Who believes the hype of global warming?

[Davan]

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
what could we have to lose by following some simple ecologically and environmentally sound ideas? nothing.
what could we have to lose by following the path were currently on? everything.
there's your end of thread.

Im sorry, but your attempts at oversimplification do nothing to address the reality of the world that we live in. First of all, your "simple ecologically and environmentally sound ideas" will cost billions of dollars per metric ton of CO2 emission. The end result will probably be around 0.0000000000078 °C Degrees celcius change by eliminating all CO2 emissions in the US, and cost around $127,617,700,943,835.84 per °C. Even if these numbers are off (since they were provided by a clearly biased conservative nazi child molester mass murder,) if it costs even 1/10 of this claim its still such a significant amount of money that if you really cant think of a better use for it then Im sorry you cannot see any logical conclusion to this.

To follow your other line of reasoning, that we have everything to lose, I also take issue with this claim. The most ridiculous, overstated and generous climatology models show the temperature change to be about 6-7 degrees celcius worldwide by 2100. This equals out to about .6 - .7 degrees per 10 year period, in other words a temperature change equivalent in a 10 year period greater than the last 120 years put together. Like I said, we are already 6 years into the first 10 year period and .. well.. Haha.. funnily enough the temperature has decreased since 1998 - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main...l&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

We have a lot of catching up to do for this to prove out. *edit in* If you take the more realistic approach that the temperature increase will be between .8-1.5 degrees C over the next 100 years, its hard to say that we are losing "a lot". This more likely temperature change would probably cause the same level of hysteria of that of the past 100 years, and still amount to zero evidential change on a global level. Youre going to have to do a lot of convincing to prove to me that a 1 degree Celcius change will have a huge global impact that causes us to lose everything. Ignoring the fact that almost everyone here will be dead by then and none of us will be able to prove out even this minimal theory.

The funny thing, for me, is how all of the "sky is falling" people are going to hedge 20-30 years from now. I wish there were a way to preserve this thread until then.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
you're debating with someone who has his mind set already. it's useless. I just don't get why people don't consider the possibility of it. So what if we act a little greener, what is exactly the harm in that? Other than maintaining a more habitible environment. Trust me, if we keep going in the way we are, the earth will win. It knows how to shut down, it knows how to rebuild itself. It's done it before and if we push it far enough, it will do it again, and not give a crap about us or our children or our children's children, etc.

I know you're not talking about me, but I think what irks me about this issue is watching science be treated as a religion.
While I agree with your pro-environment message, you're basically telling us to "Repent for the judgement of the earth is nigh!"
Here's my tip. Conservationism is passive, not active. To me, as an avid outdoorsman (biker, camper, hiker, backpacker, etc.), being pro-environment means "Leave nothing but footprints and take nothing but pictures." It is something that begins with individual decisions to consume less, purchase wisely, and conserve resources. It is a way of life, not a religion you force-feed down other peoples' throats.
My last message and then I'm out of this stupid thread -- the world will never change until you do.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
you're debating with someone who has his mind set already. it's useless. I just don't get why people don't consider the possibility of it. So what if we act a little greener, what is exactly the harm in that? Other than maintaining a more habitible environment. Trust me, if we keep going in the way we are, the earth will win. It knows how to shut down, it knows how to rebuild itself. It's done it before and if we push it far enough, it will do it again, and not give a crap about us or our children or our children's children, etc.

I know you're not talking about me, but I think what irks me about this issue is watching science be treated as a religion.
While I agree with your pro-environment message, you're basically telling us to "Repent for the judgement of the earth is nigh!"
Here's my tip. Conservationism is passive, not active. To me, as an avid outdoorsman (biker, camper, hiker, backpacker, etc.), being pro-environment means "Leave nothing but footprints and take nothing but pictures." It is something that begins with individual decisions to consume less, purchase wisely, and conserve resources. It is a way of life, not a religion you force-feed down other peoples' throats.
My last message and then I'm out of this stupid thread -- the world will never change until you do.

Now isn't that another fine mess you got me in. I gotta come into this stupid thread to tell you I totally agree yet you're out a here so won't see. Thanks alot.

 

[Davan]

Originally posted by: desy
Fine it was linked before for you, but here it is again. I took the time to read it first time posted I suggest you do the same.

