Global Warming

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by black dagger
Also, the amount of people supporting enviromental degradation in the name of industralisation -or perhaps it is worth mentioning-, industrial capitalism - is very suprising.

I believe your severe confusion in relation to the actual environmental impact of indstrialisation on our global environment is fueled by your belief in environmental junk-science.

I suggest immediatly dropping it and its inane predictions of armageddon.

In addition esse, without "industrial capitalism" we will have no post revolution industrial capabilities; so get over it.

You kids seem to believe that if a revolution occured right now, all of these power plants operating on fossil fuels to provide electricity to certain areas (usually nearly 100% working class areas to boot) of the globe would simply be shut down "in the name of junk-science.

You lot have a lot of learning to do. :lol:

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Bill Shatner+--> (Bill Shatner)I believe your severe confusion in relation to the actual environmental impact of indstrialisation on our global environment is fueled by your belief in environmental junk-science.[/b]

So what has the impact of industrialisation (without ethics) been on our 'actual environment' oh wise grandpa?

Global warming is a myth?

The continual extinction of plant and animal species (and no, i'm not talking about 'natural' extinctions) is a fantasy?

Forests are clearing themselves?

Soil erosion is a lie?

Salination?

People's homes are demolishing themselves to make way for that industrial project?

What is 'environmental junk science'? I love how you assume to know my 'beliefs' based on one sentence :rolleyes:

Better not criticise capitalist industrialisation, it makes you an enviro dupe! :o


Originally posted by Bill Shatner+--> (Bill Shatner)
I suggest immediatly dropping it and its inane predictions of armageddon.[/b]

I never mentioned armageddon, try again.



Bill [email protected]

In addition esse, without "industrial capitalism" we will have no post revolution industrial capabilities; so get over it.

Without industrialisation we wouldn't have industrial society?!!! You're kidding?!! :o

Well duh - How long did it take you to come up with this sentence?

I agree with your painfully obvious observation.

My point was not that i oppose the technological capabilities provided by industrial society, but that just letting the cappies run industry however the want is a moronic idea - and supporting them because you're deluded into thinking that anything else is primitivism is equally moronic (and politically baffling).


Bill Shatner
You kids seem to believe that if a revolution occured right now, all of these power plants operating on fossil fuels to provide electricity to certain areas (usually nearly 100% working class areas to boot) of the globe would simply be shut down "in the name of junk-science.

I don't, wrong again i'm afraid.

Guess you shouldn't let your arse talk for you :(


You lot have a lot of learning to do

Thanks, but i disagree mommy.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by black dagger
So what has the impact of industrialisation (without ethics) been on our 'actual environment' oh wise grandpa?
Global warming is a myth?
The continual extinction of plant and animal species (and no, i'm not talking about 'natural' extinctions) is a fantasy?
Forests are clearing themselves?
Soil erosion is a lie?
Salination?
People's homes are demolishing themselves to make way for that industrial project?
What is 'environmental junk science'?

1) "Global warming is a myth?"

Yes, global warming as you see it is a myth.

At the rate the globe is "warming", we could possibly see the loss of a few feet of Hoboken in a couple hundred thousand years.

This is of course assuming that the warming trends are have anything to do with us whatsoever. There have been many cases in history where the globe hase been substantially hotter than it is now. Did you not know that?

2)"The continual extinction of plant and animal species (and no, i'm not talking about 'natural' extinctions) is a fantasy?"

The extinction of plants and animals (remembering of course that the rate of human caused extinction has slowed dramatically in the modern era compared to a couple hundred years ago) has absolutely no bearing on the survival and social functionality of the human species. I have no doubt however that we will protect "some" animals; those we consider to be food sources of course.

As the dominant species on the planet, I can care less if a million other species go extinct. So far we have witnesset hundreds ourselves with absolutely zero impact on humanity.

3)"Forests are clearing themselves?"

As society progresses we of course will need places for industry and urban environments to develop. Luckily enough for us the fact remains that over 45% of our land masses still contain pristine forest; leaving us an incredible amount of land for future progression.

4) "Soil erosion is a lie?"

Reference above.

5) "Salination?"

Reference number 3.

6) "People's homes are demolishing themselves to make way for that industrial project?"

:lol:

7) "What is 'environmental junk science'? I love how you assume to know my 'beliefs' based on one sentence"

Better call about that royalties cheque son, you're the poster-boy for environmental junk-science and you don't even know it.


I never mentioned armageddon, try again.


Then why do you even bother?

If you don't feel that your "beliefs" will have a "significant negative impact" on the future condition of the globe then why would you spend the time arguing it?

Whoops, I reckon you should have thought that one through. :lol:


My point was not that i oppose the technological capabilities provided by industrial society, but that just letting the cappies run industry however the want is a moronic idea - and supporting them because you're deluded into thinking that anything else is primitivism is equally moronic (and politically baffling).

It appears you are having difficulties with your reading comprehension; I suggest re-reading the posts very slowly; I say this because you are so far off the point it's actually rather silly.

[Black Dagger]

Please answer my question,

What has the impact of industrialisation (without ethics) been on our 'actual environment'?


Originally posted by Bill Shatner+--> (Bill Shatner)
1) "Global warming is a myth?"

Yes, global warming as you see it is a myth.

At the rate the globe is "warming", we could possibly see the loss of a few feet of Hoboken in a couple hundred thousand years.

This is of course assuming that the warming trends are have anything to do with us whatsoever. There have been many cases in history where the globe hase been substantially hotter than it is now. Did you not know that?[/b]

Wait, so you're saying all those thousands of scientists and specialists etc. are just flat-out wrong?

They're just making this shit up?

Well i suppose the government and industry scientists would probably agree with you :rolleyes:

Global warming is a myth made up by hippies and commies to hamper business! :o



Originally posted by Bill [email protected]

The extinction of plants and animals has absolutely no bearing on the survival and social functionality of the human species.

Wowsers, you really have no idea.

You don't care if the planet loses biodiversity?


Bill Shatner

As the dominant species on the planet, I can care less if a million other species go extinct.

Well you've just answered my question on biodiversity, you understand that biodiversity is crucial to maintaining the global environment yeah? The environment that humans are a part of?



As society progresses we of course will need places for industry and urban environments to develop.

Except that forests arent being cleared for developments, they're being cleared for the wood.



Luckily enough for us the fact remains that over 45% of our land masses still contain pristine forest; leaving us an incredible amount of land for future progression.

And this figure is decreasing from year to year? And what are you saying, that there will come a time when we have 'progressed' to the point where 'pristine forest' is 0% of our land masses? Where does it it end?



4) "Soil erosion is a lie?"

Reference above.

Sorry, that doesn't cut-it.

Is soil erosion a lie or not?



5) "Salination?"

Reference number 3.

Again, does salination exist or not?

Saying 'we need land for concrete' does not answer the question, i'm pointing out some of the hazards of poor management of the enviro, either admit that these are real issues that undermine the sustainability of our society, say that they're a lie, or make an argument as to why social erosion, salination and forest-clearing is good for the planet and the future of the human race.



6) "People's homes are demolishing themselves to make way for that industrial project?"

laugh.gif

Uhh, so you dont care about people in the 'Third World'? Dams? Flooding of houses? Drawing a blank?



Better call about that royalties cheque son, you're the poster-boy for environmental junk-science and you don't even know it.

I think i'd rather be the poster-boy for enviromental junk science, than the poster-boy for industrial capitalism :wacko:



If you don't feel that your "beliefs" will have a "significant negative impact" on the future condition of the globe then why would you spend the time arguing it?

Well, for starters im hoping that capitalism can be abolished, sooner rather than later. Secondly i do believe that current trends in capitalism will have a significant negative impact on the planet, that doesn't mean everyone will die, but unlike yourself i am not so deluded as to think that capitalists actually care about the future of the planet, as opposed to their own futures, and their future profits.

And because i was disturbed at how shit your politics are.

[RevSouth]

Originally posted by Bill [email protected] 15 2006, 06:02 PM
I believe your severe confusion in relation to the actual environmental impact of indstrialisation on our global environment is fueled by your belief in environmental junk-science.

