significant global warming is ocurring.

[shoegazer]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shoegazer
The issue disappeared because the problem was fixed thanks to science. Throughout the whole process of discovering the ozone hole, finding the cause, and convincing goverments and industries of the problem, scientists were checking their hypotheses against the data that was being found and found the data to be consistent with CFCs being the culprit.

"Consistent with" but never proven to be. In other words, just like I described.

That's what you said.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Tab
:roll:

There is much more to scientific research than money.

What do you know? You're 19 and live with your parents.

Originally posted by: sandorski
Are you now claiming the Ozone/CFC issue was bunk?

Science forbid I blasphemy your faith.


shoegazer, everything about the ozone hole assumed corelation equals causation. Everything about global warming assumes the same. The holes in the science are obvious to see, as is the political pressure. Look around. Hmm... hole in ozone discovered, not known whether it was normal or not so automatically assumed to not be normal, CFC's discovered in atmosphere, CFC's known to be a catalyst for the breakup of ozone but never proved to be a cause for the hole, scientists and environmentalists rally in alarm, and legislation is passed that gives world governments massive regulatory control powers over the entire chemical industry. Once the legislation is passed, the issue conveniently disappears like it never happened, and suddenly a new issue appears to be addressed in the same fashion.

weak

 

[shoegazer]

think of it this way. dead chickens are found in a chicken coop. a fox is found in the chicken coop. someone makes a hypothesis that the fox killed the chickens.

the fox is taken away. no more dead chickens.


edit: if you want more...how bout...tests were run in laboratories putting chickens and foxes in the same room and the foxes killed the chickens.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Forsythe
Holes in the ozone layer are a fact. And it's very thin.

And you just completely ignored everything i posted? Like everyone else?

The hole is a fact. The cause is not. To equate one with the other is to abandon logic entirely.

And frankly, you're a "sworn communist," which means that you are sworn to the destruction of western civilization through deception and violent revolution. So yes, that means you are not credible and that I am going to ignore you most of the time.

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Yes, but without the money - they couldn't perpetuate the "cause". They've worked people up into believing all this alarmist rhetoric - and whodda thunk it - they get more funding. Nothing states they actually have to show results - they just have to do "studies" - which match their preconceived notions. Wow - you're right - there is more to it than money.

CsG

It's sales. I see the same thing all the time. Whenever someone tells you that you must buy now or else is the time to get up from the table and walk, 'cause you are about to get fscked. It's amazing how many people fall for it.

Anyway, Tab will think differently when he grows up and gets a wife, kids, and a mortgage.

Well I do have a wife and kids, I just payed off my mortgage, and I think you and Cad are behaving like arrogant tools. While the science for global warming may not be irrefutable, neither of you have contributed anything except smoke. You've offered no substantive, factual information to support your opinions. Instead, you rely on gratuitous attacks and belligerent, self-serving conjecture. It is obvious you started with your "Chicken Little" conclusion and have made no attempt to objectively consider any of the science.

In my opinion, you are the real Chicken Littles here, with your "mud huts" claptrap. It is pure petroleum industry propaganda to pretend we cannot reduce emissions without destroying modern industrial civilization.

The real issue, of course, is that oil companies fear they will not be able to adapt to reduced demand, that their inflated profits will be unsustainable as we adopt more responsible energy policies. Well boo hoo. As you've pointed out over and over, change is natural. No business has an inherent right to survive, let alone cling to the same business model forever. I'm confident displaced oil execs can find new careers pumping oil in the fast food industry.

Speaking of "change is natural," what a red herring. Regardless of whether they are natural or not, there is no question such climatic changes are potentially disastrous to human civlization. We have a compelling interest in doing all we reasonably can to slow such changes and minimize their magnitude. It would be absolute, reckless folly to knowingly aggravate the problem. The only people who argue otherwise are those who place short-sighted financial gain above the good of mankind. The potential consequences are too great to blindly ignore the risks.

In short, if you want to make a credible case against global warming, show us objective, peer-reviewed science refuting it. Don't just parrot oil industry propaganda.


edit: typo

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Forsythe
Holes in the ozone layer are a fact. And it's very thin.

And you just completely ignored everything i posted? Like everyone else?

The hole is a fact. The cause is not. To equate one with the other is to abandon logic entirely.

And frankly, you're a "sworn communist," which means that you are sworn to the destruction of western civilization through deception and violent revolution. So yes, that means you are not credible and that I am going to ignore you most of the time.

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Yes, but without the money - they couldn't perpetuate the "cause". They've worked people up into believing all this alarmist rhetoric - and whodda thunk it - they get more funding. Nothing states they actually have to show results - they just have to do "studies" - which match their preconceived notions. Wow - you're right - there is more to it than money.

