Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 202 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Is there anybody out there?
by paul
12/07/19 03:58 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
paul 1
True 1
Page 2 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >
Topic Options
#23437 - 09/10/07 08:55 PM Re: Global Warming: Man-Made or Natural? [Re: redewenur]
John M Reynolds Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/14/06
Posts: 174
Loc: Canada
"It was probably almost as cold as the Vikings homelands of Norway and Sweden." -- So Greenland 800 years ago was probably nicer than their homelands? That must be why they settled there until the little ice age around 1600.

While most people will not buy an air conditioner if they don't need one, lower prices will permit more people to buy them which explains higher sales. If the global temp increased by less than one degree Celcius, that is not enough to spur enough people to buy an air conditioner. That just does not make sense. It makes more sense that they waited until the price came down.

"Machinery that produces the well known 'hotspots' that hover above our citys." Don't worry, there is no significant urban heat island effect according to Hansen. Any UHI has bveen accounted for through adjustments that have lowered the 1930's temps and raised the 1990's and 2000's temps. That is the exact opposite of what would be expected. Although Hansen appears to think that the UHI in St Petersburg has declined in the past 15 years ( http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2013 ).

"In addition every particle of dust produced by automobile and aircraft engines, that absorbs heat, cannot be reflected back into space. Another example of manmade warming." The drier and colder the earth gets, the more dust there is. This is shown in the Vostok data well before the 20th century. Some dust will reflect sunlight back to space. Darker colour dust will have a warming effect.

"Well human activities are definately influencing local climate." Local climate is not global climate. Only a small portion of the earth's land surface is actually inhabited. I think the number is around 5%.

Then you change topics to air pollution. That has nothing to do with global climate change. The fact that people removed vegetation which caused deserts to spread does not affect my climate in Northern Ontario. That they are rapidly fixing that situation will not affect my climate either.

"...imperceptable over the 1 million year time scale." Hmmm, the vostok data shows 100,000 year cycles where the temperature varied by 10 degrees Celcius ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg ). If that is imperceptable, then what are you complaining about 0.6 C for?

"Although I'm not quite sure what these natural phenomena are?" Are you asking? Google Milankovitch . And the Pinatubo eruption caused cooling due to light coloured aerosols' albedo affect. It took a few years for the temperatures to recover fully from that one.

"But don't pooh pooh the changes just because they were only over ten years." Your examples are simply examples of weather. That is not climate. The AGW theory states that the temperature will go up as the concentration of CO2 goes up. The CO2 levels have been increasing, but the rate of temperature increase has levelled off. Why? Try to answer that if you can.

I have run out of time. More later.

Top
.
#23439 - 09/11/07 03:00 AM Re: Global Warming: Man-Made or Natural? [Re: redewenur]
Canuck Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 03/16/07
Posts: 203
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Originally Posted By: redewenur
Are we talking about the temperature above the thermocline or below it?


Well, since I did quote the entire volume of the oceans, I would say I'm talking about the entire depth. I thought this was fairly clear. Perhaps I was wrong.

Originally Posted By: redewenur

But:

"The thermal capacity of the mixed layer [top 70-100 metres] implies response times to surface changes on the order of years."

How would you like your hat? Medium, rare, or well done? laugh


Please, give me a break. Is there a more well mixed part of the oceans where the response is short? Of course. I could go finer than you and say that the top 3-4 meters of water has a response time of months (which is true), but it doesn't mean that's the ocean's response time. We're talking about "the oceans".

Let me make this clear for you...... The point was made that the ocean's response time - so the total amount of time for equilbrium to be reached, for the entire ocean, not a subset of the ocean - was on the order of 50 years (with no reference). I called bull$hit on it, and said it was much longer.

Sorry, no hat eating from my end.