It seems like you hear alot about junctions: From reactionaries. Racists are always accusing Leftists and anyone who disagrees with them as having been brainwashed by "Junk Science". Let me ask you this, do you think the Jews made up these lies, Bill, in their quest for world domination? What kind of world do you dream of? One where people look out their window and see endless asphalt, concrete, metal, all in the name of "human progress"? I think part of human progress is preserving what gave way to us, but maybe thats just my view.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Good grief Black Dagger, you know that classes designed to enhance reading comprehension are available at any local community college, right? I suggest you enroll immediately.

In any case, I will reiterate myself you with the hope that perhaps you may get it; I'm sure however that this hope is definitely misplaced:


What has the impact of industrialisation (without ethics) been on our 'actual environment'?


You're not very good at this at all....

Since we are talking about "our" environment, we must answer the question based on how "our" environment affects us; the planet itself is not a conscious being and cannot "suffer" from fropm our actions, it can only be changed.

That hopefully ( :lol: good luck!) being understood, any rational being would have to conclude that the modern era is a shit load better than when man lived in caves.


Wait, so you're saying all those thousands of scientists and specialists etc. are just flat-out wrong?

They're just making this shit up?

Easy turbo, what I said was "Yes, global warming as you see it is a myth".

It's true, our planet is (very!) gently warming up, a trend that has occured many times in its history; so that's not in question.

What is of course in question is that actual impact this trend will have on our society. Junk scientists exaggerate this impact to the level of glabal catastrophe leading to the destruction of our entire society.

Then there are other scientists that understand the reality of the situation; in a couple hundred thousand years the shoreline will have moved up a few feet and we may possible have to abandon "extremely hot" climates for those that were too cold to comfortably inhabit centuries ago.

That's all assuming that we completely stagnate technolgically from this moment on. ( :lol: )


you understand that biodiversity is crucial to maintaining the global environment yeah? The environment that humans are a part of?

This is just absolute nonsense. "Biodiversity" is no more crucial to "maintaining the global environment" (as nonsensical as that is) than Gary Glitter is to professional sports.


Except that forests arent being cleared for developments, they're being cleared for the wood.


Good grief, stop being so obtuse.

The wood is then used for?


And this figure is decreasing from year to year? And what are you saying, that there will come a time when we have 'progressed' to the point where 'pristine forest' is 0% of our land masses?

I doubt it, I'm sure some portions will be reserved for parks for the nostalgic.


Sorry, that doesn't cut-it.

Is soil erosion a lie or not?


Since you have once again missed the point I will put it more bluntly: who cares?! Junk scientists and doomsayers? Big deal.



Again, does salination exist or not?

And again, who cares!?


Drawing a blank? :lol:


I think i'd rather be the poster-boy for enviromental junk science, than the poster-boy for industrial capitalism wacko.gif

Wow, you are daft.

I've been accused of many things in my life, some true others not, but this is definitely the first time anyone has ever accused me of being a capitalist. :lol:

Thanks son, I needed a good laugh today.


but unlike yourself i am not so deluded as to think that capitalists actually care about the future of the planet, as opposed to their own futures, and their future profits.


You're very confused here.

Never were we speaking of about how much or little capitalists "care about the future of our planet". Considering this and the previous statement you made, I do believe you are attempting an ad hominem attack on me .

I don't blame you. :lol:

[Janus]

a trend that has occured many times in its history
Once again, the temperature increases have surpassed anything we have seen in history.


Except that forests arent being cleared for developments, they're being cleared for the wood.
Also, they're being cleared for farmland.


Junk scientists exaggerate this impact to the level of glabal catastrophe leading to the destruction of our entire society.
Junk scientists? So any scientist, no matter the number, that provides info that is inconvenient for you is automatically dumbed down?

[Zero]

Originally posted by "Bill Shatner"
Junk scientists exaggerate this impact to the level of glabal catastrophe leading to the destruction of our entire society.

I invite you to watch a BBC documentery named Global Dimming. You can find it on Torrentspy.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 10:02 PM
Once again, the temperature increases have surpassed anything we have seen in history.
Uh... I suspect the end of the last major ice age saw much larger temperature increases, not too mention the extreme DROPS that must have preceded it.

[Janus]

I suspect the end of the last major ice age saw much larger temperature increases
It's comparable to the current situation but not as high. This has gotten some people to think that an ice age may occur sometime in the future.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Shat+--> (Shat)Since we are talking about "our" environment, we must answer the question based on how "our" environment affects us; the planet itself is not a conscious being and cannot "suffer" from fropm our actions, it can only be changed.[/b]

Okay, you want to be pedantic so i'll rephrase,

Do any of the 'changes' created by capitalist industrialisation affect the planet in a negative way?

Or has industrial capitalism improved the global environment? I.E. make it function better? etc.


Originally posted by Shat+--> (Shat)That hopefully ( laugh.gif good luck!) being understood, any rational being would have to conclude that the modern era is a shit load better than when man lived in caves.[/b]

I'm not talking about technological development or standards of living, i'm talking about the natural environment - it is possible to have technology and a high standard of living without greatly damaging or unbalancing the natural environment of the planet.

Unfortunately you seem to think that capitalists only act benevolently in the process of industrialisation, that is that they act with the best possible intentions. Or perhaps even more absurdly, you think that it doesn't matter what is done to the natural environment, it'll be right anyway in the end?


Originally posted by Shat
What is of course in question is that actual impact this trend will have on our society. Junk scientists exaggerate this impact to the level of glabal catastrophe leading to the destruction of our entire society.

Okay, so you are saying that the thousands and thousands of scientists and specialists who have come out to not only support the notion of 'global warming' (and not 'warming' in soft sense that you use the term) - but also to argue that action needs to be taken to attempt to change the planets current direction - they're all nutters? That what they say is 'junk science'?

That organisations like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are dupes of 'junk science'?

Same with the the national science academies of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, Brazil, China and India all support this view? Who support my view?

Weird how their 'junk science' views are overwhelmingly those published in peer-reviewed journals (the same cant be said for your POV), but of course they are junk :rolleyes:


Originally posted by Shat
Then there are other scientists that understand the reality of the situation; in a couple hundred thousand years the shoreline will have moved up a few feet and we may possible have to abandon "extremely hot" climates for those that were too cold to comfortably inhabit centuries ago.

Err... 'a couple hundred thousand years'?

Have you heard of the island of Tuvalu?

People leave the island ever year, because scientists have predicted that in 50 years it will no longer exist because of rising sea levels.


Originally posted by Shat
Biodiversity" is no more crucial to "maintaining the global environment" (as nonsensical as that is) than Gary Glitter is to professional sports.

Wowsers you're really showing your ignorance :blink:

You're saying that biodiversity is not important at all? That you don't care if the planet loses biodiversity?



Originally posted by Shat

The wood is then used for?

A variety of things, some of it is burnt as fuel, some of it is used as building materials, to make paper, and a lot is made into woodchips.

Except your original response to de-forestation was, 'As society progresses we of course will need places for industry and urban environments to develop' - it's quite clear that in most cases de-forestation is not about making places for industrial or urban developments - but rather the wood is just being used a resource with little to no thought as to the consequences of the unrestrained approach taken.

Are you suggesting that deforestation has no negative impacts upon the natural environment?


Originally posted by Shat

I doubt it, I'm sure some portions will be reserved for parks for the nostalgic.

So what is an acceptable level of deforestation for you?


Originally posted by Shat
who cares?! Junk scientists and doomsayers? Big deal.

Uh... i'm pretty sure people care about soil erosion etc. because it means they can no longer grow the food that they need to survive, and that their land is more vulnerable to flooding - do you even understand any of the concepts you dimiss as meaningless?


Originally posted by Shat
And again, who cares!?

Again, humans who rely on the land for their survival, which happens to be most humans :rolleyes:


Originally posted by Wiki
The consequences of salinity are

* detrimental effects on plant growth and final yield
* damage to infrastructure (roads, bricks, corrosion of pipes and cables)
* reduction of water quality for users, sedimentation problems
* soil erosion ultimately, when crops are too strongly affected by the amounts of salts.

Salinity is an important land degradation problem


[email protected]

I've been accused of many things in my life, some true others not, but this is definitely the first time anyone has ever accused me of being a capitalist

And yet i'm the one who needs to work on reading and comprehension?

I didn't accuse you of being a capitalist, i said that you're the poster-boy for industrial captialism.

Your views are seriously dated, i'd place them somewhere in the 18th, possibly early 19th century.

Back when humans didnt really understand the effects of capitalist industrialisation on the natural environment, and consequently did whatever the fuck they wanted - thinking that the environment would just take it, and everything would be fine.

