on this subject", so it must be true. While I will agree they know more of the science that has allowed them to come to their conclusion, there are others out there who are not getting paid by their governments who are doing the research as well (take note on the significance of who pays) who are saying it isn't. Furthermore, for us to say this warming trend is man made ignores the complete truth (from core samples and as much theory as supports anything) that the Earth's temp has gone up and down a lot more in the past. Man made CO2 really has only been a factor if you take the idea seriously in the last 150 years...and really the only the last 70. The climate of this rock goes up and down over millenia and we are just a factor the last 150 years. So there are OTHER processes at work here, and to say it is "man's" fault is giving us WAY too much credit.

AS for you not having the guts to disagree, you should have the guts to disagree, because you live in a free society, and trust me, you will pay through the nose if some of the warriors of global warming have their way.

This is turning into a political argument in most nations now, and THAT is not good. It isn't good because politicians don't give a rat's behind about truth, they just want to run with something to either give them more power, or get them re-elected. They hand out grants to do research on this stuff based on the results they want to see. A prominent climatologist with the NRC (National Reasearch Council) in Ottawa is now in Winnipeg teaching, because I suspect the NRC didn't want to hear that he thinks Global Warming theory is a lot of bunk. This was documented in the movie "The Great Global Warming Swindle" that the BBC aired earlier this year if I am not mistaken.

All advocates of global warming should watch that documentry. It puts out in pain staking detail that much of what you are told as "fact" is actually under hot debate. Scientests do this all the time on a lot of subjects. It is how they learn, and now they create new tests to prove or disprove theory.

And still, weather can be chaotic from day to day, but that really doesn't explaing all the extreme phenomena that has been taking place recently. And the number of these extreme phenomena is rising all the time, you just need to follow the world media to see that. Floods, draughts, storms, tornados etc. That's what we will be facing every day in the future. And in the places where they shouldn't be happening. The weather going crazy is on of the reasons caused by global warming.

Were you around in the mini ice ages of the middle ages? Were you around in 1500 BC to see the weather. How do we know that the "Extreme" phenomena that we see now hasn't been part of a long running climatic cycle? The only thing they know from ancient times is based on Ice Cores, fossils and plant and animal matter unearthed. From this, they may know if it was moist there, and maybe what the average temp might have been, but they dont know for sure. They don't know if there was extreme winds, they don't know from this if there was a lot of flooding. We only really have accurate data from the last 150 years. That is a nanosecond of time when you consider the Earth has been here 5 billion years, and it is hard to prove or disprove things are different now from then because the data we have from THEN is all guesses.

IS the weather crazy now? Really? Last year, 2006 was interesting. A year after all the hurricanes tore up all the states of the US on the Gulf of Mexico, many Global Warming proponents were stating how the hurricane season was going to be just as bad. They said all these new hurricanes were due to global warming. Guess how many serious Hurricanes (Cat.2 or more) there were in the Atlantic last year? 2. Thats right, 2. None struck any major centers, and then by the end of last year, some of the propenents of Global Warming said the lack of Hurricanes was due to Global Warming!!! You cant have it both ways, but people are trying. Every time a major hurricane or tornado hits, or a flood happens, it isn't because of global warming. Weather is impossible to really predict long term, so how in the hell anyone can say with any accuracy or conviction they know for sure? Don't give me this "they are the experts" crap either, because as Tin and I have pointed out, the "experts" in the 70's said we would be on the way to an ice age by now.

This is all just a political movement designed to hijack the enviromentally conscious people of the world and get them to accept more government through "Saving us" from global warming. You are being USED is the truth of it. The scientests involved may be part of it, or they just may be pawns, just as you and Race are.

Look, there is nothing wrong with leaving less of a footprint on the land, and being responsible. When I used to camp, I was always taught to take more out of the bush than I brought in. I used to carry garbage I found out with my own stuff. I also drive a small car, I recycle. I try not to use more power than I need. In short, I am doing all the responsble things to a point all of should do.

We should also make the transformation to a hydrogen economy, but that wont happen unless people allow a lot more nuclear power to produce the hydrogen, (solar and wind cant fill the demand) and the price of oil gets so dear that people demand alternatives in the marketplace. In short, the economy will make the transition when the marketplace and the needs of the consumers (all of us who just live our lives) demand it. Until then, it is a top down, draconian intervention in the economy. Last time I looked, the only nations to do this to their economies were the communist states of the Eastern Bloc and a few others like North Korea and Cuba. We all know how well those nations have worked out don't we?

Al Gore, you can believe all you want in your 24 room mansion, flying your private jet, getting paid 100000 bucks a speaking engagement, but if you and your ilk want to put people out of work to defend your theory, NOW we have a problem.....

Firstgear

11th July 2007, 17:46

A prominent climatologist with the NRC (National Reasearch Council) in Ottawa is now in Winnipeg teaching, because I suspect the NRC didn't want to hear that he thinks Global Warming theory is a lot of bunk.

Ummmmm.....What's wrong with going to Winnipeg? If this GW thing is true, we could become quite the destination. Heck, if the ice caps melt & water levels everywhere rise, my cottage may become waterfront.

Woodeye

11th July 2007, 18:13

Mark, the lenght of the previous post was quite near the length of a novel.. :) As I really cannot match that and it seems that my english really isn't that good in all situations, (as with the belief) I try to keep it short this time.