Top
#23441 - 09/11/07 05:06 AM Re: Global Warming: Man-Made or Natural? [Re: Canuck]
redewenur Offline
Megastar

Registered: 02/14/07
Posts: 1840
The point being Canuck, as you well know, is that the ocean temperatures that will have any significance during the next hundred years are not in the sub-thermocline, they are in the top hundred metres. Knowing this, one wonders why you never bothered to raise the issue of 'whole ocean' versus the upper 'subset' as you call it. Sure you 'could go finer' than me, but 'finer' is irrelevant in this case.
_________________________
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler

Top
#23442 - 09/11/07 12:18 PM Re: Global Warming: Man-Made or Natural? [Re: redewenur]
Canuck Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 03/16/07
Posts: 203
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Originally Posted By: redewenur
The point being Canuck, as you well know, is that the ocean temperatures that will have any significance during the next hundred years are not in the sub-thermocline, they are in the top hundred metres. Knowing this, one wonders why you never bothered to raise the issue of 'whole ocean' versus the upper 'subset' as you call it.

Sorry red - the question was raised about the ocean's response time - that is why I never "bothered to raise the issue of 'whole ocean' versus the upper 'subset'". In systems analysis, response time is the length of time for the system to come to equilibrium after an input. Are you saying that the oceans temperature has reached equilibrium from an atmospheric temp increase after 100 years? (rhetorical, I know you're not). The question is, if you know equilibrium is not reached in 100 years, then why would you say the response time of the oceans is 100 years?
Originally Posted By: redewenur

Sure you 'could go finer' than me, but 'finer' is irrelevant in this case.


So looking at the shallow ocean temperature is irrelevant when looking at GW? Geez, you better get on the horn with NOAA/NASA/Hadley/IPCC, since they are using ocean surface temps, from the top 3-4 meters (likely even shallower), to determine the oceanic response to GW. I'd love to have a look at global ocean temperatures for the top 100 meters as well - after all, if it's so relevant, I'm sure there's a dataset out there. Could you pass it along please?


This site continues to astound me, people seemingly want to argue about fairly trival things - like whether the response time for the top 100 meters, or the entire ocean should be used to determine the "oceans response time", or argue about whether anecdotal evidence contributes to scientific evidence. But they never want to discuss the lack of peer review on how global average temperature is determined, never want to discuss the impacts when those average temperatures were shown to be wrong, never want to discuss how UHI may be impacting the surface record, never want to discuss how improved detection methodologies/looser criteria is likely responsible for the increasing trend in hurricanes, never want to discuss how CO2 measurements on top of an active volcano can actually be representative of background CO2, never want to discuss how observed trends don't match GW theory (there should be more warming higher in the atmosphere, we're seeing more warming at ground surface), never want to discuss why this global phenomenon of GW is not affecting Antarctica (or, after the Hanson mistake was found, neither the US – McIntyre is going through other continents attempting to find this warming, so far, no dice), or never want to discuss how the absorption band of CO2 is supposed to expand with higher concentrations.

I could go on, but I think I made my point - lets start having some meaningful discussion on here, and stop arguing about trivial definitions, in some pathetic attempt to "score" points.

Top
#23444 - 09/11/07 01:22 PM Re: Global Warming: Man-Made or Natural? [Re: Canuck]
redewenur Offline
Megastar

Registered: 02/14/07
Posts: 1840
Having tested the water (yes, pun intended), I conclude that I was right.

Canuck, however correct your arguments may or may not be, your contribution to the climate threads comes across, quite frequently, as loathsomely ill-mannered, discourteous, and crudely aggressive. It is evidently impossible for you to make you points without a liberal dose of brash arrogance and conceited condescension? I recommend that you do yourself (and many others) a service and find yourself a site that will "astound" you somewhat less?

That would be my recommendation, but it's of no account to me since I've discovered better things to do with my time.
_________________________
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler

Top
#23445 - 09/11/07 03:26 PM Re: Global Warming: Man-Made or Natural? [Re: redewenur]
ImranCan Offline
Member

Registered: 09/04/07
Posts: 94
Loc: Brunei
Mike et al
Good discussion and good to see that lots of alternatives and other variables are being considered .... this is more like it !!!!