CsG

It's sales. I see the same thing all the time. Whenever someone tells you that you must buy now or else is the time to get up from the table and walk, 'cause you are about to get fscked. It's amazing how many people fall for it.

Anyway, Tab will think differently when he grows up and gets a wife, kids, and a mortgage.

Riiiiiiiiight. Nice argument to ignore any proof given. I might be a commie but i don't lie.
Besides, you undoubtedly don't even know what i mean by that.
Remember, i even listne to fundamental fundies like you and CsG.

 

[Vic]

I think the "mud huts" line is completely appropriate. There is nothing in our modern civilization that is not made out of, that does not run on, or is not transported to us, by petroleum. Without petroleum, there is no modern society. A mere 200 years ago, your ancestors most likely lived out their short, brutish, rude lives in mud huts or their equivalents, just like my Irish ancestors did. Anytime we want to go back to living that way, we just need to give up petroleum.

You're right, an unproven fear is a good reason to do that... :roll:

 

[shoegazer]

as i've said, nuclear, wind, and solar power are available now as alternatives to fossil fuels.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Forsythe
Riiiiiiiiight. Nice argument to ignore any proof given. I might be a commie but i don't lie.
Besides, you undoubtedly don't even know what i mean by that.
Remember, i even listne to fundamental fundies like you and CsG.

The very basis of communism is a lie. It is the worst possible tyranny ever invented, disguised as being for the good of the people. Freedom, individual rights, and peace are impossible under communism.
You offered no proof. Just correlation.
I'm not a "fundamental fundie," I'm a libertarian capitalist. My political-economic system actually believes in and can actually bring about that utopian world that your commie bullsh!t uses as the marketing campaign for its lies.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Vic
I think the "mud huts" line is completely appropriate. There is nothing in our modern civilization that is not made out of, that does not run on, or is not transported to us, by petroleum. Without petroleum, there is no modern society. A mere 200 years ago, your ancestors most likely lived out their short, brutish, rude lives in mud huts or their equivalents, just like my Irish ancestors did. Anytime we want to go back to living that way, we just need to give up petroleum.

You're right, an unproven fear is a good reason to do that... :roll:

That's exactly the Chicken Little BS I'm talking about. The only one talking about "giving up" petroleum is you. Sorry, your attacks are not credible, and you've offered no substantive evidence to support your position.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Forsythe
Riiiiiiiiight. Nice argument to ignore any proof given. I might be a commie but i don't lie.
Besides, you undoubtedly don't even know what i mean by that.
Remember, i even listne to fundamental fundies like you and CsG.

The real problem is that you might not lie, but you are usually uninformed about whatever you're talking about.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: shoegazer
as i've said, nuclear, wind, and solar power are available now as alternatives to fossil fuels.

Nuclear -- limited amount of uranium and huge environmental concerns (worse than global warming)
Wind -- actually a function of solar power, this is attractive but expensive and already it too is seeing environmental outcry (birds, I guess).
Solar -- would be wonderful, as the sun is the source of virutally all energy on earth. Unfortunately, current technology requires petroleum for manufacturing.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
That's exactly the Chicken Little BS I'm talking about. The only one talking about "giving up" petroleum is you. Sorry, your attacks are not credible, and you've offered no substantive evidence to support your position.

Neither have you.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
That's exactly the Chicken Little BS I'm talking about. The only one talking about "giving up" petroleum is you. Sorry, your attacks are not credible, and you've offered no substantive evidence to support your position.

Neither have you.

:roll:

Nor have I pretended too, unlike yourself. On the other hand, there are several people in this thread who have presented considerable evidence, evidence you attack with unsupported assertions, or, more and more frequently, dodge entirely. I'm simply poinitng out you are failing to present a credible case.

Speaking of dodging: "That's exactly the Chicken Little BS I'm talking about. The only one talking about 'giving up' petroleum is you."

Cheers,

 

[shoegazer]

funny you should bring up environmental concerns.

yes, solar, wind, and nuclear power require petroleum for production. but, that doesn't change the fact that they are an alternative source of electricity in comparison to burning fossil fuels.

we don't need to eliminate petroleum use entirely. just use less of it.

 

[Vic]

My point in bringing up environmental concerns is to illustrate that NO energy source will ever be suitable to the environmentalist crowd. Not one. When they force us back to campfires, they'll be wanting to stamp those out too. Now, I live in one of the most beautiful areas on earth (yes, I'm biased), and enjoy the outdoors constantly (I will spend all my free time this summer camping, hiking, and mountain biking -- I'm even going to Glacier this year), and consider myself a Conservationist, but there are better ways to do this than give in to the demands of anti-humanist radicals.

