In the future, people will look at this day and it will be remembered.
The problem is a very complicated one and the solutions are even more complicated and onerous, but must be faced and acted upon.
If we all can work to at least contain our carbon footprint and not increase it and hopefully even reduce it and "we" being humans, then the tide may be turned, if not, the future for our children and they're children looks very bleak indeed,
I agree Rich. People who brush it under the carpet are becoming less and less thank goodness. Finally people are listening
Everyone in the world can do something. It is not just a government issue. Smaller cars with less emissions. Walking to pick the kids up from school rather than driving. Sharing cars where possible for trips. Walking to the shop instead of driving. Not getting plastic bags but using re-usables. Disposing of all waste carefully. re-using where possible anything you can.
So many other tiny ways that, if everyone did them, we could really make a difference that would not only help the world as a whole but the individual doing it healthwise etc
Okay I will shuttup. I know what most people in this forum think of my environmental concerns unfortunately so I am going to keep them for arenas more suited
But, I will say that the more we push our governments to take action the better! Small term money benefits may be great for them but you cannot spend money when you are dead.
Abbie, I completely agree with you. I try not to get emotionally invested in the general discussion about global warming, etc. because those who dismiss anything like this just don't get it and I tend to get frustrated and angry. It's the mind set that we only live here about 79-90 years on average so why should we care?
Well said, Abbie. If every one of us just made little adjustments to our wasteful ways, it would add up, I think. I'm considering moving from the pristine countryside with its crispy-clean air to a small town where, even though small, I'll be breathing in gas emissions. However, I'll be using my car less and walking more. One of this, one of that.
The problem is very real but there is nothing that can be done. We can slow it a bit but the use of fossil fuels will continue. All the disastrous predictions will come true and that has been the fate of the earth since the first coal mine.
It disturbs me that many of my neighbors do not recycle. Here in Orange County FL. (I Think Rich is in this county too), they take so many items for recycling we often have only 1 tall
kitchen bag every week or less (2 people). All my vegetable scraps, coffee grinds, etc. go to a compost bin that I use for potting soil. Things have gotten so bad. I saw a show called
"naked survivor". The guy was on a beautiful remote island in the south pacific. There was so much trash on the island that he used for pots, pans etc. that he hardly had to make anything.
Even if you're hard-pressed to do everything that's possible, you can pick one thing and do it consistently. Even if it's a tiny thing, a bunch of tiny things together eventually add up to a larger thing.
I used to buy a soda everyday for lunch. I realized that by bringing my own cup to the convenience store everyday I kept over 300 styrofoam cups from going into the trash every year.
That was enough to fill my whole car up with cups!
Chris, that reminds me of the time my husband and daughter and I were driving through Yosemite toward the exit, and my husband glanced in the rear-view mirror and said the woman driving behind us was throwing plastic water bottle after plastic water bottle out the window of her car. We were going to turn her in at the exit, but she turned off before we got there. Makes me LIVID. She was to f***ing lazy to stop at a gas station to empty her car? And how about the fact that they've closed off a large portion of Joshua Tree because some idiot losers are tagging the rocks and actually destroying some of the ancient petroglyphs!!!
Sorry, Rich, I don't mean to hijack the thread, but I just don't get it. Some people just treat the environment like a rubbish bin. What's wrong with people????
I'm with you on that! We don't buy water anymore. Iv'e got a filter under the sink and then that get's poured into a 2 1/2 Gal. Brita container in the frig,which we use for drinking and ice cubes, don't use the ice maker any more,
There is ALWAYS something we can do and if we consider this important, which a few here obviously don't, then we can change small things we do that contribute to the overall problem. The big issues can only be handled by governments and that will happen when we keep the pressure on them and keep them focused. As China and India grow and obtain more cars, the problem will get worse, as it is today, but we can help, by letting our government elected officials know, this is a top prority, maybe the highest, since it affects every human on the planet and it needs to be treated that way and soon.
People that adopt, "we can't do anything,it's too big" are either under-educated about this or lazy/selfish and will continue their lifestyles, because they can! We all know people like that and I just grit my teeth when I see them doing things, just because they can and can afford to do them.
We are,as a nation, doing dumb things to our environment and at some point,there will be payback. We're "fracking" because it's cheap and easy,regardless of what it's doing to our aquifers.
I have a friend, whose son is an engineer up in the Dakota Oil fields and they have thousands of wells working up there, fracking wells and there is so much natural gas coming up from these wells, but no way to contain it or ship it, they just burn it off, every well 24/7 and he told me the light is so bright at night, that it now can be seen from Space! And this is out in the middle of nowhere. So they do it,because they can, it's not right or good, but it's profitable for them.
And trees and virgin forests will continue to disappear because everyone needs another strip mall.
Re: Tossing trash out of cars: Riding with my friend one afternoon, we see a passenger in a Lexus toss his water bottle onto the road directly in front of us. A guy in a van in the right lane started yelling at him and we, who were in the center lane, stopped and picked up the bottle (we were at a red light), went up to the car (he was in the left lane) and handed it back to him with a "I believe you dropped this back there". He was so dumbfounded, he muttered a "thanks" and took it before they tore outta there. LOL
Don't mess with bikers.
Good for you Louise. In hindsight, I should have told my husband to stop in the middle of the road so she would have had to stop so we could get out and yell at this person, but I'm just thinking of that now.
I hope whoever it is got fined for littering somewhere so she will think about it twice now.
I watched another idiot drive over a young alligator in the Everglades once when we got out to take pictures of it. The guy behind us who had pulled over as well said he was going to get a stick and try and coax it off the road....then this jerk comes by and just kills it. It was a juvenile - like 3 feet long, so there is no way he could have missed it in the middle of the day in the middle of the road.
I'm going to just read the thread now - no more comments because I'm in danger of becoming obnoxious because this stuff makes me so mad.
Concerns for the environment are still very new. Industrialized nations are just circling the wagons. Individually, more progress has been made than we realize.
This clip shows an upper middle class family in a public park in the 1960s. Very typical, normal, socially acceptable behavior. Today, most of us would never think of doing this and would be surprised to see it:
I know that's just a show, but that was horrible!
When my spouse and I both smoked and would go to the beach, I swear we were the only ones who cleaned up every last butt we might have snuffed before we left. It took me a while to train him to stop tossing the empty packs out his car window. If I see someone else do it, I blow the horn at them. I once spotted a school girl toss her paper bag on the street. I stopped my car, called her over and told her to go back and get it, that there's a garbage can right there, use it. She did. :D
I still see people behave like this. I first learned about pollution in school in the early 1970's. Later in chemistry class I learned that you can't keep dumping chemicals in a bottle
without a reaction (much like the earth).
"Everyone in the world can do something. It is not just a government issue. Smaller cars with less emissions. Walking to pick the kids up from school rather than driving. Sharing cars where possible for trips. Walking to the shop instead of driving. Not getting plastic bags but using re-usables. Disposing of all waste carefully. re-using where possible anything you can. "
Yes, but the simplest thing as you know is to stop consuming meat, which as an industry does a lot more harm than all the cars combined.
Sorry if I gave the impression of being uneducated or uncaring. In college I the 70's I took courses in climatology and planetary atmospheres. I worked hard to get educate local municiplities to get recycling programs going. I try and leave a small carbon footprint and drive far less then the average American . Some of the professors I studied under were visiting from the Goddard Institute and were responsible for making popular the impending global warming crisis.( See the work of Dr. James Hansenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen). I have worked more volunteer hours than most do for environmental causes, putting in 1 or 2 full days a week for many years. In addition I chose a low paying environmental protection career. The fact is simple feel good measures are not going to take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. If all of America stopped burning fossil fuels it would not change the inevitable. Please don't call me uneducated or uncaring because my opinions are not as optimistic as others.
"Rose Art http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-440049/Greenhouse-effect-myth-say-scientists.html
You can find something to suit every opinion on the internet"
Scientists? More like lobbyists for the oil industry. That's what the oil companies did the very first moment there was talk about man made global warming, they hired their own "scientists''. Not to prove the actual science wrong ( because they knew they couldn't ) but just to keep the public *opinions* going to give the impression that there never was anything but a scientific consensus among actual climate scientists, about the causes of global warming.
That's great Patricia. I don't eat meat nor fish but I do eat eggs and cheese.
I try not to think too much about how most people are so completely clueless about the way what they eat can have such a great negative effect on the planet. And that's not even considering how unethical it is to want meat ( because that's what it is, a want not a need ) and kill billions of lives for it each year.
The scientists/lobbyists hired by big industry did not know the science behind global warming. See Oreskes book "merchants of doubt" about the lobbyists/scientists for a variety of industries (smoking, ozone, acid rain, nuclear arms race, nuclear energy, global warming etc). Some of the same names occur over and over. They quote non-peer reviewed literature, and other opinion pieces, and present them as undeniable fact, all in the name of confusing the public, so nothing gets done.
We have known about this problem for 50 years. Al Gore was late to the party. If we were ever truly concerned we would have stopped meat production a long time ago. The Ford Explorer should never have been sold. The proliferation of SUVs was a blight on the planet. We got into solar way too late. We should have organized our communities so we did not need cars. Americans and others can't even conceive of that, let alone do it. And the whole world would have to be on board and the whole world is not going to agree on anything. Capping emissions is too little too late. The future belongs to the algae now.
So glad you posted on this topic Rich... although I've done a big skip somewhat in reading all the comments.
I really REALLY dislike this dismissive, "nothing can be done" bullsh#it type attitude from people. Everything CAN be DONE. It just depends on each of us demanding it from our government leaders and from the companies we do business with! However, by the same token, the way things are going, we will all die from radiation and plutonium and leaky nuclear plants and the radiation that is just pouring and pouring into the ocean from Fukushima, poisoning the tuna and seafood insustry, killing all the seals, ... and the new billion dollar roof that is currently being built over the still very-VERY radioactive Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant and all of this going on LONG-LONG-LONG before the climate change gets us!!!
The earth will cleanse itself - you may be part of the cleansing - but there is nothing that can be done to reverse the trend - unless you stop purchasing products made in foreign countries that have no pollution control - we've done it, so that we can all live like paupers in the future - more interested in "human rights" of other countries rather than taking care of our own citizens. We are ready to go do some more war - even as we speak - bleed more dollars from our treasury and blood from our mercenary military.
@ Bradford - our community recycles - well, at least they pick up recyclables on Friday at my place - then it goes to the dump with the rest of the garbage pick up.
@ Philip - me thinks humans ate flesh before grains - but you know what - no one really knows what our ancestors ate - mostly whatever keeps them alive. And thank you anyway - but I like my pig and my cow - not exclusively - but in a well balanced diet that doesn't "up-size" for another quarter. And now we are being fed GMO's - and we haven't a clue what may come of that.
I apologize then for my remark, you certainly are educated and aware of the problem and are actually doing something about it. I was just surprised by your remarks, along with a few others here. No, we as individuals cannot do anything to reduce the total carbon worldwide, but we can start by acknowledging that it's happening and humans are contributing to that rise. We are losing eco-land in South America, so more cattle can be raised and sold to McDonalds. We are polluting our air and water systems, world wide, because it still isn't "important" to not do so. Here in Florida, "we" sold water rights to a company owned by Nestles, which is now taking so much water from the aquifer, it's effecting water levels for miles around the area and getting worse. "we" all know this is wrong, but "we" allow it and in some cases, because of attitudes such as" Well I can't really make a difference, so why do anything" which to me is worse than saying no.
And we are affected by what other nations do. I live in St. Clair, Michigan. We have our own water treatment plant right on the St. Clair river, across from Canada. From what I understand, the Canadian pollution legislation is more lax than ours. Every once in a while, I get the emergency broadcast grating noise when I'm watching tv and the St. Clair sheriff's department comes over the cable tv signal and tells us not to drink the water until further notice because a chemical plant across the river in Sarnia has dumped an extra load of methyl ethly ketone (benzene) in the water.
It's true about the actual percentage of "recyclables" that actuall get recycled! But as long as we treat these recycables as "trash" and not a useful commodity, then that will continue and "we" are part of the problem. We should have laws on the books, that each year/2 years/5years, all towns,counties, states, should use more recyclable products, until like I think Sweden, they don't need landfills anymore! MAke it a law and it will happen. Keep it a "fad" and it never will happen.
Global warming, global cooling, climate change....yada yada yada. Falsified data. Threatened scientists that disagree....and the Goracle, the leader of the pack, who will debate no one, leaving an enormous carbon footprint. It's all good though as long as his wallet keeps filling up.
I can't make the government go green but I do try to vote for the greenest of the candidates. I recycle, I work 8 min from home. I grocery shop on the way home from work rather than make a separate trip and I bring my own reusable bags (I hate those plastic bags!). I compost all my food scraps and I turn lights off when I don't need them. I try to do my part. I sign petitions to the government trying to get them to act on environmental issues (even if mostly they won't). We grow some of our own food. If I am given an option to buy local in the store I will buy that item over something trucked accross the country. Maybe we are on a path that we can't turn back from but in the mean time I'll try to do my part to walk with a softer footstep on our home planet earth. Even if others don't try to leave a smaller carbon foot print I will still strive for that. And for every person that doesn't give a #$%@ maybe I will serve as an example for somebody else who does care.
"And for every person that doesn't give a #$%@ maybe I will serve as an example for somebody else who does care."
This is how big stuff changes, from "normal" people seeing other people doing things that seem right. This is how women got the right to vote, how African Americans got equal rights and how the Gay and Lesbian community will final achieve equality. Normal people seeing other people behaving correctly. Five years from now, Gay rights will be a thing of the past, here in the U.S.
A Chinese man watching a TV show of America and watching somebody recycle stuff or walk to work or use less fuel and he changes, is the beginning, just as people around the world see us, consume the World's energy and not care,why should they,
@ Bradford Martin, 4:18 , quote, " In addition I chose a low paying environmental protection career."
What does that mean, could you share some details.?
@ H Drew, "Anytime there is talk of utopia, I always think of the book Animal Farm."
A good book to read and grasp. A very cautionary tale.
Al Gore is not late for his own party. People love the huckster. Environmental hysteria and Saudi Arabian Oil , has made that man rich. Guess who he just sold his news channel, "Current" to? Environmental misinformation, will pad his pocket book for some time to come. Science is only as good as who is backing/paying for the research. We are smart to do some due diligence when reading internet articles, and taking everything that sounds like something to agree with, as bloody gospel. @ Linda May, agreed.
Oil company backed, Rockefeller/ foreign backed or home grown radical environmentalists science, it all needs to be sussed out. And make no mistake its all political.
I think if more people can be environmentally friendly way of life such as through the network to make money, you do not have to squeeze in a big city, and slowly people will realize what is better and more natural life
Dan Turner said something earlier... "the Earth is a Practice Planet" Interesting thought.... I wonder if it is true? But if it is, Who is the maker of these planets? Not us!! We would just consume the next one..... We have got to be kidding ourselves if we believe that Space exploration is the answer... The pollution that we would produce launching rockets and building them would kill this planet in a fraction of the time.
I have often thought that these other "Dead" planets are just about what we are about to become.... "Dead".. And probably for the same reasons. They like us didn't take care of what we were told to take care of. Different Life forms, Same result... Disobedience. I believe we have been very disobedient and irresponsible with our planet, and even now that it's too late, we still should do what we can to do the right thing.
But more to my point, Is the real reason we see what we see... Most of you would refuse to believe or acknowledge. I have debated it with some of you many many times and you all laugh and turn your heads...(what is wrong with these people you say).... I know the answer... If you want it... send me a PM... Everyone else...Well..if I didn't care...I would have just passed this thread right up....much easier to do than respond ... kinda like a burning house... I could either pass it up...or try to help those inside who don't know it's on fire.
The Ironic thing is....the answer is both political AND faith based. That's about all I will say here.... I respect your choices on how to proceed... I recycle everything...just about everything, but they don't allow Horse and Buggy where I live... bummer.
It's not the Earth that's in danger, it's us. The planet will go on just fine long after we've all become extinct. Life here evolved from a methane-laden atmosphere and the sea. Somehow, life will again evolve from a CO2 atmosphere. Plants will love it and prosper, then they'll eventually create enough oxygen (because that's what plants do) for air breathers to again begin the evolutionary climb. And then the Sun will burn out or explode, making the whole point sort of moot.
The problem is, indeed, too big; and there are too many populous nations who place progress above ecology. Just enjoy your life, do what you can about the issues you care about, and stop worrying about things that can't be changed.
You are right Murray. People worrying about things what can't be changed. Until large factories are polluting the Earth, individuals can't make much of a change.
I always think, until we are living in a society, where mostly everything is measured with money, sadly dramatic change in a good direction can't be done. Unless someone will figure it out, how to make money without destroying our planet.
The best way to deal with the situation is: to live our lives what makes us happy (do the things what you feel right), and that will make the people close to our heart feel good too.
In my art, I want to express and show people, little and simple things can be appreciated too. If I can make only just one person to think a little differently in a positive way just for a second about something what they would not even noticed before, in their busy everyday life....this thought makes me feel, my life was worth to live.
The real threat is to humanity's social order. Of course there are lots of species being wiped out by rapid environmental change but from humanity's perspective the threat is the catastrophic disruption of out industrial infrastructure. For example, if sea-level rise were to become so rapid that none of the world's ports could function any longer, the transport of food and other materials, including oil, by sea would become impossible. Hanson reckons ice melt will proceed exponentially, so sea levels will rise about 5m (16ft) by the end of the century and continue to rise rapidly thereafter. The IPCC says it really doesn't have much idea about what will happen, so it will assume the rate of rise will be linear and just add up to a couple of feet by the end of the century (this meaningless guess has been accepted as scientific fact by the UK government and probably many others).
If people can't change things by their actions and choices, then democracy is a sham. The real problem is that not enough people are interested in what sort of world their grandchildren get, as long as we have their comforts in the current age. And who are we to criticise? We're probably all the same.
Mary, the methyl-ethyl-ketone is also known as butanone, not benzene (which has a completely different structure). It seems MEK is a lot less toxic than benzene
"Butanone is an irritant, causing irritation to the eyes and nose of humans, but serious health effects in animals have been seen only at very high levels. When inhaled, these effects included birth defects.
Butanone is listed as a Table II precursor under the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances.
On December 19, 2005, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency removed butanone from the list of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). After technical review and consideration of public comments, EPA concluded that potential exposures to butanone emitted from industrial processes may not reasonably be anticipated to cause human health or environmental problems. Emissions of butanone will continue to be regulated as a volatile organic compound because of its contribution to the formation of tropospheric (ground-level) ozone."
Benzene is far worse (and it's scary I used to buy the stuff as a child to look for watermarks on stamps - I really liked the smell of it):
Wiki: "Benzene increases the risk of cancer and other illnesses. Benzene is a notorious cause of bone marrow failure. Substantial quantities of epidemiologic, clinical, and laboratory data link benzene to aplastic anemia, acute leukemia, and bone marrow abnormalities. The specific hematologic malignancies that benzene is associated with include: acute myeloid leukemia (AML), aplastic anemia, myleodysplastic syndrome (MDS), acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), and chronic myeloid leukemia (CML).
The American Petroleum Institute (API) stated in 1948 that "it is generally considered that the only absolutely safe concentration for benzene is zero." The US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) classifies benzene as a human carcinogen. Long-term exposure to excessive levels of benzene in the air causes leukemia, a potentially fatal cancer of the blood-forming organs, in susceptible individuals. In particular, Acute myeloid leukemia or acute nonlymphocytic leukemia (AML & ANLL) is not disputed to be caused by benzene. IARC rated benzene as "known to be carcinogenic to humans" (Group 1)........." etc ....
before you are calling someone ignorant (just because they are expressing their opinion differently than you do), you need to make sure, you are not mistaken the word "ignorance" with the ability, what some people have: to assessing the reality, what can be done, as an individual.
As I said, everyone should do what they can and what they think it's best for the environment (maybe I should have explained it better earlier).
But until "too many populous nations who place progress above ecology.." (as Murray said), it's nearly impossible for an individual to change the world.
For your information, I am very conscious about the environment, as I do care about my kids, and their kids future.
Do you mean "I'm all right Jack" saying..yes, I did heard that, even experienced it many times, while I was living in the UK for 11 years. And their ignorance ruined my life, what I am still trying to rebuild now, but that is a totally different story...
I use to do more recycling than I do now. Long before it was required I recycled metals, paper and plastics. That changed after the city sent out a letter demanding recycling or be faced with large fines, yet at the same time when they collected the trash it all went into the same truck even though the trash was separated into different bins. I asked why and was told that the city required recycling but had no means of actually doing it, so it all went to the same landfill together anyway.
Today, I still separate out the products and there are individuals who stop by to collect it on their own to sell for scrap. If they fail to come by in a week or two it all goes out in the regular trash.
My wife and I live a pretty simple lifestyle and when compared to most of the people who claim to be “environmentalist” I am sure we leave a smaller carbon footprint with little if any effort then most of them.
Perhaps with the “increased” CO2 levels it might be a good time to increase the use of plastics that take so long to degrade and tie up all that carbon for such long periods of time.
@ Paul, thanks for the chemistry lesson. I'm going to have to look it up now and see what they were actually dumping. I swear it was the methyl ethyl ketone, but in either case, in 10 years I'll probably glow in the dark....
As long as we continue to live out of sync with nature mindlessly consuming for the sake of consumption nothing will get better. many people I know are depending on the technical break through they believe will fix it all. The most important fact I've seen in the last few years is that it would take six planets of resources with nearly 100 % recycling of recyclables for everyone to live the Hollywood lifestyle portrayed in the popular media.
Ok, I found a report on-line from the "Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry" dated 2004 that says:
"On February 1, 2004, between 3:00 and 4:20 AM, Imperial Oil in Sarnia, Ontario accidentally released approximately 42,000 gallons of a mixture of MEK and MIBK to the St. Clair River. The Canadian plant is located across the St. Clair River from the United States, about halfway between Port Huron and Marysville, Michigan (Figure 1). The release occurred due to the failure of a heat exchanger system. After discovering the spill, Imperial Oil stopped further discharge and notified the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OME) Spills Action Centre (SAC). The SAC notified officials on both sides of the border at about 5:30 AM. Several hours later the Michigan Governor’s office activated the State Emergency Operation Center (EOC)."
I know this has happened more times since then because I've gotten the emergency system warning a few times in the last few years. I just got even more concerned when I looked up "chemical valley" in Sarnia. I live within "spitting" distance - pun intended.
I'm buying more water today, although it's sold in plastic containers (sigh).
Several times on the thread I've seen it mentioned that "they (the sanitation department) just throw it (recyclables) in with the garbage anyway" is the same excuse my neighbors
give for not recycling. Oh is this a new government conspiracy theory? Our county has a huge facility to handle this. Or is this just a mockup (like a set for the moon landing) to fool
the public? Come on people. If you have any doubts you can easily find out on the internet or in person to see what your county is doing. That nice new bench or boardwalk in the park (yes
even in Florida) are all constructed from recycled plastic. That aluminum you put in the bin is worth a significant amount of money. Do you think they just throw it in with the rest of the trash? Our facility in Orange County actually pays for itself. Can one person make any difference? Not much. But that is not the point. If most of us care enough collectively we make a huge difference.
At the end of the day, what we do know for sure is that all the carbon that was removed from the atmosphere over 100s millions of years to be buried as coal and gas, is likey to go back in to the atmosphere over the next few 100 or 200 years. i think its about 9 giga tonnes of carbon per year. and co2 is a greenhouse gas no doubt. The Thames barrier prevents London from drowning. It opened in the 1980s. Then it closed once every 2 years. Now it closes a dozen times a year to prevent flooding.
People talk of natural cycles, but we could be making them worse with co2 emissions. Some of the scenarios ive heard is that locust plagues could fly over from Africa in to Europe. a locust plague has billions of locusts that eat a country barren in 1 week. the ocean conveyor belt currents could stall completely once the north pole melts away completely as the polar ice caps propels the currents by rapid cooling of warm waters brought up from the Caribbean, and then the oceans could stagnate and die. Apparently it happened a few 100 million years ago and all ocean life died out with no oxygen. and then there’s the fact the much of England and London and Holland could be submerged… and Manhattan and Florida and and so on many islands and coastal cities world wide.