I really do trust in the theories presented by scientists. With my knowledge I'm not going to challenge all of those theories. If the vast majority of science world agree on something, then I'll accept it. I find it hard to believe that all the clientologicst in the world are taking part in somekind of conscpiracy. In global warming I see no reason to fight against the theories.

Turning global warming into politics is not good. That's true. Because if anything goes into politics it will slow the things down big time. No matter what's the issue is. And meanwhile the globe will continue to heat.

And what comes to previous ice age and middle ages, no I didn't had the chance to see those. Unfortunately. But I also happen to know that the emissions of humans caused on those times were pretty much limited to farts. Nowdays we are producing something else also. It is true that earth still developes all the time but it is also true that people are causing a lot of damage to this planet and the planet is suffering because of that.

Finally, Im not that naiive that I believe that the old Al is doing all this just because he's kind. Of course he want's to get something out of being an eco-warrior. He's turning ecology into profit. Smart guy, that's what I think.

And finally, few links. See for yourself and decide do we cause anything. (No, I don't know how accurate or academic these are, these were among the ones that I found in google)

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/globalchange/global_warming/03.html

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/

http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/?gclid=CL7pjKr9n40CFSW6XgodlQlN1A

tinchote

11th July 2007, 19:52

Woodeye, I'm not a native English speaker, but I see no problem at all with your English.

I was looking at the "evidence" from those sites. It probably looks conclusive to you, it doesn't look conclusive to me. I tried to "confirm" from things I know from other sources, and here is one: among the "evidence" of gw provided, is the ice-receeding in Baffin island. I happen to have friends who are Inuits from Baffin island, and what they tell is that the last two summers, there has been more ice than usual, and it has taken longer to melt. Another "evidence" of global warming given is starving polar bears; my friends have been complaining for years that since the 80s Ottawa put quotas on their bear hunting, and for a long time there have been more bears than the ecosystem can provide, hence the starving bears. Just two examples where facts are turned over to be used as "evidence". Argentina (where I am from) is currently experiencing the coolest winter in decades (two days ago it snowed for the first time in 90 years in my home town), and you wouldn't see that prominently in the news.

In any case, it ends being irrelevant whether gw is caused by humans or not. Can we possibly get a significant reduction in emissions? Probably not. Is a significant reduction in emissions enough to change the CO2 pattern in the atmosphere? Certainly not. Because of that, people like Mark and I advocate for spending the money on fighting the consequences and not the cause.

race aficionado

11th July 2007, 20:08

In any case, it ends being irrelevant whether gw is caused by humans or not. Can we possibly get a significant reduction in emissions? Probably not. Is a significant reduction in emissions enough to change the CO2 pattern in the atmosphere? Certainly not. Because of that, people like Mark and I advocate for spending the money on fighting the consequences and not the cause.

Ah tincho, and that's again where we differ. It's like "Take an aspirin and call me in the morning" syndrome. it's like a lot of today's medicine research. They attack the consequences and don't make an enfaces on working on the causes. It's basically not good business.

Yes, let's work on the consequences - for the damage that is already being done - but I for one am glad that many are offering solutions for those causes that in my case, I believe are the roots of the problem. It's a rapidly moving and changing world and we have to adapt and take responsibility for what we think is going wrong.

We each do or not do what we can or can't do and we do so willingly.
ouch! I think a loosened a filling with that one! :s mokin:

Crypt

11th July 2007, 22:11

I am pretty much under the camp of "it's something that is and will happen no matter how humans contributed or tried to prevent it". So many things contribute to the health of our atmopshere. From volcanoes, massive forrest fires, solar cycles of the sun..the list is endless.

I grow weary of this "Save the planet" rhetoric, when it really should be "Save the species". The planet will be just fine, nothing we can do will "kill the planet". The U.S. and Russia have the ability to unleash the most destructive weapons known to man, and only life on earth will cease to exsist, not the planet itself.

We really need more focus on how we can use our technology to reduce the impact as much as we can, not believe that we can stop GW. And number one, we need to focus on how we can adapt to the change.

tinchote

11th July 2007, 23:36

Ah tincho, and that's again where we differ. It's like "Take an aspirin and call me in the morning" syndrome. it's like a lot of today's medicine research. They attack the consequences and don't make an enfaces on working on the causes. It's basically not good business.

Race, you wanna attack the causes? A good start would be to avoid the vast deforestation done in the US and in Europe. Can anything be done about that? Certainlly not. We could also forbid cars and electricity and gas. Can it be done? No. Then, why bother about that?

It's a good thing to make people more conscious, but it's tricky. You run the risk of people doing some recycling, getting a smaller car, and feeling good about it, and then forgetting about all the hunger, war, etc. That, I would say, is typical behaviour in the current western society.

Mark in Oshawa

12th July 2007, 05:47

Woodeye, do not apologize for your English, it is JUST fine trust me. A lot better than my Finnish my friend. I am sorry I wrote a book there, but this topic is a passion for me. Why? I will tell you why.

I care about the earth. I care about how people live though every bit as much. I see what my nation was looking at to meet the Kyoto targets, and none of the options was worth doing in my eyes. I heard debate where they were talking about shutting down the oilsands production in Alberta. How many people would THAT put out of work? 100000? 200000? Hard to say, but the pain would be massive for just one part of Canada? There is no way to separate the oil from the sand without using lots of heat, and that is Canada's biggest CO2 producer. Also, we have politicians telling me that they would consider bans on certain types of cars. We had people saying that they would put a carbon tax on Gas (as if we want to double the price of gas). Taxes would be collected to look for "solutions" to the problem.