I just thought I would throw a couple of things out there for info and amusement .... to make us appreciate even more there are just so many things we don't know and/or can't control ..

1) Natural coal fires - the amount of CO2 produced from (just) Chinese "coal fires" is thought to exceed the CO2 produced from the entire USA automobile usage.
http://www.gi.alaska.edu/~prakash/coalfires/co2_emission.html
"In China alone, the figures given by various scientific groups vary in this regard. According to reports of the Beijing Remote Sensing Corporation (BRSC), Aerophotogrammetry and Remote Sensing Bureau of China Coal (ARSC) and works of Professor Guan Haiyan from China, the annual loss of coal due to coal fires in China is between 10 to 20 million tons. However, figures given by Rozema et al. in 1993 are 10 times higher which means that 100 to 200 million tons of coal are lost due to coal fires in China. Assuming these latter figures to be a realistic measure of the coal being burnt, the CO2 emitted, solely due to these fires, would amount to 2 to 3 percent of the world's total CO2 emission due to fossil fuels."

2) Y'all shoud just try reading a few things about the sun - amazing .... the idea that this doesn't have variations in output cannot be true - sunspots, solar flares, mass ejections, solar wind variation, impact of Jupiters gravitation, the fact that its constantly changing size, mass and composition (even thought thats a slow process) ...... bla bla bla ... the list will go on ...
http://www.abc.net.au/science/space/planets/sun.htm
http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/COSPAR04/03761/COSPAR04-A-03761.pdf


3) And just to show there are so many things we don't understand ... try the "expanding earth theory" ... no idea what this might do for global temperatures ... but they must get affected ... if it was true ...
http://www.expanding-earth.org/

Personally, I think its probably bull - although I did argue the merits in my final undergrad exams many years ago .... But I think its a good example of why its important to keep an open mind about a lot of things. Never believe what you read in the press and never fear to question the conventional wisdom. And if you're being told that you have to toe-the-line because there is now 'consensus' ..... then its definitely time to ask a few pointed questions ....

Top
#23446 - 09/11/07 03:44 PM Re: Global Warming: Man-Made or Natural? [Re: redewenur]
ImranCan Offline
Member

Registered: 09/04/07
Posts: 94
Loc: Brunei
Originally Posted By: redewenur
.....

Canuck, however correct your arguments may or may not be, your contribution to the climate threads comes across, quite frequently, as loathsomely ill-mannered, discourteous, and crudely aggressive. It is evidently impossible for you to make you points without a liberal dose of brash arrogance and conceited condescension? I recommend that you do yourself (and many others) a service and find yourself a site that will "astound" you somewhat less?



Personally I just want to say that I don't agree with this observation. Having read the 'offending' contribution, I find it to be sincere ..... maybe a little frustrated ... but certainly not deserving of the response above. On the content itself, I think the questions Canuck raises are exactly the reason the whole "CO2 causing warming" so called consensus is rapidly unravelling and the emotional responses (as per above) are more symptomatic of an assault upon a religion.

We must be allowed to question ......... and the questions Canuck poses must be answered ... properly ....

Top
#23448 - 09/11/07 11:50 PM Re: Global Warming: Man-Made or Natural? [Re: ImranCan]
Canuck Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 03/16/07
Posts: 203
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Originally Posted By: ImranCan
Personally I just want to say that I don't agree with this observation. Having read the 'offending' contribution, I find it to be sincere ..... maybe a little frustrated ... but certainly not deserving of the response above. On the content itself, I think the questions Canuck raises are exactly the reason the whole "CO2 causing warming" so called consensus is rapidly unravelling and the emotional responses (as per above) are more symptomatic of an assault upon a religion.

We must be allowed to question ......... and the questions Canuck poses must be answered ... properly ....