The co2 ppm levels will just rise and rise and rise. so we either face up to it now or later when its too late. we started replanting forests in the uk as we dug them all up for farmlands after we near starved in a few world wars… and for 8 years we now recycle. we cant blame china or india but maybe china could start replanting its lost vast bamboo forests?? Bamboo is one of the fastest growing plants in the world. Wood as a fuel would be the ideal scenario as trees remove c02 as they grow. Sugar distilled to alcohol for cars in brazil are possibilities for many other countries. Scientists may find a solution such as a biofuel that does not effect food supplies, biofuels would work as all plants remove c02 as they grow, its a case of finding the right one. what went wrong with biofuels mark I was unforeseen as we have to balance food requirements and energy and keep such crops separate. Ive heard of bacteria that can produce ethanol. Maybe nuclear fusion will make a breakthrough. In the meantime there have to be financial incentives world wide to encourage minimal co2 production. If there was the same tax of co2 world wide, it would not effect competitiveness but induce change.
Two decades ago it was the ozone hole disintegrating and with UV shields gone we were likely to sizzle with skin cancer and go blind with cataracts.. but we succeeded in stopping that catastrophe by facing up to it and banning the gases used as propellants and refrigerants. so if we can do that, i reckon we can deal with Co2 too.
Thanks, Paul. I never wear nail polish, but I would prefer the nail polish remover in the bottle than in my drinking water, no matter how small the percentage...In any case, I assumed there was enough dilution going on there that I wouldn't be growing extra appendages any time soon, but I'd rather drink spring water so I don't have to think about it.
All forms of life are little more than "wanting" machines. That's how man rose up out of the slime and built civilizations. That's how we got to the moon. You have to want it. Progress depends on good never being good enough.
The atmosphere has a great deal of inertia. The projections that hit the news ignore this inertia and also assume that warming will be predictable and linear.
Scientists, especially geophysicists, space weather researchers, atmospheric scientists and the like are concerned that even if we halt Co2 emissions, the atmosphere's inertia will cause warming to continue for decades. If warming triggers other events - like a tipping point - it may already be too late unless we come up with carbon sequestration technologies.
Too much CO2 isn't good for plants. They do take in a net of more CO2 than they give off, sure. But plants have a photosynthetic cycle while it's light and then they take in O2 and give off CO2 to stay alive when it's dark. Depending on how the CO2 concentrates in water (and how it combines with SO2) it can also acidify water, which isn't great for plants, and which allows rainwater to absorb more chemical components from rock. So the whole mess is really really unpredictable - not in a good way.
Looking at how fast the weather and ocean patterns are changing, I'm leaning towards too late. Sorry.
Sadly, with the recent events in Boston still fresh in my mind, I fear more for my children and their children going to a movie,Disney World, or a baseball game than I do about the quality of the air they will inhale.
I'm new to your discussion group. I try to get into all of them to see what the masses are saying and learn something new. Your discussion of polution and environmental distruction is very much in the forefront of this group. It's good to read about what concerns all of us. I’ve been reading with interest the various accusations made about mankind/industry leading us down the road to extermination. You are all correct to agree/disagree… what cures are needed. I usually speak quite bluntly, and do not want to belittle any one for their heart felt comments. We... not necessarily everyone in the world, but we… for the sake of inaccuracies, are headed for extermination. It is inevitable.
If what we want to believe what evolutionists claim… We… left the oceans or crawled out of the swamps to become what we are today. Well let’s just suppose they are correct. How many thousands… maybe hundred of thousands of years did it take for us to get to this point in our evolution chain. With each year that passed, We… our ancestors learned something new, that became constructive in securing their/our survival. Look where we are today.
OK, We all agree everything that has been improved on, everything We invented, has been for the betterment of mankind. Each day, week, month, year, someone invents, discovers, or improves on past inventions We have become accustom to living with. We have also become so used to these improvements… We/all of us, still demand a little more, to improve upon what has just been invented. Of course this is called progress. What I’m saying is that mankind is not, nor will they ever be satisfied with what was yesterdays mode of living.
You know what? All through history, We have disregarded, or refused to consider the cost that would have to be paid sooner or later for these comforts/improvements. Everything We asked/demanded to achieve this life style has to come with a price. If the creatures that climbed out of the swamps, had brought with them the knowledge of what We know today, they might have taken into consideration where this was leading us to. Through evolution did We actually achieve anything? We might just as well consider ourselves at the same level those creatures were. In the beginning, their life was a challenge just to survival. Now our challenge is to attempt to correct all these mistakes that have given us the life style we have today.
We can’t place all of the blame on industries, because technology constantly needs new ways to produce everything We demand of them. Everything has to be of better quality, has to last longer, and has to be capable of being massed produced to accommodate demand. In doing this industry says We can’t accomplish all of this without making more money. We have to invest back into industry, as well as... We have to make a profit.
I won’t go into problems that arise when industry want production to occur at a faster rate, nor what the working masses want for protection against excessive labor practices. That’s a whole ‘nother problem to be worked out . I’m sticking with progress and demand. Also I’ll not get into greed that arises out of profits from sales of products. Greed can and does create a need of the manufacturor to shortcut use of proper materials, quality, safety, etc., in order to produce at cheaper cost to themselves. It's complicated.
Every time someone comes up with an idea to improve quality, or creative techniques to improve manufacturing, it requires in many instances new chemicals to bring to fruition these capabilities. New chemicals, require, new protectionagainst new chemicals, to prevent damage to our life sources… mainly water. We cannot nullify various chemicals, because some are so exotic, there is nothing to counter act effects they may have on humans, or the soil which We need to feed us.
In conclusion… I could go on and spell out more possibilities why We/Ourselves are destined for extermination. All of you are correct, something should be done, but it should have been done when we decided to climb out of the oceans, and swamps. The best scenario I can offer is the following poem. It’s not about a cure, it’s about what We/All of Us have been doing to our world and ourselves. We will realize… (this planet which is so abundant with a water supply that could sustain us for eons), polution created by our needs is going to be our undoing. We will not be able to prevent it from being the source that will defeat us.
Think on this prattling of an old man, then try to be honest with yourself. How much are you willing to give up, if you thought it would truly make a difference in your lifetime? How far would you have to regress, to achieve this capability? What exactly is going to be the desitiny ouf our future generations? I'll check in on discussions here off and on. Might even make a comment or two now and then.
The following poem is controversial... None-the-less I wrote it nearly 3 years ago. Remember... a writer puts to word many things felt in the heart... No matter what the subject!
From distant galaxies... came one and all, to a planet near a Sun called Sol.
To learn of mishap and despair, how a planet perished from lack of care.
They witnessed a sky dismal and black, where little was done to change it back.
For eons now, and still drifting down, pollution settles to barren ground.
Earth was once a beautiful place, populated by a human race;
They raped the land, gave nothing in return, until it changed, scorched then burned.
Beneath the lifeless soil below, a deadly liquid with no place to go.
With useless filters, humans did sup, polluted water that filled their cup.
Sorrowfully, this race lived in fear; apprehensive, though seeming not to hear
Many things they could have done; they ignored truths, doing utterly none.
Fortunately, they never reached deep space, to spread their blight to another place,
Where resources and wonders for all to see, are used with care, and in harmony.
Observers will leave this place called Earth, where nothing prevails of bliss or mirth.
Knowing it will remain, for others to see; waste and greed has a harsh penalty.
I havn't read everything but as artists shouldn't we be drawing on caves? I stare at the shelves in the 2 dollar shops..the ready made canvases, types of paints, mediums, all poly based i think, my god! how many shops around the world are stuffed with all these materials...how much paint thinner is used? Do/did photographers recycle their old fim, what about the emissions from the stuff, i remember when acrylic furniture became really popular a few years back and people were getting sick from the emissions from it!! what isn't plastic these days? A colleague of mine reminds us often of the chemicals and energy used to make recyclable bottles, etc!!! without even realising it I now have 5 different cameras...and I'm only a beginner, but all the bits of wire, packaging, batteries, cd,s that accompany them, add up to some plastic of a kind. I do hate seeing lighting showrooms lit up inside and out all night long when the store is closed!! What I've mentioned is only the size of a pixel in the world's pixels.....if its a problem...the problem is enormous......
I'm not sure if humans are programmed to always want more or if we've been conditioned by the consumer society to be in a constant state of wanting. I suspect there have been human societies that were content with enough and didn't strive for more but, of course, they would be likely to be destroyed by incomers whose societies have striven harder to become "civilised".
Where did all that CO2 come from 3 million years ago that we have now reached the same level again?
Do you know where plastic comes from - all that plastic that you use and throw away? Do you know where it goes when you are done with it. We used to recycle paper bags, we replanted whole forests as we cut those down that we made paper from - and still do here in the south. So when your grocer asks - paper or plastic - think paper.
I have heard the scientists say that the number of atoms never change, increase or decrease, even if something goes up in flames the atoms survive, so everything is being recycled in one way or another....sometimes through death...maybe one day through death of our planet...will the atoms dance...do their thing... and re invent...I don't know I'm just trying to come up with a what if..
I needed a new floor mop. I refused to buy one of those mops where you have to keep buying the cleaning pads to put on the end of the mop, which you throw away after you wash the floors. I found a cheap one a couple of weeks ago with a washable pad and bought that. Multiply that choice by about 5,000 a year. Multiply that choice by several other choices. We really can make a difference. I know I'm rehashing here....but it takes rehashing and rehashing to finally make a difference in something.
And yes, I realize I'm using detergent (I buy eco-friendly laundry soap) to wash the pad, but at least I'm not contributing to the land fill.
Danny, I hope I see a tongue implanted in your cheek with that reply........
Peter, sad but true, but very short term thinking and wonder about the air quality their children might have, looking back to the good "OL days" of 400 parts per million!
Robert, Good Prattling! I just hope there isn't a test on Tuesday!
Rose, is somebody trying to sneek some religious stuff in here?
Maria, yes this is a big problem, humans biggest test ever, but we can't just run around scared and do nothing, we can begin change
Paul, most of our "needs" are generated by Ad agencies and not by some inner desire for 14 different types of bottled water!
Roy, paper or plastic or cloth! That's the right question. We have ours, the cloth bags, in both cars and the bags are probably going to have a 3 year birthday coming up! I have an Expedition, 1998, that's my work truck, when I do work and then we use my wife's 2002 Beetle for all our driving, so both cars have bags, which were free in the beginning from our Publix stores and we've collected more free bags, over the last year or two, at Art shows, as give away's from commercial vendors at these shows!
Mary, good example! We are, as a people, a "throw away" group and getting worse. We need as much "stuff" as we can find and buy and then charge more on our credit cards, from clothes,cars and even housing, as the recent crisis showed.
I still say that we all need to do something, small somethings, every time we can. I'm not suggesting "cave living" (no good Internet there), but just scaling back on our "needs". Like bottled water and instead, using water filters under sinks if needed and then reusable containers. People actually made it through life without bottled water and it wasn't that long ago either. We can do it again. Good first step,especially here in Florida and other water scarce regions.
We are a very selfish species and it seems it's getting worse. People are dying everyday, because we are selfish, example: texting while driving is a new phenomenon, that is litterally killing and crippling people, because we're selfish and can't pull over to the side of the road and find out what movie our friend just saw, or who they saw at the Mall!
And it's the same with everything we do, we demand stuff and then throw that out and buy new stuff.
We're treating this planet, just the same way, as "stuff",
The Department of Energy has a list of 50 companies throughout the U.S. that are recipients of government backed loan guarantees. The infamous Solyndra needs no introduction and Beacon Power Corporation which also filed for bankruptcy received $43 million in stimulus funds to finance a portion of a $69 million, 20-megawatt flywheel energy storage plant.
As of 2011 at least $90 billion from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has already been directed toward green projects including loan guarantees to green energy firms, green job training grants, weatherizing homes and more. According to the Department of Energy inspector general’s statements, 9 of the 17 homes inspected failed the weatherization work because of substandard workmanship. 4,000 environmental management jobs were lost and a myriad of false information, misrepresentation, and misuse has resulted in wasted time and money on these programs. $550 million was spent on training programs for green jobs that ultimately produced a little over 1,300 jobs that lasted 6 months.
Cleaning up the planet is a dubious task but the green thumb of the government is exactly that; all thumbs. And now another policy has been proposed to allow the EPA administer to become a venture capitalist with our money. I’m sure most of you will be happy to hear about this one if you haven’t already.
Doesn’t sound too bad does it? I don’t really think it means the oil and natural gas companies which supports over 7% of U.S. GDP and 9 million jobs across the country will stop contributing $86 million to the Federal Treasury every day, but they will raise their prices and are expected to and by doing so inflict higher prices for every energy related product available. So this rebate, is it really a rebate or a bait to get you to go for it? And do you really think any remaining funds will be applied to deficit reduction as stated in the bill? The bill apportions 60 percent of incoming revenue from the tax for a rebate program. Forty percent of the revenues goes to a Pollution Reduction Trust Fund to mitigate economic effects on energy-intensive and trade-exposed industries, to fund a weatherization assistance program; provide job training, education, and transition assistance for individuals employed by the fossil fuel industry who are seeking to work at clean energy jobs, and support DOE’s Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy research.
Sound familiar? We have already done that and more with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and look where it has gotten us. Deeper in debt. And now they want to raise energy and utility prices for everyone and make it alright by giving it back in rebate checks that can’t possibly be redistributed fairly by such a bumbling bureaucracy.
We can’t destroy our economic recovery any longer by accepting bad policies and throwing more good money after bad even in the name of global warming.
So, like what's your point? Do nothing, because in the past our government screwed up and wasted money(waste: see Iraq) or that we might hurt big Oil and Gas? Don't support any new and innovative projects, because they might fail and we'll lose all that money?
This isn't and shouldn't be political, but I'm sensing here, that that's where you want to take this thread, huh?
This mess has been created by ALL of us, some maybe more than others, but it wasn't all Republicans and it wasn't all Democrats. But proportionally, if you want to point fingers, I would start at the 1%'ers, with their jets and multi-homes and cars, that contribute, proportionately many times more than the rest of us as individuals. I know a few.
Paul, in my view, we shouldn't be spending one thin dime to minimize global warming. The arrogance that we're going to slow it down, much less prevent it, is astounding. We might want to put some money into adapting to it, but it's way too early to start.
You started a thread on global warming Rich, not me. Everything about global warming is political. If you read my post you would realize there is nothing new and innovative about taxing people and industries… just how they try to cover it up.
Funny you should mention the 1%’ers, if I recall Al Gore has all those things, imagine that.
I rather think it is way too late and that we have missed the boat. It's ridiculous to say it is arrogant to attempt to reduce pollution in order to limit the damage it does.
By the way, I think the oil companies' campaign to confuse everyone has succeeded and we will not actually take any actions in time to avert the probable catastrophe (most likely too late already), so our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will have to adapt to a world which has reverted to barbarism.
I wonder how many people have any idea of what the world was like four or five million years ago, when CO2 was last at today's levels, You are looking at sea levels 18m higher than today and temperatures 5C higher. Of course, the buffering effect of the oceans and the latent heat absorbed in converting ice to water will delay the full impact for years, maybe generations, but the consequences look inescapable.
It seems to me that the true arrogance is seen in those company bosses who decide they are happy to change the entire life-support system of the planet in pursuit of profit, while sending out the message that it is nothing to do with them - because they know they will be dead before the real bill starts to arrive (look at how the cigarette manufacturers behaved, and at the overlap between the pro-smoking scientists and the pro-oil scientists).
The IPCC was created for the sole purpose of disclosing scientific methodologies of human induced global warming. Science should play a big role in global warming policies but economics must also be put into the equation or we will never be prepared for a true disaster.
Rich my friend, at my age my ALL my memories are short term!
I do have a simple (note: not easy) way to solve the problem. In 1958 when they began taking these readings the world population was 2.5 billion and a scant 55 years later it's 7 billion. So if we can just rid Mother Earth of people she will do just fine without us. ;c)
The question, Debra, is what are the true costs of the different options. If you look at the most quoted IPCC predictions, the ones that are generally cited by officials, they are based on the assumption that CO2 controls will be implemented that will keep temperature rises down to about 2C. In reality, little has been done to achieve that and the more realistic scenario is the "business as usual" one, where everybody carries on as normal, avoiding any profit eroding behaviour. That scenario predicts temperatures rising much further and faster than the figures you see being bandied around.
Think about the impact on global trade of a 15m rise in sea levels. Apart from the disappearance of many coastal cities and islands, there would not be a single major port able to function, no sea trade, food would no longer be distributed internationally, likewise oil. Climatic bands would shift dramatically, creating dustbowls in some areas and perhaps turning tundra into potential arable land. That sort of thing is perfectly normal for Earth, of course, as the geologists who say CO2 levels don't matter will confirm, but it's not normal for humanity or, particularly, modern society, which has its roots in the previousl unspoken assumption that the climate is stable.
Such a dismal picture you have painted Paul, but I guess if that’s true then we are all sunk. I’ll just leave you with that as I have to cook dinner now. By the way, it’s nice to see you here of all places on the main forum getting political. Now that's what I call progress.
Hopefully it will never happen. It will probably be 20 or 30 years before it becomes apparent whether that is what we are headed for, so the chances are I'll never find out. The trouble is that whether or not it is a likely outcome, it is still a possible outcome. It's rather like smoking: you don't know whether or not it will kill you until it's too late - so what is the best solution?
I didn't know I was getting political. I thought I was just pointing out what some scientific interpretations suggest.
You weren't getting political, but Debra was trying! "Everything about global warming is political" When it comes to attempting to save a planet, there are no politics involved. This is so beyond politics, that when you try and introduce this as political, it's obvious that your agenda is showing!
Peter, it seems we are on our way now.....
Debbie, What a lame reference to Al Gore, you know the guy that won the Nobel Peace Prize for his contributions to making millions of people more aware of these issues. He's done more than all the 1%'ers put together. I'm not saying we all need to live in caves, which I posted above, but to be more aware of the decisions we make and how they adversely affect the planet. I would bet his total carbon footprint is much less than people of the same monetary level that he's on.
And I'm sure there are 1%'ers that, like Gore, try to live a life as "normal" as possible and not go out of their way to demonstrate their wealth, but it would be a small number indeed.
So I would suggest we keep "politics" out of this discussion, since it shouldn't have a home here anyway,
Rich, it's all political, no matter on which side anyone is. It's also just words. If all of us Forumites decided, with one mind and one voice, to do all we could to "save the planet," it wouldn't make a bit of difference in the real world. What you'd have is a hundred or so people depriving themselves of whatever they fear will hasten the end of mankind. And for what? Humanity won't last a second longer.
If the damage is already done, it's done. If the tipping point has been crossed, it's also done. If it's rapidly heading in that direction, then there's way too much momentum among nations that don't care about anything more than their piece of the pie (China, India, and those yet to 'arrive'), then it's done, too.
What happens here (on the Forum) is more than just a case of mental masturbation. It's the division of a community that should be united around art. But instead, discussion like this just drives a wedge between people. And for what? No matter what our beliefs about this subject, we aren't going to change anything. The U.S. has made great strides against pollution. Remember what the air in southern California used to look like, or acid rain? But, if global warming is, in fact, caused by people, the problem is far too large. It's Global, for gosh sakes; and as long as countries can't even agree within themselves to stop decimating their own populations with tribal warfare and the like, what hope is there for worldwide agreement to end CO2 and hydrocarbon pollution? I'd guess none.
And if the current trend to warming is mostly due to to long-term climatic cycles, higher than average solar output, or whatever, then what's the point of all this argument, anyway?
Here's what I'll agree to: If this is indeed "evolutionary" as opposed to something that we humans have contributed to or even caused to progress further, than there is little that we can do, except possibly slow the advancement of this "cycle". If, on the other hand, that this is a "human condition", created by us or enhanced by us, then we need to react and at least try and stop the part we are adding to any Solar issues there might be.
WE, as a people need to change our views and our selfish habits,period, regardless of the climate changing around us. Social thinking and acceptance has and does change laws and nations. We got out of Viet Nam, because of society changing it's views on that war. We finally attained Equal Rights, because of changing perceptions, smoking in public places, because of these changes, and now, more recently, Gay Rights will become changed and finally accepted and the Law, because of the changing of the societal thinking.
BUT if we all throw up our hands and say " It's too big a problem, I can't change anything" then there will indeed be no changing. We can't continue to treat this planet, as some recyclable planet, because when it comes to the Planet Earth vs Humans, the planet will win and recover, long after the last human walks this earth, but is that the scenario you would be proud to say you supported, I'm certainly not.
And 3-5 million years is a bit longer than " And if the current trend to warming is mostly due to to long-term climatic cycles" and makes the use of the words "long term" a bit silly. This isn't some 100,000 or 200,000 year cyclic vibration in the Universe, this is hard science,math and more, telling us what's coming and why.
I'm not expecting this "conversation" to change the way everyone thinks here, that's not the purpose, but to give people something to think about, from a different viewpoint, not some "talking head" on TV, but a fellow artist, bring up this important topic, for discussion and debate,
Rich, you wrote "In the future, people will look at this day and it will be remembered."
However, in the article you referenced, "Climate scientist Joanna Haigh of Imperial College London said the particular figure reached Friday — 400 parts per million — holds no particular significance except as a milestone."
We've now equalled, they say, the amount of free CO2 that was in the atmosphere several million years ago. Then the level went down. Now it's gone up, as you'd expect it to as the world became populated and industrialized. The question isn't whether the 400 number is significant, but how high is too high.
Polution is a issue that could be solved if we humans really wanted. But we don't really want because it means change our life. It also means changing the idealisation of life, confort, etc.
We have tecnology and resurces to produce electric cars that run as fast and effectivelly as petrol cars. We have tecnology and resurces to make self sustenable houses which collects rain water, filters and recycle the house water, collect solar energy and even grouwn their own food.
Polition is an issue that will never be solved while people think that have a smaller car or reclycle bottles will solve the problem. It wont. To solve the problem we have to run away from our eating style, or capitalist consume culture, etc.
The same apply to people that have no food. If the planet really wanted to stop starvation it would not exist. There are food enough to feed the planet and there are very easy, acessible and cheape ways to make people grow their own food in any environemant.
And it is the same for many others issue that exist today. They are problems that will never be solved ultil the worts hapens.
What create theses problems? The answer is our economic system. Without changing it its issues will never be solved.
@ Rich, "WE, as a people need to change our views and our selfish habits,period, regardless of the climate changing around us."
I would agree with that statement.
But buffer it with Debra's, "The IPCC was created for the sole purpose of disclosing scientific methodologies of human induced global warming. Science should play a big role in global warming policies but economics must also be put into the equation or we will never be prepared for a true disaster."
Murray, discourse never divides. Different opinions can divide, but not always. I tried to crosscheck those parts per million. Nothing I read could put it into any real context either.
Rich your agenda shows as much as anyone's. I always stop when I see Debra has posted. Always well cross checked and factual.
To suggest that environmental issues can be discussed sans politics is really quite absurd. About as absurd as Gore winning the Nobel Peace Prize, or winning the prize for becoming the first mixed race President, ? as your current commander in chief managed.to do. Really changes ones opinion of a longstanding and in the past highly regarded honour. Gore is a huckster and snake oil salesman, and Obama got the prize on a short lived high before he ever got started.
And Paul, who believes the climate has, is or could ever be spoken of as being stable?
Rose, I said our civilisation is based on the assumption of a reasonable stable climate. Fifty years ago - let alone 200 or 2,000 years ago - the popular perception was that apart from minor fluctuations of no great importance, sea levels, deserts and climate belts would remain pretty much the same for thousands of years. One day glaciers might rise again, we thought, but that would take a long, long time, so we could plan our futures without regard to any climatic disruption.
Today, there is a strong consensus among climate scientists that disruptive climate change is already upon us.