Near as I can figure, we would put people out of work, cost everyone a LOT more money (trust me, paying 20 % more for gas) and paying a lot more in taxes (Canada is already one of the most overtaxed jurisdictions anywhere) for ....what? Research? No wonder the scientests want to jump on this bandwagon, they will have full employment, even if the poor guys out in the oil patch are collecting unemployment as oil production is greatly curtailed in Alberta.

So we do all of this, for a theory that is at best, suspect. I too looked at your sources. Tinchote is dead on the money with the Polar Bears, we have more Polar bears now than we did 30 years ago. They are NOT going anywhere either. Their range will maybe move north but believe me, they will adapt. As for this idea that glaciers are retreating is evidence that it is caused by man, that is nonsense. I never said it wasn't possible, I think global temps are up, but I will just not jump to the conclusion it is caused by man created CO2.

By the way, contrary to popular belief, CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It is a by product of fossil fuels being burned. It is a natural substance, and an atmosphere with more CO2 will also cause plant growth to increase. If we were radically altering the earth's balance in the stuff, plants would grow noticeably faster and bigger. What is more, they create O2 from this, and THAT would counteract the CO2. Mother nature cannot be messed with. The Earth has had a natural balance that has existed a long time, and I think if we radically added CO2 into the world, the increase of plant growth would counter act it.

Also, lets get down to it. What are we prepared to do to stop CO2? Tell me what we are going to do? Be more aware? Please, that is a feel good thing for libreals who have no answers that work. Stop using oil? Right, right after Al Gore starts taking a hot air balloon to get around. Cut down on car usage? Tell to the fastest growing economy which is putting cars on the road so fast that the factories of China cant get enough steel now. Shut down industry? Right, you going to compensate a guy making steel to shut his plant down? Pay Carbon Credits? That is just a socialist scheme to take from the rich to give to the ....less rich.

Global warming crusaders are a farce because they have no conclusive hard proof their theories are right. Even if you admit that the earth is getting warmer, there is no way of really counteracting it unless you put people out of work, you spend BILLIONS of dollars to research ways of changing our economy, and you have to radically alter MY life to counteract the Chinese and Indians who really don't give a flying fidoo about your theory because they want what we have already. Last time I looked, no one is ready to go back to living in a tent and living off the land, so lets stop the fiction there is a solution to a problem that MAY not be our fault.

I told you a few posts back, the solar radiation hitting the Earth is what heats it. If the Sun is increasing its output 1%, then we will know it. The fact Mars is getting warmer proportionately to what we think the Earth is getting warmer says a lot. It means all the feel good wishes of the people thinking it is my fault for burning oil is just a big waste of time.

You want to spend billions? Spend it on giving utility companies seed money to economically produce hydrogen in large quantities. Spend it on countries in the 3rd world to get safe water, give them security of a food supply and ecologically safe fertilizers. Just you spend it, don't add 20% to my tax load to do it.

I have said it before, will say it again. The people behind pushing this agenda have grabbed what a few scientests are thinking and they are using it as a weapon to justify more government control of the economy, more tax revenue and more POWER over a free society. If there is global warming, and even if it is caused by man, these idiots wont solve the problem, so quit encouraging them.

Mark in Oshawa

12th July 2007, 05:59

Ummmmm.....What's wrong with going to Winnipeg? If this GW thing is true, we could become quite the destination. Heck, if the ice caps melt & water levels everywhere rise, my cottage may become waterfront.

Nothing is wrong with Winnipeg, but this chap is left his job at the NRC because he didn't agree with the thinking. It seems independent thought is not encouraged. See, if you don't drink the Kool Aid, you can often find your funding cut off in a few institutions that don't like people disagree with the politically correct....

Woodeye

12th July 2007, 06:58

Woodeye the eco-warrior is back again! :monkee:

Tinchote, I wasn't even trying to offer you some "evidence" or "proof" about the GW. I think that even that I would present 1.000 different theories or even facts about it, you would still prefer the other proof suggesting that humans have nothing to do with GW. And about the polar bears, I'm more than happy to hear that the bears are doing ok at the moment. It is the future that worries me: http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/where_we_work/europe/what_we_do/arctic/polar_bear/threats/climate_change/index.cfm

Crypt, if the earth suffers and dies, so will do all the species living on it too. Humans among these species.

Mark, I see that your biggest concern is losing jobs from Canada. I'm also concerned about companies that decide to close down factories in Finland and move production to China, India or South-America. I still would say that majority of these transfers are done because of the lower labour costs on those countries. Again, I'm not so naiive that I would think that is the only reason in some cases, some firms are doing it also because environmental issues are not so much controlled in those countries as they are compared to for example Finland and Canada. But nations should try to control the moves and give some serious penalties to firms like these.

As I've stated before, doing something environmentally friendly usually means also that something is done more efficiently. Again the papermills in Finland: UPM is one of the biggest papermakers in the world. It has factories around the globe. In Finland and in China. The factories in Finland are the most efficient in the world. How is this possible when an hour of work in Finland costs 30€ compared to 1-2€ in China. Because the factory and the processes are so efficient. Partly this is because strict environmental legislation that demands high efficiency and low emissions. Big investments have been made, but at the moment everything is going superbly.