Thanks for your words of support ImranCan - as you may suspect, there's some history here. In the past people who questioned anything to do with AGW were first attacked, then ostracized in these forums. This was led by a certain person who will remain nameless, and who is thankfully no longer active on this site. Some of his followers remain to do his bidding however. And this is where posts such as the one above come from.

You’re absolutely right on any questioning of AGW being met with the same resistance as somebody attacking a religion. When I heard "the debate is over" is the exact time that I got suspicious and started researching. With true sciences, the debate is never over -- that is the scientific method.


Here’s the first thread I took part in – one heck of a welcome eh? wink
http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=17333&fpart=2

Top
#23450 - 09/12/07 02:05 AM Re: Global Warming: Man-Made or Natural? [Re: Canuck]
Mike Kremer Offline

Megastar

Registered: 10/16/04
Posts: 1696
Loc: London UK
Originally Posted By: Canuck
Originally Posted By: ImranCan
[quote=to Everyone]

We must be allowed to question ......... and the questions Canuck poses must be answered ... properly ....


Thanks for your words of support ImranCan - as you may suspect, there's some history here. In the past people who questioned anything to do with AGW were first attacked, then ostracized in these forums. This was led by a certain person who will remain nameless, and who is thankfully no longer active on this site. Some of his followers remain to do his bidding however. And this is where posts such as the one above come from.


I hope I am posting this in the right place (Mike Kremer)

Boy'O'boy,
This "Global Warming:- Man-Made or Natural?"
Has certainly got a few, people in the 'Natural' camp, more than
a little upset.
All I can say is:- Thank goodness those misguided individuals who
believe modern global Warming is a natural phenomenon of nature,
are getting fewer and fewer year by year
They certainly make a lot of noise, considering their relatively
few numbers.
If they took over, and had the ears of Goverments and People,
Nothing would get done, our granchildren, animals and plants,
might well be dying of heatstroke within 50 years.


As I stated earlier I am not a Geologist, and even less a climatologist, but those people in the 'Natural' camp have got to be blind to the warming events that are happening right now in our Polar regions.
I am immune to those that state. "Its happened before, with
Ice Ages, mini Ice ages" .etc

**I am not interested in Ice Ages that happened 100k Yrs ago.
Stupidly, the 'Natural camp' are**

A Post Glacial sea chart (nice one John) that dos'nt show the
Oceans were many feet lower 5000 years ago.
**True, they show the ocean a few feet lower. But you did'nt
mention that if you look back 13 thousand years, the sea level had dropped by about 150 feet, and thats while the Glaciers were still melting!

Someone even wrote that the Earth might be expanding?
**More likely to be contracting thru cooling, I'd say. If thats
an idea for the reason of the sea rising, its about as clever as
my soap idea. You dont need much soap to lower surface tension of sea water. (Homeopathic medicine manufacture, comes to mind?)**

John.M.R mentioned that CO2 is increasing, but so why
ar'nt temperatures keeping apace with this rise in CO2?
**Prehaps the excess is taken up by the sea, or Plankton?. Or
maybe we are, not producing enough CO2 OR heat yet!!!!

Troposphere is warming, but the Stratosphere is getting colder?
That some atmospheric dust reflects Sunlight, but that black dust absorbs, (as does asphalt. etc.)
**Well- You played right into my hands. Now you know why:-
The Stratosphere is a lot higher than the Troposphere,
Obviously there is not so much heat reaching the Stratosphere as
most of it is being absorbed by black dust, and NOT reflected.**

Someone mentioned that Polar bears are White grizzlys?
**Hehe, I dont believe that. Up in that cold sunless Polar region
I would have thought that evolution would have gone for a dark
fur. All the better to absorb the sun.
Prehaps the Almighty made the same mistake when he ensured that
Eskimos would feel the cold by making them virtually hairless?**

=And now for Ocean temperatures=
I think Max said the Oceans are cooling, having lost 1/5 th of
their heat over the last 50 years?
**Prehaps its heat, not been lost, but a result of mixing?**


Anyway, I will stand by my idea that Sea temperatures are the
best unequivable way to test 'Man made V Natural Warming'.
Maybe I got the sea depth, (my 50 year guesstimate) timescale
wrong. But I did mentioned Sea-buoys, which I knew, have been
taking sea temperatures for many years. They don't float deep.
So I am standing by the principle of this idea.