The context for the CO2 ppm is that there has been a steady, measured rise for something like 55 years, with something like (I can't be bothered to check exactly) a 25% increase over that time span, and a 40% increased over the past century or so, assuming the analysis of older CO2 records is reasonably accurate - and there's no reason to think it isn't. That rate of change is unprecedented over the entire period humanity has existed (and over all geological time, apparently) and similar concentrations have not been seen for several million years, going back to a time when the climate was very different. The fact it has crossed 400ppm is no more significant than the fact it crossed 396ppm a year or two back, or that it crossed 360 a couple of decades back. it's just a round number to use as a peg to hang a Press release on.
The only way to induce change is financially. Increasing taxes on co2 emissions globally to ensure equal burdens will increase government revenues !! and help pay off huge government deficits that are crippling economies!! , tax cuts in other areas could be used to stimulate the economies, esp greener industries or infrastructure such as flood protection or maybe just build floating cities (a very wry joke) I believe Holland now has floating houses.
Have a fat tax! All that fat could go into biofuel and not xxxxxl waists. Development projects into green technologies employ people and stimulate the economy, There is a big difference between considering costs as expenses or long term investment.Research and development always pays off with new invention and spin off industries. Research is risky, many drugs are failures, many air craft are failures, many designs need to be refined. There is always risk in investment. We just need a big portfolio and for a few big winners to succeed.
The most important energy for the West is electricity, not oil. Petroleum Industries should and no doubt are diversifying, with their huge infrastructure and distribution network any liquid fuel could be their product to sell if they succeeded in a green fuel. Reducing oil consumption will increase the life span of the petroleum industry anyway, and it's value will increase with time. The more they sell now, the less they will have to sell later. I've even heard of microorganism producing oil from wastes, (thats waste not waists though why not tackle that too) - now that would be utopia! A dream today, but with research and investments nothing is impossible.
There are different ways of seeing everything. The more we slow co2 emissions down, the more time we have to research and develop, And if people are saying just let it happen, there has to be a master plan for evacuating and rehousing tens if not hundreds of millions of people when the final big tidal surge washes ashore and never retreats, a planet with dead oceans will not be a fun place. Nor will locust plagues moving into Europe, and then there is malaria .... The mid west could become like west Texas ..
Overall the natural cycles are of global mass extinctions. We just don't want to create one with short term visions of economic performance. It's never too late to save something. We could save a lot. All round.
Its a good thread Rich...keeps people on to it..whatever their it is...I aim to buy a water tank at some stage, still trying to cut down on plastic bags, just bought a compost bin, I am beginning again...a veggie garden, i aim to look for recycled materials to paint on, i did try and make my own paper once but it wasn't very successful. here's an idea...make a list of the positive things you do for the environment, no matter how small and try and add to that list...see how long you can make your list, even if that means joining a green club etc, etc, hope I am able to post any additions I make. I have just started learning to play the harmonica...haha...so what? I am thinking the sound may make the air sweeter for everyone in the close proximity..:)))
The number itself, isn't significant, other than we've never in human history hit 400 parts per million and the scientist admitted, it's just a nice round number. But a milestone still. In the early 1700's, it was 270 and in 1958, when the actual measurement was started, it was 316. So even a photographer can see a trend going on here.
And Rose, don't look now, but your "right wing" is showing! Calling Gore a huckster is very enlightening for me . Of course I have an agenda, everyone has an agenda, but mine surpasses politics, while yours is mired in your right-wing politics.
How the "crisis" is handled by our elected officials may be political, but the challenge we face is Universal and involves all humankind.
Regardless of which wing anyone has showing, there are just too many damned people on this planet. The real question is how many humans can Earth sustain. I don't think it matters much because economic issues are going to knock us humans down a few pegs long before the oceans rise and the air is un-breathable.
some science studies indicates that, if it was not for global warming due to humanities impact on greenhouse additional gasses, the earth is do for a new ice age cycle. As compared to a new ice age, is global warming such a bad alternative?
hypnotically speaking here.......
As is your left wing is Rich. Left wing right wing, and I suspect some overlap on both sides into the middle. But I absolutely do lean right as you absolutely do lean left. You got my point exactly.
I don't see how a crisis can be averted when some of the bad guys are actually successfully convincing people on mass, that they are really the good guys? Not only that, but the ONLY good guys. How is it helpful to the cause of sustaining a healthy earth and society, to be led down the garden path so to speak. Distracted intentionally. Is connecting all the dots so that there can be some understanding of the relationship between where societies stand on the ladder of economic health, environmental health and the ability to make effective change/choices a bad thing? Effective being the operative word. Most of the mewling is counterproductive and wasting time. The west has learned much from past mistakes and is capable of good choices and sound environmental moves, while having a functional economy. It is so linked. You can't have one without the other. That is not to say that we don;t need to pay attention to what our governments are doing. Demanding safe business/environmental practice is our responsibility.But you cannot shut down business.
I am as much an environmentalist as you Rich, maybe more,my personal footprint is very small. I just believe in the necessity of a healthy economy to help subsidize it by enabling people to be in a better position to BE it. If you starve, freeze, fear, and have lost hope, or are given a blanket, soup and have not much else to look forward to, you are not in much of a position to notice or care when your governments fail to be environmentally responsible, or in a position to want to be environmentalists themselves. The downtrodden will never make good environmentalists.
The mermaid, daryl hanna, and other hollywood types are hypocrites to tell the masses they should trade their jobs for the environment.That its either or.
Gore is lining his pockets (don't take my word for it) at the expense of the very cause he purports to be so passionate about. I take offense to that, so yes I think that Gore is a Huckster and a snake oil salesman. And is wasting valuable time distracting the masses. A hypocrite.
H. Drew, that is why Gore and the rest don't call it global warming anymore. The new catch phrase is climate change. Yep, climate change, thats what climate does. We'd best get on with the business of dealing with it, including bringing other countries up to snuff. The only other alternative is to get rid of all humans, or most of them, save for a small batch of worker bees to service the handful of elitists left who choreographed it. Left being the operative word.
@ Rose "The only other alternative is to get rid of all humans, or most of them, save for a small batch of worker bees to service the handful of elitists left who choreographed it. Left being the operative word."
Any major and rapid deviation from the temperatures of the last 6,000 years would be catastrophic, whether it were to another ice age or to a markedly hotter world.
It's a bit funny how completely contradictory arguments get wheeled out and given the nod by the AGW sceptics - one will argue that man-made warning averts an ice age, another will argue that the current warm period is entirely natural because of solar cycles and man-made warming is a myth, a third will say that rising CO2 is causing warming but it's a natural phenomenon that's uncontrollable, a fourth will say that rising CO2 levels are clearly a result of man's activities but will produce questionable maths equations to demonstrate that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, a fifth will say that there is some man-made warming arising from humanity's CO2 releases but this is generally a good thing because it will make plants produce more crops, a sixth will argue that the measured warming isn't real and is due to poor measuring techniques, a seventh will say that the whole issue is a massive fraud invented by greedy scientists who just want to pocket massive research grants, an eighth will say that only God can change the world and it's enormous arrogance for puny scientists to pretend that we can do anything that does that, a ninth will say that the measured warming is real but is entirely due to an ocean current that has been discovered in the Indian Ocean that he alone understands, a tenth will say the observed changes are perfectly normal variations that have been seen time and again over the last 450 million years..
At the end these experts will speak with one voice: THERE IS NO PROBLEM, NOTHING CAN OR SHOULD BE DONE. The newspapers will carry the various stories, each focusing on its preferred expert, and the public will be convinced that there is a coherent anto-AGW lobby engaged in intellectual battle with overpaid, self-serving climatologists.
If co2 > 240 ppm (natural levels) then glaciation can't occur in any ice age agree university of Florida, London ucl and univ Bergen in Norway .
It's now 400ppm.
If we wanted to control the worlds weather co2 would be a good method! But We won't be able to reduce co2, not yet any wats, just reduce rate of increase, to give us more time, monitor sea levels and ice cap melting levels in summer. Glaciers have vanished in many areas . Ideally we could regulate levels of co2 up and down as required but we are talking major plans over many centuries... That would be an ultimate goal I guess. Switching fuels as required.
Best projections are of CO2 at 450 to 500 ppm at 2100, others reckon up to 1000ppm
I posted a piece not too far back in this discussion group, as well as in another. It stirred clear water, making it a bit murky, and I guess my words did not set too well. None-the-less, I will add this small bit of trivia, then will back on out of all discussion groups. As I said I speak bluntly, and do not look at life through Rose-colored glasses.
Rich Franco: a meaningful compliment to you… your gray hair is a plus, and it is indicated with words you place in this group’s discussions. You’ve seen many changes already… many of them were not self-starting. Mankind through lack of better judgment has created situations that may not be reversible.
This leads me to you Marcio F. Yes we could reverse some pollution, but it is what we develop to counteract pollution, that is going to be a problem. Our problem lies with machinery and exotic materials we need to create filtering systems, etc.. No matter what we develop to better ourselves in one direction… there is a toxic foot print of a sort that has to be cleaned up behind. It’s kind of a perpetual motion. Some day in the future we will “paint ourselves into a corner.”
Debra Chmelina; Paul Cowan; Peter Chilelli; and on down the line of contributors in this group; You are at least discussing, that is good, and there has to be at least a partial solution… We appoint persons of good intentions to carry out our wishes and demands. Something happens though when those chosen persons get into a huddle. We’ve all seen it I’m certain. Their discussions grow from:
1. “OK, how will we fix these growing problems” to, OK… what’s in it for me?” to…
2. What do mean, we can’t grow our business there, because it will cause an unhealthy situation? Well, now what will it take to change your mind”? We are already speaking with So and So, and he seems to think it can’t hurt too much.” What can we do for your people back where you come from?”
3. “You’re kind of new up here on the HILL aren’t you, well I think we will get along just fine.”
Government we do need. With out it there would be anarchy. Pollution, may not really be the only problem in our environment.
Last of all Andrew Pacheco: You have hit the nail on the head. Scientists, have know for centuries when food supplies grow short in any given area… animal population dwindles also. In many instances, the female of many species cease to ovulate, automatically. They control their population in order to conserve their habitat of resources.
1.A sampling… when farmers plowed their fields too close, without a hedge row… pheasants, turkey, other game birds, and small game lose their means of nesting areas. Their population drops.
2.Foxes, weasels, skunk, down to the lowliest of field mice, moles, ground hogs, etc. loose their source of food supply, and they control their population accordingly.
3.The food chain from the lowliest animal to the largest, is self regulated. When conditions improve, there is an increase in game population.
By natural or un-natural means… mankind will eventually be faced with the same situation. Will the over population eliminate our species, or will it allow us to rethink, and make a come back?
I do not dwell on the fact I may sound like a fatalist… I love and enjoy life, family, and friends. I have said what I intended to say… I hope and pray mankind can, or will be able learn from the harsh lessons we are being faced with now.
@ Jason :
"Other reports also say the ice age due in 1500 to 10000 years time has been averted! If u plan on living that long, u can relax."
1500 to 10000 is a very small time period and fall well within the range of modern geological events as compared to.3-5 million year time frame. what is that? something less the 0.1% of the time frame in question?
My question is relevant and not that easy to dismiss but good try!
That is not what I said Paul, on the contrary. If living with global change is not carefully dealt with there would be dire consequences for the environment, and society due to economic crisis , which will then exacerbate the damage to the planet. Who will care about the environment when people can't feed themselves, and governments can't take anymore wealth to spread around as none is being made to replenish the pot? How will that be good for the planet? The faster we can make trade agreements with the likes of China and India, the faster we can have some influence in their business/environmental/human rights issues. We want to do business with you, but .....
If you think that Al Gore is a huckster and I think he's "the Patron Saint of the Environment" and the committee for the Nobel Peace Prize are a bunch of pretty smart people, then there can be no debate, facts won't change your opinion or emotional feelings you have for him. Bottom line, he got the Nobel Peace Prize and has done more for this cause than anyone on the right side,period.
What ever income Al Gore receives from hosting events, speaking at events or any other collateral things he does, he does for a reason and a conviction to that cause. He could make ten times more money, being a "consultant" for a Lobby group, for a Law Firm or a number of other careers he could choose. So I guess I wouldn't call him a "huckster" when he obivously isn't doing this to "scam" America and make a few bucks on the side!
Dabster, thank you. Us "Silverbacks" need to watch out for each other.....
And to others here, yes the population is a problem and a growing problem, but it's worsened by the "way" we live more so than the numbers of us living.
"The Earth can sustain a lot more humans, if the humans do their part and help sustain the Earth!"*
We haven't been doing that and we are now facing the results of this selfish lifestyle that we humans have adopted and are reluctant to change,
So - go talk to China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Mexico and all the rest where our factory jobs have gone - we don't have those smoke stacks no more - don't need no stinkin' jobs - just shop at your local Chinese Retail Outlet and be a servant for the government or McDonalds
No one speaks of the boatloads of emissions from Al Gores Jetting around the world making millions.
I wonder if there are any other Christians lurking and watching this discussion.... I have been watching from the beginning and even posted my thoughts but was pretty much ignored...LOL...I figured as much. But I'm still here and I care, so I will post this... (thanks Abbie for lifting the rules on "Religious" posts)
Rich, I realize you and most others do NOT want to hear this, but the FACT of the MATTER is.... It's the answer...It's in the instruction manual....
Just read the following...and if you think it sounds anything like the present time,...grab a bible and read further...It gets more precise and interesting...Everything you have posted above lines up with these writings "Perfectly"
3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"4 Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you.5 For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Messiah,' and will deceive many.6 You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come.7 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places.8 All these are the beginning of birth pains.
Now you can tell me to leave, or ignore what I post, but you still have the same problem.
I've been lurking somewhat so I'll bite Dan (though the environmental, global warming issue is not a huge concern of mine)
Get ten people in a room and find out if you can get them to agree on things. Pretty tough, but somewhat manageable. Get 100 people in a room and it gets pretty dicey. Get 1000 people and it's probably impossible.
World population: 7 Billion
I do my part to control myself... but that guy driving down the road is still throwing plastic cups out his car window. Hey, the U.S. seems to be doing it's part, but Zerzilstan could give a rats behind. And I'm pretty sure that seeking ultimate control is a bigger issue to some large nations, as was mentioned previously. And the only way to control is by monopolizing the buy and sell market. To do that you probably have to ignore creations rules.
Yeah, this is a political thing. It's also a natural thing, a human thing, and a spiritual thing. I'm not quite sure that science and their wrangling really has a grip on what was going on past two hundred years ago, let alone a thousand years! Lots of fabricated facts and dire warnings derived from supposed understandings of what the earth was like back then.
Still the predominate motivations that make man's wheel grind are founded in lust for power and control. Spiritual pollution breeds natural pollution. Also from Matthew 24 " And because "iniquity" (spiritual pollution) shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold." Verse 12
What power can rise up and "force" people to be conscientious in a collective way? I dare say... none.
I'm embarassed: "No one speaks of the boatloads of emissions from Al Gores Jetting around the world making millions." So what, maybe a mule and cart. He's doing a job and other than security reasons, he should fly the best way that gets him to where he needs to be.
I didn't know that Abbie did remove that rule and I'd probably wait to fully respond to your suggested readings. But I would think christians, born again or other wise, would support Al Gore and others, since it's the right and "christian" thing to do. After all, god created this place, so maybe you guys should step up and take better care of it and show the rest of us,heathens, how it should be, by your example. Unless you guys are still hoping that you'll be "disappeared" some day and leave this mess for the "leftovers" to cope with? Is that the plan?
Relying on some "prose" that was written, in various stages, by various people, to provide answers, might be soothing, but it's not science. But trying to insert your religious views on me, is insulting and probably other non-christian members here.
This isn't your pulpit and don't assume that every problem that confronts Man, has an answer in a book,
I fully agree with Rose, Gore is a Huckster and a snake oil salesman and much like the snake oil salesman he bolts when confronted or ask any questions. His worshipers turn a blind eye to the FACT these "scientists" were falsifying data. His worshipers turn a blind eye to his actions that speak in direct contrast to what he is demanding everyone else do. His worshipers turn a blind eye to his sale of Current TV to big oil.
And what about Geoengineering? Man made climate change? Just how much of this global warming/global cooling/climate change/soup of the day are being created to push for more cash in their pockets and more control over the people?
Sure there are things we could do to be more aware of our impact on the planet but once you are found falsifying data, refuse to debate and live in opposition to your "sky is falling" sermons, I would not give any con like that the time of day.
Scientific theories fall, Constantly being re written and falling again...
The "Prose" as you call it, Has never been dis-proven, Not once, On the contrary, it has always proven factual and accurate.
Rich, I respect you and your choice, and I never once intended to insult anyone. If you take it that way, it's your own doing. The fact remains...and nothing can change it. As I said, Everything posted above lines up perfectly with the word... What Glen said is accurate... 7 billion people are not going to agree...
What I consider more important than the fact that these things will happen...Is "When" they will happen... sooner than you might think.
I respect you as an Artist, but I am troubled by your need to proselytize. I don't try and get you to "convert" to Atheism or Agnosticism every chance I get, why do you preach every time the opportunity presents itself or in this case doesn't.
You can have your religion, just keep it to yourself. If you find you need a religion, then fine too. I don't and don't believe the christian religion is the only religion in this world and a few hundred million other people feel the same way.
Your god, the guy that let's bad things happens and then, some little boy is in a traffic accident and the whole family is killed, the boy lives and "Praise be to God", well wasn't that god the guy that let that accident kill his whole family? Oh, god works in mysterious way, forgot.
More people have died because of religion and will die and are dying today, as we type this, somebody in one religion is killing another,because they aren't in the "right" religion.
I can understand why you look forward to this "disappearing", things ain't great here on planet Earth, but it ain't gonna happen.
Your little "niche" religion may work for you, but it seems to have components that border on the "fanatical"
" Fanaticism is a belief or behavior involving uncritical zeal or obsessive enthusiasm."
[quote]I respect you as an Artist, but I am troubled by your need to proselytize[quote]
[quote]You can have your religion, just keep it to yourself.[quote]
I like your input to this forum, but take a serious look at what you just wrote. You had the freedom to start this thread, based on what? A "belief". Has anyone told you, that you should be silent and keep it to yourself? No. I could accuse you of proselytizing, with the very nature of the opening post in this thread. Your OP, is pointing out an issue, that you "believe" is very important and you are not only trying to raise awareness to it, but also trying to get all of us to "change"
Your words - "If we all can work to at least contain our carbon footprint and not increase it and hopefully even reduce it and "we" being humans, then the tide may be turned, if not, the future for our children and they're children looks very bleak indeed"
Am I insulted by your beliefs, or the fact you are trying to "change" the way I look at Global Warming and the "Carbon Footprint"? No. Should I be? Are you "Proselytizing"? Absolutely, you are. Not one person in this thread, is trying to convert you to Christianity. (the very meaning of "Proselytizing"). Yet, you are pretty bent on changing our opinion of "Global Warming"????
This is the problem, with the "other side" of the debate, when it comes to religion. Everyone has a right to opinion and belief, except for when it comes to Religion, at that point we should all just shut up.
To put this all in perspective: You can have your opinions/beliefs regarding "Global Warming", just "keep it to yourself"!!
(EDIT - this is is not how I truly feel. You should NOT have to keep it to yourself. I was this blunt, to make a point and I used your own words. I believe you have the right, to share whatever beliefs/opinions you want, especially those that are of concern to you and close to your heart. Just try to pass on the same courtesy to others, who may share things that you are not in full agreement of.)
I'm with you Tiny by Nature. I have found the global warming believers to be much like fanatical religions. They believe they have the only truth and are better than people who are skeptical or who have not bought into all the hype. Personally I choose God over Gore.
Climate change is approached with people's own personal opinion. Some with a political view, an ecological view and some with religion (good steward of the earth). SO.....all of the above, with only the religious view being attacked.......as usual.
No I have not forgotten the scientific view. I have however not forgotten the proof that data was faked and altered. Nor have I forgotten that Gore will not debate anyone or answer any questions. Nor can I forget about any scientist that disagrees is threatened and harassed. Nor am I able to forget about geoengeering which causes climate change. So what am I to believe when there are scams and shams involved in the whole climate change debate?
There is always a point, to sharing what we believe. My only "point", is that it is important to allow everyone to share and not be tempted to silence the opinion/beliefs, of those we do not agree with.
I believe that Al Gore is an opportunist. He makes a crap load of money, from this "Global Warming" phenomenon. Then again, to be fair, there are quite a few Evangelists that make a crap load of money, doing what they do. The "Great Commission" has truly become, the "Great $$$$$$"!!!
When I hear some Evangelists come on TV or the radio, I shut it off very quickly. If not, I would lose my dinner. It truly makes me sick to my stomach. I know Missionaries in Africa who make nothing, have nothing, are nothing, except for a help to people in need. They do not make millions from the "Gospel" they preach. Their lives, their giving and selflessness, is the Gospel. (or at least, a very large part of it)
Al Gore, if his true concern was the "Planet Earth", would be doing things very differently.
Linda, try getting a basic grasp of science and go back and examine the credibility of these supposed scams and fakings, you might just find that the real scam is the allegation that there was a scam in the first place. And when reviewing the evidence don't forget to to examine also the scams and incompetence of the "sceptic scientists" and lecturers who continue to spout rubbish long after it has been comprehensively debunked.
PS: What on earth do you mean by a "religious view" of climate science. As far as I am aware the Bible, Qur'an and the rest don't have a thing to say about CO2, Milankovitch Cycles, or anything else to do with climate.
Rich...I never asked you to change...I was only offering my viewpoint and source... Tiny summed it up rather well...
I am very interested in anything that has to do with planet earth, especially recycling... You would think that one would give a bit more credit to a book that proves itself time and time again... but no problem... I will watch from afar....
Dan, the glory of science is that its theories are subject to constant testing, revision and improvement as new evidence becomes available. That's not a failure. And it rarely involves the whole thing being dumped in favour of something else (though it can), it is mostly fine-tuning.
I know that believers in an absolute unchangable truth that was proclaimed by someone a few thousand years ago find it hard to understand that admission of error is a strength, rather than a weakness, but it is. It is a tremendous strength. Not every discipline is profound enough to be able to acknowledge and correct its errors, but that lies at the heart of science.
I agree with what you have just said, to a point. There is no difference, between any of those groups you have mentioned, that are "capitalizing".
What we have to be careful of, is that we do not paint all Christians (or even TV Evangelists) and all people concerned with the state of our planet, with the same brush as some "Evangelists" and/or some "Environmentalists". And I use quotations, for a very good reason.
Same goes for bankers, corporate leaders, etc...
I believe as humans, we are all given a sense of "discernment". In the Christian faith, "Discernment" is a gift, but I believe we all have it. (Some more than others).
I don't know of any political/economic system that is ideal. They all have dreadful flaws. To my mind, the first issue is to accept the problem and the second one is to find solutions that people are willing to adopt. It doesn't matter a jot what political label people slap on them, as long as they are acceptable and effective.
Not that I can see that happening, of course, but it's worth thinking about.
There is no "belief" about climate change. We don't have to read a book and try to get a meaning out of what was written 2000 years ago. We don't go to churches and wait to hear what our pastor has said, because the difference in what I/we are saying here is science and math, things that are black and white, not gray like religious views and interpretations of some book.
People that suggest that Al Gore and others, are doing this, for personal gain, are not really thinking, just spouting what their like minded friends say. This is beyond religion and ploitics, this is a coming crisis and we MAY have an opportuntiy to still do something about it, maybe modify it or even halt it.
So Tiny and others, this isn't a belief, like all of yours, that come,based on a 2000 year old book, written by a number of different folk, but whom all were inspired by god, this is science, and you may not agree with it or want to react to it, but like every scientific fact, it's based on research, experimentation and discussion.
Seen this all before. The climate issue is a political tether.
Rich, I can proselytize... and that was not proselytizing. I used some very simple math that anyone could understand. I concur with others here that your zealousness is more to change people's minds about this subject as though they are not concerned about it whatsoever. That is an assumption, just as it is an assumption that the good earth will not replenish itself.
As far as the glory of science goes, why would it have to continue to refine ( better yet, redefine) itself unless there were a flaw in it. Mind you, I have no problem with pure science. I just have a problem with manipulated science that bends the evidence to fit the theory. Quite a flaw I would say.