In the '80's when I still lived in a town where there was papermill the bark of the trees used to be black because of pollution from the factory. Nowdays the bark is clean. So please don't give me any more crap about "there's nothing we can do to prevent the pollution". Yes we can do. It is just a matter of getting everybody doing it. If U.S and China decide to do nothing, that is really not helping.

CO2 is not pollutant, right, but since humans are freeing it to atmosphere and destroying the forests at the same time, of course that will have some effects. You just cannot think that if CO2 is something that nature produces it will cause no problems. If humans produce it million times the nature does, it certaily will have some effects to atmosphere.

Daniel

12th July 2007, 07:18

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#On_contradictions _in_the_theory_of_anthropogenic_global_warming

Good read :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_asse ssment_of_global_warming

This too :)

tinchote

12th July 2007, 08:18

Tinchote, I wasn't even trying to offer you some "evidence" or "proof" about the GW. I think that even that I would present 1.000 different theories or even facts about it, you would still prefer the other proof suggesting that humans have nothing to do with GW. And about the polar bears, I'm more than happy to hear that the bears are doing ok at the moment. It is the future that worries me: http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/where_we_work/europe/what_we_do/arctic/polar_bear/threats/climate_change/index.cfm

You seem to be not reading my posts. The article you quote says that ice is melting earlier in the artic. What I am telling, from direct witnesses, is that in the last two years the ice has melted later than usual in the artic. And - for the third time - I am not saying that the planet is not warming; I don't know about that, and in the end I don't care. What I do know is that trying to avoid it is stupid, and will only make things worse.

As I've stated before, doing something environmentally friendly usually means also that something is done more efficiently. Again the papermills in Finland: UPM is one of the biggest papermakers in the world. It has factories around the globe. In Finland and in China. The factories in Finland are the most efficient in the world. How is this possible when an hour of work in Finland costs 30€ compared to 1-2€ in China. Because the factory and the processes are so efficient. Partly this is because strict environmental legislation that demands high efficiency and low emissions. Big investments have been made, but at the moment everything is going superbly.

In the '80's when I still lived in a town where there was papermill the bark of the trees used to be black because of pollution from the factory. Nowdays the bark is clean. So please don't give me any more crap about "there's nothing we can do to prevent the pollution". Yes we can do. It is just a matter of getting everybody doing it. If U.S and China decide to do nothing, that is really not helping.

Finnish papermills are probably not the best example. They might be less pollutant in Finland, that I don't know. But I do know that there is a lot of controversy about Finnish papermills in Argentina and Uruguay, and that's not precisely because they are models of enviromental cleanliness.

tinchote

12th July 2007, 08:21

And to follow Daniel's trend, here's another interesting read: http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Woodeye

12th July 2007, 10:17

You seem to be not reading my posts. The article you quote says that ice is melting earlier in the artic. What I am telling, from direct witnesses, is that in the last two years the ice has melted later than usual in the artic..

Did you look at the graph on this link? It is the future that worries me:

http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/where...ange/index.cfm

What I do know is that trying to avoid it is stupid, and will only make things worse.

Not true. That is all I can say about this.

But I do know that there is a lot of controversy about Finnish papermills in Argentina and Uruguay, and that's not precisely because they are models of enviromental cleanliness.

The debate between Argentina and Uruguay is caused by the fact that the other country got the mill and the other didn't.

Tomi

12th July 2007, 10:32

Finnish papermills are probably not the best example. They might be less pollutant in Finland, that I don't know. But I do know that there is a lot of controversy about Finnish papermills in Argentina and Uruguay, and that's not precisely because they are models of enviromental cleanliness.

Yes, it's sad when enviromental issues becomes political issues, thiskind or simular things happens often in developing countries.

Mark in Oshawa

12th July 2007, 15:18

Interesting....The Link Tinchote linked to has one VERY interesting graph right off the top, and it basically shows the increase in parts per Billion from manmade production of CO2 is shown as approx. 11000 parts PER BILLION, as opposed to CO2 from natural processes to be 68000 parts PER BILLION. Let the proportion of that, parts per BILLION rattle around in your head for a while.

Now also realize that the link provided talks about water vapour, the most significant "Greenhouse Gas" is 99% plus of the greenhouse gases. How can manmade CO2, which is less than a tiny fraction of 1% of all Greenhouse gases be the cause of warming? Logic would dictate that we give man far too much credit.

I have said it before, I will say it again. All this talk of global warming and the hand wringing of what to do about it is a poliltical movement that has hijacked the work of a few scientests theorizing on possible causes for a minute shift in the earth's climate. All that is BAD from this shift is magnified, and there is no GOOD given, like how crop ranges will be greater, areas deemed unhabitable might be more liveable, how ranges for some species will become greater, and how the greater amounts of CO2 (although as the graph onthe link points out, this is negligible) will increase plant growth and yes, increase yields of crops.

It is all doom and gloom and questions of how much money can we scare out of the taxpayer to control his life further, and I am not buying any of this "SCIENCE". The same "SCIENCE" was being used 30 years ago was telling me we were on the verge of an ice age. I would buy it if it was done without a hysteria driving it and funding being cut off for people who didn't agree it wasn't happening, but this is a political movement. The science for me is questionable at best, and even if I am prepared to agree to half the science, I still don't believe any of the money being spent on "solutions" is being spent wisely.