You support capitalist arguments concerning enviromental issues, that doesnt make you a 'capitalist'.


Shat
Considering this and the previous statement you made, I do believe you are attempting an ad hominem attack on me .

Um, isn't that basically your posting-style? :unsure:

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by black banner black [email protected] 19 2006, 05:13 PM
Uh... I suspect the end of the last major ice age saw much larger temperature increases, not too mention the extreme DROPS that must have preceded it.
you would suspect wrong. if you look at the graphs of the earth's temperatures as well as co2 levels over the past 65 million years, there were indeed periods of 'global warming' which coincided with rising co2 levels. however, the highest co2 levels and temperatures have always remained consistent - the highs and lows of each during each period have always remained almost exactly the same. the pattern has been cyclical, and it has just been the natural way of things. for the first time in 65 million years, c02 levels have more than doubled from what were previously the highest levels at this stage in the cycle. temperatures have risen simultaneously. in the last 50 years, we have surpassed the warming rate by something like triple normal rate. and it's continuing to rise at an exponential rate.

in the 900+ peer reviewed journal articles about global warming in the usa (that is, those written by scientists and not by state propagandists and media hacks), none have disputed the fact that the current rate of global warming is not a product of normal warming cycles, but is a direct result of human's overuse of energy and overproduction of posionous and destructive gases. but about 56% of the popular press claims that there are 'doubts' about global warming, and deride scientists as being alarmists. as it stands, the government and corporations stand to gain the most out of people denying that they are to blame for global warming (because of course, while individuals do contribute to it, it's hardly anything compared to what the corporations are doing). and unfortunately, the billions of people who can least afford the devestating effects that this rate of temperature increases will have on the population, have the most to lose.

i know who i'd rather believe :)

[bcbm]

But rb, I hate the cold. :P

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by black banner black [email protected] 19 2006, 11:51 PM
But rb, I hate the cold. :P
i love it. we should probably switch countries ;)

but more importantly, my relatives will be among the first to die when the tide comes in.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by rioters [email protected] 19 2006, 07:52 AM

But rb, I hate the cold. :P
i love it. we should probably switch countries ;) [/quote]
If you came here, I'd stay. :P Besides, I hate the heat too. Just not as much as the cold.


but more importantly, my relatives will be among the first to die when the tide comes in.

I live in the middle of the continent. Nothin' to worry about here (besides tornadoes, earth quakes, super volcanoes and nazis).

[Janus]

in the 900+ peer reviewed journal articles about global warming in the usa (that is, those written by scientists and not by state propagandists and media hacks), none have disputed the fact that the current rate of global warming is not a product of normal warming cycles, but is a direct result of human's overuse of energy and overproduction of posionous and destructive gases. but about 56% of the popular press claims that there are 'doubts' about global warming, and deride scientists as being alarmists.
You got those figures from the new global warming documentary, didn't you?


But rb, I hate the cold.
I don't think we should talk about a possible ice age any more as this will only discredit us in Bill Shatner's eyes.

[Janus]

Why does that matter?
It doesn't but if he doesn't even think that global warming is taking place then that leaves absolutely no room for a possible ice age.

[Zero]

At the rate that society is changing to combat Global Warming, I suppose we'll just have to wait and see. =(

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by janus+--> (janus)There were small heat-ups during the Middle Ages, etc. but nothing compared to now. The recent warm-up is even larger than the heat-up before the last ice age.[/b]

So?

It's still a "trend" that will in no way endanger the human race; get over it.


Junk scientists? So any scientist, no matter the number, that provides info that is inconvenient for you is automatically dumbed down?


No, just information that is incorrent and or apocalyptic.


It doesn't but if he doesn't even think that global warming is taking place then that leaves absolutely no room for a possible ice age.

You're confused, no one said global warming does not exist. I said, while speaking to that dagger kid, "global warming as you see it is a myth.

Do try to stay with us esse; this constant need to regress in order to deal with the rampant confusion here is getting tiresome.


Originally posted by [email protected]
I invite you to watch a BBC documentery named Global Dimming. You can find it on Torrentspy.

No thanks; there's plenty of these types of of "doomsday documentaries" outside of America Jr.

I even recall seeing a "documentary" on the history channel that "explained" that Nostradamus actually predicted global warming. :lol:


black dagger
Do any of the 'changes' created by capitalist industrialisation affect the planet in a negative way?


In this case, the adjective "negative" is a term used subjectively by the individual describing a condition that he has little or no practical knowledge of.

I'll nibble a bit son, just to shut you up:

No.


I.E. make it function better? etc.

You're very confused, the planet in an inanimate and non-mechanical object that does not "function".



I'm not talking about technological development or standards of living, i'm talking about the natural environment - it is possible to have technology and a high standard of living without greatly damaging or unbalancing the natural environment of the planet.


You're confused again.

Our natural environment is incapable of deciding for itself that climate and population changes are "damaging" or "unbalancing" itself; it can only change.

The way it is now, these changes are are not detrimental to the survival and comfort of the human race so again, get over it.



Unfortunately you seem to think that capitalists only act benevolently in the process of industrialisation, that is that they act with the best possible intentions.

More confusion.

You are the only one here talking about in what manner capitalists "act" towards our environment.


Or perhaps even more absurdly, you think that it doesn't matter what is done to the natural environment, it'll be right anyway in the end?

Yep, no "predictions of armageddon" on this street, kiddo.


(the same cant be said for your POV)

Wrong.

The number of scientists that do not subscribe to doomsayer nonsense is so overwhelmingly enormous that the opposition (your precious armageddonists) is dwarfed by only a fraction of them.

Junk scientists (like all fools) just like to speak loudly in order to "save the masses from themselves".

Think of them as that annoying bastard on the streetcorner with the megaphone quoting passages from revalations; there isn't a lot of them but they sure let themselves "be heard". :lol:


People leave the island ever year, because scientists have predicted that in 50 years it will no longer exist because of rising sea levels.

:lol:

....and the seas will boil.....and the moon will turn blood red....



Are you suggesting that deforestation has no negative impacts upon the natural environment?


We already covered this...try to keep up.


So what is an acceptable level of deforestation for you?

What's "acceptable" to me is irrelevant; we were discussing the the growth of society in the distant future.


Uh... i'm pretty sure people care about soil erosion etc. because it means they can no longer grow the food that they need to survive, and that their land is more vulnerable to flooding -

Sorry son, we are already capable of engineering vegetables that can be grown using alternatives other than "natural farmland".

They can also be grown in greater quataties with greater amounts of nutrients than "naturally" grown foods.

I seriously doubt that "natural farming" will exist as it does presently for much longer.


do you even understand any of the concepts you dimiss as meaningless

:lol:

Whatever you say, son.


Again, humans who rely on the land for their survival, which happens to be most humans rolleyes.gif


Don't worry kid, there's plenty of "land" to go around.

Besides, by the time our society has progressed to a point where the majority of the globe consits of modern uran environments, there will no longer be primative cultures that are forced to "rely on the land" for their survival.

Come on kid, this is getting to be like "Communism 101"...use you noodle a bit for fuck's sake.


And yet i'm the one who needs to work on reading and comprehension?

I didn't accuse you of being a capitalist, i said that you're the poster-boy for industrial captialism.

It appears you are also confused about what being a "poster boy" entails. :lol:


Your views are seriously dated, i'd place them somewhere in the 18th, possibly early 19th century.


:lol: That's just rich.....


Um, isn't that basically your posting-style?

No.

My insults are genuine and malicious.

Get serious, I have little use for ad hominem attacks in this playground.


I don't think we should talk about a possible ice age any more as this will only discredit us in Bill Shatner's eyes.


Why bother "discrediting" someone with little or no knowledge of the subject matter?

They tend to do that themselves.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

One thing.. some islands and atolls have already "disappeared" (read: have been covered by rising ocean levels). That is indisputable.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Lennie [email protected] 20 2006, 01:19 PM
One thing.. some islands and atolls have already "disappeared" (read: have been covered by rising ocean levels). That is indisputable.
We're all gonna die!

Better start working on that ark, Noah. :lol:

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

So you're saying that islands haven't disappeared?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Lennie [email protected] 20 2006, 01:41 PM
So you're saying that islands haven't disappeared?
Is Tuvalu Really Sinking?

By Dr Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon

Environmental activist Lester Brown, of the Earth Policy Institute, has been accused of many things throughout his career, but poor taste had never been one of them. That was, until America suffered the worst terrorist attack in history.