As for me, I will continue my recycling and do what I can always as my responsibility. I see no answer coming forth as to who will "force" individuals with careless mindsets to do the same thing... especially those who stand to profit with power. That includes the misguided Al Gores of the world.
Glenn, science continues to refine because it makes no claim to being absolute truth - it is just the best approximation to truth that we have.
Wild generalised comments about "manipulated science that bends the evidence to fit the theory" belong in the realm of propaganda. None of us would approve of that but you are just trying to make a generalised smear to score a point without having any evidence - a typical debater's or preacher's ploy. If you want to cite specific incidents of poor science then we could look at them.
PS: Is there any evidence that Al Gore has profited and gained more power through his film, than the profits and power he would have acquired if he had carried on strictly down the usual path of ex-VPs and failed US Presidential candidates? I thought that he was already a political has-been by the time he made An Inconvenient Truth.
Man cannot promise an afterlife. And anyone giving money to gain an afterlife is a fool.
You seem to think that much of science is fact. If it was pure, that would be great. Unfortunately many of the loudest voices have an axe to grind and approach the subject from that viewpoint. One of the biggest approaches includes the desire to disprove the existence of a Creator. I attribute that to a bitterness toward phoney religion, something that greatly influenced Darwin.
I can't speak for institutions Richard. I'm just an individual who does "not" get paid for testifying to what I know.
My point is simply that much of the "sky is falling" mentality regarding climate change is fanatical and there is a false narrative driving the urgency. We think too highly of our abilities to manage the uncontrollable.
Please provide your evidence for this "My point is simply that much of the "sky is falling" mentality regarding climate change is fanatical and there is a false narrative driving the urgency".
2. false narrative
p.s. can't use anyhting that has been or will be on Fox News! LOL!
And every Sunday, a man gets up in front of his flock and promises eternal life, if you just follow these instructions. Of course, those instructions change,depending on which building you're in.
Pushing "YOUR" religion here is wrong.
When I firsted posted this scientific fact, that was right and concerns all who walk the face of this planet,whether they want to acknowledge it or not. The U.S. Navy, has already been studying, as part of their strategic future defense, how they, the Navy, will make adjustments to the coming climate change and the resultant loss of existing harbors and ports that they use today. The Navy, those nuts! If only they had talked to a few here, could have saved millions!
It's real folks, bury your heads in the sands, but I would bring a snorkel with you!
Time will tell what truth is. Can't use anything on FOX Riche? That just goes to show how political your thread and motivation for it really is. I don't remember TV stations being mentioned at all until you brought them up.
Your opening "fact" in this conversation assumes the earth to have carbon-dioxide levels since 3-5 million years ago, and that those reading this thread obviously agree with that. 2 million years is one big spread! There is no proof to back that up except the scientific writings of men in the last maybe one hundred years. So the whole premise is questionable from the beginning. It came from the pulpit that you get fed from, and is every bit as religious and zealous as what you accuse of.
"However, it seems environmental elitists can’t catch a break these days. Some pundits, audacity dripping from their scathing criticisms, are taking Gore to task for being a total hypocrite who has cashed in on oil, the very fossil fuel that he has spent his post-tobacco days condemning.
Al Gore stands to take home a healthy $100 million in profit from the $500 million sale of his troubled Current TV station to Al-Jazeera, an Arab television network once considered the voice of Osama bin-Laden and known for anti-American and anti-Semitic rhetoric.
It seems Al-Jazeera has decided to use Al Gore’s low-rated cable channel, Current TV, to buy access to the U.S. media market for Middle East operatives, including those from the pro-terrorist Muslim Brotherhood.
The Arab government-funded TV channel, labeled “Jihad TV” by Judea Pearl, father of slain journalist Daniel Pearl, says the purpose of the unprecedented acquisition of Current TV is to produce the “Al-Jazeera America” show.
The inconvenient truth to many Americans is that Al Gore didn't just sell out environmentalists with the Current TV deal, he sold out his country."
Nothing political here, Gore is really a nice guy looking out for the planet.
I am never offended by the expression of the importance of religion for any individual in any argument. It only becomes a problem when I feel that I am being told how to think. I am not a particularly religious person, but this christian bashing is getting on my nerves. No one gets to shut anyone else up. You don't like it don't read. No threats, or hate so whats the problem Rich?
This is rebutal. not trying to convert anyone. Just exercising my right to express my opinion.
The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.
Glenn, I've never before seen anyone accuse Darwin of being "greatly influenced by false religions". Please would you supply supporting information, otherwise I will be inclined to think it is another of those wild allegations preachers make up to try to make themselves sound clever and informed to admiring followers.
I'd be grateful if you would provide the specific information you quote about "manipulated science that bends the evidence to fit the theory" as I requested, instead of coming up with just another wild generalisation that "many of the loudest voices have an axe to grind and approach the subject from that viewpoint". I suspect that you confuse "understand in detail what they are talking about" with "having an axe to grind". You know, it would be dead easy for me to smear religion by claiming that the behaviour of paedophile priests and Baptist church leaders who preach homophobia and secretly hire rent-boys reflect the moral values of the entire Christian community, but I rather think you would find that outrageous. Yet you are happy to smear all scientists with allegations of professional corruption, without even offering anything more than a wild generalisation unsupported by any evidence (imagine how much evidence I could trawl up if I felt like it - did you know there's even a web-page somewhere that someone devoted to keeping track of the long list of sex-offence prosecutions against American Southern Baptist ministers?)
I am sure you are aware (you certainly should be) that the small band of highly vocal "climate sceptics" includes a large number of financially motivated science-benders and propagandists, including, for example, Lord Monckton (who carries on delivering pseudo-science lectures, knowing full well his impressive-looking maths has been exposed as meaningless drivel), the extremely rich (and secretive about its funding), oil-industry-backed Heartland Foundation, which (Rose) financially supports the owner of the one-issue, fanatical, AGC-denial Wattsupwiththat website.
The fact that Watts wastes time laying into Al Gore over hypocrisy, which has absolutely nothing to do with whether the information Gore presented in his film is correct or not, is just one example of how his site is interested in propaganda impact, not in ensuring people have reliable infomation about science.
There is a crystal clear division between the efforts of the climate sceptics and the efforts of the climatologists. The climate scientists (who don't include Gore, btw, he's a professional politician) are working hard to gather all kinds of data and analyse it to try to build a highly detailed picture of the world we live in. The sceptic activists, on the other had, gather no data, they simply poke around in the work of the scientists looking for any little discrepancy they might be able to highlight, they use smears to try to undermine public confidence in climate science, deliberately spread misinformation and confusion and attempt to thwart any science-based climate initiatives by arguing that there is uncertainty about the science.
If you, Glenn,Rose and Linda, would set aside your political and religious preconceptions and look objectively at what the two sides in this debate are actually doing, who is working constructively and who is merely being destructive, look at the background of the leading personalities and the credibility of their work (including whether it has been comprehensively been refuted) and then at the credibility of the individuals (whether they continue to propagandise discredited ideas), and look at what is left when irrelevant smears and discredited ideas have been stripped away, then you might see through the smokescreen that has been thrown up around this issue for commercial reasons.
Here's some inside information about the Heartland Institution, which may give an insight. You'll note that one of the policies of the funding engine for the leading climate change deniers is to smuggle changes into American states' school curriculums "that dissuade teachers from teaching science". How patriotic and enlightened is that? http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/02/14/heartlandgate-anti-science-ins/
I guess then that "the sky is falling" attitude can also be said of certain groups of those who claim of the "end times", after all that is a mere interpretation based on a belief of a version of a man written document that is preached from a pulpit of an institution where followers gladly give 10% of their earnings.
The above is just a random google search of scientists that have falsfied their research. Got to get those grants! Yet there are some people that all someone has to do is be a scientist and people will believe everything as gospel. By the way, my view towards climate change have nothing to do with religion. I simply get sick of the bigoted intolerant attacks I see here if anyone dares mentions religion. Don't share someone's religious beliefs?....be a good adult and pass it by.
I noticed no one addresses Gore's refusal to debate, Geoengineering and his so called "settled science". With geoengineering, those with big financial interest and the megalomaniac desire to control others, can create a problem. Are "we the people" polluting? You bettcha! But we do not need to fill Gore's pockets when he lives in direct contrast to the way he demands everyone else live. Con man, plain and simple.
Just a few days ago we had a clear blue sky and here come the planes, criss-crossing the sky with whatever they are spraying. Withing a couple of hours the whole sky was full of dark clouds.
See the FOX news thing was a joke! At the end I had LOL! Which means laughing out loud! Funny huh? TV shows have agendas and we all know about FOX and we all know about MSNBC.
"Time will tell what truth is" Very profound answer to the request for facts,supporting your statements above. And you know what, Time is actually telling us now! 400 parts per million!
"Your opening "fact" in this conversation assumes the earth to have carbon-dioxide levels since 3-5 million years ago, and that those reading this thread obviously agree with that. 2 million years is one big spread! There is no proof to back that up except the scientific writings of men in the last maybe one hundred years." Now you're scaring me! Are you one of those guys that think humans and dinosaurs roamed the earth together and other related bedtime stories?
Scientists can actually test stuff and see how much carbon dioxide is contained within, from millions of years ago, samples of ice,etc. so it isn't some guy with a quill pen from a hundred years ago or so!
Rose, what is your fixation on Al Gore? People at that level travel the world and instead of a cart and a mule, are now using aircraft,much faster! Justin Beiber is using more fuel and even making more money than Al, just sayin' is all!
Richarde, Good points and the like the entire population, there are good church people and there are bad church people, just numbers.
Phillip, Most excellent video! I got about 10 minutes into this morning and wil finish this later, thanks!
I would like to get back to the original discussion, if possible and leave out religion, since it has no purpose here.
I would hope and suggest that if anyone is interested in a learning experience, on why we are here now, with this crisis forming on the horizon, to listen to the video that Phillip posted. I don't yet know who Jeremy Rifkin is, but I will do some research later and finish the video this afternoon, after yardwork! But he, Mr. Rifkin, has a very good way of explaining difficult and complicated issues, from the 10 minutes I've listened so far. The whole tape is about 25 minutes, so get comfortable,
I suppose it hasn't helped in Britain that "they" had been lecturing us almost everyday on the television about "global warming" for the last decade only to find we have recently had the coldest winters for 50 years . So now they have quickly changed it from "global warming" to "climate change".
Now I grant you that man's activity is probably having an effect on the weather but there is also a mega..mega nuclear reactor blasting all sorts of stuff in our direction every day. Its called the sun.. and its activity cycles are a big part of global weather.
My own feeling is that our temps reached a peak around the millenium and we are now heading back towards the next ice age in the northern hemisphere.. the historical records show they tend to happen every few 10-20-30k years so we are due. Last night for the first time anyone can remember it snowed in the south of England in mid May.. in areas often referred to as the English Riviera. The historical record also shows that temperatures tend to peak at regular intervals throughout history and then fall away very quickly. It seems to be doing that now.
It's not many years since the BBC was presenting the population with a bleak picture of southern Britain becoming arid semi-desert.. since then its hardly stopped raining.
There was also the rather sneaky admission by the BBC the day before Christmas when most folks were busy getting in their Christmas shopping.. that the Metrological people had changed their computer model (traded in their old PC ?? ) and had as a result revised downwards the rate of "global warming". .. just a little.. what it actually revealed was that there had been little or no warming for 15 years.
Now I tend to agree with those who say "man's activities are having an impact on the weather" but I don't think anyone really knows what the impact is or will be. If clean technologies are going to come in then I personally think cost considerations and certainly not "environmental doom merchants will be the big driver of change.
Its probably a good idea to do as much as possible to reduce CO2 but its a question of balance for me.. the western world is busy driving away it's "dirty" industries partly in the name of environmentalism and all the much needed jobs that go with them. And China and India are more than happy to expand their nasty polluting industries to fill the gap. My personal opinion is that for every factory closing in the west.. and the reduction of CO2 that goes with that.. another 2 polluting factories open elsewhere in the world. So all we are doing it handing prosperity, jobs and yes the pollution creating industries to China and India. The figures for Chinese industrial expansion are truly incredible.. they seem to have done a hundred years of development in a couple of decades.
It hasn't escaped the wider populations notice that the environmental lobby tends to have nice secure jobs in quango's and academia and doesn't need to concern itself too much with the grubby business of making money in order to survive. Its great striving for a green nirvana when the salary is guaranteed every month. Do I detect a whiff of hypocracy ?
My sort of environmentalist is Elon Musk.
It's a fact readily acknowledged in Britain that a large part of our much vaunted savings in CO2 have been achieved in recent decades have come about through the process of de-industrialization. Of course we all want our computers, assorted vinyl products, cars, phones and fridges but we like to pretend to ourselves that sending their manufacturer to China is in somehow helping the planet.. err... I don't think so.
@ Paul "There is a crystal clear division between the efforts of the climate sceptics and the efforts of the climatologists. The climate scientists (who don't include Gore, btw, he's a professional politician) are working hard to gather all kinds of data and analyse it to try to build a highly detailed picture of the world we live in. The sceptic activists, on the other had, gather no data, they simply poke around in the work of the scientists looking for any little discrepancy they might be able to highlight, they use smears to try to undermine public confidence in climate science, deliberately spread misinformation and confusion and attempt to thwart any science-based climate initiatives by arguing that there is uncertainty about the science. "
This is well stated.
The reputation of science is being tainted by the greedy power mongering capitalistic cabalist. the real problem is, they are using such tactics among and against themselves...... [this is just a theory on mine] ;)
BTW; It is so nice to see how religion a politics bring us all together in sweet harmony..........
Mary, your list of medical doctors, a psychologist and a biochemist who have falsified results or tried to fiddle some grants has nothing whatsoever to do with climatologists. Perhaps the most interesting thing about those links, from the perspective of this discussion, is how often the culprits are exposed and punished by their colleages and professional organisations. If a researcher falsifies results he runs a serious risk of being exposed by honest colleages (even his own graduate student in the last link) and losing his position. Why would that be? Simply because polluting the stream of scientific knowledge with false results creates problems for the entire community later on, when people may try to use your results in their own work and be led down dead-ends or into false conclusions.
Compare that sort of professional oversight with what happens with crooked cops, lawyers, accountants, priests and pastors. How often do their own colleagues expose them and punish them? How often do they conspire to cover up wrongdoing to avoid embarrassment, unpleasantness or a bad press?
You have made all sorts of allegations about climate scientists, You say: "I have however not forgotten the proof that data was faked and altered. .... Nor can I forget about any scientist that disagrees is threatened and harassed. ...... So what am I to believe when there are scams and shams involved in the whole climate change debate?" But you haven't produced a single piece of evidence to support these statements.
And, by the way, Gore is a politician, not a scientist.
Andy, I've got articles from the 1980s that use the terms global warming/climate change interchangably. Every time there is a cold spell someone shouts "gotcha! You've stopped calling it global warming because it got cold". I've seen that claim pop up for years now, but local weather and global climate are two different things.
The yarn that the world have been cooling down for 15 years is nonsense. Last year was as hot as 1998, which was a completely freak year (and so should not be used as a starting point for measuring a trend) and there have been two or three other years that hot as well. So there has been a bit of a plateau in measured temperatures for about a decade, but there are various short term effects that should be working together to cool things down and the net effect has not been the cooling that would be expected, but just a pause in the warming.
The real data comes from ice core samples, tree ring growth patterns, and unadulterated soil borings. To deny the validity of this type of long term data from different global samples that converge in common analysis is denying fact. The change in the term Global Warming to Climate change is an obvious minimization of the importance of the science. We have gone from "CODE RED" to "code yellow".
Two times wrote to respond to Riche, Paul, and Richard Rizzo. Two times timed out and lost everything. I forgot to copy.
What I do with my 10% is my business. What they do with it is their business from that point. They face the consequences if misused.
Be concerned. I believe in the biblical account of creation, in the God who says He created it in 6 days, and that the earth is no more than 7 thousand years old. God can do whatever He wants. What happens to our souls?
You twisted my words to fit your own again. Go back and read what my thrust of the statement was.
I find it hard to fathom all this talk about worrying what the earth is going to be like for those that come after us hundreds of years from now when we have a hard time getting up off our hind ends and helping the neighbor next door.
Gotta go make a living. Last attempt to post this.
I now always save my epistles off FAA, for the same reason! I lost a glorious post( I watched "Lincoln" last night) and when I got to send it, OOOPS! And I couldn't put it back together again!
So back to the "R" word. An educated person, telling me that,regardless of scientific fact, believes that something written 2000 years ago or more, is more accurate then what we know as facts! That does indeed concern me. That tells me a lot of your thought process, or lack of it and you're blind allegiance to a work of fiction. But then for years, I thought the Moon was made of cheese, until I think it was my 4th birthday. Pretty much the same huh?
Linda, Linda,Linda, "Just a few days ago we had a clear blue sky and here come the planes, criss-crossing the sky with whatever they are spraying. Withing a couple of hours the whole sky was full of dark clouds."
You caught the Government's secret "cloud planes"! They go across the sky, just like you said and make clouds! And the MORE they go across the sky, the darker it gets!!!
I find it interesting, that the three or four people complaining about my take on religion are the same people that keep dragging religion BACK into a scientific discussion. As far as I know, no angels or demons are responsible for any of this global climate change or the increase in CO2. So why keep bringing this in?
I didn't introduce religion into this discussion, but one of your Apostles did and it went down hill from there.
A tiny niche of a larger christian religion, trying to dominate this thread, with their own credos, is as I said before, insulting to me and the other non-born agains and should be discontinued from this to some other thread.
Hearing people say that they believe that the earth is 7000 old, hurts my brain! This isn't the Middle Ages folks and the Sun doesn't revolve around the Earth either, please take your beliefs elsewhere,
Are you denying geoengeering Rich? Have you gone to any scientific sites that do geoengeering? Do you live where they do any of this spraying? Are you in denial of the science of geoengineering and its ability to manipulate climate?
Geoengineering techniques aim to slow global warming through the use of human-made changes to the Earth's land, seas or atmosphere. But new research shows that the use of geoengineering to do environmental good may cause other environmental harm. In a symposium at the Ecological Society of America's Annual Meeting, ecologists discuss the viability of geoengineering, concluding that it is potentially dangerous at the global scale, where the risks outweigh the benefits.
"That tells me a lot of your thought process, or lack of it and you're blind allegiance to a work of fiction.".
Now that is a targeted, insulting statement, with purpose!
Manuscripts that are well over 2000 years old and meticulously handled and documented over time trump the recent new writings conjured up through experimentation and analysis that do not explain away the manuscripts in the first place. Your responses and demeanor are even broken down and explained by scripture.
It is thorough... including the natural and the spiritual.
evidence that temperature rises have stopped?? not at all...!!
...it does sound crazy to talk of locust plagues and malaria ... but theses insects are only limited by temperature ranges... and to talk of oceans literlly dying as currents stop souns crazy... except the archaeologists have proved it has happened before...
i mean if i said killer bees would move north through the Americas you would say i was mad 30 years ago....
I also concur with his statements. As I mentioned before, there are guidelines for ministry support laid out in the scriptures. Ignorance is part of the program no matter where you go. We are people, and it is inherited and encompasses all facets of life... including blind beliefs in religion or science.
To think that we can control the climate of the earth is a ridiculous notion. Dan Turners earlier statement, "A global financial meltdown will occur long before environmental concerns bite us. To me, harping on the environment is a way to avoid acknowledging real problems. ", rings of some truth. Part of the reason for that melt down will be precisely because of run away environmental theories that stop us from moving forward through over reaching regulation... leaving lots of opportunity on the table. His observation to adapt is pretty stunning... and probably the best way of coping and managing..
Mike Peychick also made a keen observation regarding his personal recycling dilemma. They wanted to fine those who don't comply but they themselves were the worst culprits. Talk about taking the enthusiasm for helping "out" of the task! Zealots do these kinds of things and hamper credible concerns.
I live in California. I have seen air pollution changed drastically over the past 40 years through manageable regulation and the concern of citizens together. There used to be a huge cloud of smog that engulfed the city of Los Angeles every day. There used to be warnings daily on the air conditions. As a young person I used to get short of breath because of the pollution. I don't see it today.
You just confirmed my point, with your example of the pollution problem in L.A. What solved or corrected that problem, was science, and if you accept that science fixed that, then it's a short journey to accepting that science is real and works and not the plaything of a few people trying to scam the world.
And that means, that you should now accept what science is now saying and has said for decades, that MAN is affecting the planet and ONLY MAN can correct it.
Richard, thank you and hope that spreads......!!!
Oh, back to Glennn, yes to think that an educated person, believes that the Earth is only around 7,000 years old, is astounding and since you proposed it, yes, directed towards you. There are "trees" in your neck of the woods, that are twice as old as the document you refer to!
And don't even get me started with our recently departed dinosaurs, you know, the ones that were about 6,500 old or so.
You can believe what you want to believe and I'll defend your right to believe it! BUT I will not accept you trying to use that belief in a scientific discussion, doesn't belong there.
There is something positive sprung from the use of "fossil fuels"- worldwide use of it in fertilizer has produced so much food with half the soil used for food decades ago, that the percentage of people starving to death has been reduced by 20 or 30 percent the last few decades. Somewhere in the teens or lower teens perhaps now. It would seem to me that the U.S. and other developed countries have learned many ways to reduce the negative effects of pollution despite more energy use, and places like China haven't tried to approach the problem yet. I recently saw something about natural methane in the earth that resides near the oil deposits that can be used to fuel our whole planet for thousands of years. It just hasn't been used yet.
I can't help thinking that China's one-child policy, designed to restrain and perhaps reverse population growth, isn't a more significant contribution to humanity than the provision of fertilizer to enable us to feed more and more people.
In the end, there has to be some limit to population growth and the more people there are when we run into it, the more awful the outcome will be.
Glenn, I don't know what it is that you are saying I twisted, since I think I cut and pasted the quotes of yours I remarked on. It is possible that you were referring to bitterness influencing Darwin rather than false religion influenciing him, as that statement was worded ambiguously - but the false religion reference was closer to Darwin's name than the reference to bitterness (and I've never heard a suggestion that Darwin was embittered, either, so that would need elucidation if that was what you meant).
In any case, you are once again evading my requests for evidence to back up your vague assertions. If you are going to make assertions you should be willing to stand up and justify them, instead of running away every time by producing yet another vague accusation (this time that quoting you is twisting what you are saying).
650,000,000 years ago! But that was before............ Oh right, got cha!
China is really moving much faster than we are, both in Solar and in converting gas and diesel fueled trains and trucks to Nat. Gas. But the population and the budding middle class is still the killer. Just too much demand for stuff.
In fact there are many countries around the world, moving faster than us and that's another issue facing us, the lack of demand from voters to increase the solar,wind, water energy resources we have. We need a National grid, more than we need a new pipeline!
“There is something positive sprung from the use of "fossil fuels"- worldwide use of it in fertilizer has produced so much food with half the soil used for food decades ago, that the percentage of people starving to death has been reduced by 20 or 30 percent the last few decades.”
Good point Dave. Fossil fuels are responsible for increased economic and technological growth around the world. Increased adaptability and wealth in developing nations has doubled since 1990 and if it continues to do so will help prepare their communities for the effects of climate change if and when it becomes a crisis.
The scenarios the IPCC lays out for us are based on certain assumptions about the rate of economic growth and technological change. In the case of poor countries the IPCC’s highest growth scenarios show how their GDP will double that of the U.S. in I think 1996 even taking into account any negative impact of climate change. 'Yet that very same scenario (the A1F1) is also the one that leads to the greatest rise in temperature.' The poor will adapt to their conditions due to new technology and wealth more so than if they remain poor with lower rises in temperature. There is no denying that fossil fuels are the most economical source of energy and have increased economic growth in developed and developing countries.
Rich, is it possible that you might consider making this thread a private discussion for FAA members only?
Vague assertions. So you deny that there are those in the science community that have an axe to grind.. especially against biblical writings. And I thought you were a newsman. The propensity to steer towards proving there is no Creator is a main motivation by many in the science community. Yet the order and workings of the Creation itself are complete miracles... including the existence of knowledge and consciousness. An accident that came to being? Even the odds of that happening are astounding.