IF you have such faith in the experts and science, answer this. Every time you turn on the TV or radio, there is some study being reported that states "eating more tomatoes can reduce cancer" or "drinking coffee increases your risk of cancer' or some other food will do either something good or bad for you. Then 3 years later, another study will come along that contradicts this. Meanwhile, you quit drinking coffee and eat tomatoes like you are the last Italian on earth, and it turns out to be suspect. Much of today's climatic studies are likely to be just as flawed, if not more so. The human body is a lot more controlled a study location, then trying to track all the variables of the earth's climate.

Listen, I am tired of this fear mongering being used as a weapon. The next time someone accuses me of hating the planet wont be the last time, and I just laugh, because I cared about the planet as a kid, and still do. I just have faith in mankind and the resilience of nature....I am an optimist by nature, and I am optimistic that if we are rational, don't panic, and keep politicians from interfering in the process, solutions to problems with the earth, regardless of their cause will be dealt with or at least mitigated. One thing is for sure. We cant predict the weather accurately a week from now, and we cant control the weather, so where in the hell does anyone think we know how to stop global warming and can we even be sure that it EXISTS????

luvracin

12th July 2007, 16:05

I'm sorry guys, but the longer this goes on the more it reminds me of....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM&mode=related&search=

Woodeye

12th July 2007, 17:42

I am not buying any of this "SCIENCE". The same "SCIENCE" was being used 30 years ago was telling me we were on the verge of an ice age. I would buy it if it was done without a hysteria driving it and funding being cut off for people who didn't agree it wasn't happening, but this is a political movement. The science for me is questionable at best, and even if I am prepared to agree to half the science, I still don't believe any of the money being spent on "solutions" is being spent wisely.

And still, if the results of this "science" look good from your point of view you are more than willing to accept it. Like the one graph in that VERY interesting link.

Anyway at this point I just say that we are going to disagree on this issue. I won't be able to turn your head and you won't be able to turn mine.

We'll see what the future will bring to us and for the earth. I'm not too optimistic.

:vader:

tinchote

12th July 2007, 18:02

The debate between Argentina and Uruguay is caused by the fact that the other country got the mill and the other didn't.

You have no idea what you are talking about. If that's what they are selling you in Finland, they have no idea what they are talking about (or they are cheating you, either way).

Did you look at the graph on this link? It is the future that worries me:.

I did look at the graph. It says that it is a simulation, and it doesn't even say what the simulation is based on. You are willing to take that little graph, but you won't take the direct testimony that I am bringing you that it is not true that ice is receeding everywhere in the artic. Talk about bias.

Woodeye

12th July 2007, 18:14

So I should just accept the argentinian point of view, whatever that is? Sure. And I should also accept the VIEW that GW is not caused bu humans. Sure.

:rolleyes:

All the things I say are wrong and based on wrong theories. And all the bad people are just cheating and misleading me all the time. Sure.

:rolleyes:

I just don't agree with you.

tinchote

12th July 2007, 20:35

So I should just accept the argentinian point of view, whatever that is? Sure. And I should also accept the VIEW that GW is not caused bu humans. Sure.

It's not about generalizing. You stated a very concrete fact about the situation of Botnia and Argentina and Uruguay. And what you say is simply not true. The conflict started when a group of citizens of the neighbouring city of Gualeguaychú decided that a papermill in Fray Bentos (accross the river) was unacceptable due to the pollution it would cause. The government later used the protests for political benefit, but that was after. To say that the origin of the conflict is that Argentina wanted the papermill on their side is simply not true.

In any case, your attitude prevents any discussion. You state facts, you don't want to back them up, and get mad if discussion arises. You just want to state your agenda, and not discuss. That's not the idea here.

And, by the way, I never said that GW is not caused by humans (and it's about the third or fourth time that I am saying that to you). But, repeteadly, you answer my posts without really reading them.

I'm done with you.

Woodeye

13th July 2007, 07:08

It's not about generalizing. You stated a very concrete fact about the situation of Botnia and Argentina and Uruguay. And what you say is simply not true.

http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Botnia+pulp+factory+centre+of+dispute+between+Arge ntina+and+Uruguay/1135218285439

What do you think, if the mill would be on the argentinian side would the argentinian government still try to prevent the constuction?

I'm done with you.

Glad I'm not the only one here with attitude.

Mark in Oshawa

13th July 2007, 07:28

Tin, Woodeye has been brainwashed into thinking the debate is over. It is only over in the eyes of the converted. The skeptical types who still understand the role to look after the planet but think this man made theory is a pile of horse manure ( you and I for example ) are very open minded. We read what is out there pro and con, but every time, it comes back to one thing: If you don't buy into the theory, and all that comes with it, you are an idiot. WE don't look at them that way. I don't like some of the people at the leadership of this monstrous fraud, but I don't blame people for not wanting global warming to happen. I just know that to me, there is a lot of questions left unanswered, and the biggest one is how do you stop the production of something that is the byproduct of almost EVERY SINGLE HUMAN ACTIVITY on a planet that is growing daily, and has the two fastest economies also being the two largest nations in population. You could shut down everything in Canada, kill the 32 million that live here, and in one year, China's growing economy would fill the void.