"Likewise, even though they began with the same data, each of the major research groups has interpreted it with different results. Most notably, Mears et al. at RSS find 0.193 °C/decade for lower troposphere up to July 2005, compared to +0.123 °C/decade found by UAH for the same period. There are ongoing efforts to resolve these differences, however, much of the disparity may have been resolved by the three papers in Science, 11th August 2005, which pointed out errors in the UAH 5.1 record and the radiosonde record in the tropics"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements

Lol. You claim its resolved and then RIGHT THERE IN THE COPY PASTE --- There are ongoing efforts to resolve these differences. Thats too funny. I think we all know how refined your reading skills are now.

Btw, off topic, although wikipedia is a good source of information I dont think its good to link when trying to prove a factual point. Since anyone can go in and edit a wiki page everything inside is suspect and should be backed up with a minimum of one other outside link. Or just post the other link and leave the wiki out.

 

[Davan]

Originally posted by: Vic
My last message and then I'm out of this stupid thread -- the world will never change until you do.

Thanks for your pseudo-involvement and posting of ZERO factual information! Youll be missed. Dont let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Davan
Good one. Thank you for posting a biased but nonetheless attempt at factual information, which is more than anyone else has bothered to do. (Coincidentally, I posted a minimum of three outside links in this thread, therefore I can only conclude that you didnt bother to read through the entire thread.) You might want to take a few minutes to do so.

Yesterday, I was in the middle of rebuilding my setup after a complete hard drive failure, and I had only a few minutes on the forums while testing it. Your title, "Who believes the hype of global warming?" was a blatant announcement that your post would be biased so if you didn't want to bother to include links in your OP to support your blather, I didn't have time to waste searching through pages of the thread to see if you did, later.

At least, I took the time to find one relevant link before I posted. That's one more than you included in your OP.

Look at it this way. If global warming is real, and we don't take rational steps to mitigate the impact of our own behavior, we'll have only ourselves to blame for the damage it causes. If you're right, and it's not a problem, the worst that can happen by acting, now, is we'll have moved closer to solving other problems caused by the pollution we're dumping into the environement.

In either case, improving the efficiency of our use of resources is economically beneficial so, unless your bread and butter comes from some polluting industry with an immediate financial interest in preventing such changes, why would you even bother to start a thread with such an hysterical garbage premise? :roll:

 

[ECUHITMAN]

Daven -
Global warming aside, do you think it is good idea to have more or less pollution? Will some form of pollution always exist? Yes. But should we continue polluting the environment regardless of the evidence (or lack there of) that shows it is heating or cooling the environment? Do you like to see the haze over cities?

You may argue Global Warming is not happening, but pollution is very real. At the very least a lot of what people are pushing to help control Global Warming may or may not have any impact on warming, but it will create a cleaner environment to live. Is that ok with you?

Ok now back to Global Warming. I suggest everyone on either side of this argument read a book by Michael Crichton called 'State of Fear'. It looks at Global Warming and what can be causing it and also what is not causing it.

 

[Davan]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Davan
Good one. Thank you for posting a biased but nonetheless attempt at factual information, which is more than anyone else has bothered to do. (Coincidentally, I posted a minimum of three outside links in this thread, therefore I can only conclude that you didnt bother to read through the entire thread.) You might want to take a few minutes to do so.

Yesterday, I was in the middle of rebuilding my setup after a complete hard drive failure, and I had only a few minutes on the forums while testing it. Your title, "Who believes the hype of global warming?" was a blatant announcement that your post would be biased so if you didn't want to bother to include links in your OP to support your blather, I didn't have time to waste searching through pages of the thread to see if you did, later.

At least, I took the time to find one relevant link before I posted. That's one more than you included in your OP.

Look at it this way. If global warming is real, and we don't take rational steps to mitigate the impact of our own behavior, we'll have only ourselves to blame for the damage it causes. If you're right, and it's not a problem, the worst that can happen by acting, now, is we'll have moved closer to solving other problems caused by the pollution we're dumping into the environement.