I never said that science was a sham and total bull... or implied that it was. I said that I believe that they are way off in their assertions as to the age of the earth. I'll hold that belief regardless of your brain ache. I also think that our fate on this planet has already been written ahead of time and that we can know how it ends. I'm ready for the inevitable that happens... and happy in the meantime with my choices.
Working together made a difference in Los Angeles because there was an agreement together of the people, including regulators. Didn't take much of a scientist to see that something needed to be done. It blistered our eyes and hampered our respiratory system everyday. That same case is not clicking with the 7 Billion plus around the world the same way and I pointed out why.
Well, you guys solve the problem. Send me an e-mail when the solution arises.
I hadn't thought of making this private. What would be the reasons to do so?
Dragging in the "R" word again huh? "I also think that our fate on this planet has already been written ahead of time and that we can know how it ends."
"Because the Bible tells me so!" You still singing that song Glenn? Out of all the religions in the world and all the religions shared by the 170,000 or so members of FAA, Your religion happens to be the only true religion? What a coincidence!
Why do you and your few friends have a "need" to preach? To preach to a choir, that ain't listening? Do you think that YOUR GOD is the only true GOD and YOUR RELIGION or SECT is the only right religion. Your religion, based on what many consider, fiction, is determining your life and how you perceive facts around you. If your religion tells you the Earth is only 7,000 years old, you believe and worse, you push this on others?
There are cave paintings in France, that are just only about 180,000 years old or so. How do you explain that my friend? Carbon dating, doesn't agree with your book of fiction, so it isn't real? Your god didn't mention it, so it never happened? Disappointing to those folks over in France when they find out.
Listen, as I've said before, you can believe what ever you want to believe and you have that right, but to take that belief and try to use it to discredit science is ridiculous. Outside of your cabal of friends, it's laughable to say the Earth is only 7,000 years old.
And finally and I hope this is a finally, we have thousands of people here at FAA and probably hundreds of religions and sects and everytime you and your buddies start talking the talk, bible thumping talks, it offends a few hundred people that don't belong to your group and in fact, they may be diametrically opposed to your religion and other christian religions. Not playing nice. I would ask you to consider this fact and if you want to start threads about "Faith" and such, fine, but religion shouldn't be intertwined here on a scientific thread.
It might encourage more FAA members to contribute their opinions. Some people would like to enter debates like this but feel they would like to keep it more private. Since this is a business site they have to think of how potential customers or even their employers would view their opinions. I am not the first one to recommend this, it happens all the time. Sorry if you take offense.
Why do you have a need to put down something that you cannot possibly understand? What makes you an expert in science Rich? Can you prove anything scientifically that isn't an extrapolated theory? The answer to that question is no. Just because someone claims to have found a cave painting that is 180,000 years old doesn't mean it is so. Was there a date written on it? But you pompously act as though you can. Carbon dating methods have proven to be false many times over. You sit on the throne the same way as everyone else, and you will turn to dust just like everyone else. You're one of the reasons I continue to stand firm in my faith. Your bitterness and lack of courtesy towards those who believe are fuel to carry on. Your demeaning approach to the many of the 170,000 here on FAA who are professing believers but feel intimidated by you and your brash assertions as though they are absolute facts and shun the wide open field of respectful discussion. Nobody thumped on here but you Rich... all in a disrespectful and mocking manner. Scientific thread? Lots of science fiction too. There is no concrete evidence to prove the age of the earth to be billions of years old, which dispels your opening salvo to lay the foundation of this thread. Next time qualify the thread to be open to those who believe that theory only.
But it really is about the importance of the issue. Some don't believe the urgency in the same way and that it is politically motivated. There is no agreement. Check this out: http://www.petitionproject.org/
There's my say regarding it. Let it go and I'll be on my way.
There is a lot of money and control to be had in the global warming scam. There is also the driving factor for the eugenicists with their zeal to rid the world of the evil human being (except for them of course). Mention global warming and the cry of too many people follows closely behind.
Geo engineering and H.A.A.R.P. does cause man-made climate change but to admit these programs are part or wholly the problem would interfere with the game. As long as these programs are there for the sole purpose to create climate change, I am not buying into Gore's "settled science".
Glenn, it is precisely because I have been a journalist that I want straight answers to straight questions. I've asked you three times to justify what you said about Darwin (which I was actually just curious about to start with, your allegation would - if it were true - just have been a bit of historical background) and each time you refuse to give a simple answer. Since you are determined to avoid providing any evidence in support of a minor detail of alleged historical fact, I can only assume you either made it up to assist with the demonisation of Darwin among the religious, or someone else made it up and you swallowed the lie. Either way, you seem embarrassed to admit that anything you say is factually wrong. Are you actually incapable of admitting you make mistakes? Anyway, this is your chance to put the record straight if there is some other reason for you dodging the question.
Glenn, this is a thread about CO2 and climate change. You stated:"...I just have a problem with manipulated science that bends the evidence to fit the theory. Quite a flaw I would say". I thought it was reasonable to assume you were talking about climate scientists, in view of the topic, so I asked you to substantiate that. After a couple more evasions you come up with this diversionary tactic: "Vague assertions. So you deny that there are those in the science community that have an axe to grind.. especially against biblical writings." So this is about science vs religion, not about CO2 and climate change? What has the fact that a handful of scientists put a lot of effort into debunking religion got to do with your earlier smear about "manipulated science" and scientists "bending evidence"? I was asking for details about climate scientists "manipulating science" and "bending the truth", which was what your earlier vague comment seemed to imply ..... only now it seems to have been even vaguer than I thought and really had nothing to do with the subject of the thread.
Linda (and Glenn) yes, there is a lot of money in the global warming scan. One oil company gave $750,000 to the Heartland Foundation (according to their pal's "wattsup" website) and they get millions from a mysterious "The Anonymous Donor" in order to support their agenda of undermining scientific teaching and providing a platform and funds to scientists who give open support to their work in undermining the public understanding of climate science. You only have to go to a Heartland Foundation conference to find scientists who manipulate the data and bend the evidence to fit the theory. One example of that is the decade old game of using 1998 temperatures as a starting point for drawing a line showing the direction global temperatures are heading in. Another money-connected global warming scam was the horribly named (now seemingly defunct) "scientistsfortruth.com" set up by oil exploration geologists, to tell the world that burning oil does no harm and to recycle all the same-old same-old anti-climate-science propaganda.
It's interesting that out of all the loudly proclaimed announcements that the climate scientists are cheating/lying/wrong there only seem to be a handful of cases where the complaint has stood up. I think the most recent concerned ice-melt data for the Himalayas, and that may have been deliberate falsification of data, and there were a couple of others a decade ago, which I think were both pointed out by the same sceptic and dealt with some detailed aspect of the interpretation of the temperature record. In each case, the necessary corrections were made, which is in sharp contrast to the sceptic lobby which usually doesn't care if its claims have been debunked (presumably because it all helps to add to public confusion).
I don't normally like to talk about religious beliefs but if you are religious and you believe in God wouldn't God want us to take care of his/her beautiful creation that he/she gave us to live in ? Putting all science aside wouldn't this just be common sense to take care of our home?
Yes I have heard of this new process and attempt to control or reduce both heat/Solar and CO2. Here's the description for those who may not be familiar with this concept. Almost ALL of these are being run as computer models, only one that I could find was an a semi-large scale attempt, so I would be reluctant to blame them for Earth's warming:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Geoengineering is the deliberate and large-scale intervention in the Earth’s climatic system with the aim of reducing global warming. The discipline divides broadly into two categories- carbon dioxide removal and solar radiation management. Carbon dioxide removal addresses a cause of climate change by removing one of the greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. Solar radiation management attempts to offset effects of greenhouse gases by causing the Earth to absorb less solar radiation.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded in 2007 that geoengineering options remained largely unproven.
Geoengineering has been proposed as a potential third option for tackling global warming, alongside mitigation and adaptation. Scientists do not typically suggest geoengineering as an alternative to emissions control, but rather an accompanying strategy. Reviews of geoengineering techniques have emphasised that they are not substitutes for emission controls and have identified potentially stronger and weaker schemes.
There are no known large-scale geoengineering projects except one conducted outside the scientific mainstream by Russ George. Almost all research has consisted of computer modelling or laboratory tests, and attempts to move to real-world experimentation have proved controversial. Some limited tree planting and cool roof projects are already underway. Ocean iron fertilization has been given small-scale research trials. Field research into sulfur aerosols has also started.
Various criticisms have been made of geoengineering and some commentators appear fundamentally opposed. Some have suggested that the concept of geoengineering presents a moral hazard because it could reduce the political and popular pressure for emissions reduction. Groups such as ETC Group and individuals such as Raymond Pierrehumbert have called for a moratorium on deployment and out-of-doors testing of geoengineering techniques. The full effects of various geoengineering schemes are not well understood.[unreliable source?]
Thank you fro your response and "no harm no foul!". It seems Abbie has beat me to it! I did not see any reason for closing this discussion to members only and in fact think discussions like this might actually encourage more people to read and participate in these types of discussions, as compared to " I love my cat" show your photos(which I have done!LOL!).
Intelligent discussion(mostly), to me is an added "marketing tool", which is something I really need right now!!!
Lara, I haven't been to church since I was a child but back then I remember many sermons teaching that we should be good stewards of the earth. Certainly it would be common sense to take care of our home.
You could only find on example Rich? LOL They even do geoengineering in the oceans.
Australia has launched a bid to stop the commercial use of a controversial ''geoengineering'' technique that involves dumping iron into the ocean in a bid to counter the effects of man-made climate change.
First off, there WAS no need to qualify this as you suggest, "to those who believe that theory only" since, well it isn't a theory, but a fact, that this Earth is much older than 7,000 yeras old and I was surprised to see folks like you jump into a scientific discussion with "personal" theories, regardless what book they came from.
As I have said more than once, you can believe whatever nonsense you care to believe and I will defend your right to believe those "theories" or "spoken word" or whatever, but interjecting your personal RELIGIOUS views here in this discussion is farcial. If you want to debate various "truths" of your religion, with other religions, then start a new thread. But to tell intelligent people that scientists have been lying or making the same mistake, for the last 20 years or so about facts and science, is absurd.
Believe whatever Glenn.
"Your bitterness and lack of courtesy towards those who believe are fuel to carry on. Your demeaning approach to the many of the 170,000 here on FAA who are professing believers but feel intimidated by you and your brash assertions as though they are absolute facts and shun the wide open field of respectful discussion.
" your brash assertions as though they are absolute facts". Heads up, "Spoiler Alert" They are FACTS Glenn and because you follow a religion that doesn't acknowledge that, doesn't mean they aren't still facts for the vast majority of the members here and the rest of the educated world.
When "When Faith takes over, Facts die." *
Linda, "eugenicists" HUH? Where did that come from?
Lara, thanks for joining and of course, you are right. Treating this planet as a disposable water bottle, isn't the Christian thing to do, UNLESS you won't be here much longer and then why bother!
Rich I have never engaged in or read a discussion about climate change where the cry of "there's too many people" as part of the discussion. Some of the biggest supporters of geoengineering are also eugenicists, like Bill Gates for one.
"They aren't "his" vaccines. We all use the same vaccines. Not much infertility going around; in fact, last I checked overpopulation was a problem.
Bill Gates referred to reducing the population of "third world" countries by vaccination. This comment was jumped on by conspiracy theorists. In context, he was talking about the observed trend of the birth rates in countries decreasing after the death rate has decreased. So, when people aren't dying so much, they have less children. You see this strategy in wild animals as well: have lots of offspring so there's a greater chance of them reaching adulthood. If you put all your eggs in one basket (have less children) they might all die from disease. We can afford to do that in developed countries because they're relatively disease free."
Here's the explanation for his statement about using vaccines and overpopulation, that "people" like to latch onto and try to make him some evil person, the guy and gal that has so far, saved about 6 million lives so far and are " The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (B&MGF or the Gates Foundation) is the largest transparently operated private foundation in the world, founded by Bill and Melinda Gates."
I applaud your efforts. I no longer have the patience to argue about science, with people who profess the world is 7000 years old, especially when they demand more proof for your assertions then they demand from their own own holy book. After all they lost the battle of "testable" proof long ago.
And lets not forget that scientific academia is about the most transparent occupation one can find. After all just to get ahead you must lay everything you are doing out there for anyone to examine, test, and criticize. If priests of old had received that much scrutiny, and pressure to prove each and every passage in their holy books was true, they'd have gone through the circular reasoning game a few thousand times, gotten insanely frustrated when it didn't work, and shot themselves.
To bad that never happened, and still doesn't today. We might be much farther ahead today then we are.
In answer to your question regarding Darwin, the Christian doctrine that he was taught perplexed him and actually pushed him away from the biblical accounts. How they were taught, and what example of Christianity he saw we can't really know. He was influenced by a curiosity of the pain and suffering of this world and did not understand why it existed. Why would an omnipotent God allow such things to happen? Sound familiar? This question is always asked. His drive to find out truth through nature was fueled by what he perceived as an inadequate answer through what he was taught religiously. It wasn't real to him... and much of it was because he was weak in his beliefs in the first place. It was the "inherited Christianity" syndrome... not the experiential daily conviction of a living God. His natural scientific mind took over. Just because he went to seminary doesn't mean that he was a believer. It's a choice.
As far as demonizing goes, that's left to others. I see lots of demonizing going out at Christians. Darwin was a very intelligent man. His theories have been elevated to god status. I just don't buy them and believe that they have been manipulated to a point where he probably wouldn't even recognize them today himself.
I also left a reference to over 31,487 different signatures from the science community that refuted the problem of CO2. 9,029 of which were PHD's. Perhaps those voices shouldn't be heard or taken into consideration. I remember them being glossed over by the media when they first came out. Politics as usual.
@Lara, haven't seen one professing Christian come onto this thread and proclaim that they are "Not Concerned" about the environment. I've seen just the opposite.
Hey Robert Matson, good to see you once again. I've eaten lots of those beans myself. Perhaps there is a methane problem.
Evolutionary theory has gone way beyond the days of Darwin. And there is very little, if anything that he observed that has be refuted successfully. And more importantly its scientific discoveries made since his time that have continued to back up what he said.
I encourage you to read a very small, easy to read book called: Why Evolution is True.
It covers many facets of the field, from analysis of vestigial organs to explanations of why animals that reside in the ocean have genes whose purpose is for detecting scents that only a land-based animal life like a wolf would have a use for. Its not a book that can possibly lay out the details...but anybody actually interested in separating fact from fiction knows its merely a guidebook for further research.
And frankly when I hear someone say I don't believe something is true, versus I have tested this scientist theory, and this is why it isn't true...I know they haven't done their home work. And Darwin and Evolution are far more testable, and have been far more critically examined than any alternative...including the religious ones used as "proof" it isn't true. Oh and you'd be hard pressed to convince me that any religious text ever written, especially those with a millennia of history haven't been manipulated.
And as I like to say, if evolution wasn't true, we'd have licked every biological pathogen decades ago. Instead we are dealing with super bugs. And microbes are an example of evolution in fast forward, because they go threw millions if not billions of life cycles in the time it wakes us to go through one two. And so genetic changes spurred on by selective pressures (anti-bacteria soap, drugs, etc) happen alot quicker across entire populations than they will ever change in us.
Welcome to the "mire"! I may just take the rest of the day off!
If someone last week had told me I would be debating with someone on the Internet, about whether the Earth was 7,000 old and dinosaurs were here just a few thousand years ago, I would want what he was smokin'!!!
I can't even imagine a plausible argument for people that think this way, that I can use and try to convince them, that maybe, just maybe, an itsy-bitsy part of their "folklore" might be wrong. It's like somebody telling me that in there religion, "rocks can fly!", because it's in this book they have!!!
Linda, part deux, HUH?
Glenn, please provide that link again about the 31,487 "scientists", when you get a chance, thanks,
It seems to me a fairly normal process of growing doubt in an intelligent man brought up in a strongly religious society.
As for the thousands of PhDs, someone did a survey that showed that only a very small percentage of science PhDs (and a minuscule percentage of active climatologists with PhDs) doubted AGC. The largest pool of sceptics is among the geologists, who tend to regard large fluctuations in climate as part of the normal order of things (and who are also the most closely associated with polluting industries).
The leap of understanding what goes on "in every human spirit", "It seems to me a fairly normal process of growing doubt in an intelligent man brought up in a strongly religious society.", is common and is explained in the scriptures in detail. The scriptures are spiritual and cannot be discerned except through spiritual. Darwin was carnal... as is every man from birth. Rich says " I can't even imagine a plausible argument..." . That is a very true and honest statement. He is a carnal man without spiritual light. And so it is nothing but foolishness to him or anyone who functions with a spiritual dead zone as their compass. That's why he seems so energetic to be offensive towards others that live by faith. He has no problem calling them foolish or to trounce on their faith. "God is a fool" in that way of thinking because their is no acknowledgment of Him in a carnal mind. He doesn't acknowledge the carnal mind either. He considers it "The dead zone". Coming out of that Dead Zone is the only way to understand it. But that is all explained in the scriptures... as is everything else. Hidden from the carnal mind.
Anyways, we have had this discussion in the past and the tide here is to talk of Climate Change issue. I came in in response to Dan Daugherty way up there somewhere. Didn't mean to linger.
31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs
Qualifications of Signers
All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.
I just finished that video you posted and thanks! Very informative and I really like that guy and the way he explains complex matters, down to something very understandable,
here's the link again for anyone that would like a complete "education" in about 25 minutes! Climate chnage and energy and world economics!
Normally I wouldn't want to go off the rails again, but I just had to share this quote, since its relevant to "a part" of our recent discussion. Its a classic!
"Young earth creationism is essentially the position that all of modern science, 90% of living scientists, and 98% of living biologists, all major university biology departments, every major science journal, the American Academy of Sciences and every major science organization in the world, are all wrong regarding the origins and development of life...but one particular triebe of uneducated, bronze aged, goat herders got it exactly right". - Chuck Easttom
Rich, yes, he has a great vision and which is slowly but steadily being implemented across countries worldwide. Haven't read his book about it yet, but one also worth reading. The Third Industrial Revolution
97% of published climate papers with a position on human-caused global warming agree that global warming is man caused.
WOW!! It is absolutely mind blowing and sickening, to see the hatred and intolerance that comes from a group of artists!! I would have thought differently about a community like this one, but I am proven wrong once again. Why is it not possible for certain members of this thread, to allow others to share their opinions, without hurling insults at them?
Rich, you raised a controversial subject with your OP. It is a subject that is hotly debated, even amongst the scientific community. Yet you rail on about it, as though "Global Warming" is a "proven fact".
What amazes me the most, is the absolute hatred that seeps out of just about every post you (and some others here) write. How can anyone "hate" so much? Every person on this thread, has a right to express their opinions and thoughts, no different than you do. It's called a "community". Everyone here comes from different backgrounds and beliefs. How does a "religious" comment from two members, equate to days worth of hurling insults and rants about Christians and Christianity?
If that kind of writing (hatred, bullying and insults) was directed at any other group of people, say the gay community for example, this thread would have been shut down and the person responsible probably gone for good.
Rose Art had a great point, which was conveniently ignored. What is with all the Christian bashing on FAA? Does FAA condone gay bashing? What about bashing Muslims?
It is obvious you are very passionate about this topic and you feel strongly enough about it, to share your thoughts here with this community. What gives you the right to decide, what others are allowed to express? People may disagree with what you believe (regarding Global Warming), but no one has told you to keep silent or hurled any insults at you.
I am glad this thread is not being made private and I hope it does get picked up by Google. Anyone who takes the time to read this thread, with an open mind, will come to the same conclusion as Rose Art.
[quote]I am never offended by the expression of the importance of religion for any individual in any argument. It only becomes a problem when I feel that I am being told how to think. I am not a particularly religious person, but this christian bashing is getting on my nerves. No one gets to shut anyone else up. You don't like it don't read. No threats, or hate so whats the problem Rich?[quote] Posted by: Rose Art on 05/15/2013 - 12:44 AM
I respect you as an Artist, but I am troubled by your need to proselytize. I don't try and get you to "convert" to Atheism or Agnosticism every chance I get, why do you preach every time the opportunity presents itself or in this case doesn't. [quote]
"RESPECT". You are kidding right? I will ask again. How does someone making a religious comment, equate to trying to get you to convert to a particular religion? That is like arguing that if a gay person expresses their sexuality, they are trying to make you gay!!
Rich, are you trying to convert me to "Environmentalism"? Or, are you simply expressing what you believe to be true and something you feel strongly about?
[quote] No reason to make this thread private. Just make sure that you follow the rules of debate and, remember, google can see you. [quote]
Here is another, from the "rules updated" thread.
[quote] 3. Speak to others as you would be spoken to yourself or how you would expect people to speak to your Mother. [quote]
Reading through "some" of the posts on this thread, I am left wondering if certain people would speak to their Mother's the same way?
The very fact that FAA allows the bashing to continue, whenever a religious thought is expressed, is no different than condoning it. There are many on this forum who see it, time and time again, yet FAA does nothing about it. FAA's answer in the past, is to simply silence religion. Nothing like dealing with the problem. How should society handle bullying and bashing, when it comes to other issues? Deal with the individuals so full of hate and insecurity, that they feel the need to bash others, or silence the people who are being bullied?
I am curious to see how this all works out. Will FAA simply ban religion and politics again, because there is a small minded group of artists on this site, who are unable to deal with people different than themselves. Or will they actually have the wherewithal to deal with the problem, where it really is?
Umm...at this point whether global warming is real or not is not debated in scientific community. The debate is on what exactly is going to happen and when.
The only ones that push that great division remains are those trying to influence voters to preserve the status quo. This is why oil comanies hire scientists to sow doubt. They have billions on the line.
[quote]Umm...at this point whether global warming is real or not is not debated in scientific community. The debate is on what exactly is going to happen and when.[quote]
That statement is so incorrect.
Not ALL scientists agree.
I'll tell you who does agree though. All the corporations that have made millions and billions of dollars, during this entire "Global Warming" episode. Here in Ontario, our children's, children's, grandchildren, will be paying through the nose for hydro because our Provincial Government has offered insane deals to "alternative" energy companies, in order to set up wind and solar farms throughout the Province.
In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"
In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.
Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2
The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.
Nearly every science society on Earth has signed on. The fact that few scientist dont agree while 100s of thousands do doesnt really say much. And why am I not surprised you quote from Forbes and the Wall Street Journal both owned by conservatives vested in mataining the status quo.
Oh my gawd! Their conservative at Forbes and the Wall Street Journal? That's as bad as someone being a Christian! Time to call the IRS!
There is far more than just a few scientists that do not agree. I guess you didn't notice how they change the name of the problem just about as much as the weather changes.......naturally. It's global warming......oops it's global cooling caused by global warming........oh no it's climate change because the weather is changing.....as it usually does and always has.
"The subjects relative to religion and/or politics no matter what subversive manner they are presented; on this and any other art forum will ether lead to exclusion, controversial debate, chastisement, anger, hatred gang mentality or any combination thereof. This forum is nothing but a microcosm of society as a whole.
Religion and/or politics are the main reasons coupled with economics for war. What makes anyone on this forum think they can control said subject without any of the mentioned event occurring?"
There is a difference between "sorting things out" / "being adults" and writing hatred and hurling insults. It is good though, that FAA has finally announced it's position in regards to online bullying.
[quote] The rules being relaxed is the trial to see how true that is. [quote]
This makes no sense whatsoever. How true what is? How long people can bash others, before the receiving end responds "harshly" and/or "complains"? If you have not seen it on this thread, then you will never see it. That is sad.
"The subjects relative to religion and/or politics no matter what subversive manner they are presented; on this and any other art forum will ether lead to exclusion, controversial debate, chastisement, anger, hatred gang mentality or any combination thereof. This forum is nothing but a microcosm of society as a whole.
Religion and/or politics are the main reasons coupled with economics for war. What makes anyone on this forum think they can control said subject without any of the mentioned event occurring?" [quote]
YES, H Drew, I do remember that. However, what "side" does all the hatred come from? Take a really close look, H Drew.