Just 24 hours after the World Trade Center morphed instantly from a thriving center of commerce to a harrowing mass grave, Brown claimed that rising sea levels from human-caused global warming are "a potential for disaster that could make what happened in New York yesterday look small". Civilization is being trapped between expanding deserts and rising sea levels - two forces of our "own creation." Brown had in mind the nine tiny atolls that comprise Tuvalu in the Pacific Ocean. Situated between Hawaii and Australia, Tuvalu is the country with the world¹s fourth smallest land area and compares in size to one-tenth the area of Washington, DC. Touting the claim that the ocean is swallowing Tuvalu, Brown says: "The leaders of Tuvalu have conceded defeat in their battle with the rising sea, announcing that they will abandon their homeland." In 1997, a Tuvaluan official, Toaripi Lauti told international delegates to a climate change convention that "the impacts of global warming on our islands are real and are already threatening our very survival and existence." And Leo Falcam, President of the Federated States of Micronesia, expects massive population relocation as the only option for relocating the world's "first climate change refugees".

Brown and other environmental activists now consider 10,000 Tuvaluans the world's first refugees of human-made global warming - blamed, in their view, on the United States' gluttonous energy consumption that generates greenhouse gases that warm the planet and cause the seas to rise. Sounds serious enough. So what's going on? The coastline of Tuvalu is, indeed, changing. The atolls of Tuvalu rest on sinking volcanic rock atop which new coral grows to replace the coral die-off that occurs as the volcanic rock subsides deeper into the ocean where coral does not survive. Such island growth is slow. And it would certainly be too slow to keep pace with forecast sea level rise attributable to global warming. Brown has been quoted as saying that the oceans rose 8 to 12 inches in the last century.

Brown avers: "My sense is sea-level rise is a reasonably well-established trend."

Check the Science:

Well, rather than rely on Brown's "sense" of sea level rise, let's check the instruments. As it turns out, estimates of globally averaged sea level rise in the 20th century are irrelevant since Tuvalu's local sea level change is very different from the globally averaged change. There are three estimates of sea level changes for Tuvalu. The first is a satellite record showing that the sea level has actually fallen four inches around Tuvalu since 1993 when the hundred-million dollar international TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite project record began. Second comes from the modern instruments recording tide gauge data since 1978. There the record for Tuvalu shows ups and downs of many inches over periods of years. For example, the strong El Nino of 1997-98 caused the sea level surrounding Tuvalu to drop just over one foot. The El Nino Southern Oscillation is a natural - as opposed to man-made -future of the Pacific Ocean, as areas of the Pacific periodically warm then cool every few years, causing significant sea level rises and falls every few years in step with the co-oscillations of the ocean and atmosphere. The overall trend discerned from the tide gauge data, according to Wolfgang Scherer, Director of Australia's National Tidal Facility, remains flat. "One definitive statement we can make," states Scherer, "is that there is no indication based on observations that sea level rise is accelerating." Finally, there is the new estimate by scientists at the Centre Nationale d¹Etudes Spatiales who also find that between 1955 and 1996 the sea level surrounding Tuvalu dropped four inches.

All these measurements show that Tuvalu has suffered, at worst, no sea level rise. So much for Brown's sense of sea level trends for Tuvalu.

Man-Made Problems
That said, there are some local problems that have changed the coastline of Tuvalu and mimic sea level rise. Sand is excavated for building material on Tuvalu. The excavation for building material has eroded the beach, thus giving the impression of rising sea to the casual observer. "The island is full of holes and seawater is coming through these, flooding areas that weren't normally flooded 10 or 15 years ago," according to Tuvalu environmental official, Paani Laupepa.

It is likely that the beach erosion and building on the island caused the sea flooding of areas over the last decade. And that is a true environmental concern. But it is a local, man-made problem that will not be solved with massive cuts in carbon dioxide emission.

An environmental official of Tuvalu, Elisala Pita, is concerned with the alarmism of western eco-imperialists. In an interview in the Canadian Globe and Mail on November 24, Pita says that, "This [coastal] erosion is caused by man-made infrastructure. Tuvalu is being used for the issue of climate change. People are telling all these lies, just using Tuvalu to prove their point. No island is sinking. Tuvalu is not sinking. It is still floating." These small atolls have few natural resources, including fresh groundwater. Catch basins or desalination plants form the only fresh water available.

With such limited resources, the alarmism of western environmentalists will do nothing to help Tuvaluans. Only the scientific facts will.

Dr Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon, are co-hosts, Tech Central Station and Associate of the Harvard College Observatory.

[Janus]

So?

It's still a "trend" that will in no way endanger the human race; get over it.
OK, there is a trend and if that trend is right, we're looking at another ice age.


No, just information that is incorrent and or apocalyptic.
But you're still denying large amounts of evidence and the reports of hundreds of scientists.


You're confused, no one said global warming does not exist. I said, while speaking to that dagger kid, "global warming as you see it is a myth.

Do try to stay with us esse; this constant need to regress in order to deal with the rampant confusion here is getting tiresome.
OK, so your arguement is that it has happened before. And yes, the Medieval Warm Age did happen and was followed by the Little Ice Age.

Also, you say that global warming as we see it is simply a myth? Well, the Northwest Passage was also supposed to be a myth but it's not anymore.


Why bother "discrediting" someone with little or no knowledge of the subject matter?

They tend to do that themselves.
So are you a scientist or something?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by janus
OK, there is a trend and if that trend is right, we're looking at another ice age.


It's funny you say that because there are quite a number of scientists that say the very same thing citing the fact that certain portions of the globe that are actually getting colder; and have been for many years.


But you're still denying large amounts of evidence and the reports of hundreds of scientists.


No I'm not, I'm denying large amounts of junk journalism that is not backed by actual science.

The majority of these reports claim the "affect is real" even if the data shows otherwise.

All you have to do is actually look at the actual science and you will see the truth.


Also, you say that global warming as we see it is simply a myth? Well, the Northwest Passage was also supposed to be a myth but it's not anymore.


Changing the subject won't help you; besides, "revelations" and other predictions of doom are also "myths".

Do you buy those for a buck too?

[Janus]

It's funny you say that because there are quite a number of scientists that say the very same thing citing the fact that certain portions of the globe that are actually getting colder; and have been for many years.
Which parts? And has it been a constant and consistent trend?


No I'm not, I'm denying large amounts of junk journalism that is not backed by actual science.

The majority of these reports claim the "affect is real" even if the data shows otherwise.

All you have to do is actually look at the actual science and you will see the truth.
Actually, most mainstream magazines are still split over it. All the scientific journals and articles support it and have backed it up with plenty of evidence everything from the small things such as variations in plant pops. causing bears to move into the cities to the macroscopic things such as actual climate change trends.


Changing the subject won't help you; besides, "revelations" and other predictions of doom are also "myths".
How am I trying to change the subject? As far as I know, we're still discussing global warming.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by janus
Which parts? And has it been a constant and consistent trend?

Severe exaggeration of the affects "greenhouse gasses" have on globe within the theory of "global warming" have been occuring since Keeling's predictions turned out to be severely inaccurate.

Add this to the actual science involved and you have a political travesty for the platform that embraced "global warming" as a "real threat" to humanity that must be "permanently ceased" by only voting democrats into governmental seats.

They seem to have bet on a snowball that didn't have the juice to get any bigger.

What a travesty! :lol:


All the scientific journals and articles support it and have backed it up with plenty of evidence everything from the small things such as variations in plant pops. causing bears to move into the cities to the macroscopic things such as actual climate change trends.

Trends that have been occuring in these areas for millenia; they are called local weather conditions.


How am I trying to change the subject? As far as I know, we're still discussing global warming.

By talking about a completely unrelated subject as if it had any meaning to the current debate of course.

[Janus]

Add this to the actual science involved and you have a political travesty for the platform that embraced "global warming" as a "real threat" to humanity that must be "permanently ceased" by only voting democrats into governmental seats.

They seem to have bet on a snowball that didn't have the juice to get any bigger.

What a travesty!
What's with the strawmen? You're just trying to dumb it down by making it seem as if it were some dead issue propped up by political parties.


Trends that have been occuring in these areas for millenia; they are called local weather conditions.
But if they last and remain constant and consistent, then they are something more.