In either case, improving the efficiency of our use of resources is economically beneficial so, unless your bread and butter comes from some polluting industry with an immediate financial interest in preventing such changes, why would you even bother to start a thread with such an hysterical garbage premise? :roll:

Another logical inconsistency. The burden of proof doesnt fall on me, it falls on everyone who claims that Global Warming is true. Since the weight of evidence is against global warming being caused by manmade actions, and being a true threat to the plant on both a manmade and geological timescale, then those claiming that it IS a catastophe carry the burden of proof. Therefore, when you want to debunk my claims, it is your responsibility to post proof to support your side, not mine. Regardless, I have posted many things, you can read or not read them at your whim. Or you could just agree with me, that would be easier probably.

 

[Davan]

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
Daven -
Global warming aside, do you think it is good idea to have more or less pollution? Will some form of pollution always exist? Yes. But should we continue polluting the environment regardless of the evidence (or lack there of) that shows it is heating or cooling the environment? Do you like to see the haze over cities?

You may argue Global Warming is not happening, but pollution is very real. At the very least a lot of what people are pushing to help control Global Warming may or may not have any impact on warming, but it will create a cleaner environment to live. Is that ok with you?

Ok now back to Global Warming. I suggest everyone on either side of this argument read a book by Michael Crichton called 'State of Fear'. It looks at Global Warming and what can be causing it and also what is not causing it.

Of course I am intellectually in favor of the idea of lowering pollution, but that is not what this topic is about. This topic is about fearmongering and junk science associated with the hype of Global Warming and its supposedly manmade attachments. I have done you the favor of answering your question honestly, now answer mine. If it can be proved that it is statistically impossible for man to have a significant impact on the environment given unlimited CO2 emissions, would you still want to heavily regulate CO2 emissions? Would you want to force companies to spend millions of dollars to lower their emissions for a negligible change in the overal temperature on the planet?

Re: State of Fear, its a decent read but its a little preachy and comes across as a little more disengenious than his other books, which leads to it feeling a little less like a story and a little more like an anti-Global Warming pamphlet. Regardless, I do think its a good primer for getting into the global warming argument, and helps to solidify your side on the debate.

 

[NeoV]

"Since the weight of evidence is against global warming being caused by manmade actions"

When you realize that your crappy link is wrong, biased, and misleading, then you might realize this one statement which is the entire crux of your now bloated discussion about global warming is not in fact the consensus of the scientific community, we can have an acual, productive dialogue here.

Your biggest problem is the apparent inability to understand that not everyone who is 'for' taking steps against 'global warming' is screaming about the end of the world. Just because Al Gore (D) made a film, doesn't mean he's wrong - in fact if you were to actually watch the film, you'll see that his basic message isn't "We are going to die next week if we don't fix this", it's more along the lines of "we owe it to ourselves and our children to take a good, hard look at what we are doing to the environment".

I love a good debate as much as anyone, but to engage in a good debate requires open minds on both sides.

 

[straightalker]

The question of what temperatures are normal for the planet seems to be what the phrase "global warming" mainly is concerned with. But shouldn't we really be calling for a reduction in global pollution? Not temperatures?

The Global Warming movement picked the wrong name basicly. CO2 gases do add to the thermal blanket which covers the Earth, but that problem is nothing compared to the filthy pollutants belched into the air by everything from coal-fired power plants on down to a lawn mower.

Fossile fuels burn dirty. Filthy. An average automobile dumps into the atmosphere it's own weight in toxic filth every year. Stuff we breath in which causes our hospitals to fill up with diseased patients. People everywhere dropping dead. So add that cost to the heap in addition to fortune we now are forced to pay at our gas stations to fill up our tank.

 

[fitzov]

Several points I'd like to make:

--this is not P&N--there is an empirical fact about whether global warming is occuring--a non-partisan issue.
--empirical facts are to be discerned without bias and using the scientific method--deciding which view to take and then attempting to support it with whatever stats you can make-up is not science, but propaganda
--that there is a "greenhouse effect" is a verifiable and falsifiable hypothesis--that it can occur has been shown since the early 1800s.

 

[Davan]

Originally posted by: NeoV
"Since the weight of evidence is against global warming being caused by manmade actions"

When you realize that your crappy link is wrong, biased, and misleading, then you might realize this one statement which is the entire crux of your now bloated discussion about global warming is not in fact the consensus of the scientific community, we can have an acual, productive dialogue here.