Global Average Sea Temp from 1850-2007

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/CR_data/Monthly/Hadplot_globe.gif

Air temperature Minus Surface Sea Temp 1850-2007

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/CR_data/Monthly/Hadplot_globe.gif

Stratosphere Versus Troposphere 1981-1990

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/CR_data/Monthly/upper_air_temps.gif

Nice Data supplied by the UK Metorological Office. Have a Browse

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/

Have fun, I will be away for 3 days. Regards to all.
_________________________
.

.
"You will never find a real Human being - Even in a mirror." ....Mike Kremer.



Top
#23451 - 09/12/07 05:18 AM Re: Global Warming: Man-Made or Natural? [Re: Mike Kremer]
ImranCan Offline
Member

Registered: 09/04/07
Posts: 94
Loc: Brunei
I don't think anyine is disputing that global warming is happening. I'm sure it is.

I just don't think there is any clear incontrovertible evidence that it has anything to do with CO2 levels. Where is the evidence ?

And please don't refer to people who have a different opinion as you as "stupid" or "misguided". I, for one, certainly am not. So, instead of all the emotion and bluster, please just answer the question : where is the incontrovertible evidence that the warming is caused by CO2 ?

Top
#23452 - 09/12/07 06:11 AM Re: Global Warming: Man-Made or Natural? [Re: ImranCan]
Max Offline
Member

Registered: 02/18/07
Posts: 93
"I would have thought that evolution would have gone for a dark
fur. All the better to absorb the sun."

Okay, someone is just having fun. I almost thought he was serious! lol!


Edited by Max (09/12/07 06:16 AM)

Top
#23455 - 09/13/07 08:40 PM Re: Global Warming: Man-Made or Natural? [Re: John M Reynolds]
John M Reynolds Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/14/06
Posts: 174
Loc: Canada
"...the warming events that are happening right now in our Polar regions." -- Actually, that would be Polar region. Only one. And only half of it at that. One link has some information and if you are looking for some anecdotal information, check another link. smile

"I am immune to those that state." -- You just admitted that you have a closed mind.

"A Post Glacial sea chart (nice one John) that dos'nt show the Oceans were many feet lower 5000 years ago." -- Then provide the proper link if my link is wrong. Mine is actually shown on wikipedia. The graph shows sea level rise since the end of the last glacial episode based on data from Fleming et al. 1998, Fleming 2000, & Milne et al. 2005. It shows that the sea level was about 130 meters (427 feet) lower 22,000 years ago than in now.

"Prehaps the excess is taken up by the sea, or Plankton?" I had the same thought a while back, but it is wrong. If the excess were being taken up then the levels in the air would not be rising. According to AGW theory, if the CO2 level increases, like it has been, then the temperature should increase. The fact is the increase in CO2 levels has been increasing steadily, but the tempertaure increase has not been. Its trend has been leveling off for the past 10 years.

"Or maybe we are, not producing enough CO2 OR heat yet!!!!" -- This is contradictory to the entire AGW debate. Which side are you on?

"...most of it is being absorbed by black dust, and NOT reflected" -- then we should be combatting black and brown dust and not CO2. But then again, the brown dust over parts of India made the news recently, but I have never read anyone suggest that airborne black dust is what is causing global warming. I have seen it blamed for darkening snow thus leading to increased snow melting, but that does not jive with observations either. Why would only half of the arctic reach new a minimum for ice while the other half did not?