By talking about a completely unrelated subject as if it had any meaning to the current debate of course.
Ice melting in the North Pole thus opening up a Northwest Passage has nothing to do with this?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by janus
What's with the strawmen? You're just trying to dumb it down by making it seem as if it were some dead issue propped up by political parties.

I think you are a bit confused by what a "straw man" argument actually is.

In any case, if you think "global warming" is not currently the "heart" of the yanqui and other "democratic" parties then you are simply politically ignorant.

Al Gore's recent Hollywoodised predictions of armaggedon are going to be just one link in a chain of events that couldn't tug an American Flyer filled with some kid's returnable bottles much less raise the Titanic.


But if they last and remain constant and consistent, then they are something more.

I think it's time for you do do a bit of research on local weather anomalies and conditions; there is just way too much involved for me to be able to explain it and have you retain it.


Ice melting in the North Pole thus opening up a Northwest Passage has nothing to do with this?

Ice has been melting and reforming by varying degrees on the North Pole for thousands of years.

You forget that the word "global" means the entire world. If global warming were true as you see it, it would be a universal phenomenon.

As it sits right now, portions of the globe are actually getting colder!

(reference Antarctica)

[Janus]

I think you are a bit confused by what a "straw man" argument actually is.
You are simply trying to dumb down global warming by stating that it is something conjured up by politicians.


Al Gore's recent Hollywoodised predictions of armaggedon are going to be just one link in a chain of events that couldn't tug an American Flyer filled with some kid's returnable bottles much less raise the Titanic.
Except the doc. was pretty much apolitical. :o


You forget that the word "global" means the entire world. If global warming were true as you see it, it would be a universal phenomenon.
It is. If were only some isolated incidences; people would not be talking about it.


As it sits right now, portions of the globe are actually getting colder!
You're saying that Antarctica is getting colder?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by janus
You are simply trying to dumb down global warming by stating that it is something conjured up by politicians.

That's not a "straw man" argument and it's not what I said at all. I said that the democratic party invested a very large portion of their platform to the fact that global warming is a real phenomenon to simply agree with the actual science once it had been done.

The myth of global warming was actually coined by James Hansen in the late 80s. He got ball rolling by claiming that over the following decade the earth would heat by almost .4 degrees celcius. 10 years later his prediction was proven to be grossly inflated by an incredible margin.

To this day he's still running around babbling about the "ticking time bomb" that never seems to go off.

As a matter of fact, it's the only time bomb in the world that actually runs backwards! :lol:


Except the doc. was pretty much apolitical.

What planet are you from? Do you know who Al Gore is?


It is. If were only some isolated incidences; people would not be talking about it.

It apears that you still have not done any research even when I pointed you directly to a region of the globe that is getting colder as we speak.

All you did was plug your ears and babble repeatedly "global warming is real....global warming is real...global warming is real...."

This is like debating with a child.

Tell you what, if you're interested in actually doing a bit of reasearch, after you tackle
Antarctica, take a look at other large ice masses like Greenland, then move over to Iceland.

Once you decide to ignore the real life science there, try investing a little time in researching changes in sea levels.

If you are still a heavy proponent of "global warming" after that, then do yourself a favour and give the democratic party a jingle; they are always in need of "yes men" that don't pay any attention to that "silly stuff called science".


You're saying that Antarctica is getting colder?

I'm just repeating what other scientists have already published. If you would have bothered to do any actual research like I asked you to, you would not be asking this question.

[Janus]

That's not a "straw man" argument and it's not what I said at all. I said that the democratic party invested a very large portion of their platform to the fact that global warming is a real phenomenon to simply agree with the actual science once it had been done.
Ok.


What planet are you from? Do you know who Al Gore is?
Politics most likely played a part in the creation of the doc. but it stayed relatively apolitical.


It apears that you still have not done any research even when I pointed you directly to a region of the globe that is getting colder as we speak.

All you did was plug your ears and babble repeatedly "global warming is real....global warming is real...global warming is real...."

This is like debating with a child.
The same could be said for you. People have remarked on rising waters, shorter thaws, stronger hurricanes,etc. yet you still call it local weather.


If you are still a heavy proponent of "global warming" after that, then do yourself a favour and give the democratic party a jingle; they are always in need of "yes men" that don't pay any attention to that "silly stuff called science".
You don't consider this to be a strawman?


If you would have bothered to do any actual research like I asked you to, you would not be asking this question.
I have done my research. It shows that Antarctica seems to be warming at the edges yet cooling in the center so it's unclear whether it's warming or cooling overall. Yet you're going to use this shred of evidence as a defense against all the other evidence that has been presented?

Look this debate is clearly going nowhere. I agree with you that a lot of issues are propped up by politicians for political reasons.

As my environmental science teacher always said: Follow the money trail.

So what are your thoughts on "global warming". You said yourself that it exists, to what extent do you think that it exists? Or is it all local weather changes in your opinion?

[Janus]

take a look at other large ice masses like Greenland, then move over to Iceland.
OK. The Greenland ice sheet is melting and the same goes for Iceland.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by janus
The same could be said for you. People have remarked on rising waters, shorter thaws, stronger hurricanes,etc. yet you still call it local weather.

Sorry bro, "local weather" aint mine, that one belongs to actual geologists. As far as "rising waters" go, (I'm assunimg you mean "sea" waters) it just isn't happening dude.

Do the research like I asked.


you don't consider this to be a strawman?(sic)

No and neither does the English language. Look up what "straw man" means so you will stop talking about it.


I have done my research. It shows that Antarctica seems to be warming at the edges yet cooling in the center so it's unclear whether it's warming or cooling overall. Yet you're going to use this shred of evidence as a defense against all the other evidence that has been presented?

:lol: Unclear?

By the way, the "warming trend" you're speaking of happened in the Arctic Peninsula
which accounts for about 3% or so of Antacrtica. :lol:

The rest of the 97% of the cantinent got colder; some interior areas by as much as .8 degrees celcius!

I also have an assortment of other actual science facts but I would rather you find them out on your own. Unless you want to remain ignorant.

As far as "evidence" goes, where is all this so called "evidence" that you are speaking of? Please, be my guest and provide me with actual science done by actual scientists.

In addition, it makes me laugh that you agree that Antarctica is getting colder yet you still don't get what global warming means.


So what are your thoughts on "global warming". You said yourself that it exists, to what extent do you think that it exists? Or is it all local weather changes in your opinion?

It "exists" in the minds of junk scientists, politicians, media moguls, environmental "charities", and other proponents of "impending doom", therefore it exists without substance and affects our social environment by directing how we "think" and "react".

I personally don't like being lied to and neither should you.

[Janus]

I also have an assortment of other actual science facts but I would rather you find them out on your own. Unless you want to remain ignorant.

As far as "evidence" goes, where is all this so called "evidence" that you are speaking of? Please, be my guest and provide me with actual science done by actual scientists.
There are hundreds of articles in scientifical journals done by actual scientists.


In addition, it makes me laugh that you agree that Antarctica is getting colder yet you still don't get what global warming means.
I know what it means. It is still unclear whether Antarctica is cooling or warming overall.


It "exists" in the minds of junk scientists, politicians, media moguls, environmental "charities", and other proponents of "impending doom", therefore it exists without substance and affects our social environment by directing how we "think" and "react".

I personally don't like being lied to and neither should you.
I agree with you. There definitelyare a lot of crazy theories out there about "impending doom".

Anyways, this exchange seems to be going nowehere and is really pointless.

All I can say is that hopefully in a communist society, we can be free of these politically motivated lies and work for sustained development.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by janus
There are hundreds of articles in scientifical journals done by actual scientists.

I said science not jounalism.

Here, I'll start:

Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at MIT:

"The claims about catastrophic consequences of significant global warming, should it occur at all, are almost completely speculative. Not only are they without any theoretical foundations, but they frequently involved assuming the opposite of what appears to happen."

Ian Joughin, Glaciologist at the Polar Science Centre, University of Washington:

"Side-looking radar measurments show W. Antarctic ice is increasing at 26.8 gigatons per year, reversing the melting trend of the last 6,000 years." (Science Magazine)

AASC:

"Climate prediction is complex with many uncertainties ... For time scales of a decade or more, understanding the empirical accuracy of such predictions - called "verification" - is simply impossible, since we have to wait a decade or longer to assess the accuracy of the forecasts. ... climate predictions have not demonstrated skill in projecting future variability and changes in such important climate conditions as growing season, drought, flood-producing rainfall, heat waves, tropical cyclones and winter storms. These are the type of events that have a more significant impact on society than annual average global temperature trends."