My question to FAA, is simply this. Will the hatred and intolerance of a few, result in the silence of religious, political, and sexual expression? If so, then what is the point?
In a workplace, this kind of "hatred" would never be allowed to exist, towards ANY group. This website, is a workplace for artist,s and may even fall under some of the same workplace harassment laws, seeing as how artists pay to be here and "work" here. No group is allowed to be "kept out" of any workplace and hatred like this is dealt with swiftly by the employer and if not, it is handled by other authorities.
Are you saying that the rules should not be relaxed? I am happy to put them all back the way they were before
I see two sides here both having a go at the other politically and religiously and climate changerly. If someone says religion stinks then people of faith rightly get upset. If people of religioin say darwinites stink, then darwinites get upset rightly. Republicans seem to hate the democrats and vice versa and some REALLY hateful things are said in those discussions, believe me.
All sides feel insulted so, what is the answer? Stop all discussion minus who paints puppies or get on with it and sort this out between yourselves?
As someone in the middle of all sides please, I am happy for someone to feel free to give the answer that pleases ALL sides
Funny seeing all this non-art related discussion here. As if it's turned into Facebook. Why not just all go over to Facebook and argue about all this stuff there? I'd like to learn something about the art business with other artists and their art experiences. It's kind of disturbing in a way.
I am talking about this discussion and what I see here on FAA. I do not care about what happens elsewhere. It is one thing to disagree with each other and quite another to write hate and sling insults.
I only see that from one side in this thread.
[quote]As someone in the middle of all sides please, I am happy for someone to feel free to give the answer that pleases ALL sides[quote]
There is only one answer. All sides should be able to express their opinions, without the hatred and the bashing. But that seems impossible on this site. Or at least, FAA seems to have no interest in stopping it. There are some people, on this site, that are unable to leave well enough alone. If it has anything to do with religion, they can't help themselves but open the thread and voice their intolerance. Looks good on you, FAA.
Where does it end? If you are going to allow members to bash Christianity, then is it ok to bash homosexuals? Would you put a stop to that?
The term "Bible Thumper" has been used a few times in this thread. It is a derogatory term, for a person who practices and expresses Christianity. If I, or any other member on this site was to use a derogatory term to describe a gay person, I and/or they would be kicked off the site.
What is so different about a Christian, that they should not be afforded the same right to freely express themselves, without the fear of bullying, name calling and bashing?
A Christian choosing to express what they believe, on this site, is no different than what Rich has done in this thread, by expressing his passion for "Global Warming".
[quote]Religios zeal no matter how well packaged will never be welcomed. Faith is sought after, not force feed.... [quote]
No one is force feeding anything. Expressing faith, is not forcing faith on anyone else. No different than Rich expressing his concern of "Climate Change", is forcing his "science" on anyone else.
EDIT - no one on this thread, has said that Darwinites stink. I am not sure what you are getting at Abbie. Read this thread. You tell me, where the real hatred and intolerance is coming from. I don't care what you might read in other venues, I am talking about this thread and this forum.
Yes FAA is a private business and has the right to limit whatever they want. However, if you are going to open it up, then it should be free of bullying, free of hate and free of bashing. When it happens, it should be dealt with individually. The answer is not to silence the freedom of expression, it is to deal with the haters.
[quote] Funny seeing all this non-art related discussion here. As if it's turned into Facebook. Why not just all go over to Facebook and argue about all this stuff there? I'd like to learn something about the art business with other artists and their art experiences. It's kind of disturbing in a way.[quote]
[quote]Dave, you got my vote. sho me da art[quote]
So Dave and H. Drew, should Rich not have started this thread? Global Warming has nothing to do with art. Or, is it just when religion comes into the picture?
This isn't religious bashing per se, more like having a conversation with somebody who's just yelling at you, not accepting facts, quoting sensless "truths" and trying to use this discourse to make me feel guilty about my stance on what almost every one in the world acknowledges, except for a small number of religious "creationists". I'll say this again, you can hold your beliefs and cherish them, but since your beliefs are "handed down from a god", they aren't and can't be considered in this discussion.
If you all want to believe that dinosaurs roamed the Earth, while man walked the Earth and I've seen "books" showing that very image, dinosaurs in the background and humans in the foreground. If you want to believe that the world is about 7,000 years old, in the face of true science, then fine go ahead, but don't ask "non-believers" to believe or listen to your "version" of this planet. This is beyond "you say tomato and I say tomahto", just a different point of view. This is bordering on believing in fables and then trying to convince others, that there really was " A Fox and the Grapes". And there might be a good point to use that analogy. This was from Aesop of course and these were written 500-600 years BC, so maybe these are true? Other than your faith, how do you know what you belive is true? A book a few hundred years "newer" told you so?
I just finished watching a program on PBS, you know that station right, all a bunch of malarky stuff,science and stuff and it was hosted by Peter Sagal, from NPR, another den of snakes, and tonight was about the "Bill of Rights" and one of the segments was about a religous group, called The Westboro Baptist Church. They are now well known because they used to attend military funerals and have signs showing what their faith and their god told them to say and mostly stuff like " god hates fags and Thank god for dead soldiers" and worse. They do this because they BELIEVE that god is punishing the soldiers that are being killed, because of the Gay people in the world. It got worse and then it went to the Supreme Court and the church won! Certainly not because what they were doing was right or good, but they have the right to express their beliefs.
I agree with that decision, don't like it in this situation, but it's legal and we need to abide by that decision. I'm not in any way suggesting that your church or religious veiws are anyway related but want to point out two things from this "parable". You have the right to post what you want here,regardless if it insults many other religions. You can start threads about "Faith" and such, that is your right and I will defend that right, but religious views/beliefs/dogma won't be respected, if they are well beyond the thinking and knowledge of most people on this globe, as is the case of "your" age of this planet.
The other thing I would like to share is that religions sometimes make good people do dumb or bad things, in the name of their god and as you know, more people have died because of religious wars and disputes than any other reason. And as I mentioned earlier, that is still going on around the globe. So when you see what I post, and you think it's hate, it's not, it's frustration. We can stand in the same room and shout back and forth and nothing will change, and that might be the human dilemma. My beliefs are rooted in hard science and yours are not.
I am a very spiritual man, try to do the best with what I have to work with, but when it comes to religions, I don't think it's necessary to go to a particular building, to be that good person, it's all internal and I don't need guidance from someone else to help me form my own opinions.
I would hope that we can continue to debate,without religious reference, and all learn and share, since that's why we are here in the first place both here on FAA and on this planet,
Everybody, please get back to the original subject now
Do not flame, abuse, or insult another user by harassment or by referring to sexual orientation, gender, race, religion, national origin, or disability. Nor any other insult. Arguments that go beyond reasonable debate will be removed from the forum.
Do not disrespect forum moderators or administrators on the open board or in private messages. This includes acting as a “backseat moderator.”
Why limit it to humans - wait until the Sun does it's thing - you want to see climate change - wait - perhaps you will or will not live long enough. What will you do with a real ICE age, or perhaps we will return to the very tropical humid conditions that were the habitat of dinosaurs. I wouldn't blame any of it on humans - it what happens as the earth spins through space and the sun turns and spits out huge flares of energy at us. "There is nothing new under the sun" - just give it time - what went around, comes around again. It matters so little if you really believe in "science" - they tell us that one of these days OUR sun will become a red giant that will swallow the solar system all the way out to Venus perhaps - certainly the earth - what we know as the earth - will become a cinder of rock - no atmosphere - just a hunk of rock spinning still around a sun that is tired of letting us play god on this blue marble.
The moderator makes this statement as though it is fact....
"This isn't religious bashing per se, more like having a conversation with somebody who's just yelling at you, not accepting facts, quoting sensless (senseless) "truths" and trying to use this discourse to make me feel guilty about my stance on what almost every one in the world acknowledges, except for a small number of religious "creationists". I'll say this again, you can hold your beliefs and cherish them, but since your beliefs are "handed down from a god", they aren't and can't be considered in this discussion."
This is a problem. Where are the facts to back up the claim that "almost everyone in the world acknowledges this"? That is not a fact. Neither is it a fact that most wars are started because of religion. They are just parroted words being bandied about as fact. Repeat it enough and people start to believe it. "Except for a small number of creationists?" I cited close to 32,000 scientists that signed a petition. No mention whatsoever about their religious beliefs. And the statement "handed down by a god"? According to many here they were handed down by men... the same way that men and women are scientists. It is assumed that they must have been stupid because they didn't have a PHD. But they went on to change the world! Well everyone, should we start pulling out our PHD's and see which one is the biggest?
A well rounded argument should be waged without character assassination. Pretty hard to do in a partisan atmosphere. Grid lock! There's a time when the best thing to do is to move on to another discussion. Especially when the moderator of one is so partisan and attacking as this. Can't discuss a subject when the moderator approaches in attack mode as though he has a monopoly on the truth... and you are just plain stupid. And then others are accused of yelling?
Would hate to see true open conversation and honest debate close up because of that.
[quote]..... you want to see climate change...........they tell us that one of these days OUR sun will become a red giant that will swallow the solar system all the way out to Venus perhaps - certainly the earth - what we know as the earth - will become a cinder of rock - no atmosphere - just a hunk of rock spinning still around a sun that is tired of letting us play god on this blue marble. [quote] Posted by: Roy Erickson on 05/16/2013 - 10:45 PM
Global Warming (Climate Change) - Future
The Day of the Lord
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. (and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare) 11 Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.
Rich my opinion of Gore and his "settled science" has nothing to do with religion of any kind. While I believe man has some impact, I do not buy into any con man's game to enrich himself while refusing to answer a single question. As usual with most things........follow the money.
The Day of the Lord
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. (and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare) 11 Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.
2 Peter 3:10-13 "
I was just going to post this link, how appropriate and a perfect illustration and proof of it too, the above quote being referenced. Belief in biblical end times impact climate change policies in the U.S. :
Concerning the list of 31,000+ "scientists" who signed the petition, 10,000+ are engineers (not scientists), 1,000 are medical, 5,000 are geologists (no surprise there) and - wait for it! 39 are climatologists. I won't bother discussion the issue of duplicate and false names and the failure of the people running the petition to check properly, because there probably are 31,000+ scientists, doctors and technologists in the US who would happily sign such a petition.
The accompanying "Review Article" (dressed up to look as if it had been published by the National Academy of Sciences, though it hadn't) was clearly biased and political, but if that was the info all the engineers and computer experts were relying on, it's not surprising they signed. You can read a critique of its later incarnation here http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/file-uploads/Comment_on_Robinson_et_al-2007R.pdf
I can't help wondering if the organisers of the petition go to a geologist for an appendectomy, a biologist when they want a bridge built and a climatologist if they want to do some oil exploration, since all these disciplines are, apparently, equal in their understanding of each other's fields, because they are "scientists" (and some sceptic said earlier in this thread that all people have to do to have people bow down to them is stick a "scientist" label on themselves.... how ironic!)
Roy, it is a logical error to think that because things happen without human influence, then human influence cannot make things happen (ask a Passenger Pigeon if the Cretaceous extinction is proof that people don't cause extinction).
As for the general brouhaha, I haven't seen anything that insulted me here and nothing that I would consider insulting to others. What I fail to understand is why a certain type of Christian has to come into a science thread and start spouting religion, which is irrelevant to the discussion, and no sooner have they started than they start proclaiming, for no apparent reason, that they have been insulted. I can only assume that it is a sort of filibustering designed to get the thread closed, though why they would want that is beyond me. Perhaps they just hate anyone talking about science. I didn't try to sabotage TBN's faith thread. It would have been rude to do so.
"America" is still a "free" country - where? Want to spit out all the politically incorrect words that WOULD get you kicked off this site? What is allowed or disallowed on any website has nothing whatsoever to do with America being a free country. You should look up the history of the so called "Freedom of Speech" - Had nothing to do with being able to say or "express" yourself - but was specific about being able to criticize the government without being fined or tossed in jail - because that IS what happened if you spoke out against King George or the British Government at the time that was using America as a money mill. My how we have warped that law. "I" would still grant you the right to your "freedom of speech" - but I wouldn't grant you the right to do it just any place you think you can do it. Otherwise - we get porn everywhere - and just try talking about bombs and destruction at an airport, or just go get on a plane - talk about a "free" country - where?
But some are correct - none of this is about art - unless you begin to talk about your freedom of expression - pornographic nudity or religious desecration (towards any religion) - then you will be in the hot seat.
Still - what does CO2 greater than ever for 3 million years - really - who measured it back then - you are taking samples from bubbles in ice? really - and you are so sure that that ice is 3 million years old? really? what a bogus conversation on a site dedicated to creating and selling art. Is this conversation something that you really want visitors - potential buyers to see here and read - and perhaps go somewhere else because they THOUGHT this was an art site?
BTW - one way to stop with the carbon dioxide - quit breathing - works wonders - and you'd be doing your "little" part
I wrote "SUPPOSEDLY" a free country. And if I were to put in my two cents on this argument which is going nowhere anyway, I'd suggest putting a bunch of water electrolysis generators to work, creating hydrogen for fuel, and oxygen for breathing, counteracting the carbon dioxide. I mean, if humans are capable of creating enough carbon dioxide to destroy the helpless little planet that's only been around for millions of years, then we are capable of easily fixing it. That would mean there could be no more arguing and tax payer supported grants to study stuff, so that would not be tolerated. In the meantime, I am looking for a more "free" country, or planet, if anybody has one, in which to live out my artistic days.
"What I fail to understand is why a certain type of Christian has to come into a science thread and start spouting religion, which is irrelevant to the discussion, and no sooner have they started than they start proclaiming, for no apparent reason, that they have been insulted. "
A form of cognitive dissonance, when one must warp and alter the facts to be consonant with ones belief system. Belief in biblical end times, etc..isn't consonant with the fact that it's humans who can make or break their own future and that of the planet in terms of man made global warming and the things that can be done about it. So the facts are adjusted to the belief, rather than the belief to the facts. It's also easier to hide behind an anthropomorphic God instead of taking responsibility for ones own actions or lack of action.
i think in making our interpretations we imagine warming simplistically - that it will be linear and constant
think of a giant fish tank, add a bit of water, stick a float on it call that land, add loads of floating ice, the poles, and stick a hot lamp on top.
The air will heat a bit, then the water will absorb it a bit and warm a bit, then the ice will melt a bit, the water will cool, the ice will cool the air and so on. the air will contimue to heat, the water will heat and more ice will melt to reduce the warming...the ice will reced and recede...then once all the ice melts.... its temperatures going up and up!!
there lies the complexity made simple. made even simpler, if u put a load of iced water in a pan and heated on full blast, it would stay at zero for quiet a few minute, perhaps pockets of warming ..then the ice melts away and we slowly see the pan come to boil.
Andy, we know about the last 15 years. Here is the chart, with El Nino and La Nina years marked. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Enso-global-temp-anomalies.png. You can see clearly just how big an impact these currents have on annual temperatures.
Note that by selecting an extreme El Nino year to start the series you create an artificially high baseline (0.1c higher than the previous modern record and 0.6C above temperatures just 30 or 40 years ago). Since then there have been two El Nino years, one of which almost matched 1998 and the other which exceeded it. There have been five La Nina years in the 15, which should have been cool but were all hotter than any pre-1998 year, including El Nino years.
The La Nina years of 99 and 2000 were both about 0.2C cooler than the preceeding El Nino high of 98, which is a fairly normal difference. But the La Nina years of 2011 and 2012 were only about 0.05C cooler than 98, and their preceding El Nino (in 2010) was hotter than 98. Also, 2005 and 2010 both exceeded the temperature in 98, so there is no justification for thinking 98 was the high-point and things are soon going to cool down. A new all-time record was made just three years ago.
Next, take a look at the solar activity charts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Apr_2013_Solar_Cycle_24_Prediction.gif
Note that from 2000 to 2010 the decline in solar activity should be reflected in a cooling trend (and from 2010 to now the upswing in activity has been exceptionally weak, which should prevent temperatures peaking. Yet even so, temperatures have not declined.
Although temperatures since 98 have hung around that freak high without moving decisively higher, they have all, except 2000 (a La Nina year) been markedly higher than ANY year in the previous century.
It seems perfectly clear to me that when the combined effects of a cherry-picked very hot starting point, a predominance of cooling La Nina years over El Nino years and the cooling effect of falling solar activity fail to bring temperatures over the selected period down even anywhere into the range they were in during any of the 100 years preceding the starting point, then there is still an underlying warming trend that will show itself when solar activity picks up and happens to coincide with another El Nino.
To put it another way - the background noise created by a range of competing influences on global temperatures can mask the real signal during a sampling period as short as 15 years.
[quote]A form of cognitive dissonance, when one must warp and alter the facts to be consonant with ones belief system. Belief in biblical end times, etc..isn't consonant with the fact that it's humans who can make or break their own future and that of the planet in terms of man made global warming and the things that can be done about it. So the facts are adjusted to the belief, rather than the belief to the facts. It's also easier to hide behind an anthropomorphic God instead of taking responsibility for ones own actions or lack of action.[quote]
I read through that article and it is a little twisted. Although it may be true that Christians look forward to a time when we leave this earth before it's coming destruction, it does not mean that Christians do not care about the environment, as this article and some of your comments would lead others to believe. I do a huge part to recycle and I have gone out of my way to purchase vehicles that are more environmentally friendly. I and my family do what we can personally, to make a difference. Things like walking to the park, instead of loading up the family in the vehicle to drive there. Recycling is not mandatory where I live and it consumes a decent amount of my time, when you have 4 or 5 different bins to sort your garbage in. One for plastics, one for paper, one for glass, one for organics..... etc.. To be honest, I know MANY Christians who are doing much more than I am. To say that Christians hide behind God, as a way to avoid personal responsibility, is not factual at all. In fact I am personally responsible to God, which is a far higher standard than personal responsibility, or being responsible to any man. I know that God will destroy this earth, not man. The climate may "change" and "fluctuate", but "Global Warming" will not cause the destruction of this planet. That does not mean that we should not ALL do our part to make it a better and healthier place to live, while still here. I know that one day, I will all be accountable to God for my life and I believe that will also include how I treated His creation.
EDIT - Just because a large percentage of "Christian" pastors do not believe in "Global Warming", means nothing. Not believing in "Global Warming" has nothing to do, with whether or not a person is environmentally responsible. "Global Warming", has become the poster child for increased taxes, personal and corporate financial gain and backroom government deals. This is what people have had enough of, when it comes to "Global Warming".
[quote]As for the general brouhaha, I haven't seen anything that insulted me here and nothing that I would consider insulting to others. What I fail to understand is why a certain type of Christian has to come into a science thread and start spouting religion, which is irrelevant to the discussion, and no sooner have they started than they start proclaiming, for no apparent reason, that they have been insulted. I can only assume that it is a sort of filibustering designed to get the thread closed, though why they would want that is beyond me. Perhaps they just hate anyone talking about science. I didn't try to sabotage TBN's faith thread. It would have been rude to do so.[quote]
Seeing as how I have been named here, I suppose I have the privilege to respond? (I am not moderating)
- First off. This is not a "science" thread, it is a "community" discussion, no different than any other thread on the forum. The two members whose comments included a religious tone, did respond to the premise of the OP and shared their opinions regarding Global Warming (Climate Change). It was not some random interruption, of a religious nature, that had nothing to do with the thread and was designed to insult. It was an expression of opinion, from a different viewpoint, in response to the theme. Religion to you, may be irrelevant to this discussion, but it may not be to others. We are all going to approach topics, from different directions, based on our backgrounds and beliefs. Who are any of us to decide, what is relevant and what is not, to any individual member on this site?
- What I took offense to, was not the thread itself or anything to with science. I have no issues with science. (provable science). I do have issues with the barrage of insults and name calling, from certain members, that followed the comments from Dan and Glenn. There was no need for it. If their opinions were not agreed with, then it could have been ignored or rebutted. But there is no excuse for the bashing.
- Feel free to post your opinion(s), in the "Express your Faith" thread. There are many who have expressed their "displeasure" with the thread.
- I have zero intention to close this thread. I do however have every intention, to point out the constant hate, intolerance and Christian bashing that takes place on this site, whenever I see it. If there is issue with that, then stop with the personal attacks and bashing and stick to debate. There is no room in debate, for the kind of hate and intolerance that has developed from this thread and in other places on the forum.
I'm sure everyone would agree with me that most people wouldn't dump trash in their own back yard or dump oil down their well. If we think of the earth as our back yard then why would we allow chicken poop to be dumped in our well water like for example the Chesapeake bay from farm runoff.? If you had swimming pool you wouldn't through your soda bottles in it so why should we allow them to be dumped in the ocean? Just because we don't see something in our immediate environment doesn't mean that it doesn't affect us and won't accumulate to the point where we will see it in a more immediate way. I'm no saint and I use electricity and drive a car and make trash so I contribute to the problem too but I still try to be aware of my usage and recycle where I can. Here's a cool idea I saw on FB. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=456262947781919&set=a.140461122695438.35463.134756069932610&type=1&theater
Maybe with enough cool ideas we can make the earth a more livable place with clean water and air one day.
"We already knew 97% of climate scientists backed the scientific consensus."
And I know the typical answer to this by " non-believers" is well they are all a bunch of stooges getting paid well to perpetuate a myth. Well all I can say to that is, if you think you are right, spend the next 30-40 years of your career in some of the coldest places on Earth. No 30 degrees and snowing...try hiking around at -40F, or -10F with a 30 mp/hr windchill, taking snow samples...etc. Do that for 30 years and tell me whether you could stand doing it on a grad student, or professor salary. Its a heck of a lot easier being a skeptical politician sitting in a nice warm office in D.C. And the pay is alot better too.
If they have got it wrong on "global warming" (and had to be dragged reluctantly into admitting it) who is to say they won't be proved wrong on "climate change" ? But "climate change" is much easier to argue because the climate has and always will change.
For almost ten years ago the BBC has been painting lurid pictures and telling us almost every week.. that around now there would be semi deserts across southern England. They are on a long road back to more balanced reporting. But even now it is striking that increases in CO2 are immediately ceased upon as proof of "man made climate change" while something like static global temperatures is reported as "natural variation" !
I'm old enough to remember scientist's claiming a few decades back with equal certainty that we were heading towards an ice age.
Now they may prove to be right about all this.. but I'm not that inclined to accept something simply because a scientist says it is so. Fact is one thing.. opinion is another
I think the pro global warming lobby has been acting more like a religious authority (and maybe should banned from the forum) on this.. science is a methodology not an indisputable dogma.
Personally I think its healthy that people will challenge the claims.
Good find and that's what I had hoped that might have come out of these discussions. Not that we all move to a farm and raise chickens, but we discuss things and in many cases easy things that we can do and others can do to contribute, in our own small way for this crisis before us. Someone, just one person, reading this discussion, may see something that they haven't been doing and will now begin to do. We've had 2,687 views and 294 contributors here. Good chance somebody got something out of this discussion.
If we begin to act locally, but think globally, like the saying goes, we might influence others and others being other countries, although compared to countries like Germany and Denmark and other Northern European countries,we're way behind. Part of that may be the belief by many in this country, that there is no climate warming happening and it's a scam, by folks like Al Gore and the other hucksters, but it's not. We, the people of the United States(this may get political), have been under an attack, by mostly the real hucksters, the Big Oil, Gas and the Power companies and with their successful campaigns, have convinced many here that there is no concern for action, it will all just blow away.
If you doubt such a campaign exists, read some of the links above, from the folks that don't believe we have a problem and follow the trail. And if you don't think that a campaign like this would ever work or has worked, spend some time reading about "big tobacco" and how they got away with their own campaign and their own "scientists and doctors". "Smoking is good for you!" These huge campaign work and are working here, but not successfully in Europe and why is that? Why are the Europeans now ahead of us in Alternative energy production and renovation? Germany has now converted over 1 million business building to fully self sustaining structures and are on the way to many millions more. Why are the Euopeans ahead of us? One, is that Big Oil doesn't have the footing in Europe as much as it does here. And another, is that Europe hasn't been cobbled by religious dogma, like the United States has.