"Prehaps its heat, not been lost, but a result of mixing?" -- Then the sea levels would be rising considerably faster due to thermal expansion. Look at the graph on the ucar page. The water below the 2500 meter level would contract slightly when heated to 3.89 C (277.04 K). The water above that level would expand if extra heat was mixed in. That ucar link also lets us know that "90 % of the total volume of ocean is found below the thermocline in the deep ocean." And another page shows that water at 0 C is 8.1% less dense than water at 3.98 degrees. (Hmmm. Mixing a liter of 8 C water with a liter of 0 C water may yeild water that is less than two liters.)

Your Global Average Sea Temp from 1850-2007 link is the same as your Air temperature Minus Surface Sea Temp 1850-2007 link.

Your Stratosphere Versus Troposphere 1981-1990 link proves that the AGW green house theory, which states that the stratosphere will warm more than the troposphere, is incorrect.

And while you are concerned about people dying of heat stroke, take a gander at the New York Times article. "The first is that winter can be deadlier than summer. About seven times more deaths in Europe are attributed annually to cold weather (which aggravates circulatory and respiratory illness) than to hot weather, Dr. Lomborg notes, pointing to studies showing that a warmer planet would mean fewer temperature-related deaths in Europe and worldwide.

The second factor is that the weather matters a lot less than how people respond to it. Just because there are hotter summers in New York doesn&#8217;t mean that more people die &#8212; in fact, just the reverse has occurred. Researchers led by Robert Davis, a climatologist at the University of Virginia, concluded that the number of heat-related deaths in New York in the 1990s was only a third as high as in the 1960s. The main reason is simple, and evident as you as walk into the Bridge Cafe on a warm afternoon: air-conditioning."

You already touched on that second factor.


Edited by John M Reynolds (09/13/07 08:48 PM)
Edit Reason: added a link

Top
#23469 - 09/16/07 01:47 AM Re: Global Warming: Man-Made or Natural? [Re: John M Reynolds]
ImranCan Offline
Member

Registered: 09/04/07
Posts: 94
Loc: Brunei

Not that the charts below show anything meaningful at all, but just interesting to note that, no sooner has a study been done to show than humans are affecting rainfall patterns (first link) than we get some of the worst rains in memory in Africa (second link). Except that the rains are occuring where the study predicted less precipitation - not more.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6912527.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6994995.stm


Top
#23506 - 09/20/07 12:55 AM Re: Global Warming: Man-Made or Natural? [Re: ImranCan]
benny Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 09/19/07
Posts: 8
Loc: Rural east texas C.S.A
Originally Posted By: ImranCan
I could not agree more .... until recently I was a climate agnostic .... didn't know, didn't care. But I was recently accosted at Heathrow airport by the so called "Climate Camp" so I started looking into it. What I have found is that the science is just debateable - for every model that suggest CO2 could be to blame there is irrefuteable logic and other data to suggest it can't be.

Far more interesting though is the human behaviour which has recently become prevalent. The global warming "believers" are showing increased signs of fanaticism. If you question the mantra, you are labelled irresponsible, if you say you don't believe it you are called stupid, if you own an SUV you are heted, if you make a DVD questioning Al Gores film you are labelled a heretic and serious folks will try and have your film banned (recent Channel 4 experience in the UK). And the more voices which question the mantra, the more fanatical the rhetoric gets.

I think everyone needs to take a deep breath and say "what is going on here ?" We should all remember that its better to read books than to burn them. And before we all start panicking about polar bears, it wouldn't hurt to rememember that Greenland was indeed once green.

as a person who seems intelligent consider this....so what!!
even if human activity is not causing global warming it seems obvios to any thinking person that our current lifestyle in industrialized nations is certainly creating a rapid destruction of our enviroment even if you choose not to believe that it is also affecting the atmoshere,you must see that it in the very least it is systematically destroying the earth and oceans,as well as most of the other speices, it is in fact NOT the global or local economy that feeds you but the earth itsef!!! our current lifestyle has to change and soon it doesnt matter if choose not to believe the facts about global warming .....look around you!!
you cannot crap where you eat!!! and because of pollution and human impact that is exactly what we are doing.
whether you ignore the c02 issue or not you have to see we are detroying the earth . this means no earth no us!!
even if mankind makes it off the planet we still have to be fed from it......it only makes sense to preserve it!!! think about it!! this planet is all we have big oil and industry have been destroying it without any regard or resevation ..even with the c02 issue out of the equation you must see this has to stop
_________________________
The authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.

