More on Global Warming..

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

RossGr

Diamond Member
Jan 11, 2000
3,383
1
0
Tominator:

What are your creditentials? Do you have any background in the sciences or do you read only selected articles published for laymen? YOu surely have strong opinions but do you have knowledge to back them up or only more opinions.
 

Tominator

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,559
1
0
rmeijer\

All questions that need answered, but let us not make decisions based on junk science.



RossGr

I've been to a Forum at St. Louis University. There were several speakers whose names I do not have handy. Professors and Meteorologists were all invited to Clinton's summit he had a couple years back. There were varied opinions and many supplied computer models and charts and displays galore.

Not one of them would say that humans were responsible for ANY global changes and during one question and answer session, one of them was quite adamant about it.

Since then the inventor of the system used to track the temp of the oceans came out saying the system was flawed and reported temps should be downgraded a couple of degrees.

You want links, go find them. This info was garnered from the good ole St. Louis Post Dispatch who ran a whole series of articles. I knew I should have not recycled! It was a wealth of info and references.

Face it, we know so little about climate change! To make decisions that impair our freedoms and limit our ability to make our lives better just because of what ifs is crazy!

I've been hearing the doom and gloom preached by the Liberals for most of my life. 30 years ago it was Global Cooling and a new Ice age and now I'm supposed to buy Global Warming....not!

There is much evidence that points to the warming as good! Longer growing seasons for one. The glaciers HAVE been melting, but we see no rise in the ocean levels....the plankton in the ocean have more to do with the climate than we do..

We know practically NOTHING about the earth and it's abilities. Conservation, sure! Cleaner emmissions? No problem if done with the cost analyzed and instituted with that in mind. Recycle? Yes! Doesn't everyone?

The so-called evil corps just love all this histeria...it pads their pockets.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,286
6,352
126
Part of the problem is that the things that are causing global warming are the very things that make the US great. If the people in the US would go back to living in caves, they could probably save the world. So far we have chosen to be selfish and party on. People get attached to the comforts of life and view them as a right. The conflict between desire and guilt cause all sorts of denial mechanisms to spring up to push the issue out of consciousness.
 

Tominator

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,559
1
0
Moonbeam

Thanks my friend...you helped me make my point again...

...See what we are up against! LOL!
 

Pyro

Banned
Sep 2, 2000
1,483
0
0
so in your little world, we should keep putting polluting because there is no direct evidence that we are causing this? its a good thing people in general have more sense than you, otherwise I dont want to think what will happen.
 

Tominator

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,559
1
0
Pyro

My world reflects what is known, not what is guessed at.

We are as part of the ecosystem as any other living thing....and they pollute as well. So far the earth is doing just fine.
 

RossGr

Diamond Member
Jan 11, 2000
3,383
1
0
Tominator, sounds interesting, thanks for the info. I was about to mention the water level raising but then I realized that only melt from the Antartic and Greenland could have any efect, since the artic ice cap is floating its melting will have no effect on the water level, just like when you fill a glass full of water then add ice, once the ice in the water level will not change if the ice melts (as long as you don't take a drink ) I would think that the ice melt will cool the oceans which would have the overall effect of reducing the overall temperature.

In a earlier thread I mentioned a book Gaia by James Lovelock, you would call it liberal propaganda but it was an iteresting read. I am also a skeptic, we could be seeing a long period cycle in the weather, since we only have decent weater data going back about 100yrs we could not know about 200yr or greater cycles which could well exist.

I do not see any harm in making these studies to try and predict mans influence on the ecosystem. To ignor the possibility is very short sighted and possibly dangerous. While carefully thought out measures could save us a lot of problems in the future. Since science has got us to this point only science can get us out of it.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126


<< . At this point, the only people who question whether human beings are in fact causing environmental changes, including global warming, are those who have financial and/or political reasons not to recognize the problem or do anything about it. >>



I think you meant to say the only people who accept the unproven theories of climate change without question, are those who have not the brains to think for themselves or are too lazy to do so. Global warming is a theory, not a fact, and there is no way to truly prove or disprove it at this point. There is not enough data, and the science of climate is not advanced at this time to reach a conclusion either way. We could very well be heading into an ice age rather than global warming, and scientists wouldn't be able to predict that either. Hell, scientists can't even tell us if it's going to rain next week with any degree of accuracy, yet you believe they can tell you what conditions will be like 50 years from now?
 

jahawkin

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2000
1,355
0
0
Tominator-
How can you discount the fact that probably 80% (if not more) of atmospheric scientists believe that global warming due to humans is indeed occuring??
 

Lucian

Member
Jun 6, 2001
30
0
0


<< Tominator-
How can you discount the fact that probably 80% (if not more) of atmospheric scientists believe that global warming due to humans is indeed occuring??
>>



Where did you come up with that 80% figure? Last word I heard as of two days ago the scientist where still heavily split and no one in their right mind stated any statistics on division of scientists on global warming. Even the scientist that wrote the report on Kyoto where evenly divided and one of them was upset that the media bent their words from what was said.