Your biggest problem is the apparent inability to understand that not everyone who is 'for' taking steps against 'global warming' is screaming about the end of the world. Just because Al Gore (D) made a film, doesn't mean he's wrong - in fact if you were to actually watch the film, you'll see that his basic message isn't "We are going to die next week if we don't fix this", it's more along the lines of "we owe it to ourselves and our children to take a good, hard look at what we are doing to the environment".

I love a good debate as much as anyone, but to engage in a good debate requires open minds on both sides.

First of all, you havnt posted a single link or shred of outside evidence supporting your side of the story. Until you do so you have no right to claim that anything I have posted is wrong or misleading. Biased, maybe, but thats only because everything inherently has some bias.

And as a subnote -- "Consensus" -- is NOT science, thats politics. Science has nothing to do with consensus. And regardless, you still havnt shown me any evidence of a consensus either, so you can stop bandying that term about.

 

[Cruise51]

Davan do you work for Chevron or something?

 

[Aisengard]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: rchiu
Oh yeah, emitting trillion metric tons of CO2 every year is "normal". Stuffing billions and billions of non-biodegradable items like plastic bags in landfills is "normal". If that's not delusional, I dunno what is. Yeap, I guess we are the know nothing people and ya'll know it all ppl got all the answers.

In fact, it is normal, so you might want to check your delusional ignorance at the door.

Originally posted by: Aisengard
Vic is trying to say extinction of species like ours is normal, so we shouldn't mess with it.

Oooh... nice troll. McOwen has taught you well... :roll:

Even the most cursory study of the history of our planet would show you that that is also normal, but that is NOT what I am trying to say. I'm sorry you're too stupid, too arrogant, and too brainwashed by McOwen to understand what it is I actually said, but I will try to help you.
rchiu said, "We need to continue monitor the way this planet works and changes and PREVENT anything from happenning." The entire message of his post was that we don't know what it happening, we don't know if anything is happening at all, but we are scared of change therefore we must do everything we can to prevent change from happening simply because we fear it.

Who is McOwen?

The fact is that everything we do is natural. We are 'natural' beings, and our desire to live is a natural thing. If that includes not wanting to create a layer of smog for all to breathe, so be it. What you are suggesting is that we let EVERYTHING happen, because heck, that is natural too. And if that ends in the extinction of the human race, so be it.

 

[sandorski]

I'm curious how long it will be before the OP starts the "Who believes the hype of Cigarrettes causing Cancer" thread. There's consensus amognst the majority of Scientists concerning it, with a few denying it too. Sounds like a case of hype to me.

 

[eits]

wow.... op is an idiot.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: rchiu
Oh yeah, emitting trillion metric tons of CO2 every year is "normal". Stuffing billions and billions of non-biodegradable items like plastic bags in landfills is "normal". If that's not delusional, I dunno what is. Yeap, I guess we are the know nothing people and ya'll know it all ppl got all the answers.

In fact, it is normal, so you might want to check your delusional ignorance at the door.

Originally posted by: Aisengard
Vic is trying to say extinction of species like ours is normal, so we shouldn't mess with it.

Oooh... nice troll. McOwen has taught you well... :roll:

Even the most cursory study of the history of our planet would show you that that is also normal, but that is NOT what I am trying to say. I'm sorry you're too stupid, too arrogant, and too brainwashed by McOwen to understand what it is I actually said, but I will try to help you.
rchiu said, "We need to continue monitor the way this planet works and changes and PREVENT anything from happenning." The entire message of his post was that we don't know what it happening, we don't know if anything is happening at all, but we are scared of change therefore we must do everything we can to prevent change from happening simply because we fear it.

Wrong. My message was that by the time we have absolute certainty something is happenning, it is going to be too late.

I don't know if you ever take up scientific methods and statistical analysis training. If you did, you'd know what is statistically significant and what is not. Knowing the temperature shift is not statisically significant doesn't equal to not knowing what is happenning. All I am saying is by the time temperature shift is statistically significant, you'd have to have some pretty consistent one way change over a pretty long period of time, and that would be disasterous to us.

You should fear the fundamental change to the environment like that. You think human is so tough and unbeatable? Wrong again, the last Asian tsunami is just an insignificant event in a global scale, but it wiped out few hundred thousand human lifes. Imagin that multiplied by hundreds times.