If Global Warming is man's fault, then we were doomed 20 years ago and didn't realize it. I on the other hand I am far more optitmistic. Also, may I point out there is so much misconception of what will happen if the climate warms that even THAT cant be defined. We cant define the effect, we cant define how bad it will be accurately (anyone who says they can is guessing or lying) and we cannot say what we can do to stop it, even if the worst case scenario is true.

I just prefer to not buy into that many unknowns and call them truths.

The converted wont buy into the fact it may not be CO2 in the end, and us skeptics keep trying. Unlike you Tin, I keep digging, because to stop, means they will eventually win. When that happens, people will lose jobs, people will lose money to "carbon Taxes", the economy is in the dumper and only the socialists are happy. I just hate giving into such pessimistic people who don't see that man can create ways of adapting or changing his ways, and no obstacle cant be overcome.....

Woodeye

13th July 2007, 08:59

I'm not brainwashed, I'm not converted. I just disagree with you guys.

You don't buy my theories, I don't buy yours. And that makes me idiot too.

I think that global warming is man's fault and we are pretty close being doomed. We can still affect to the state of this planet. It would require that all are on board, but it seems to be impossible.

Thanks.

:wave:

Mark in Oshawa

13th July 2007, 19:26

Woodeye, I would never accuse of being an idiot. I accuse of you being sucked in by a very clever propaganda effort. I accuse you of caring about the planet. I accuse you of merely being taken advantage of by the propaganda effort because you do care.

It isn't that I think you are WRONG, I think you have just taken the "experts" word for it, and the thing is, there are "experts" that are just as passionate and more than likely right to say "wait a minute, this doesn't add up".

Woodeye, the only think I wish you were NOT is so pessmissitic. That is what is so insidious with this movement. It has gotten you to believe that we are all doomed if we don't stop producing CO2. Immediately. Al Gore's movie was making dire predictions that are farcical even to supporters of the Greenhouse Gas movement ( The earth's ocean will not rise 20 feet in the next 100 years ). If I watched that movie, I too would want to slit my wrists. I know that nature takes a long time to evolve and change, and whatever happens, we will adapt as we did as a "species" when we had warm temperatures in the late first millenia followed by the mini ice ages in Medievil times. We had no cars, factories or Al Gore around then messing about with our climate...and we survived just fine.....

DustyJones

13th July 2007, 20:54

whatever happens, we will adapt as we did as a "species" when we had warm temperatures in the late first millenia followed by the mini ice ages in Medievil times. We had no cars, factories or Al Gore around then messing about with our climate...and we survived just fine.....

Yeah, the Middle ages were great! I can't wait for some more of THAT action! Maybe we'll power our generators by burning witches.

How come using our brains to figure out ways to reduce CO2 emissions and mitigate climate change ISN'T considered "adapting as a species"? Because you don't like Al Gore?

It's cool that you're willing to kick off such a popular thread and mix it up, but it's weak to accuse everyone else of "buying into propaganda" when you're just pushing tired old propaganda yourself.

"99% of greenhouse gas is water vapor"? "Scientists are part of a global socialist conspiracy"? "Environmentalists want to turn off all the power plants starting tomorrow, because they hate freedom"?

WTF?

It seems like you're more interested in pushing extreme viewpoints and shouting other people down than addressing this subject in any meaningful way.

Human-influenced global warming is "just a theory" like evolution is "just a theory." There's a broad scientific consensus on manmade CO2 emissions directly influencing climate change. It's not even close. So claiming "a handful of scientists" are "brainwashing" everyone who disagrees with you is just kinda sad.

Yeah, some environmentalists are self-righteous and condescending. They get on my nerves too. That doesn't mean scientists worldwide are engaging in any conspiracy.

Captain VXR

13th July 2007, 21:53

Yeah, the Middle ages were great! I can't wait for some more of THAT action! Maybe we'll power our generators by burning witches.

How come using our brains to figure out ways to reduce CO2 emissions and mitigate climate change ISN'T considered "adapting as a species"? Because you don't like Al Gore?

It's cool that you're willing to kick off such a popular thread and mix it up, but it's weak to accuse everyone else of "buying into propaganda" when you're just pushing tired old propaganda yourself.

"99% of greenhouse gas is water vapor"? "Scientists are part of a global socialist conspiracy"? "Environmentalists want to turn off all the power plants starting tomorrow, because they hate freedom"?

WTF?

It seems like you're more interested in pushing extreme viewpoints and shouting other people down than addressing this subject in any meaningful way.

Human-influenced global warming is "just a theory" like evolution is "just a theory." There's a broad scientific consensus on manmade CO2 emissions directly influencing climate change. It's not even close. So claiming "a handful of scientists" are "brainwashing" everyone who disagrees with you is just kinda sad.

Yeah, some environmentalists are self-righteous and condescending. They get on my nerves too. That doesn't mean scientists worldwide are engaging in any conspiracy.

Have you seen The Great Global Warming Swindle? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle) Only if you've seen experts from both sides can you judge

CharlieJ

13th July 2007, 22:47

Have you seen The Great Global Warming Swindle? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle) Only if you've seen experts from both sides can you judgeYes I have.

Just about the most biased, unscientific heap of cr*p I've ever seen.

Crypt

14th July 2007, 00:38

Woodeye the eco-warrior is back again! :monkee:

Crypt, if the earth suffers and dies, so will do all the species living on it too. Humans among these species.