And we already know what happens a decade later.... :lol:



I know what it means. It is still unclear whether Antarctica is cooling or warming overall.

You're either confused or being deliberately obtuse; it's perfectly clear that Antarctica is cooling.

Check the science esse, repeating yourself over and over again will not make you right. :lol:


Anyways, this exchange seems to be going nowehere and is really pointless.


I will go ahead and allow to you save face by retreating back into your cave of geological ignorance.

Bye!

[Janus]

I said science not jounalism.
Scientific journals contain nothing but science, there is a high bar to publish anything in them. Have you read any of them?


climate predictions have not demonstrated skill in projecting future variability and changes in such important climate conditions as growing season, drought, flood-producing rainfall, heat waves, tropical cyclones and winter storms. These are the type of events that have a more significant impact on society than annual average global temperature trends.
Ok. Climate models are speculative but it does not prove the fact that there is a potential problem at our hands.


I will go ahead and allow to you save face by retreating back into your cave of geological ignorance.
You're not going to sway anyone to your side with that attitude.

Goodbye.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by janus
Scientific journals contain nothing but science, there is a high bar to publish anything in them. Have you read any of them?

It simply must be Pluto from where you are from because I just quoted from Science Magazine in my last post.....all you did was conveniently ignore it.

Now, if you will be so kind as to include your own quotes from scientific publications I will feel free to add several more scientific facts that will serve to push the sky back up where it belongs. :lol:

Please, no hyper-dramatic journalism esse.


Ok. Climate models are speculative but it does not prove the fact that there is a potential problem at our hands.

I've got you from "global warming is a real problem" to global warming is a potential problem....very good; you're on your way to reality.


You're not going to sway anyone to your side with that attitude.

I have no intention of "swaying anyone" to "my side". You've been so over-propagandised that the only one that can save you is yourself.

And just think, enlightenment is not even being hidden from you!

[Janus]

I've got you from "global warming is a real problem" to global warming is a potential problem....very good; you're on your way to reality.
When did I ever say that it was a real problem right now? I know that climate models can be flawed. It is difficult to actually prove such macroscopic trends though the smaller observations have been troubling.


You've been so over-propagandised that the only one that can save you is yourself.
Propaganda? So you think that anything that should warrant our concern is just a political tool?


It simply must be Pluto from where you are from because I just quoted from Science Magazine in my last post.....all you did was conveniently ignore it.
Where did I ignore it. The writer did not deny it but rather said that it was speculative. You are simply exaggerating my position on this.

Here are some articles from Science magazine as well.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/search?src=h...=global+warming (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/search?src=hw&site_area=sci&fulltext=global+warming)

[Severian]

There's less and less debate among scientists about the reality of global climate change. More and more it's simply a debate about the extent of it.

That said, why is 100% proof required for action to prevent environmental damage? If a chemical is likely to cause cancer, isn't that a good reason to stop dumping it into streams?

Similarly, if carbon dioxide emissions, deforestation, etc are probably causing global climate change and thereby major problems for humanity....it's a good reason to try to address those problems.

[RaiseYourVoice]

I couldn't read all up to now, if it has already been said just ignore me

For the heating up of the planet:

- sure there were always periods of the planet heating up, usually followed by a period of it cooling down, since the next ice age is long overdue, this might actually be the doomsday theory
- greenhouse effect is proven to be there, how much of the global warming comes from that isnt, but the question is can we risk to push the temperature more? i am not talking about us all being doomed, humanity will survive. just countries like the netherlands will partly be flooded, cities near the coast will too, floods will increase etc.


For the trees:
- trees produce oxigen, so i guess we cant just get rid of them
- trees absord carbon dioxide, so they actually work against global warming
- trees are a home for many animals (like people would care just mentioning it )
- trees work against soil erosion too

[Janus]

That said, why is 100% proof required for action to prevent environmental damage?
Ask Bill.

Anyways, what I'm trying to say is that it is difficult to actually prove macroscopic trends such as global warming. The only thing we can really do is prove isolated incidents and try to make sense of them. These incidents have been showing us for some time that we do have a problem on our hands.

However, this does not mean that we should act as if the Apocalypse is coming or let this deter us from our ultimate goal of communism. I believe that it is only in such a mutualistic society that we can continue to develop on a sustainable level.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by RYV
greenhouse effect is proven to be there, how much of the global warming comes from that isnt, but the question is can we risk to push the temperature more?

Not true.

The "greenhouse effect" is just a theory that has never been proven. On the contrary, NASA reported that from 1940 through 1970 global temperatures dropped nearly .2 degrees celcius while Co2 levels continued to increase by .2 percent.

Kinda kills that theory doesn't it? :o

[Janus]

Bill, NASA mainly measures atmospheric temperatures particularly the stratosphere.

I think this is what you're talking about
http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/ghcc_cvcc.html

I believe that there has been some cooling in the stratosphere which is consistent with ozone depletion. However, research has shown that the troposphere have been heating up. There was some uncertainty because of interference between the two layers.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/...41129113717.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041129113717.htm)


http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/t...1023esuice.html (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/1023esuice.html)
Even NASA has admitted that climate change is occuring.

[Vinny Rafarino]

I think this is what you're talking about
http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/ghcc_cvcc.html

Nope.

I'm talking about the period of time between 1940 and 1970 when NASA reported that the ground temperatures throughout the globe declined while C02 gasses continued to increase.


Even NASA has admitted that climate change is occuring.

Of course it is!

Climate change occurs each and every day.

[Janus]

I'm talking about the period of time between 1940 and 1970 when NASA reported that the ground temperatures throughout the globe declined while C02 gasses continued to increase.
When has NASA measured ground temperatures? That would be very difficult to do from space.

The only reports I could find by them are the stratospheric ones.


Climate change occurs each and every day.
Doesn't mean we shouldn't look at it when there seems to be a problem.

[Vinny Rafarino]

When has NASA measured ground temperatures? That would be very difficult to do from space.


Umm....99.9% of NASA's facilities are on the planet's surface.

As to when, golly, you can visit NASA's GISS Website (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/) right this very minute and find a graph for when NASA measured global temeratures right on the very front page last year.

If you dig deep enough, you will even find an archived graph showing global temperatures back to the 1800s.


Doesn't mean we shouldn't look at it when there seems to be a problem.

There must first be a problem to "look at".

[Janus]

Umm....99.9% of NASA's facilities are on the planet's surface.
They generally use their satellites for temp. gatherings though.

OK. So I looked at some of it here
http://vathena.arc.nasa.gov/curric/land/gl...reenhou.html#gg (http://vathena.arc.nasa.gov/curric/land/global/greenhou.html#gg)

Skeptics have already stated that there may not be a causal relationship between the two yet you are now stating that there is? There have been some variations of course but there is a general trend.


There must first be a problem to "look at".
There is; all the experts have accepted that.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Skeptics have already stated that there may not be a causal relationship between the two yet you are now stating that there is? There have been some variations of course but there is a general trend.

Impossible.

If, like you attest, that C02 is directly responsible for the greenhouse effect then global temperatures would subsequently rise exponentially with the rise in greenhouse gasses.

Period.

Since the contrary to this has already been proven (not just theory like global warming) how can you still accept the cockamamy "greenhouse gas" theory while it takes a shit on reality and logic?


Originally posted by janus
There is; all the experts have accepted that.

All experts?

Except of course for the 80% of them that don't that is.

[Janus]

If, like you attest, that C02 is directly responsible for the greenhouse effect then global temperatures would subsequently rise exponentially with the rise in greenhouse gasses.
You keep on misrepresenting my position.

First of all, there is a difference between correlation and causality. You can prove a correlation but not always causality.

It has already been shown that the temperature should not be so high if CO2 were the only contributing factor.


Since the contrary to this has already been proven (not just theory like global warming) how can you still accept the cockamamy "greenhouse gas" theory while it takes a shit on reality and logic?
Could you show me the link. I wasn't able to find much on GISS.


All experts?

Except of course for the 80% of them that don't that is.
Scientists have stated that we are facing a problem and the majority of them state that it is man made. Only journalists in mainstream magazines have been opposing this.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Black Dagger
....i'm talking about the natural environment - it is possible to have technology and a high standard of living without greatly damaging or unbalancing the natural environment of the planet.