Hey, but if you think I am just fearmongering, well go and believe what you well and continue to do your part in destorying this planet for the future generations.

 

[Davan]

Originally posted by: Cruise51
Davan do you work for Chevron or something?

Originally posted by : eits
wow.... op is an idiot.

Nice. Two more unwarranted personal attacks without a shred of information, evidence, or links to back them up Very very nice, I thought AT forums were a little higher class than this. (oh and excellent job moderators, your swift hand dealing with these attacks is blinding!)

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Davan

Originally posted by: Cruise51
Davan do you work for Chevron or something?

Originally posted by : eits
wow.... op is an idiot.

Nice. Two more unwarranted personal attacks without a shred of information, evidence, or links to back them up Very very nice, I thought AT forums were a little higher class than this. (oh and excellent job moderators, your swift hand dealing with these attacks is blinding!)

haha ok mr. 82 posts.... i guess you don't exactly know how it works around here yet, so let me give you some insight....

1, you're an idiot because you ignore the obvious... when you post something like "global warming's fake," you've got it coming
2, mods aren't going to waste their time unless a post is actually worthy of moderation
3, global warming is real

 

[Davan]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Davan

Originally posted by: Cruise51
Davan do you work for Chevron or something?

Originally posted by : eits
wow.... op is an idiot.

Nice. Two more unwarranted personal attacks without a shred of information, evidence, or links to back them up Very very nice, I thought AT forums were a little higher class than this. (oh and excellent job moderators, your swift hand dealing with these attacks is blinding!)

haha ok mr. 82 posts.... i guess you don't exactly know how it works around here yet, so let me give you some insight....

1, you're an idiot because you ignore the obvious... when you post something like "global warming's fake," you've got it coming
2, mods aren't going to waste their time unless a post is actually worthy of moderation
3, global warming is real

1) Dont put words in my mouth, I never said that.
2) Well see.
3) Prove it.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Davan
3) Prove it.

ASCII and you shall RECEIVII.

Scientists say global warming is undeniable

Scientists in the United States say they have confirmed beyond doubt that climate change is being caused by human activity.

The scientists have presented their findings to the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington.

They say a parcel of studies looking at the oceans and melting Arctic ice leave no room for doubt that it is getting warmer, people are to blame and the weather is going to suffer.

Tim Barnett of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography told the meeting that new computer models that look at ocean temperatures instead of the atmosphere show the clearest signal yet that global warming is well under way.

Mr Barnett said climate models based on air temperatures were weak because most of the evidence for global warming is not even there.

"The real place to look is in the ocean," Dr Barnett told a news conference.

Debate over

His team used millions of temperature readings made by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to calculate steady ocean warming.

"The debate over whether or not there is a global warming signal is now over, at least for rational people," he said.

The report was published one day after the United Nations Kyoto Protocol took effect, a 141-nation environmental pact the United States government has spurned for several reasons, including stated doubts about whether global warming is occurring and is caused by people.

Dr Barnett urged US officials to reconsider.

"Could a climate system simply do this on its own? The answer is clearly no," Dr Barnett said.

Dr Barnett's team used US government models of solar warming and volcanic warming, just to see if they could account for the measurements they made.

Dr Barnett says the results were a resounding no, and the effects will be felt far and wide.

"Anywhere that the major water source is fed by snow or glacial melt ... the debate is what are we going to do about it," he said.

Homeless polar bears

Other researchers found clear effects on climate and animals.

Ruth Curry of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution found that melting ice was changing the water cycle, which in turn affects ocean currents and, ultimately, climate.

"As the earth warms, its water cycle is changing, being pushed out of kilter," she said.

"Ice is in decline everywhere on the planet."

She added that a circulation system called the Ocean Conveyer Belt is in danger of shutting down. The last time that happened, northern Europe suffered extremely cold winters.

She said the changes were already causing droughts in the west of the United States, and Greenland's ice cap, which contains enough ice to raise sea levels globally by seven metres, is starting to melt and could collapse suddenly.

Ms Curry said freshwater is already percolating down, lubricating the base and making it more unstable.