 

[shoegazer]

Originally posted by: Vic
My point in bringing up environmental concerns is to illustrate that NO energy source will ever be suitable to the environmentalist crowd. Not one. When they force us back to campfires, they'll be wanting to stamp those out too. Now, I live in one of the most beautiful areas on earth (yes, I'm biased), and enjoy the outdoors constantly (I will spend all my free time this summer camping, hiking, and mountain biking -- I'm even going to Glacier this year), and consider myself a Conservationist, but there are better ways to do this than give in to the demands of anti-humanist radicals.

to some degree, yes. sometimes i'm frustrated with many environmentalists because they don't realize how clean an energy source nuclear power is.

but, regardless of environmentalists, greenhouse gas emissions are a problem. using less fossil fuels isn't giving in to demands of anti-humanist radicals. it's making a wise choice based on the research done by some of the best scientists on the planet.

maybe you feel safer listening to the opinions of politicians funded by oil companies. but i put my trust in the people whose job it is to be objective and who have evidence to back up their opionions.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: shoegazer

Originally posted by: Vic
My point in bringing up environmental concerns is to illustrate that NO energy source will ever be suitable to the environmentalist crowd. Not one. When they force us back to campfires, they'll be wanting to stamp those out too. Now, I live in one of the most beautiful areas on earth (yes, I'm biased), and enjoy the outdoors constantly (I will spend all my free time this summer camping, hiking, and mountain biking -- I'm even going to Glacier this year), and consider myself a Conservationist, but there are better ways to do this than give in to the demands of anti-humanist radicals.

to some degree, yes. sometimes i'm frustrated with many environmentalists because they don't realize how clean an energy source nuclear power is.

but, regardless of environmentalists, greenhouse gas emissions are a problem. using less fossil fuels isn't giving in to demands of anti-humanist radicals. it's making a wise choice based on the research done by some of the best scientists on the planet.

maybe you feel safer listening to the opinions of politicians funded by oil companies. but i put my trust in the people whose job it is to be objective and who have evidence to back up their opionions.

the argument will be that the scientists are making work for themselves by pushing global warming. this seems pretty far fetched to me but someone will try....

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Dr. Reid Bryson - Fortune mag called him - "the most important figure in climatology today" when they ran with the global cooling chant.
Dr. Stephen Schneider - In the 70's he was chanting about global cooling due to dust concentration in the atmosphere. He's now joined the global warming bandwagon.
There are others in this too but we have had Newsweek, Time, and Fortune champion this global cooling notion in the past.

Who do we believe? Is their "evidence" and/or reasoning any better today than it was just a few years ago?

CsG

Look, its the typical parade of conservative talking points to use to deny that the climate is changing due to anthropogenic sources.
The science of climate has advanced since the 1970's (with computers, satellites and such), hence the analysis and prediction of climate are much more accurate and sophisticated than 30 years ago.
Gee, doctors in the 50's were saying it was good to smoke!! Now they say the opposite!! Who to believe?!?!?!
And Reid Bryson was the most important figure in climatology. He essentially you to listen invented the science after WWII. And if you ask him today, today's scientists are correct - our science is better today than 30 years ago (what find of fool would argue otherwise...oh wait)

Later you say:

And? Can you show these "additive" effects? Quantify them? Even conclusively identify them?

What say you about the global cooling bleaters? Seems that used to be the environut chant of yesteryear...

CsG

Yes!! These additive effects are quantified and identified. We know that an x-increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will result in an y-increase of radiation on the earth's surface. And yes there are numbers for x and y, and these numbers are scientifically proven.
What about the smoking is good for you bleaters?? Seems that used to be the medicalnut chant of yesteryear....I'm not going to listen to a word those doctors have to say.

earlier you say:

"Scientists" have argued that the earth was cooling - are we causing some "additional" effects in those cases too? You see -the whole issue is absurd because there is nothing showing causation by humans - let alone something quantitative(either way).

This shows how little you know about this subject. The science that said the earth was cooling is lightyears behind current science. We know man releases a bunch of CO2 and other gases into the atm. and we know what the resultant increase in radiation is from those gases. How do you not follow this logic??

No "bogus claims" - these people exist and so do the wailings published about global cooling.

Lets see one of these global cooling papers less than 30 years old. Where are they?? You act as though they were talking about global cooling 5-10 years ago.

From Vic

I have the well-documented evidence that the scientists at the weather service usually can't predict what the weather will be like tomorrow with anything remotely resembling accuracy. The same computer models being used to predict the weather forecast are used to predict global warming.

How embarassing. How do you expect to have any kind of credibility on a subject when you say things like this?? Page 1 of any book on climate will explain that weather and climate are two different things. Computer weather and climate models are very different things predicting different variables.

Vic furthur embarasses himself when he says:

The ozone layer is a perfect example. For all scientists know, holes appear and disappear on a regular basis. So, yes, just like with global warming, it was politics that caused them to believe that corelation equals causation despite a complete absence of evidence.