I honestly love that phrase; the "natural environment". These days, as well, a lot of people tend to use it....and, personally, I really doubt many people know what the "natural environment" actually is. When most people use the phrase, they generally mean trees and shit....but, most of the time, trees, plants and so on fall under the category of an ecosystem; sometimes even an urban ecosystem.

The "natural environment", by contrast, using the shorthand definition, is "an environment that is not the result of human activity or intervention" [link (http://www.deh.gov.au/soe/2001/biodiversity/glossary.html)]....and, obviously, any Built Environment is going to "damage", "unbalance" and, preferably, fucking destroy the "natural environment". Because, essentially, the "natural environment" is not suitable for human habitation.

Which all means that debates about Environmental protection are drawn along false lines and limits. Because, basically, the only question which should be of interest to members of human society, is how to make the Built Environment more suitable for human habitation....and the issue of the "natural environment" has been, more or less, dead since we first started planting shit.

So, obviously, it's impossible "to have technology and a high standard of living without greatly damaging or unbalancing the natural environment of the planet"....and, essentially, that's a meaningless question. The real question is how best to construct the Built Environment in order to benefit human society....and the answer to that has very little to do with energy consumption and all the other Green buzzwords; and more to do with building more advanced structures which are able to reduce the impact of the Environment far more than current Built Environments.

[Vinny Rafarino]

It has already been shown that the temperature should not be so high if CO2 were the only contributing factor.

Then you must agree that "global warming" by the "greenhouse effect" is false. There is no other way around it because c02 levels are the entire "greenhouse" theory.

Like any good politician will do, once the house of cards crumbles, a new one will be immediately erected in its place. :lol:

Let's try nitrogen or methane next time. ;)


Could you show me the link. I wasn't able to find much on GISS.

Use the search feature, I got 300 returns for the chart I'm looking for.

I've already seen the data, you go through the crap.


Scientists have stated that we are facing a problem and the majority of them state that it is man made. Only journalists in mainstream magazines have been opposing this.

What you meant to write was "jounalists in mainstream magazines and 80% of the scientific population."

Then at least you would have been right.

[Janus]

Let's try nitrogen or methane next time.
Nitrogen? You mean nitrous oxide?

It is clear that CO2 can't be the only contributing factor to the temperature increases.


What you meant to write was "jounalists in mainstream magazines and 80% of the scientific population."
No, none of the science articles have actually denied that we have something on our hands. Where do you get these figures from?

[Janus]

Then you must agree that "global warming" by the "greenhouse effect" is false.
It is not the only contributing factor. Other variables such as clouds, aerosols, and the ocean have a role as well.

And like you said, there is the solar variation theory as well.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 02:45 PM

Then you must agree that "global warming" by the "greenhouse effect" is false.
It is not the only contributing factor. Other variables such as clouds, aerosols, and the ocean have a role as well.

And like you said, there is the solar variation theory as well.
Just like I said brother.....a new house of cards; we'll call this one,
"Global Warming II -- Warm Harder".

Get Bruno to make another "return" and we will have one hell of a blues-filled, action-packed Summer blockbuster!



As far as solar variation goes, it may indeed be the cause of the curent small increase in temperatures on the majority of the planet but you cannot say it's "Global Warming"; other portions of the globe are actually cooling.

It's also fairly safe to say that since this is the highest level of activity we have seen from our star in a long, long, time, we really don't have to worry about there being too much more of an increase in solar activity.

If any more at all that is.

[Janus]

Get Bruno to make another "return" and we will have one hell of a blues-filled, action-packed Summer blockbuster!
All right! :P



As far as solar variation goes, it may indeed be the cause of the curent small increase in temperatures on the majority of the planet but you cannot say it's "Global Warming"; other portions of the globe are actually cooling.

It's also fairly safe to say that since this is the highest level of activity we have seen from our star in a long, long, time, we really don't have to worry about there being too much more of an increase in solar activity.

If any more at all that is.
I concur. It is simply a puzzling trend but like Severian said, do we need to have 100% proof before we need to look at a problem?

I agree that there are a lot of alarmists out there and that everything should always be viewed with a skeptical eye.

[Janus]

What I've been trying to say is that we should deal with potential problems particularly if there is a strong consensus and if dealing with the problem is not that much of a deal. However, allowing ourselves to be fooled by every alarmists' talks should be avoided as well since this only serves to deter us and mislead us.

The people know or can at least figure out what the best steps so it is essential that they are provided with the facts. Worrying won't get us anywhere but rather making plans and acting on them will in the event that there is a consensus to do something.

Past generations have left us with a variety of problems that is up to the newer generation to find viable solutions to. Options such as stopping all development is simply out of the question as it is only through technology itself that we can hope to solve many of the environmental problems we face.

Can we reach some consensus on this?

[apathy maybe]

Bump! I do not have time to answer the entire thread, so I'll be quick.

Bill Shatner's idea that Global Warming must be a myth because some parts are getting colder:
Some people call it climate change, but either way. The average global temperature is rising, so even if some areas are not or are getting colder, on average the globe is getting warmer.

Temperatures and other events are getting more extreme as well.

Billy Shatner's idea that scientists think that global warming is a myth:
Sure some might. But the majority (over 80% I believe) in the relevant areas (and not just random scientists), think that humans have contributed to an unprecedented rise in average global temperatures in the last few hundred years.


And another thing, even if the science only had a 10% chance of being correct, we should be doing something. Would you do nothing if you had a 10% chance of being killed? What about seriously wounded? What about someone you knew and cared for? What about lots of people you didn't know in some other country? (Please answer all these questions separately unless your answer is the same for all.) Even though there might only be a small chance, we should not take that chance.

[Black Dagger]

Armchair Socialism, what was the point of your post? I don't really know how to reply. You took a single phrase i used, defined it to mean something you wanted it to, then rambled on a bit saying nothing controversial. What do you want me to reply to?

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 09:22 AM

That said, why is 100% proof required for action to prevent environmental damage?
Ask Bill.
Good idea. Bill?

That post wasn't directed to any single person...but it is unfortunately that NoXion has chosen to overlook the issue.

I might add that the demand for certainty and more studies is always the demand of polluting capitalists. I can remember it being their mantra about acid rain, for example.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Bill [email protected] 28 2006, 03:38 PM

It has already been shown that the temperature should not be so high if CO2 were the only contributing factor.

Then you must agree that "global warming" by the "greenhouse effect" is false. There is no other way around it because c02 levels are the entire "greenhouse" theory.

Like any good politician will do, once the house of cards crumbles, a new one will be immediately erected in its place. :lol:

Let's try nitrogen or methane next time. ;)
It's been known for some time that a number of chemicals contribute to the "greenhouse effect". There is no "next time", they operate simultaneously.

There's a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere, so it gets the most attention. Methane, chlorofluorocarbons, and other chemicals are less common, but have a larger effect per molecule.

This argument is like a creationist proclaiming the theory of evolution is bogus because it is modified with time and new evidence. No, that's what makes it science.

Based on this post, I think everybody might do better to just ignore Shatner as a troll. He's clearly not trying to discuss. And he can't learn anything because he's so convinced he already knows everything. Self-confident ignorance can look a lot like knowledge, to the ignorant one anyway. Sometimes to other people.

Why we overestimate our competence - (http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb03/overestimate.html) from the APA monitor

The tendency that people have to overrate their abilities fascinates Cornell University social psychologist David Dunning, PhD. "People overestimate themselves," he says, "but more than that, they really seem to believe it. I've been trying to figure out where that certainty of belief comes from."

Dunning is doing that through a series of manipulated studies, mostly with students at Cornell. He's finding that the least competent performers inflate their abilities the most; that the reason for the overinflation seems to be ignorance, not arrogance; and that chronic self-beliefs, however inaccurate, underlie both people's over and underestimations of how well they're doing.

In other words, some people know so little they don't realize it.

[Janus]

But the majority (over 80% I believe) in the relevant areas (and not just random scientists), think that humans have contributed to an unprecedented rise in average global temperatures in the last few hundred years.
And out of the 900+ science articles on it, no scientist has denied that it is occuring.


I might add that the demand for certainty and more studies is always the demand of polluting capitalists. I can remember it being their mantra about acid rain, for example.
It's good to always look at more evidence but it doesn't mean that we need 100% proof just to try to check some of our actions.