Animals left homeless

Sharon Smith of the University of Miami found melting Arctic ice was taking with it algae that formed an important base of the food supply for a range of animals.

And the disappearing ice shelves meant big animals such as walruses, polar bears and seals were losing their homes.

"In 1997 there was a mass die-off of a bird called the short-tailed shearwater in the Bering Sea," Dr Smith told the news conference.

The birds, which migrate from Australia, starved to death for several years running when warmer waters caused a plankton called a coccolithophore to bloom in huge numbers, turning the water an opaque turquoise colour.

"The short-tailed shearwater couldn't see its prey," Dr Smith said.

-Reuters

It took me about thirty seconds to find this article from a credible source, ABC News, referring to an article originally appearing in Reuters.

Here are a few more:

Australian study says global warming speeding up
Monday, May 22, 2006 11:05 PM ET

Global warming threatens Baltic Sea marine life
Tuesday, May 30, 2006 11:02 PM ET

Thawing permafrost could unleash tons of carbon
hursday, June 15, 2006 8:03 AM ET

Now, you can accept or reject these articles, but as the population of the world grows, so does the amount of pollution we're dumping into the environment. Even assuming it MAY be the main, or even a contributing, cause of the warming we're observing, considering the other benefits of reducing such pollution, why wouldn't you want to do it, just because it MAY help, and it can't hurt anything other than the short term income of some very wealtyh polluters?

If you don't see that, I'd probably have to agree with those thinking you're a bit short sighted.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Davan
Im sorry, but your attempts at oversimplification do nothing to address the reality of the world that we live in. First of all, your "simple ecologically and environmentally sound ideas" will cost billions of dollars per metric ton of CO2 emission. The end result will probably be around 0.0000000000078 °C Degrees celcius change by eliminating all CO2 emissions in the US, and cost around $127,617,700,943,835.84 per °C. Even if these numbers are off (since they were provided by a clearly biased conservative nazi child molester mass murder,) if it costs even 1/10 of this claim its still such a significant amount of money that if you really cant think of a better use for it then Im sorry you cannot see any logical conclusion to this.

To follow your other line of reasoning, that we have everything to lose, I also take issue with this claim. The most ridiculous, overstated and generous climatology models show the temperature change to be about 6-7 degrees celcius worldwide by 2100. This equals out to about .6 - .7 degrees per 10 year period, in other words a temperature change equivalent in a 10 year period greater than the last 120 years put together. Like I said, we are already 6 years into the first 10 year period and .. well.. Haha.. funnily enough the temperature has decreased since 1998 - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main...l&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

We have a lot of catching up to do for this to prove out. *edit in* If you take the more realistic approach that the temperature increase will be between .8-1.5 degrees C over the next 100 years, its hard to say that we are losing "a lot". This more likely temperature change would probably cause the same level of hysteria of that of the past 100 years, and still amount to zero evidential change on a global level. Youre going to have to do a lot of convincing to prove to me that a 1 degree Celcius change will have a huge global impact that causes us to lose everything. Ignoring the fact that almost everyone here will be dead by then and none of us will be able to prove out even this minimal theory.

The funny thing, for me, is how all of the "sky is falling" people are going to hedge 20-30 years from now. I wish there were a way to preserve this thread until then.

Davan,
Some flaws in your argument above:
A) Billions of dollars per metric ton?!!!
The use on nuclear power in the United States (and we don't rely on it for a whole lot) reduced the amount of CO2 that would have otherwise been released over a 10 year span from 1995 to 2005 by 7.3 BILLION tons, or on average 730 million tons of carbon dioxide a year.
Logically, if we doubled the number of nuclear plants, we would reduce CO2 emissions by 730 million tons per year...
According to your "estimate", (I'll use 2 billion for your "billions"), that's at a cost of... crud, sci not time... 7.3E6 *2E9 = 1.46E16..
14,600,000,000,000,000 What is that, 14.6 quadrillion dollars?
So, were you joking with the "billions" or simply have that poor of a conceptual understanding of numbers... I can't quite tell.

Furthermore, you are obviously assuming a linear model for the change in temperature. Why do you believe that the temperature would go up that way - a certain number of degrees per decade... Perhaps it would follow a quadratic model or some other model where each decade, the temp goes up more than during the previous decade due to feedback mechanisms.