Example of few affecting many(spoiler alert:this will get political!) The NRA! The NRA suggests that they have between 3-4 million members, so let's go with the 4 million. The United States has a population of around 316 million( pretty neat site here: http://www.census.gov/popclock/ ), since I last counted. So if my math is correct and we're dealing with a photographer!LOL, that's 1% of this country,that is controlling the Gun Laws here in the U.S., along with a few thousand lobbyists. So it can and does work.
The same "system" is being used today by Big Oil and friends and now the religious right have been added to the soup mix. I don't see a smoking gun, yet, that involves the big oil and the church folk and ther doesn't have to be one, but the affect is the same, a very small part of the country, is affecting what happens here or more correctly,what doesn't happen here, and that what makes us different than the Europeans and most of the rest of the World, who aren't waiting to see if this is "real". Do a search on Denmark and climate change and see how seriously they are taking this "scam".
Someone tell me what good will come to the Big Oil, Gas and Power companies, if over a decade, we totally switched to Solar products? None, they would mostly just disappear, or, as Jeremy Rifkin says in the video that Phillip S. posted, become, and this is mostly the power energy people, distributors of energy, not creators. Here in Florida, we are already paying for and the electric company, Duke, is asking for, another Billion dollars or so, for a nuclear power plant, to be finished in maybe 7-12 years, if everythings right and I mean, what could go wrong? Doesn't anybody think that maybe in 2-5 years, our process for collecting wind,solar,hydro energy will finally fall below what we pay now per kilowatt? Certainly in 5-7 years, it will be, but by then the plant will be too far along to stop and that's when the electric bills will go up. They built the plant and the cost of that energy will be higher than what solar will cost and then what do they do, close the $3 billion dollar plant?
Stuff like this is happening all over the U.S., while in Europe, they are going full steam ahead on their projects! Search Spain and it's huge solar projects there, which would work just as well here in the U.S.,especially the Southern and Southwestern states, if not better. Why are we behind Europe and the rest of the world?
And most scientist types, that think logically and critically would probably tell you that with a problem like this, where the consquences of doing nothing could spell utter disaster for our species and many others, they prefer to do something and be wrong, than do nothing have their children with the consequences of a disaster we could have averted. I see many parallels between this and what happened with Hurricane Katrina. Scientists there were also screaming for decades that we were ill prepared to handle a category 5 if it ever hit New Orleans head on. And of course the politicians never like to spend money on hypotheticals, but being proactive, rather than reactive is generally the sounder policy. And in this case would have saved billions of dollars. And many scientists have warned that no amount of money will fix the problem after the fact if what they are predicting comes true. Just imagine trying to protect the lower half of Louisiana that is only a few feet below sea level, after the ocean has risen due to glacial melt and thermal expansion of the water column. Protecting a large city with a high enough wall is a cake walk, compared to walling off the entire southern border of state.
And frankly the way I see it, there are far more pluses to cutting are carbon emissions, and other polluting habits...that none of the money spent cutting them back along with optimizing our energy use, will go to waste.
There is a path way to a cleaner world, a world that we should all want. But we first have get off our lazy arses and do something about it.
"Rich my opinion of Gore and his "settled science" has nothing to do with religion of any kind. While I believe man has some impact, I do not buy into any con man's game to enrich himself while refusing to answer a single question. As usual with most things........follow the money."
Yes, let's follow the money and the millions paid by ExxonMobil to global warming skeptics and pseudo-science institutions and groups.
I don't get it, Andy. Who said they have "got it wrong on global warming"? A chilly spell in Wales doesn't amount to that. Local weather is not the climate. In Qatar it's 3-4C warmer throughout the year than 20 years ago but the overall global T isn't up that much. It's local or regional. If climate change shifts the jet-stream it alters the distribution of heat across pretty much the entire hemisphere.
Did you read what I wrote about the El Nino/La Nina effect, the selection of 1998 as a baseline and the solar cycle? Or the Guardian article posted by Jason? Or the fuller analysis of the BBC discussions that you seem to have heard rather selectively, posted by Gary?
I find your suggestion that the majority view of scientists should be banned from this forum because you regard it as authoritarian absolutely extraordinary. You want to select your scientific information according to a laymans opinion of what is or is not "methodology" or "dogma"? You know, of course that methodology implies experminentation and the gathering of data, which is what the climatologists do, while hunting for errors of detail to nit-pick over in order to further a pre-determined agenda is what the climate sceptic lobby does? But you consider the dogmatic nit-picking to be more authoritative than the acquisition and interpretation of new data?
To further Paul's point, if climate scientists were into hiding things, they wouldn't do what any scientist does, release their data, and analysis year in and year out at scientific meetings and in journals for anyone and everyone to pick through with a fine tooth comb and challenge if a problem is found.
People who continually state that a grand conspiracy exists to confuse the public, etc don't have the slightest idea how the scientific process works or how the modern scientific community must operate just to get promotions and future funding. If the general public is confused, its because they don't have the capacity or the willingness to dig into all the science on their own, and are thus content to take cliff notes from local politicians, some internet chat discussion, etc....cliff notes that could be easily doctored to further a political agenda. After all it is a lot easier to fudge a few words in a report then it is to fake billions of data points collected in the field by disparate groups whose only real association is that they are working in the same field of study, and might see each other at conferences once or twice a year.
A case in point was a discussion I was involved in the other day with a BLM scientist. He basically said that his agency wasn't allowed during the Bush administration to use the words "global warming" in work they were publishing, even when those words precisely described what they were witnessing. In a scientific environment, that type of political meddling should never happen. And Bush was widely known for this, because in more high profile incident, he had a few political hacks white wash a report of the top government scientist on the matter. And its that kind of behavior, where someone alters reports for no other reason than the fact that he doesn't like the conclusions, that is the beginning of a real conspiracy. Fortunately the scientist impacted had the courage to call out President Bush' meddling, and because of it we know what happened.
As far as the re-stated purpose of this thread, making us all more aware of what we can do personally to be environmentally conscious, it occurs to me that everyone here has stated that they do their part. One individual cited doing their part and that the city they lived in doesn't do theirs... yet they make the rules! I have yet to see anyone say that they could care less. I have yet to see a PHD pulled out too.
It also occurs to me that there are not that many differences between some of the scientists and their fields of expertise that a geological scientist could be considered so far off base that his opinion shouldn't matter. It should be weighed also. Descending opinions are important in the overall argument. We're not talking heart surgeons, we're talking earth observers. We're talking measurements and analysis. As was mentioned by Roy earlier... how do they know that the bubble is 3 million years old?
I think the problem cited above about geologists, was related to the several that have been hired by the energy industry to sow doubt about whether global warming is happening. Anyone who doesn't see any immediate conflict of interest there, is either clueless, or isn't interested in a unbiased conversation about global warming. I should also point out that not all geologists are equal. There is a big trust difference at least in my mind, between one that has spent their life up on glaciers measuring changes over decades, and one whose devoted their life to uncovering fossil resources. Which is not to say that the folks the energy industry hired aren't true climatologists, but if they are being hired by someone who is demanding a pre-determined conclusion, to protect their bottom line, and I don't care what their qualifications might have been, they aren't to be trusted. Because no real scientist lets a preconceived notion drive their work, they go where the data takes them.
Glenn, there are a variety of methods of determining the age of a sample. Ideas that come to mind are the number of freeze-thaw layers, carbon-dating, associated objects in the same stratum that mignt be dated independently by isotope analysis.
Of course geologists deserve to be listened to. But if some of them are clinging to ideas in a related field that the experts in that field have already considered and discarded then the subject experts are more likely to be right. In any case, although geologists tend to be most numerous among sceptical scientists, that doesn't mean that most geologists are sceptical about AGW. I don't have any idea what proportion of them take what view, though I saw a survey that said 47% of oil industry geologists thought AGW was real, there's a good chance that the non-oil geologists are less sceptical, so there's a real division of opinion for you.
It's a mantra among geologists that the processes that caused events in the past are the same as processes that cause them today, which probably gives them an intellectual bias against the idea of a novel factor (man) being involved
In fact there was a case not long ago, of what I would call a true scientist, who was hired by the Koch brothers....who are very much politically motivated to kill any talk about Global warming. And they specifically hired this guy, a certified global warming skeptic to analyze decades of data, and issue his own report. I have no doubt they were expecting a predetermined outcome. Why else would two brothers who made their billions in refining oil and natural gas waste money on global warming research?
Unfortunately they didn't get the result they wanted. And the scientist, who was a long time skeptic...is no more.
Part of the way they know something is of a certain age, particularly glacial ice, is because like a tree, is because it contains layers...one after the other stacked on top of each other over the centuries. And if you have three million layers stacked on top of each other with no hint of geological activity that might have thrust layers out of sequence, you know how old the ice is....with out having to rely on carbon date, or nuclear isotope analysis, etc...although these are still used to backup their primary form of analysis...and if they get an exact match, their findings are as airtight as they are ever going to get.
And there are only two places where one might find ice with that many layers, possibly Greenland, and definitely Antarctica.
And if you don't believe that Antarctica contains ice that old, keep in mind that in many spots the ice on that continent is almost two and a half miles thick. That is taller than most mountains in the US from sea level. And most of Antarctica would be considered desert in any other part of the world given what its interior receives precipitation wise on annual basis. Knowing that little detail and the prior one, you either have to wish for a Biblical style ice accumulation event or you have to believe that the ice you see today took a hell of a long time to accumulate.
And there is actually probably a third way for scientists to know just how old the bottom ice layer is, and that is by sampling the last layer of dirt that accumulated before the ice formed. If they find fossils of a known date, which they have (they have even found dinosaurs), then they know precisely (within a few thousand years) when the ice started forming.
If you read the article regarding "When Scientists Lie..." it pretty much explains why the information we get is not necessarily so, and why the old adage "Question Authority" might be apropos when it comes to scientific theory. As was mentioned several times, extrapolating from a false premise to start with only continues compounding until the false premise is removed... along with the all the data that came afterwards.
I'm happy to hear that geologists should be listened to. But even they are incorrect if they follow the wrong path from a premise that is faulty. It just takes a minor flaw in a theory to make the whole thing corrupt. Then when the possible moral flaws get involved... well...
Glenn, you say "the old adage "Question Authority" is might be apropos when it comes to scientific theory." But do you ever question YOUR "authority" ? Just curious, not meaning to start religious debate.
"It just takes a minor flaw in a theory to make the whole thing corrupt"
That is incredibly deceptive. Climate theory isn't like a house built in a tree, and if that trunk is rotten the whole house will crumble. Its more like house with many timbers, and each of those timbers have been pounded on by a hammer thousands of times, before anyone calls them "solid". But the greatest test of a theory's soundness, is when a scientific technique developed by a whole different branch of science comes along, a technique that wasn't even intended as a solution for climate studies, and the findings it produces exactly agrees with one from a totally unrelated technique. That my friend is a trifecta, and the chances of you being wrong at that point, are like the odds in winning the lottery. A great example of this, is testing tree ring science against the result of carbon dating. Scientists have done this a million times by now I suspect, and no result has occurred to suggest a fundamental flaws. Two wrongs never make a right, unless they weren't wrong to begin with.
BTW, in a more prominent example, there have been a number of these curveball attempts to knockdown Einstein's theory of relativity, a theory he was able to conceive without being able to fully test it. And yet there is not a single test so far, that we are now capable of performing that has knocked it down. And the more of those test that confirm he was right, the less chance that a "minor flaw" is going to destroy the whole thing, whether its relativity or climate theory.
When you ask "YOUR" authority I expect you mean Yahweh, Jehovah, Jesus, The King of Kings, the scriptures? Or do you mean "my authority", which is but a small sphere and has little merit? If you mean following a faith blindly... then the answer to that is no. I study personally (that is my responsibility ) and question teachers of doctrine consistently. I humble myself to the King willingly. Have I questioned the age of the earth? Yes, I have. I came to the conclusion that the scriptures, Genesis 1 through 10, are very important. I used to think that they were interpretive and just came to the understanding that they are not recently. I have changed to believe that they are literal. We are the ones who have a problem with time. God transcends time... there are no limitations to Him except the ones that He places on Himself. 24 hours in a day to create something is what He defined. 6 days and then a rest on the 7th is His decision. A flood that overturns everything is His business. The whole of Creation is His. The genealogies, as boring a read as they are, bring us back for a reason and link us to the beginning. They help make sense of the whole thing. If you have never read Genesis 1-10, it does not take very long and I encourage you to read it for yourself.
Hope that answers your question.
It is not deceptive. Your talking about foundations. Integrity is of the utmost of importance.
"If you read the article regarding "When Scientists Lie..." it pretty much explains why the information we get is not necessarily so, and why the old adage "Question Authority" might be apropos when it comes to scientific theory."
In the case of global warming, scientists have ' lied ' when paid by ExxonMobile to spread the perception that there is no scientific consensus on the matter.
But there is a scientific consensus on climate change. There's little point in questioning that any further ( that there is a scientific consensus on climate change ). That doesn't mean that authority shouldn't be questioned. Questioning authority in science is necessary for the progress of science. For example the Copernican Revolution.
To function and flourish science has to stay within its own pre described model of the world ( one of an external objective reality ), which is what makes science very limited from a philosophical point of view, but also very useful for the gathering of data and facts ( things devoid of opinions and ideals ) about and in the world and our direct experiences in it, like that of global warming.
One can have integrity and be wrong, and can have no integrity and be right. So again you must qualify what you mean. There are folks with little or no integrity who have tried sink global warming science through publication of data and email, that is as bad or worse than any scientist in the field has done. The sad thing is that most scientists can see right through the crap, but not everyone outside the science catches on so easily to who is talking fact, and who is talking crap.
And none of this changes a few facts. The ice on Antartica is thick, it doesn't accumulate very fast, and it contains observable layers that have been studied extensive. In short it is extremely old, and the people with the most experience studying it are the ones telling you global warming is real, and the ones who know the least about it, are picking through the data looking for quirks, mistakes and alternative explanations that are more likely crap then anything else.
Boy, I go away for a few hours and nobody remembers me!
I threw out this statement and it looks like it was thrown out!!!! Why are we, the United States behind Europe and the rest of the World? I suggested a few reasons and would like to hear some discussion on my theories.
Glenn, it's like banging your head against the wall, will feel better when you stop. Finding or trying to find articles and papers to refute science is a lonely job, but you seem to relish it, so Bravo! What do you think of my "reasons" why we. the U.S. is behind Europe, we're smarter than them?
You're off track Gary. I'm not talking about people of no integrity. I'm speaking of evidence tainted from the very beginning and built upon. However, if someone of shady characteristics were to step in and convince people that their findings are solid, that would certainly have to be taken into consideration too. I'm only answering you because you addressed me. As far as crap goes maybe what should be done is to get hold of one of those so called crap scientists and see if you can keep up with his explanations.
@ Rich, You addressed me. I'm obliged to respond. It's much harder to find articles when a complicit media helps to bury facts before they can see the light of day... say like, Benghazi! I can't answer your question about being behind Europe because I'm not quite sure that we are. They have by and large a "socialistic government" approach to things. We have traditionally been less restrictive and with reason. It's called the Constitution. Yes, this would become very political if pet peeves with the NRA get bandied about... or pet peeves about lobbyists get bandied about. Might want to throw in the Teachers Unions and the Auto Unions etc. Perhaps France ought to be discussed and their reliance on nuclear power. And toss in Greece and Spain's robust economies. Lot's of weird information and propaganda thrown around from every direction. Toss in the commercials of the person smoking butts through their necks... but if the same crassness was used in showing fetuses in garbage cans in a commercial well the outcry from one particular side of the aisle would be tremendous. Cigarettes and abortion are both legal though. The point is, information is controlled.
As far as your coupling the Church and Big Oil? I haven't seen this in action. That many church going people don't agree with the science that you do, that I do understand. But I have never seen or heard from the pulpit anything that couples big oil and church. Never heard the Pastor of my church ever mention it.
If the initial cost of alternative energy sources were better and the raw materials involved less expensive, we could make a dent towards being so reliant on oil. Oil Energy is who we are until that bridge can be gapped in a way that makes sense to all and not a few. The marketplace has to drive it... not government. That's my opinion. Europe has ton of problems...
Interesting and I'll watch the rest tomorrow, but why did you post this? In whose defence? What is your point,remember, I'm a photographer!
"It's much harder to find articles when a complicit media helps to bury facts before they can see the light of day... say like, Benghazi!"
I've got two words for you "Para" and ""Noid". Complicit media???? Ever listen to FOX or CNN, your buddies??? The whole world is trying to scam a few of you, to what, make a few bucks?
"I can't answer your question about being behind Europe because I'm not quite sure that we are. We have traditionally been less restrictive and with reason.It's called the Constitution."
Of course you can't answer that question, because you have no interest in finding out what other countries are doing, outside your "box". Do a search and learn.
"Yes, this would become very political if pet peeves with the NRA get bandied about... or pet peeves about lobbyists get bandied about."
Did you actually read what I posted and why I used this as an example? How a small,tiny group can hijack a concept?
"But I have never seen or heard from the pulpit anything that couples big oil and church. Never heard the Pastor of my church ever mention it."
And why would your pastor mention any "earthly things"? If you belong to a group that scorns modern science, why would you expect something like "climate change" ever to come up, since somewhere in your book, it probably tells that it's gonna happen anyway! Am I right?
"If the initial cost of alternative energy sources were better and the raw materials involved less expensive, we could make a dent towards being so reliant on oil."
Praise the Lord!!! This is the first statement you have made in this post that comes close to being accurate! And I thank you for bringing this up. You are right indeed, if our government got really behind the "Alternative Energy" machine, like the European countries I mentioned above, like China even, we wouldn't need any nuclear energy or oil or nat.gas.
The market can only do so much, without the government getting involved, subsidizing the cost and making this available to ALL Americans, not just the rich. Imagine if 60-70% of homes in florida or California had their own solar producing systems and systems that are more than their average needs, we would be creating a surplus of energy, free, after the cost of the equipment, and could then dump the extra, back into the grid! Oh and sell it back to the Power company too!
Here in the Gainesville area, the county is doing just that for the last few years and it's working.
The government has to get involved and drive down the cost, by tax credits, more than what is available today and/or buy or produce the basic photovoltaic chips themselves and reduce the intial cost of purchase and intstallation of those systems.
We know what we need to do, we just aren't doing it!
off to read,
p.p.s. still would like to hear from somebody why Europe is ahead of us.......
One of the reasons is that politics in Europe don't have a religious dimension to them as they have in the U.S. where separation between church and state is more cosmetic. It's no surprise then that the ones who can't accept the facts and science of global warming are mostly always self-described Christians ( as exampled in this thread ) with a lot of influence in U.S. politics and policies. Another reason is the difference of the media reporting about social and political issues. Main stream U.S. media - which shapes public opinion, which in turn shapes policies and politics - is less about objective reporting and more about biased opinions, and not by the "liberal media", on the contrary.
I took your bait to try and talk with you in a gentlemanly manner. But you, because of who you are, come off with personal pronouncements about me and my character. What do FOX and CNN have to do with anything? You're the one to bring them up.
I've been around the block a couple of times and no I didn't take the time to munch on everything you wrote for very long because it really comes down to playing a game of put down and one upmanship. Child's play... but I forgot "the whole world backs you or your side".
I'm not into the percentages Rich and I'm not here to grind an axe. Small groups called environmentalists hijack concepts on a frequent basis.
You know nothing of people that I go to church with or their teachings. Why make this about them when you are completely ignorant on the matter? I attempted to steer clear of my Christianity (at your request) and just talk about your subject matter and then you roped it back in. It seems your caught in a "box" to borrow a phrase.
Global warming? You mean the global warming that hasn't been recorded in the last 10 years? Let's see it was Global warming, Global Cooling, then Climate Change and now I see they have added Global Climate Change. Gee I thought this was "settled science"....LOL.
It is settled science when 97% of climate scientists agree. The author / scientist ( geologist, no climate scientist ) of the linked article above, Don Easterbrook is affiliated with the Heartland Institute which is funded by ExxonMobile and Koch Industries,..Like you said, follow the money!
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the media is liberal based, at least here in the U.S. That's a pretty big donkey to try to hide in a 10 x 10 room.
You obviously think that Europe's overall body politic is somehow better than that of the United States. Europe has plenty of political problems, and just problems altogether! To say that there is no religious influence is just a falsehood. The Islamic influence has grown greatly in politics throughout Europe. My family in France refer to it often. Perhaps Europeans don't inject religious belief into politics in such an outright manner... but religious convictions definitely play a role. You should know that.
P.S. Linda, apparently CNN must have hired a conservative commentator. So they are an enemy now too.
Rich, Europe has commitments on CO2 emissions that it has to meet because of its obligations under the Kyoto agreement. It can't do that without investing in alternative energy. Therefore it has taken a political decision that the US has not taken. So there's one reason.
Why hasn't the US taken that decision? Well, partly because of the confusion the oil companies and their hangers on in the denial industry have created among the US public and perhaps partly because the US political system seems to be designed to encourage rich pressure groups to control policy by buying political influence.
In case you don't want to bother reading it, the main points are that Easterbrook uses a data set that only goes up to 1855 (that's right, 158 years ago) and so everything on the chart predates the onset of modern global warming. Since 1855 the temperature in that area has risen 1.4C so rather than 90% of the previous 10,500 years being warmer than the present, as Easterbrook's chart suggests, only something like 20% of them have been warmer than the present.
Perhaps even more significantly, it is very bad science to base an entire argument about global climate from a temperature record from one location - the record he uses is local, not global, and by itself says very little about the overall global climate.
So Easterbrook has completely misunderstood or misrepresented the data he is presenting and has made the elementary mistake of confusing a local weather record with a global climate record. That's why it is better to have climatologists writing papers about the climate than having geologists do it.
Thanks, I've got more to read and watch now!!! I don't know for sure, but I thought the "excuse" we, the U.S. used was that China and/or India wouldn't sign Kyoto, the public reason. But I'm sure the Oil lobbyist and others we behind the curtain, pulling the strings.
I'm getting the feeling that our country, once Great is more like the character in the Wizard of Oz, looks good from the front, but behind the curtain, things aren't what they seem to be. We are disregarding infrastructure, both for transportation and also Power and Energy, our literacy has fallen, our Health Care is a mess and doesn't help those that can't afford the monthly costs of having health insurance and there's a long list of countries now where we have fallen behind, in some cases, way behind important matters.
Can anyone say "Roman Empire"?
p.s. Glenn, I'm not "attacking' you as so much pointing out, using sarcasm and my blinding wit, that you are wrong, and getting wronger(wit). To suggest that ALL the media is in cohoots with some scam being carried on and lying about it, to make money or something, is silly.
The "liberal media" argument is used anytime the press points out something the other side doesn't want to own up to. The right neglects to mention the huge propaganda machines
like Murdock and Limbaugh. It's also funny that our "liberals" are considered very conservative by European standards.
@ Rich - I'm not in "defense" of anyone - "I" do believe that both sides have their own ax to grind - and most of it has to do with money. the reason I posted that nifty little piece is that we know so very little about anything regarding the past here on planet earth - and trying to say that something happened or how it was 3 mil yrs ago is just foolishness - we are guessing because we do NOT have all the pieces. We make qualified assumptions about things with no records of the real facts. If you want to know just how little we KNOW and understand even about language which has been around for thousands of years - I'd point you to "the chronicle project . org". Man still doesn't KNOW how the earth works, there is even an assumption about what is really down under our feet. It seems like ages ago - back in the 60's anyway - when I read a paperback from one of those "crackpot" fiction writers that said there were gas pockets all under the earth - and while his drawings were quite a bit wrong - we are finding every day that what scientists told us even 50 years ago is bogus - the oil was all going to run out - yet on my recent trip I saw new oil wells being drilled across the oil belt of NM, TX, MS, and LA. I also saw an unbelievable number of wind powered generators across TX as well as in CA.