The fact is that it's nigh impossible to prove macroscopic trends like this. Scientists can mainly only prove small incidents and conjecture on what this means. In other words, they have to piece things together and look at the bigger picture.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by severelydaft
It's been known for some time that a number of chemicals contribute to the "greenhouse effect". There is no "next time", they operate simultaneously.


Same old Severian; so completely caught up in following me around like a lost little puppy that it has clouded what's left of his rather diminished ability to comprehend and retain the written word.

No surprise here at all.


There's a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere, so it gets the most attention. Methane, chlorofluorocarbons, and other chemicals are less common, but have a larger effect per molecule.

You're confused again little one. I suggest you research Hansen's theories.


Based on this post, I think everybody might do better to just ignore Shatner as a troll. He's clearly not trying to discuss. And he can't learn anything because he's so convinced he already knows everything. Self-confident ignorance can look a lot like knowledge, to the ignorant one anyway. Sometimes to other people.

Are you frightened?


Why we overestimate our competence - from the APA monitor

The tendency that people have to overrate their abilities fascinates Cornell University social psychologist David Dunning, PhD. "People overestimate themselves," he says, "but more than that, they really seem to believe it. I've been trying to figure out where that certainty of belief comes from."

Dunning is doing that through a series of manipulated studies, mostly with students at Cornell. He's finding that the least competent performers inflate their abilities the most; that the reason for the overinflation seems to be ignorance, not arrogance; and that chronic self-beliefs, however inaccurate, underlie both people's over and underestimations of how well they're doing.

In other words, some people know so little they don't realize it.

How true it is! :lol:

[KC]

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2_lrg.gif

Is this the graph you're talking about, Bill? Why isn't this a concern?

[Janus]

I don't think it is.

I was unable to find graphs detailing CO2 levels and global temperatures. I could only find C02 beginning from 1950 though I know they have been able to gain records a lot earlier than that.

Bill does not think that it is a concern because there have been small drops in the temperature even though CO2 levels are increasing steadily. This is a major case of looking at the bigger picture especially when the temperature is increasing at an alarming rate.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Khayembii Communique+Aug 1 2006, 11:09 AM--> (Khayembii Communique @ Aug 1 2006, 11:09 AM) Is this the graph you're talking about, Bill? Why isn't this a concern? [/b]
Not exactly, it does not show the steady increase in CO2 production in relation to the temperature increasesand decreases.


janus
Bill does not think that it is a concern because there have been small drops in the temperature even though CO2 levels are increasing steadily. This is a major case of looking at the bigger picture especially when the temperature is increasing at an alarming rate.

Here you go again with the alarmist goofiness...Global temperatures are most definitely not rising at an "alarming rate".

[Janus]

:blink: So we should be unconcerned with the increases in global temperature period?

[Janus]

Bill, your arguement is comparable to the creationists who believe that evolution is untrue because there is no 100% proof of it.

We'll ask you again. Why do you need 100%, absolute proof that there may be a problem before acting on it?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Bill, your arguement is comparable to the creationists who believe that evolution is untrue because there is no 100% proof of it.


Here's another bit of advice for you: start developing your own opinion and stop aping everyone else. Severian is the last person on this board you want to be a puppet for, trust me; that cat's a joke.

I mean good grief, now you know what a straw man argument is. :lol:


We'll ask you again. Why do you need 100%, absolute proof that there may be a problem before acting on it?

And I will tell you again to check the science!

Research is your friend Janus, superstition is your enemy.

Simply babbling about it over and over again is not going to make it true no matter how many "wishes" you and Severian spend on it. :lol:

[Janus]

Here's another bit of advice for you: start developing your own opinion and stop aping everyone else
This is my opinion. I have told you many times what it is yet you continue to exaggerate it.


Severian is the last person on this board you want to be a puppet for, trust me; that cat's a joke.
I'm sure he thinks the very same of you. :lol:


I mean good grief, now you know what a straw man argument is.
That was not intended to be one; that is just how your arguement seems to be playing out. Yet at the same time, you dumb down my arguements with calls of alarmism and junk science.


Research is your friend Janus, superstition is your enemy.
I agree.


Simply babbling about it over and over again is not going to make it true no matter how many "wishes" you and Severian spend on it.
I have researched it. I have seen that though there may be certain inconsistencies, the major trends are still occuring. Look at the bigger picture, there is no need to find small arguements to counter macroscopic trends. Like I said, that is something that creationists are doing against evolution.

[Janus]

Bill, you are right that there is still a lot of research that needs to be done and the fact that there are a lot of exaggerations and misleading "facts". This is definitely a major problem as in the current world, data can easily be manipulated or skewed.

Currently, there is still debate in scientific fields as incidents that were supposedly related to global warming have now been attributed to other things. Like you said, some scientists are skeptical and some have yet to fully endorse global warming.

But does this mean that we should not curb some of the practices that may may be potentially very harmful to our well-being?

[Tarik]

A very important problem, that we will show the effects more and more precisly.Don't act and don't care is egoist for our children and for the future.

That's a publication of Science (April 2006)

The number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled in the last 30 years.
Malaria has spread to higher altitudes in places like the Colombian Andes, 7,000 feet above sea level.
The flow of ice from glaciers in Greenland has more than doubled over the past decade.
At least 279 species of plants and animals are already responding to global warming, moving closer to the poles.

If the warming continues, we can expect catastrophic consequences.

Deaths from global warming will double in just 25 years -- to 300,000 people a year.
Global sea levels could rise by more than 20 feet with the loss of shelf ice in Greenland and Antarctica, devastating coastal areas worldwide.
Heat waves will be more frequent and more intense.
Droughts and wildfires will occur more often.
The Arctic Ocean could be ice free in summer by 2050.
More than a million species worldwide could be driven to extinction by 2050.

There is no doubt we can solve this problem. In fact, we have a moral obligation to do so. The time to come together to solve this problem is now – TAKE ACTION

[Vinny Rafarino]

Check the science and you will find all that to be absolute sensationalist nonsense.

It sure sells the shit out of the publication though! :lol:

Don't forget to bring your umbrella Tarik. I heard that ozone hurts like hell when it falls on you.

[Janus]

Ice, I didn't recognize you there for a minute due to the name change.

First of all, I couldn't find that article in any of the Science issues and I've never seen Science make those kind of claims.

Anyways, like I said before, there is a big difference between correlation and connection.

[Independent Socialist Party]

The overwhelming bulk of scientific evidence supports the notion that we are heating our planet, and that we will face a major climate catastrophe, which will begin sometime this centrury. The problem is not so much our own direct CO2 emissions, but that of psostive feedback, quite simply, global warming begets more global warming, through the burning of forests, the loss of reflective ice sheets and the release of trapped pockets of methane. Ultimatly, we could even see a re-run of the permian mass-extincton, which wiped out 95% of all life on earth before the dinosaurs evolved.

What to do?

We do not need to de industrialise, as some claim, rather our industry needs to change. We can remain an advanced industrial civlisation, while deriving more of our energy from renewable sources. carbon sequestering, the burial of co2 emissions underground, may alos help limit our co2 emissions.

[Tarik]

Originally posted by Iceberg [email protected] 8 2006, 11:41 PM
Check the science and you will find all that to be absolute sensationalist nonsense.

It sure sells the shit out of the publication though! :lol:

Don't forget to bring your umbrella Tarik. I heard that ozone hurts like hell when it falls on you.
The science don't seek sensational...That's the problem of many people saying "don't panic, that's not sure ect..."
But what about Amiant which was denouced by many scientifs and ecological organization, there's people who are dying of cancer because they were exposed to amiant.
What about acid rains which destroy forest in Slovakia, Poland, Germany, Sweden...
What about toxic cloud remember Bophal where thousands persons died.
What about nuclear trash which we don't know where to stock them, which are dangerous for 6 millions years for the plutonium for example.
What about the increase number of allergies, lung cancer and diseases ect...

All those problems were denouced and predicted, but nobody had move except people who knew it.
I think, the problem is that you don't see clearly and concretely this effects, but all the biosphere feel it.
That's underline the individualism, and materialism of that kind of people.

[Vinny Rafarino]

None of which have anything to do with the myth of global warming or have even been confirmed beyond the realm of novitiate doomsaying.

[Tarik]

Well, can you prove it? You can ask all climatologists, the global warming is clearly important, and causes are known.So it is not because it is not understood that the assumptions should be discredited.