Oh, and about that increase in snowfall in antarctica... It used to be too cold for there to be enough moisture in the air to cause significant snowfall. Your profile says you're from Georgia, so maybe you don't understand this. I'm from western NY. It simply does not snow, or barely snows when the temperature is 10 below zero, except in rare cases where two very different airmasses are colliding - one very cold, the other laden with moisture (and warmer) So, as the temperature is dropping quickly at a weather front, you might see a lot of snow, but once the temperature is down below zero, you can forget about much new snow forming (lots of it blows around when it's windy though).

So again, your fact (and we don't dispute it) that more snow is accumulating on antarctica is evidence FOR global warming, not against global warming.

Since you seem to like links, you can find hundreds if you'll google yourself. But I quickly searched for "Antarctica" and "Desert":
From PBS:

Sometimes people call Antarctica a frozen desert. It hasn't rained or snowed in some places here for over 100 years. Only 4% of Antarctica thaws out in the spring -- the rest stays permanently covered in ice

here
In fact, a google search using antarctica desert gives these sites on the first 10 hits:
madsci.org
pbs.org
nationalgeographic.com
coolantarctica.com
pbase.com
geophys.washington.edu
house.gov
enchangedlearning.com
resa.net

Antarctica is a desert. (WAS a desert until it started warming up enough so it could snow more often there.)

MORE SNOW ON ANTARCTICA MEANS IT'S WARMER THERE!!! (just not above 32F)

 

[ECUHITMAN]

Originally posted by: Davan

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
Daven -
Global warming aside, do you think it is good idea to have more or less pollution? Will some form of pollution always exist? Yes. But should we continue polluting the environment regardless of the evidence (or lack there of) that shows it is heating or cooling the environment? Do you like to see the haze over cities?

You may argue Global Warming is not happening, but pollution is very real. At the very least a lot of what people are pushing to help control Global Warming may or may not have any impact on warming, but it will create a cleaner environment to live. Is that ok with you?

Ok now back to Global Warming. I suggest everyone on either side of this argument read a book by Michael Crichton called 'State of Fear'. It looks at Global Warming and what can be causing it and also what is not causing it.

Of course I am intellectually in favor of the idea of lowering pollution, but that is not what this topic is about. This topic is about fearmongering and junk science associated with the hype of Global Warming and its supposedly manmade attachments. I have done you the favor of answering your question honestly, now answer mine. If it can be proved that it is statistically impossible for man to have a significant impact on the environment given unlimited CO2 emissions, would you still want to heavily regulate CO2 emissions? Would you want to force companies to spend millions of dollars to lower their emissions for a negligible change in the overal temperature on the planet?

Re: State of Fear, its a decent read but its a little preachy and comes across as a little more disengenious than his other books, which leads to it feeling a little less like a story and a little more like an anti-Global Warming pamphlet. Regardless, I do think its a good primer for getting into the global warming argument, and helps to solidify your side on the debate.

I bolded the part I am responding to. If it could proven by multiple independent sources that UNLIMITED CO2 emissions would have little to NO effect on the environment or in any way cause the world to become hotter and potentially a bit more unstable (i.e. higher water levels, stronger hurricanes, shorter winters, etc.) I could see the argument against CO2 regulation.

That said, I am pretty sure that most factories are not just releasing the clear oderless gas known as CO2, they are releasing a lot of other things with it. While the jury might still be out regarding CO2 and the warming of the earth, most people would agree that most of the emissions released from factories are toxic to animals, plants, and humans. Look I understand the argument on both sides and have to admit there is quite a lot of fear mongering about environmental change and the topic has become so politicized that it is difficult to separate fact from spin. For example the ridiculous commercial that is being spread around by Competitive Enterprise Institute. "They call it pollution, we call it life". I mean get a grip, CO2 that is released from BURNING fuel is a pollutant and is NOT the same thing as the CO2 we breathe out.

 

[desy]

I'm out but I do look forward to the OP's next flame fest
What will the OP come up with next. . . . . . . .
Flat earth? Sun revolving around the earth? maybe he will dabble in religion. . .

Despite having his arse handed to him by many credible websites he fails to go read any of them , yet perpetuates his junk science sites as unbiased as Fox news!
I luvs it!