Top
#23508 - 09/20/07 01:16 AM Re: Global Warming: Man-Made or Natural? [Re: benny]
Canuck Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 03/16/07
Posts: 203
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Benny - what you stated is exactly my issue with AGW. It really isn't about reducing CO2, the main goal is to reduce consumption. While this is a worthwhile goal, you're lying to the public, and twisting science to cause a sociological change. People who are involved in science shudder at the thought of science being manipulated to suit political agendas, and that's exactly what we have now. You want to reduce consumption, fine, I'm right behind you. But don't throw out idiotic threats (Al Gore) in hopes of causing change. The end never justifies the means.

The other huge negative with this, is you're focusing on the wrong issue. Lets spend trillions of dollars on reducing air pollution (and I'm not talking CO2), lets spend some money reducing water pollution. Let's work on keeping our soil from washing away. Let's develop infrastructure in the 3rd world, in hopes of reducing the 3-5 million deaths per year due to inadequate water or sanitation. These are real issues, that are occurring today, and they're getting left behind because they're not as 'sexy' as AGW is. The media would much rather report on some climate 'prediction' then a few million dying of diarrhea.

I'm guessing you know where I stand on this issue now.

Top
#23510 - 09/20/07 01:35 AM Re: Global Warming: Man-Made or Natural? [Re: Canuck]
benny Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 09/19/07
Posts: 8
Loc: Rural east texas C.S.A
canuk you and i probably agree more than dis agree tha fact is the us gov. are masters of deception and propaganda
debate to be continued thanks alot...
benny checking out for now
_________________________
The authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.

Top
#23514 - 09/20/07 01:12 PM Re: Global Warming: Man-Made or Natural? [Re: benny]
ImranCan Offline
Member

Registered: 09/04/07
Posts: 94
Loc: Brunei
Benny
I could not agree with you more. I fundamentally agree with everything you have said - we must reduce consumption, we must become more efficient and we must act and live our lives in a more sustainable way. But you cannot, must not and will not achieve that goal on the basis of a lie. The end does not justify the means, becasue ultimately people (quite correctly) won't buy it. You will lose credibility and we will all be worse off for it, becasue we will have spent 20 years focussing on the wrong thing. All that energy up in smoke ....... to put it in suitably metphorical way .....

Rgds
Imran


Top
#23524 - 09/21/07 08:22 AM Re: Global Warming: Man-Made or Natural? [Re: ImranCan]
terrytnewzealand Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/02/06
Posts: 1031
Loc: Whangarei New Zealand
ImranCan (love the name by the way) wrote:

"But you cannot, must not and will not achieve that goal on the basis of a lie."

I'm beginning to believe the CO2 thing is being driven by those owning nuclear power generation technology. Nuclear power is certainly being promoted here as the answer to cutting CO2 emissions. Perhaps that's why the US admin is so keen to have a go at Iran. If we take Iran at its word (perhaps a bit of a gamble) they merely wish to develop the technology themselves so they can save their oil and so sell it for many years to come. Perhaps the US (and the West generally) wishes to keep a monopoly on the technology. Anyway it's a bit ironic that nuclear power is being promoted as the way to go in our part of the world yet military might is being threatened to prevent it developing in other parts of the world.