We know what causes the ozone hole, what destoys it, how it forms. This is basic atmospheric chemistry. This is a great example of how political action has helped the environment. The destruction of ozone has been slowed by bans on CFCs.

This is all typical right wing rhetoric on this subject - deny, obfuscate, point to the same group of oil industy supported skeptics, and remain willfully ignorant of the facts and science surrounding the issue.

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Forsythe
Riiiiiiiiight. Nice argument to ignore any proof given. I might be a commie but i don't lie.
Besides, you undoubtedly don't even know what i mean by that.
Remember, i even listne to fundamental fundies like you and CsG.

The very basis of communism is a lie. It is the worst possible tyranny ever invented, disguised as being for the good of the people. Freedom, individual rights, and peace are impossible under communism.
You offered no proof. Just correlation.
I'm not a "fundamental fundie," I'm a libertarian capitalist. My political-economic system actually believes in and can actually bring about that utopian world that your commie bullsh!t uses as the marketing campaign for its lies.

Well, we have charts showing temperatures in the atmosphere going back 400k years. We have records of the amounts of Co2 in the atmosphere, going back 400k years.

These records clearly show that one thing has to do with the other. Now, the amounts of Co2 in the air looks like they are determining the global temperature. Previously we have had no amount of Co2 above 300 ppm (parts pr. million), these days we are reaching 380 ppm.
Now you can try to say that the amount of Co2 in the air is dictated by the temperature, not the other way around, the way i believe it's happening. That should be readable from the the charts, but they are not exact enough on what i've seen there. Since i would imagine that it would have a delay, but maybe that's just me. And i have no idea if that delay is big enough for us to measure it.
But if we are at 377 ppm, if we get the the temp the world should be at at this level, which can be read from the chart, we should be able to determin if Co2 Causes heating, or the other way around.


As fo the part about communism, you clearly have no ide awhat you're talking about. And yes, you're a fundie. A fundie is someone that has a stance and won't change it for the world, and has no explanation for it. (That's not true in the original meaning of the word fundie, but i just don't know any other words.)

 

[Duckzilla]

Thats what I think. I live in upstate NY and it gets mightly cold up here in our five month long winters.

Yeah baby, bring on the global warming!

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Duckzilla
Thats what I think. I live in upstate NY and it gets mightly cold up here in our five month long winters.

Yeah baby, bring on the global warming!

and expect to be displaced as the rich from down south need a cooler place to live.

ready for a hot ghetto ride?

 

[Duckzilla]

LOL, lotsa room here, baby. Bring it on!

Global warming is only bad if you live on a small island OR at low latitudes. Otherwise, it's heaven-sent! Do you think countries like Russia or Canada are worried?

Bring it on! I'd pay cash money and thats no BS. "Come to NY, It's like a Whole other Country"

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Duckzilla
LOL, lotsa room here, baby. Bring it on!

Global warming is only bad if you live on a small island OR at low latitudes. Otherwise, it's heaven-sent! Do you think countries like Russia or Canada are worried?

Bring it on! I'd pay cash money and thats no BS. "Come to NY, It's like a Whole other Country"

Both have signed onto Kyoto and as a Canadian I can tell you that we're worried about it. What you seem to not understand is that "Warming" is not what's to be feared, it is "Climate Change".

We don't know the full effects of that change. Some areas may become inhospitable to Crops, others could become excessively dry, while others mmay become too wet. Any or all of these effects could cause Famine, Disease, or Economic Collapse a reality. Weather Patterns could change drastically or increase in Intensity like we have never seen.

 

[Duckzilla]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Duckzilla
LOL, lotsa room here, baby. Bring it on!

Global warming is only bad if you live on a small island OR at low latitudes. Otherwise, it's heaven-sent! Do you think countries like Russia or Canada are worried?

Bring it on! I'd pay cash money and thats no BS. "Come to NY, It's like a Whole other Country"

Both have signed onto Kyoto and as a Canadian I can tell you that we're worried about it. What you seem to not understand is that "Warming" is not what's to be feared, it is "Climate Change".

We don't know the full effects of that change. Some areas may become inhospitable to Crops, others could become excessively dry, while others mmay become too wet. Any or all of these effects could cause Famine, Disease, or Economic Collapse a reality. Weather Patterns could change drastically or increase in Intensity like we have never seen.

I'm willing to take a chance. We spent 500 bucks last Nov-Dec warming our home. I think I can put up with "Climate Change".

I'm willing to take a chance.

 

[shoegazer]

or the north atlantic current could shut down and you'll be much colder than you are now.

edit: just wanted to separate this from what happens in "the day after tommorow". colder more like the younger dryas period 10,500 years ago or so. not continent sized hurricanes and glaciers in alabama cold.