The government seems to want to force us all into this green belief - yet I have yet to see one solar panel on any government building - even in sun states - you do it - but not us. We've known how to make even the dirty coal clean by washing, and how to reduce emissions from power plants by scrubbing those emissions - yes - let's follow the money. If you are concerned about CO2 - plant a tree or two. My biggest concern is that we are going to poison ourselves to extinction - long before we are asphyxiated from CO2. The little creek just down the road from me has been the most recent target - the water treatment plant just flushed their tanks into it. First it smelled, then there were a few dead fish, now there is green algae covering the bottom - though the water seems to have lost it's milky coloring. My neighbor across the street has already had her property sprayed three times this year with pesticide - that property slopes down to the lake as well - NO ONE cares about the lake or the people that fish in it who are totally unaware of the pollution that the fish live in. A friend of mine knit hats for children who have lost their hair because of cancer - she's been doing it for years - she says there is a noticeable increase in the number of children being treated for cancer. Pesticides, herbicides, drugs - yes - I'm more fearful that we will poison ourselves off the planet before we can't breathe the air.
and Oh yes - No one believes the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire and how we, and most of the world is running down that road.
I have heard said many times, that the number one killer in the west, are chemicals. Chemicals we put in our food, in our water, our food and air. I can't even use a public washroom, here in Toronto, without being sprayed in the face by some Lysol "air freshener".
I keep my home, as chemical free as possible and even run high quality VOC filtration throughout the house. I watch what my kids eat, but it is impossible to avoid it all.
We could start a whole thread, dealing with the chemicals we are pumping our children full of, but I will not hijack this thread.
Just wanted to respond to your last post.
Please forgive me, back to "Climate Fluctuations" :)
The bottom line is there is NO "settled science" on global warming/global cooling/climate change/global climate change/insert new ad word here.
For the Gore crowd.........do you agree with him that global warming is 'settled science"? While you harp on and on about oil companies, how do you feel about the Global warming god selling his company to big oil? Are you really comfortable with a man selling his propaganda on the world stage yet flees when asked a single question?
I do not trust anyone that will not debate their beliefs or answer a single question. That would make me a sheep. The best one I like in this scam, you can create as much CO2 as you want as long as you BUY carbon credits. Does that make any sense? It appears there is no real interest in reducing CO2 but there is great interest in the money they can make off it.
Raffi, you can add to that the consumers. Nearly everything is manufactured in countries that have little to no regulations......massive polluters. I have given up shopping for just about everything. If I cannot find it in good condition used, I do without. I get two to three emails a day warning of recalled products, either faulty of tainted with dangerous chemicals. Besides buying used puts the money back into our economy instead of funding the polluters.
Interestingly, some of the key people on the global warming bandwagon manufacture their goods in the countries that pollute the most and also have huge carbon footprints on a personal level.
Linda, do you consider that Dan Easterbrook's article "unsettles" anything, given that it has been comprehensively shown to be a load of nonsense? Clearly, none of his contributions can be considered reliable after that. He's either not competent to carry out such an assessment or he is deliberately feeding false information to the public. The fact he has not retracted his article is instructive.
By the way, the very first sentence of it screamed that something was wrong, when he confused a local weather anomaly (record cold spell) with the global climate. Someone who can't tell the difference between weather and climate doesn't understand anything about climatology.
Personally, I dislike the term "settled science", It smacks of unwillingness to consider new information. There is clearly an overwhelming consensus among experts that the science is right and every failed attempt to debunk it simply strengthens the case.
Linda, there is a great deal of hypocrisy in this world. I'm pretty sure that you do not think that the existence of church leaders who preach against homosexuality and carnal lust while hiring rent boys or molesting members of the congregation is proof that Christianity is wrong. So why would Gore's carbon footprint affect the validity of his case?
"The bottom line is there is NO "settled science" on global warming"
No matter how long this is being parroted it will never change the facts that there's nothing but scientific consensus on climate change and global warming, for a very long time now. So either you agree with the consensus or you don't, but don't say that there is no consensus, that would be like saying that there's no scientific consensus on the effects of gravity. It's foolish and a waste of everybody's time to keep arguing that there isn't any scientific consensus on the matter.
Abbie, one of my bits of pedantry says that every single item in your house (including you) is made of chemicals. The division between "natural" and "chemical" is completely artificial and unhelpful, since nature is capable of producing some extremely nasty chemicals without human intervention. The fact something is "natural" doesn't make it good, nor are artificially produced substances necessarily bad. Hydrogen sulphide is a naturally occuring chemical that is lethal, many useful medicines are artificially built by pharmaceutical chemists. In university I was part of a project to synthesise bilirubin from stock chemicals with the aim of being able to produce it artificially in order to save the lives of babies with blood defects.
Paul I find your comment repulsive at best and CLEARLY OFF TOPIC. I am well aware the perverse among us has infiltrated just about everything, which is why I quit going to churches long ago. Most churches are wonderful and teach decent moral values, but the bigoted intolerant haters will never mention those. I have always wished the churches would stop all charatable works to all but their own members. It would be interesting to see if the haters would step up to aid like the churches do.
Linda, There was nothing repulsive about my comment, I was attempting to point out to you a parallel to your constant references to Gore. If the misbehaviour of some ministers doesn't prevent most churches being "wonderful and teach(ing) decent moral values", how does Gore's carbon footprint or the manufacturing practices of some unnamed companies affect the science of climate change?
It's your references to Gore that are off topic. He is an irrelevancy.
You said "I do not trust anyone that will not debate their beliefs or answer a single question" so why not answer my questions?
I think the issue is much broader in the fact that we obviously effect the health of the earth with all of the pollution that we dump on her. That is undeniable. I go back to my earlier
analogy that you can't keep dumping chemicals in a bottle and expect to have no reaction. One sad example is that there is hardly a body of water in Florida that does not contain
mercury. You have to limit how much freshwater fish that you eat. That was not the case when I moved here 30 years ago. One of the most compelling examples of global warming
that I saw was on National Geographic. A scientist that was a skeptic of global warming started doing core samples of ice in the arctic. What he found convinced him that not only
does global warming exist but there was strong evidence that it is being accelerated my mankind.
So Paul just what do any religion have in common with Gore or Global warming? Play innocent all you want but you pull rabbits out of the air to take a shot at anyone who you believe is a Christian. Possibly it makes you feel like more of a man to pull off these little attacks? I have a good one for you. Maybe you can use this. More and more we hear of teachers molesting their students. In fact it's in the news more that any random bad preacher. Should we use that analogy or would it be as ridiculous as using churches? Or could it be that a few bad preachers and teachers does not speak for them on the whole?
Gore IS Global Waming. He IS the spokesman for Global Warming. I don't buy into anything lock stock and barrel when the leader for that subject is a con man who refuses to debate anyone or answer a single question. If the global warming cult don't care one bit how how big someones carbon footprint is ,as long as they PAY for carbon credits................why would I jump on the bandwagon? To me it's a con game for control and cold hard cash. There should be no option to pay more, only a fine and lowering your carbon footprint. That would make sense.
The fact is more and more people are not buying into the Global Warming game. Proof is in the fact they keep changing what they call it, as they do with many other issurs. When the public is not buying....change the name....new ad word....same game.
Gore NOT the spokesman for global warming. Even if he were, the messenger is not the message. If you want to name one person who speaks for climatologists then Hanson from NASA is probably about the best. Gore is just a politician who made a film, rehashing old information. He may be a big name (or big hate figure) in the US but he is just a footnote everywhere else.
Are you going to answer my question about the link you posted? Do you think that any old discredited rubbish that says climatologists are wrong has the same weight as properly researched science? Do you think a geologist who doesn't withdraw a discredited paper, therefore leaving you in the position of quoting it without knowing that it is wrong, is a trustworthy source? He's a self-appointed (or perhaps company appointed) spokesman for the denialist side.
Nobody keeps changing what they call it. There have been references to global warming, the greenhouse effect and climate change for decades. Go and check the literature if you don't believe me. Global warming is one particular form of climate change - they are not different things - and global warming is the kind of climate change we are living through. Where is your evidence that more and more people are "not buying into the global warming game"?
By the way, I haven't gone into the details of "carbon credits" and "carbon trading" and why it is supposed to be useful but my gut reaction to them is pretty much the same as yours.
"A scientist that was a skeptic of global warming started doing core samples of ice in the arctic. What he found convinced him that not only
does global warming exist but there was strong evidence that it is being accelerated my mankind."
Shows that in the end the facts always prevail, if one is willing enough to face them. Here's a list of other 'skeptics' who couldn't ignore the facts any longer.
Stand by for a new wave of character assassination!
Apropos a consensus - 97.1% of peer reviewed articles dealing with global warming from 1991-2011 that expressed a view on whether humans were responsible in their abstracts thought they were. http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article. That does look like a consensus. 0.9% were uncertain and 2% denied human involvement.
" What about the future? As carbon dioxide emissions increase, the temperature should continue to rise. I expect the rate of warming to proceed at a steady pace, about one and a half degrees over land in the next 50 years, less if the oceans are included. But if China continues its rapid economic growth (it has averaged 10 percent per year over the last 20 years) and its vast use of coal (it typically adds one new gigawatt per month), then that same warming could take place in less than 20 years."
I think that's the first time I've read that shorter time prediction from a "recognized" source! Not good!
The official predictions of where things are going seem usually to be based on the assumption that countries will take all the necessary steps to cap CO2 and keep temperature increases down to 2C. That is one of four scenarios examined in the IGCPP reports. However, while governments plan on the basis that a 2C maximum will be adhered to, there is not the slightest indication that it is going to be. The "business as usual" scenario seems to be the most likely, where we just keep going down the same path until it is way too late ... in fact, it may well already be too late http://www.countercurrents.org/polya091212.htm
Note that Hanson is as respected as any scientist gets among his peers, with a 30 year record of getting things right (and he uses the "business as usual" or BAU approach to what is taking place, rather than fencing his outcomes around with unrealistic assumptions about keeping everything within 2C)..
Oh - and here is a warning of the potential consequences of 4C warming from the World Bank (yes, that hotbed of commies and grant-hungry, grasping, conniviing climatologists!) http://climatechange.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/Turn_Down_the_heat_Why_a_4_degree_centrigrade_warmer_world_must_be_avoided.pdf
I recommend reading the "executive summary", which give an interesting best-guess of what we might be heading for and is written in a way that even politicians and CEOs can understand.
This is part of that summary and talks about a possible additional 3.2C within 50 years (we've already had 0.8C in the last 150 years): "Without further commitments and action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the world is likely to warm by more than 3°C above the preindustrial climate. Even with the current mitigation commitments and pledges fully implemented, there is roughly a 20 percent likelihood of exceeding 4°C by 2100. If they are not met, a warming of 4°C could occur as early as the 2060s. Such a warming level and associated sea-level rise of 0.5 to 1 meter, or more, by 2100 would not be the end point: a further warming to levels over 6°C, with several meters of sea-level rise, would likely occur over the following centuries."
Good info as always. I'm printing out pages 14 to 19, which is the Executive Summary and will start there. And after reading the other two links, which everyone interested in learning more about short term potential, should do, here in Florida, I'll now sleep with the night light on and my inflatable raft, next to the bed!!!
Just think, Me, Rich Franco, owning beachfront property! Who woulda thunk!
BTW, Rich, I would take that countercurrents article I posted with a pinch of scepticism. It seems to me to be full of dodgy assumptions (e.g. the initial report it cites might have taken into account natural sources of CO2 and emissions of other greenhouse gases. Maybe when it spoke of CO2 emissions that is exactly what it meant, not CO2 + CH4, also, I am more than dubious over the idea that you can say that releasing 50Gt of CO2 in 20 years would have the same effect as releasing 50Gt in 40 years. I've really got no doubt that the article would be binned in a peer review but its got some points that might be worth following up elsewhere.
We should not pretend that everything that is vaguely in line with our expectations is right. I probably wouldn't have posted the link if I had stopped to think about it in detail.
Do you go to the National Wildlife Refuge often? Do you know that giant gator where the watch tower and the new toilets are, that's usually on that little island, as you leave and head East? Is he still there? My buddy and I had two shows in the Visitor center and may still have a few small prints in the gift shop area!
Paul, just finished reading the "Turn down the heat" paper and lot's of good info in that "Summary", pages 14 to 19. And they say the CO2 is higer than in the last 15 Million years!!! I was off by a few years I guess!
p.s. did you ever figure out what was the issue, the film or the scanner?
I'm just wondering who was in charge of keeping those records 15 million years ago? ,,,,and what happened to that 'ice age' that was approaching in the 1970's? And, why did Al Gore buy California beachfront property if it is going to disappear with the rising ocean levels? Just asking.....
From Paul’s link above posted on 05/19/2013 - 4:24 PM
“By analyzing the chemistry of bubbles of ancient air trapped in Antarctic ice, scientists have been able to determine the composition of Earth's atmosphere going back as far as 800,000 years, and they have developed a good understanding of how carbon dioxide levels have varied in the atmosphere since that time. But there has been little agreement before this study on how to reconstruct carbon dioxide levels prior to 800,000 years ago.”
Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski was a principal investigator of three research projects of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and of four research projects of the International Atomic Energy Agency. After 11 glacier expeditions between 1972 and 1980 from the Arctic, Antarctic, Himalayas to the Tatra Mountains in Poland, this mountain climbing physician who has published 280 scientific papers of which 20 were on climate issues came to just the opposite conclusion and was rejected in the scientific community. Below are excerpts from his findings. For his complete statement here is the link; http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/
I found the following interesting;
"Determinations of CO2 in polar ice cores are commonly used for estimations of the pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric levels. Perusal of these determinations convinced me that glaciological studies are not able to provide a reliable reconstruction of CO2 concentrations in the ancient atmosphere. This is because the ice cores do not fulfill the essential closed system criteria. One of them is a lack of liquid water in ice, which could dramatically change the chemical composition the air bubbles trapped between the ice crystals. This criterion, is not met, as even the coldest Antarctic ice (down to –73oC) contains liquid water More than 20 physico-chemical processes, mostly related to the presence of liquid water, contribute to the alteration of the original chemical composition of the air inclusions in polar ice.
One of these processes is formation of gas hydrates or clathrates. In the highly compressed deep ice all air bubbles disappear, as under the influence of pressure the gases change into the solid clathrates, which are tiny crystals formed by interaction of gas with water molecules. Drilling decompresses cores excavated from deep ice, and contaminates them with the drilling fluid filling the borehole. Decompression leads to dense horizontal cracking of cores, by a well known sheeting process. After decompression of the ice cores, the solid clathrates decompose into a gas form, exploding in the process as if they were microscopic grenades. In the bubble-free ice the explosions form a new gas cavities and new cracks. Through these cracks, and cracks formed by sheeting, a part of gas escapes first into the drilling liquid which fills the borehole, and then at the surface to the atmospheric air. Particular gases, CO2, O2 and N2 trapped in the deep cold ice start to form clathrates, and leave the air bubbles, at different pressures and depth. At the ice temperature of –15oC dissociation pressure for N2 is about 100 bars, for O2 75 bars, and for CO2 5 bars. Formation of CO2 clathrates starts in the ice sheets at about 200 meter depth, and that of O2 and N2 at 600 to 1000 meters. This leads to depletion of CO2 in the gas trapped in the ice sheets. This is why the records of CO2 concentration in the gas inclusions from deep polar ice show the values lower than in the contemporary atmosphere, even for the epochs when the global surface temperature was higher than now."
How is it that they can now base atmospheric CO2 on these ice bubbles when there is no proof that this type of measurement is accurate? Because Professor Jaworowski couldn’t prove it doesn’t work doesn’t necessarily make it so.
Jaworowski is like the scientists who said there was no proof that cigarettes were bad for one's health. He was paid for by the oil companies, said that taking lead out of gas was "stupid". He said a lot of crazy things.
Jackie mentions someone predicted an ice age was supposed to be on the way. That! was Jaworowski. He said it would start between 2001 and 2006, and would never elaborate after that.
@ Jackie, glaciers have rings, similar to rings on a tree. They've been there for millions of years. Scientist are able to see how much snow melted, and re-froze, etc. Ice is full of bubbles. Similar to the bubbles you sometimes get in your ice cubes, only more. By checking the composition of the air, they can tell us how much CO2 was in the air. Even if they didn't, we know that CO2 traps the infra red rays and heats the earth. There's never been any doubt about that, the oil companies just say that it's natural and not man made. No one is really disputing global warming anymore. The oil industry denies it's man made, but I don't think they deny it's happening anymore. It's too obvious. The glacier ring science is actually really interesting, the national geographic has done a few shows on it, if you get a chance, I think you'll be impressed.
Also, I'm surprised to hear you follow Al Gore, but anyway, it's on a hill top, with an ocean view. Just to be accurate.
Or, if you prefer to get your science information from the CEO of Exxon, at 2 min, and 30 seconds he says that he knows we all know that higher CO2 levels are and will create a greater and greater warming of the earth and a rising of sea levels.
Debra, regardless of Jaworowski's paymasters, there is confirmation of CO2 levels over the period of the ice core from the isotope research in the link in my previous paragraph and from different ice cores (which could not all degrade in identical ways to give the same readings at the same ages if Jaworowski's theory were correct). Where you have two different methods of measuring producing the same answer, then you know that both those methods are reliable and the answer is correct, particularly if there is another independent confirmation of the disputed one.
@ Linda "Since 1998, there has been an unexplained "standstill" in the heating of the Earth's atmosphere"
Just curious, have there been any change in the ocean average temperatures during the same time interval? I don't know but I would like to know.
"The hottest of the models in the medium-term, they are actually looking less likely or inconsistent with the data from the last decade alone," said Dr Alexander Otto from the University of Oxford.
"The most extreme projections are looking less likely than before."
The authors calculate that over the coming decades global average temperatures will warm about 20% more slowly than expected.
But when it comes to the longer term picture, the authors say their work is consistent with previous estimates. The IPCC said that climate sensitivity was in the range of 2.0-4.5C.
This latest research, including the decade of stalled temperature rises, produces a range of 0.9-5.0C.
"It is a bigger range of uncertainty," said Dr Otto.
"But it still includes the old range. We would all like climate sensitivity to be lower but it isn't."
Note also that the hypothesis isn't unchallenged: Prof Rowland says ....
"There is other research out there pointing out that this storage may be part of a natural cycle that will eventually reverse, either due to El Nino or the so-called Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, and therefore may not imply what the authors are suggesting," he said.
BTW, Linda, are you going to answer any of my questions, given your position on not trusting anybody who will not debate or answer a single question?
Rich, it isn't over until it's over. Right now we're in the position of hoping for some lucky break that at least buys time - maybe the biosphere adapts and starts absorbing more of the CO2 than expected, maybe solar energy suddenly hits the knee of the cost-effectiveness curve. Although like you I'm completely convinced this is an enormous problem, and we're currently driving the bus towards a cliff - history seems to say that big surprises always come along and the future is never even close to our predictions.
As we all know, this planet we live on is comprised of earth, the solid components, wind, the atmosphere, water, the oceans, stream, rivers, lakes, and underground aquifers, and fire, the sun's radiation and internal radiant heat due to pressure.
If one of these elements is excluded from "the average heat of our planet" then the argument of change is void. all of the elements and there relative density must be considered when the preservation of energy(heat) is in question. This is a fundamental law in thermodynamics.
Hoping that "something" will pop up and reduce or solve the problem, is like me hoping I'll wake up tomorrow with a full head of hair!!! It's be nice, but I won't run out and buy some new combs!!! LOL!
And yet, male pattern baldness is a problem that will eventually yield to technology. Just not in our lifetimes :-(
It's been interesting to say the least, watching the public 'debate' on warming and hydrocarbon emissions evolve over the last 3 decades. At this point the media coverage is mostly about the details of the disaster - it's actual scale, who the winners and losers will be - and yes, there will be winners. There aren't many voices left claiming it's some sort of hoax; even FOX News now routinely runs statements by scientists without gratuitous references to a fake 'controversy'. And yet governmental action remains an impossible goal. Our best hope is that grassroots efforts start to scale up. Unlike governments, most big corporations aren't run by fools or crooks; energy efficiency, and freedom from uncontrollable oil prices, have clear economic benefits even in the near term.
The real, long-term effects of all the additional carbon in the atmosphere, and of the termperature rise itself, aren't known and although the picture looks bleak right now, I have no doubt that surprises are in store.
I've actually read here recently that some of the current solar producers (First Solar, etc) are delivering power below the rates expected. Unfortunately solar requires an enormous amount of land to deliver the equivalent level of power as a coal fired power plant, or nuclear plant. And there isn't a whole lot of of open land in in the US, that I think many would want to devote to it. So I see two major hurdles for solar, its got to become way more efficient, and two, its got to integrate efficiently into the land space already occupied by human beings. Which means retrofitting existing homes and offices. I think it can be done, it just takes some political and moral courage to make it happen. In fact I we'll discover an amazing thing once every home in America derives some of its power from installed solar panels. But like recycling used to be only something environmentalists did, its going to take a bit drag the more conservative elements of our society to take a risk with solar, and accept a new way of thinking.
Though if incandescent blub hording is any indication, there are some who will die before they will do the right thing.
I posted this before but removed it shortly thereafter because I realized this thread was not private to FAA members only. Since my request was denied and it will not be private I would like to re post part of it since Gary has brought up a very good point. Sorry to those who may have already read it.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) with all it’s good intents and purposes presupposes where stimulus money should be spent by allowing government venture capitalists to pick and choose predominately defunct green industries over more viable and profitable industries. I don’t see how any of them could have qualified legally for the funds. The waste of stimulus spending is out of control and a new tax on carbon would only make it worse. Companies such as the ones listed below are recipients of funds from the ARRA and have either filed bankruptcy, shut down facilities or laid off scores of employees.
Abound Solar $12.6, Amonix $9.5million, First Solar $16.3 million, Gamesa $30.9 million, REC Solar Grade Silicon $154.8 million, Solar World $82 million, Vestas $51.8 million
We will always need fossil fuels even when we finally fully subsidize our way to new green energy sources. But these wind and solar alternative green energy sources will need powerful and efficient energy such as we have now to back them up on those cloudy and windless days. There’s nothing wrong with companies going out there and producing greener products or energy if they are viable and can prove they work. And if they need some assistance they should be able to show that they have a good record just as anyone who applies for a loan at a bank. That’s not what’s happening, what’s happening is social engineering at it’s best.
My layman's understanding of this situation is that American solar panel manufacturers are failing not because they're crooks, or incompetents, but because the Chinese solar vendors undercut them with the aid of massive subsidies from their government.
In the context of addressing the warming crisis, note that it doesn't matter if usefull technology comes from China, the U.S. or North Korea. This problem is much bigger than national conflict and rivalry. If the Chinese succeed in making solar cost-effective, we all win.
"its got to become way more efficient" OR cheaper. And that is volume,with the help of governments, local,State and Federal. If the Power companies and governments announced tonight,that we all could get our own solar panels, enough to produce energy for the highest peak time/months and there would be no cost, for installation or equiptment, but all additional energy would be returned, as payment to the Power companies to sell. Here in Florida, my July,August and sometimes September usage is around 2k for a month, but during the cooler times, it's under 500-800 watts. So for most of the year, I would be a "Producer of Energy" and in X years, the installation would be paid off and then I could "sell" the energy back to the Power companies! Some of this has already started in Alachua County, Gainesville area. Here's a brief description of what they are doing and doing more of and leading the Country and most of the World! :
"We will always need fossil fuels even when we finally fully subsidize our way to new green energy sources. But these wind and solar alternative green energy sources will need powerful and efficient energy such as we have now to back them up on those cloudy and windless days."
No, we will not "ALWAYS" need fossil fuels, in the short term yes, absolutely, but eventually, they will become valueless, compared to our other resourses we have now and will have in the future.
And worrying about "cloudy and windless days" is silly. That's where storage comes in. And maybe the best current example is the Solar Plane, flying day AND night across the U.S.:
The Government, our Government, needs to step up and try MORE things like this, not less! It has to become THE key player here in the U.S. if we ever want to release the stranglehold that fossil fuels have now on us as a Nation.
One of the quickest ways to change consumer behavior is through taxes...but frankly there are many costs to using fossil fuels that are not show up at the pump. From all the military blows in the middle east to what it costs to clean the air and water and treat people with pollution related illness. We need stop subsidizing the cost oil and gas...and once we do the cost of solar, wind and other renewables can competete.
Just to keep the oil flowing the last 30 years in the Middle East has cost an estimated 10 trillion dollars.