 

Lucian

Member
Jun 6, 2001
30
0
0


<< So, in Tominator's twisted little world, the CONSERVATIVE scientists are non-biased and non-judgemental, while the tree-hugging liberal pinko i love you scientists cannot be trusted to predict the weather.
>>



Hey these scientist cannot predict the weather over a week time period. How do you expect them to predict what will happen over the next 20-30 years? When the temperature of the earth has gone up and down over the last hundred years since we have been recording the temperature.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,286
6,352
126
What we have here is a case of the blind man with a cane. He uses his cane (science) to keep from walking into a wall. In our case though, we have put the blind man on the cow catcher of a freight train running down the track at eighty miles an hour.
 

Tominator

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,559
1
0
jahawkin

Where did you get an 80% figure?

Everything done by every species on earth contributes to it's ecosystem. Many scientists believe that livestock contribute more than humans....The damn vegetarians!:|
 

RossGr

Diamond Member
Jan 11, 2000
3,383
1
0


<< My world reflects what is known, not what is guessed at. >>



Seems to me that the world runs on judicius guesses, you must live in a dream world.
Judicius guesses that are backed up by good mathmatical models need to be seriously looked at. I do not believe any atomspreric scientist will claim that global warming has had any effect on the weather, to the best of my knowledge that is all blathering of the popular press. I maintain that we need to plot a middle of the road course that way if we are wrong we will at least be closer to the correct solution then if we choose an extereme and are wrong. To me that means continue work on the models while also taking measures to control emissions, if that means covering the feedlots and collecting the methane at the very least it would make the drive past feed lots more pleasant and at the worst add a dime to the cost of a Big Mac. To take a head in the sand its all BS seems to be a bad course. Also to shut off all emissions seems a bad course also. I do not think that it is a good idea to crap in our nest, the earth is becomming smaller and smaller we really need to consider what we are passing on to our grandchildern. Hopefully we can learn to control and use our resourses better then our grandparent and parents did.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
The Kyoto Treaty is unfair, costly, ineffective

By: Sen. Frank H. Murkowski

Vice President Gore returned from Kyoto with a climate treaty so fatally flawed that it will never be ratified by the Senate or enter into force. While the climate issue must be taken seriously, the Senate would be shirking its constitutional responsibilities if it were to ratify a treaty that is so blatantly unfair, economically burdensome, and of no benefit to the environment.

The unfairness of the treaty lies mainly in its exclusion of &quot;developing&quot; nations, such as China, India, South Korea and Mexico. Emissions from these nations will exceed ours in about 15 years, and their exclusion will only encourage the shift of manufacturing (and resulting emissions) from the nations subject to controls to the nations that are not. Thus, global emissions would not decrease. Since developing nations are less energy-efficient than we are, emissions might even increase. The treaty would produce no global environmental gain -- but America would suffer economic pain.

According to the respected economic firm Wharton Econometrics, the Kyoto Treaty would reduce the gross domestic product by more than $2,000 per household in 2010 -- and $30,000 per household between 2001-2020. Moreover, 2.5 million Americans would lose their jobs. Since the climate change problem will one day be addressed through technological innovation fostered in a healthy economic environment, the last thing we want is to adopt a treaty that would create a national economic decline reminiscent of the oil shocks of the 1970s.
..........


So, can we put the Kyoto treaty to rest now?
 

rmeijer

Member
Oct 3, 2000
133
0
0
I don't think anyone is doubting that the Kyoto treaty is weak. But by outright rejecting it, politically, it looks as if Bush is walking away from the table.... a political blunder which has annoyed many allies.
 

Recneps

Senior member
Jul 2, 2000
232
0
0
<<Global warming is a theory, not a fact, and there is no way to truly prove or disprove it at this point.>>

First of all Global Warming is not a theory. There is proof that the earth is warming just see your own little link. The only part of it that is a theory is the cause. You are right that we can't prove what effect people have on the problem of global warming. I don't see how that matters anyways. There are two ways to find out if oils, other fossile fulls, and animal waste are responisble is to cut down on the out put and see what happens or to ignore the output of the gas and see if it kills us or not. There is no time to study what is going to happen and gather more data by the time that is done the effects may be to harsh for people to inhabite the planet. The slightest change in climate could create world wide disease and hungar as it is now the earth can't even produce enought food to find the masses.
 

Tominator

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,559
1
0


<< The slightest change in climate could create world wide disease and hungar as it is now the earth can't even produce enought food to find the masses. >>

BULLCRAP! That's the most idiotic statement I've heard in a long time....That is no reflection on you btw as I'm sure someone taught you that. More of the 'what-if' line of thinking.
 