Top
#23526 - 09/21/07 12:37 PM Re: Global Warming: Man-Made or Natural? [Re: terrytnewzealand]
Canuck Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 03/16/07
Posts: 203
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Terry - I think there's at least some truth in your theory. Many people think Thatcher got Britian involved with global warming (starting the Hadley Institute), precisely because she wanted to move forward with nuclear power. This was right during the time when the coal worker unions were strong-arming the UK, via a series of strikes. A country can't live with out power.
Using GW as a way to attack coal fired plants, and go nuclear, would be a great way to lessen the power of the coal workers.

Top
#23539 - 09/22/07 02:12 AM Re: Global Warming: Man-Made or Natural? [Re: Canuck]
benny Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 09/19/07
Posts: 8
Loc: Rural east texas C.S.A
Originally Posted By: Canuck
Benny - what you stated is exactly my issue with AGW. It really isn't about reducing CO2, the main goal is to reduce consumption. While this is a worthwhile goal, you're lying to the public, and twisting science to cause a sociological change. People who are involved in science shudder at the thought of science being manipulated to suit political agendas, and that's exactly what we have now. You want to reduce consumption, fine, I'm right behind you. But don't throw out idiotic threats (Al Gore) in hopes of causing change. The end never justifies the means.

The other huge negative with this, is you're focusing on the wrong issue. Lets spend trillions of dollars on reducing air pollution (and I'm not talking CO2), lets spend some money reducing water pollution. Let's work on keeping our soil from washing away. Let's develop infrastructure in the 3rd world, in hopes of reducing the 3-5 million deaths per year due to inadequate water or sanitation. These are real issues, that are occurring today, and they're getting left behind because they're not as 'sexy' as AGW is. The media would much rather report on some climate 'prediction' then a few million dying of diarrhea.

I'm guessing you know where I stand on this issue now.


First off 'Canuk' I have not "lied" to anybody ,second your desire to shoot down the effort to save our planet comes off as very shortsighted to me. You obviously consider yourself very intelligent. I don't care to spend a lot of time arguing with someone like you, but I have three childeren and have a big stake in the future. I however am only a single person and I know I cannot 'save the world' on my own. I would just like to leave something for my children, and if we fail to put the enviroment first and foremost on our list of priorities we will leave a much different earth than the one we live in behind.
I have read about the statistics on contaminated water, cancer rates, athsma, allergy and immune problems, climate change, erosion, and the loss of topsoil. It seems like the facts should be obvious to anybody ...but here you are!
The only logical argument you produce is C02 and so what? Even if C02 is not causing climate change, human activity undeniably is.
You seem to have the opinion that because part of the book on the enviroment is in debate (C02&warming) than the whole moral of the story must be wrong! How foolish is that?
Reducing consumption would mean living a very different lifestyle than the wise people of Canada currently enjoy.
Most of them would be unwilling to sacrifice the necessary luxories they currently have to help the cause.
Your comment on the development of the third world really reflects your wisdom......the earth after all could not sustain a whole planet of people who consume as much as Canadians, it in fact is the third world which provides the cheap excess that you enjoy...in fact it is you needing to live more like them being the solution rather than the opposite romantic notion that you have stated here.
The REAL issues, sir are pollution, excessive consumption and over-exploitation of the worlds resourses by industrialized nations (such as Canada) that continue to 'consume the earth' today.
Your attitude of indifference is part of the problem. You are the one focusing on irrelevant issues, who gives a @#$% about what the gov. says about C02, the problem at hand is preservation of the enviroment who cares what flag it flies under? It may already be too late mostly due to people like you wanting to argue about petty facts!!!!!
I don't care what people you have found on the web say about it, after all I can find somebody who does'nt believe in the holocaust if I look hard enough. The difference is I can look around me and see the evidence of a dying planet. It's dying because of human over-consumption......you have the right to believe what you choose (some people believe God is a computer)
but shame on you for trying to dis-credit a cause as noble as saving our planet because some polititions didn't say things the way you think they should.



I will do myself a favor and disregard your comments from now on.
_________________________
The authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.

Top
Page 2 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.