The planet itself won't literally die, save our sun going Nova. Nothing we can do will stop the earth from turning.

That's all I was getting at if I wasn't clear.

Captain VXR

14th July 2007, 09:52

Yes I have.

Just about the most biased, unscientific heap of cr*p I've ever seen.

I agree its facts aren't all correct but it was more convincing to me than any cr*p greenpeace et all throw at me, each to his own

Mark in Oshawa

17th July 2007, 07:00

Yeah, the Middle ages were great! I can't wait for some more of THAT action! Maybe we'll power our generators by burning witches.
The Middle Ages were cold, the first Millenia was hotter. Did it ever occur to you that these fluctuations are natural phenomena? Of course not, because it would poke holes in your belief that it is all modern societies fault.

How come using our brains to figure out ways to reduce CO2 emissions and mitigate climate change ISN'T considered "adapting as a species"? Because you don't like Al Gore?.

I have advocated more intelligent spending of money to help the world. You know, ensuring safe water supplies in developing nations, improving medical access and curing diseases. If the Global Warming cult has their way, they will have carbon taxes left and right, but I have yet to really see how they willspend it. They just keep saying "Trust Us". Furthermore, to meet Kyoto targets, it would screw up the economies of the nations that will generate the wealth to solve this problem or any other problem. Sorry, not buying into this deal to slow the effects of global warming by about 5 years. Lets face it, if it is as dire as your lot says it is, we might as well build a big ole dyke around most of the lowlands of most nations in the world. Instead, I have the Hollywood left and Al Gore telling me how to cut back as they buy Carbon Credits with a sham company planting trees in Costa Rica to justify their Learjet addiction. Credability is large when you start taxing me more buying gas so I can go to work pal....

It's cool that you're willing to kick off such a popular thread and mix it up, but it's weak to accuse everyone else of "buying into propaganda" when you're just pushing tired old propaganda yourself..

You call it propaganda. I could call your arguments that if you actually would produce an argument. Your only rebuttals so far is to say Iam full of crap and I am hateful. I haven't insulted you or anyone else. If anything, I complimented Woodeye for loving the planet, but I basically told him I think his trust in the "Theory" that you claim as truth as misguided.

"99% of greenhouse gas is water vapor"? "Scientists are part of a global socialist conspiracy"? "Environmentalists want to turn off all the power plants starting tomorrow, because they hate freedom"?

WTF?.

If you break down the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere compared to the amount of watervapour, and then subtract the gasses that wont hold heat in, umm ya, it is 99%

I didn't say Envriomentalists want to turn off the power plants because they hate freedom. What I said, in not too many words ( or maybe too many) is that in my part of the world, the enviromentalists have fought any attempt to provide nuclear power (greenhouse gas friendly) until VERY recently and even now reluctantly. They seem to be still thinking that we can conserve enough power to avoid a nuclear power plant, but last time I looked, you couldn't conserve enough megawatts to counter the 2 million people that moved to Ontario in the last 6 years. If you choose to insult me, at least get what I said right. I didn't say all enviromentalists hated freedom, I just think more than a few have been co-opted by those who want more government control over society, a common affliction with most libreals who never met a government policy they couldn't turn into a bureaucracy.

It seems like you're more interested in pushing extreme viewpoints and shouting other people down than addressing this subject in any meaningful way..

Show me what you will do with the money I will be forced to cough up in Carbon taxes? Show me what you will do with the money that will make a MEANINGFUL difference, and that is assuming your theory is truth. I have pointed out that there is a lot of doubt out there. You guys who don't want to believe in the Global Warming Swindle are the propagandists, not me.....

I refuse to believe in this theory, but I do believe in global warming. I also know it would be a bad thing if the earth gets warmer past the point it is now by any radical amount. I also know that we have seen how wrong scientests have been wrong in the past, using much of the same conviction they do now. Also, I didn't fall off the turnip truck, I have read and took courses in school on climatology and meteorlogy. I know damned well that this is an inexact science this weather prediction game. We can only see what happened in the past and guess. I guess you think guessing is accurate, but history has shown it isn't.

Human-influenced global warming is "just a theory" like evolution is "just a theory." There's a broad scientific consensus on manmade CO2 emissions directly influencing climate change. It's not even close. So claiming "a handful of scientists" are "brainwashing" everyone who disagrees with you is just kinda sad..

Everyone thought Einstein was nuts in 1905 with his theory of relativity. He was derided. Most "scientests" thought he was a wacky German guy who was out to lunch. Two decades later, scientests who took him somewhat seriously were able to back his results with experiements and other equations and he eventually was given a Nobel. Science isn't a democracy my friend, it is using what you know and what you can deduct from hard numbers around you, and extrapolating with a proven scientific method and or program to get the same results over and over again. There are many climatologists who have no reason to beat themselves over the head and take the abuse they are taking other than to believe that the theory that it is man made CO2 is wrong.

This crap about "most of the earth's scientests agreeing" is only worthy if they are RIGHT. I say they are not right based on the theories and convictions of their detractors, many who are smart and logical. Refute the evidence that Mars's temps have gone up at the same time ours has. I didn't just wake up with this idea, that is OUT there. NASA has the numbers. No man made factor's on Mars, yet they have "global warming". Now, where is the heat coming from? OH yes, I said it before...the SUN !!!!!! If we have warming, why not point out that sunspot activity is a byproduct of greater radiation from the sun? This has been in the news of late. It is a far more credible theory, but of course, man cant do squat about the Sun. Nature is funny that way, it makes us look like idiots any time we try to control it.....

Yeah, some environmentalists are self-righteous and condescending. They get on my nerves too. That doesn't mean scientists worldwide are engaging in any conspiracy.

Some enviromentalists are believers because they have been trying for years to stop mankind from "doing harm" to the planet. 30 years ago, they thought we were heading for an ice age with the same conviction. They have said we are losing species every minute, and yet it has been shown some species have adapted.

Now, for my last point, I am not some idiot out driving around in my SUV, littering without thought, burning large amounts of gas to keep my house like a sauna all winter, and 15 C all summer. I don't want to see the rainforest turned into toilet paper and land for cattle. I don't want to see factories built on enviromentally sensitive land. I don't like strip mines, air pollution. I am switching my house over as bulbs burn out to the flouresent ones to save energy. I am NOT an idiot, I know we should be intelligent on how the earth's resources should be managed, but lets drop the fiction about how adopting Kyoto and taxing the hell out of the western nations will "solve" anything.

I refuse to buy into the theory, and I have been labelled a heretic. I refuse to stand by and let the "progressives" raise taxes on gas, tax industry, shut down oil and gas exploration (all ideas advocated by the parties in Canada who are gung ho for your "theory")and put people out of work for this. I don't see where the money will be going because there is a lot of great talk, but it is pie in the sky research that may not do a damned thing.

China isn't buying into this at all, yet many of the same politicians choose to condemn the US, Canada and other western nations for the lack of action, while ignoring the tremendous growth of CO2 production from China. China is now of this year the greatest polluter of CO2 and REAL pollution on earth. Don't be on here condeming me for being the heretic, go to Beiijing next year for the Olympics and protest there......and enjoy the gulag.

I see a lot of the political movement around this as a chance to gain power and use it as the "elites" see fit. Any poor scientests who believe in this because of their research will quickly find they are pawns....

Mark in Oshawa

17th July 2007, 07:07

I agree its facts aren't all correct but it was more convincing to me than any cr*p greenpeace et all throw at me, each to his own

Just remember Captain, if you don't buy into the cult, you are the enemy. Never mind you can make up your own mind and have logic.....you must buy in....because we are all Doomed....or perhaps not....

Woodeye

17th July 2007, 09:14

I see a lot of the political movement around this as a chance to gain power and use it as the "elites" see fit. Any poor scientests who believe in this because of their research will quickly find they are pawns....

And do you think that there are no political or economical powers backing up the "global warming happens in cycles" theory? Now would the most polluting companies maybe willing to back up something that would let them keep up the business as usual? :dozey: I don't even wan't go and imagine what kind of cons there could be. All I need to say is that the owners and the shareholders of the companies are probably as "elite" as someone can be.

I think it's totally rediculous to think that we can do whatever in this planet and think that it has no effect to it. This is not based on any theory. You need only common sense to figure that out.

DustyJones

18th July 2007, 18:34

I refuse to buy into the theory, and I have been labelled a heretic.Seriously? People are calling you a heretic? Do you hang out with a lot of 12th-century monks? You should find nicer friends.

China is now of this year the greatest polluter of CO2 and REAL pollution on earth. Don't be on here condeming me for being the heretic, go to Beiijing next year for the Olympics and protest there......and enjoy the gulag.Wow. You've spent this entire thread arguing CO2 has nothing to do with global warming. You're not "buying into the theory" of human-caused climate change -- except when the CHINESE do it! Those shortsighted yellow demons are POISONING THE PLANET!

You're breaking character, sweetheart. You should pick one ridiculous position and stick to it.

Mark in Oshawa

19th July 2007, 05:04

Woodeye, we can effect the climate on a local level, and for enviromental damage, yes, we can.

AS for You Dusty, I am telling you the Chinese are polluting in every pollutant more than just about anyone else, and yes, if you believe in climate change as put out by CO2 (which I don't), then we are screwed because not only do the Chinese not buy into the theory, it appears they don't give a rat's behind. So quit telling me what I said.

I never labeled you guys heretics. I label you both as being sucked into by the same flawed jump to conclusions that have occured for years. In the 70's, some of these same scientests were putting out paper after paper talking about the oncoming iceage. Now I am supposed to believe they have this theory right?

Furthermore, if you look a the proportion of gases that cause Greenhouse effects, CO2 is WAY down the list, a fraction of what water vapour is...... so even if I was to completely be on board that we are warming because of greenhouse gases, I would look at a lot of things before CO2. We wont even discuss the fact that the sun's raditation fluctuates, because you guys have refused to even go there. I believe that the warming effects we are seeing is from a slight uptick in radiation from the Sun. I have been saying for post after post that Mars has had a slightly higher raise in its average temp, and of course, dirty ole man and his cars and industry are NOT there. So what is causing that rise? Gee, the source of all heat for the earth's atmosphere.

Now Do I believe we shouldn't hurt the planet with wasteful behaviour? No, I don't, and I have stated as such. That said I am not lackie for private industry but I am going to state that the "remedies" that have been stated for global warming to me seem like a waste of time, money, and would hurt the economy of many prosperous nations, for a flawed theory. I told you, if you guys are right, then we are screwed even if we stopped all human activity on the planet...and you know that aint gonna happen.....