Recneps

Senior member
Jul 2, 2000
232
0
0
<<BULLCRAP! That's the most idiotic statement I've heard in a long time....That is no reflection on you btw as I'm sure someone taught you that. More of the 'what-if' line of thinking. >>

Well... that was the kind of inteligent comment I was expecting. Have you ever heard of coral reefs? Well they are made up of little animals call polys and algea. Now the second largest coral reef is found in the golf of mexico. Do you know what is happening in the golf? The water temperature is increasing I think it has gone up 2 - 3 degrees. Do you what effect this is having on the coral? Killing the algea. Guess what happens to our little friend the poly? It dies of hungar and diseases turn the coral white from being dead. Now do you think a simalar event could not happen to our food suplie?
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,231
5,806
126
Where's all the &quot;common sense&quot; that politicians based slogans around?

Scientists are alarmed by recent events in Antartica. That being an accelerated rate of melting and a giant crack that happened recently. Scientists are alarmed at the rate that reptiles are dying in the eastern half of North America(perhaps other causes, but alarming nonetheless). Within the last decade practically all records related to weather disasters have been broken. Do you really need to start seeing people being vapourized(exaggeration yes)before you are alarmed?

Let's face some facts: First, yes nature does emit gases that are the same being blamed for the Greenhouse effect. However, they always emitted these gases and for the most part, emitted them in a constant rate. Other parts of the ecosystems negated the effect, as the ecosystems take care of many natural potentialy harmful things.

Secondly, though it was in another thread, I heard someone state that man has &quot;only&quot; altered the Earth's atmosphere with an increase of Greenhouse gas content by 5% or so. At first glance, this looks harmless. However, if we altered the Oxygen levels in the atmosphere that much, life would be dramatically affected. To the point where human existance would be largely decreased, if not made extinct.

Thirdly, we are taxing the natural ability of our planet's systems. If you live in, or near, a large city, look at the air on a hot day. That haze is not natural! Now consider that that haze is duplicated in 10s of thousands of cities around the Earth. BTW, that haze increases the amount of people having heart attacks, so if you can't act on the affect of human pollution on the ecosystems, perhaps you can act on the threat to your health.

How human activities affect the environment, examples from history

Sorry, no links.

1) At least one ancient Mediterranean(sp) city which became rich through trade, eventually was abandoned. The reason was simple enough, the port the city depended upon filled with sand, soil, silt. The cause: Deforestation of the surrounding area.

2) London. I could sight sewage running through the streets and the health problems that followed, but the popularity of the toilet provides a better example. Once Londoners began flushing their sewage into the Thames, their health improved dramatically. On the flipside, everything in the river died! It was even said that people who fell into the river died!

3) Smog! The first time smog was an issue, was again in London. I believe it was the 1950s when Londoners were introduced to what was a frightening phenomena. Today, it is so common that people in large cities consider it a fact of life, or erroneously blame the Heat which accompanies Smog. It is not the heat that is killing most people during a heat wave, it's the air pollution combined with the heat!

4) There are thousands of places in North America where human produced pollution has rendered life obsolete. Most are small areas, but they exist, nonetheless.

Keep putting you head in the sand if you like, the rest of us will continue to try and save your sorry ass!
 

Tominator

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,559
1
0
sandorski

There is no doubt that humans have caused local changes in a very limited way. We learn and go on. In all your instances no lasting damage was done. We are spending billions cleaning up the mistakes of the past. As long as we do not repeat them no lasting harm will have been done.

Recneps

I've got news for you...sit down now...We ain't no coral reef!



And if I remember correctly in London it was a temperature inversion combined with coal burning that caused the deaths, not neccessarily heat.
 

HansHurt

Platinum Member
Apr 5, 2001
2,615
0
0
Torminator.....I just don't know what to say, except you are one helluva guy. Got pic's? I wanna see if your neck is actually red.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,286
6,352
126
For every Tominator there is a Major Ed Dames, some times called Dr. Doom. He ran the CIA psychic spy team, people who practice remote viewing and who have looked into our future. He says that we have already destroyed ourselves, that we have killed the the ozone layer and that a huge echological collapse is comming as the top few feet of the ocean dies. He implies that all the contrails, or chemtrails, as they have come to be called, that appear over our skies, are black op attempts to reverse the dammage, and that they will not work, that it is already too late. We are doomed. Since I myself have not bought the training program that teaches you how to remote view the future, I can't verify this personally. The ozone hole does seem to be growing though and I've heard the UV levels are announced on Australian radio routinely with the weather.
 

Mean MrMustard

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2001
3,144
10
81
how old is the 'living' earth? well..dinosaurs lives about 70 miliion years ago. Taking into account ONLY the 70 million years since the last dinosaur, is it good science to base a theory (prediction) on less than 0.000004286% of the data?? That would seem to me to leave a lot of room for error.

When was the last time you saw a living dinosaur?
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |