Arguments about climate change

cactus flower wrote:

Haven't read this from MN News Scrapbook today, but it might be relevant:

LINK

I've read it now, and they can't agree on it.

i thought youngdan would be rubbing this in our faces today, course nobody ever said it was definitely global warming in the first place.

The thinking on global warming is very different here than over there. They were discussing that report on the Limbaugh Show today which has an audience of millions. I normally don't listen to him but today he had someone called White filling in for him. According to him tempertures fell from 1945 to about 75 and then it rose to 98 and has being falling since. So if you compare it to what the temp was in 1975 it might be a fraction of a degree higher. No big deal. It is chilly here after a cold winter, end of story.
On Sunday evening a show on one of 2 main talk radio stations locally discussed global warming under a heading I would believe to be the case. They were saying that it is just a cover for the introduction of world government. There is a huge change in attitude here because the project for a North American Union is out in the open. Local talkmeisters are beginning to discuss it but the bought off synicated guys ignore it.
There is McCain talking about global warming. Even Republicans can see he is loopy so it is interesting times.

can you deny the rapid increase in the amount of co2 in the atmosphere no natural trends are going to let us escape warming from that.

and of course a degree rise is major you are being deliberately dumb again.

A degree is not major because when Ireland was covered by ice it had to be about 30 degrees colder than it is now.
People in Ireland are brainwashed. I was driving arround back there a few months ago and it was on the radio all the time. Listening to this I would look in over the wall and there would be a huge flock of sheep looking back at me and they all breathing out CO2 with not a worry in their heads. I am supposed to believe that the car is producing more than a sheep who is running round the clock. It seems a human produces about a kg of CO2 per day and a gallon of petrol about 9. It seems to me that if everyone went back to riding horses there would be more produced. Thinking of all the animals in the wild it makes no sense.
Then I start thinking of volcanos. I find that they put 130 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere each year
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html
130000000000 kgs per year. or the equivalent to 13 thousand million gallons of petrol. At this stage I am getting convinced it is a scam
When I learn about carbon taxes I smell a rat.
When I see that there is a multi billion dollar market in Carbon Credits I see a rat.
When I see that Al Gore has a billion dollar fund for trading these carbon credits I see who the rat is. http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2008/04/30/12692/gore-vehicle-closes-683m-fund/

youngdan wrote:

A degree is not major because when Ireland was covered by ice it had to be about 30 degrees colder than it is now.

Average temperature in Dublin: 13°
Average temperature in the Sahara: 17.5°

Small changes make big differences, and, more importantly, initiate feedback loops and declines in ecosystems.

youngdan wrote:

People in Ireland are brainwashed. I was driving arround back there a few months ago and it was on the radio all the time. Listening to this I would look in over the wall and there would be a huge flock of sheep looking back at me and they all breathing out CO2 with not a worry in their heads. I am supposed to believe that the car is producing more than a sheep who is running round the clock. It seems a human produces about a kg of CO2 per day and a gallon of petrol about 9. It seems to me that if everyone went back to riding horses there would be more produced. Thinking of all the animals in the wild it makes no sense.

*sigh* Dude, we've been through this stuff before. A kind of natural balance has formed where the amount of carbon entering the atmosphere is loosely and generally matched with the amount coming out. Humans have an ability to breed more animals (which is, as you point out, also having an impact), and burn hydrocarbons at an unprecedented rate. This messes with the natural balance, which is the entire problem.

youngdan wrote:

Then I start thinking of volcanos. I find that they put 130 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere each year
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html
130000000000 kgs per year. or the equivalent to 13 thousand million gallons of petrol. At this stage I am getting convinced it is a scam

And? Volcanic and natural emissions are, as I said, generally dealt with by the natural cycle which adds and subtracts carbon from the atmosphere. This isn't, of course, exact, but there's always some temperature variation. Indeed, nature produces about thirty times the amount of carbon that humans do - it just deals with it. Imagine, for example, a large sink. Every minute, thirty litres of water are pumped in, and the drain can handle thirty as well. The system's in balance, and the sink never fills up. Then add an extra litre per minute. What happens?

youngdan wrote:

When I learn about carbon taxes I smell a rat.
When I see that there is a multi billion dollar market in Carbon Credits I see a rat.
When I see that Al Gore has a billion dollar fund for trading these carbon credits I see who the rat is. http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2008/04/30/12692/gore-vehicle-closes-683m-fund/

See, that's all lovely, but it doesn't explain several things:
1) Why the climate change hypothesis is wrong
2) How some X-File-ish secretive, tax-raising government body managed to convince the overwhelming majority of scientists in the relevant fields that this is real, and
3) Why, if governments invented this to raise taxes, they haven't really responded?

The stuff about tax also ignores some of the better solutions to climate change, such as cap and share, which are government revenue neutral.

polar bears are eating eachother and still people like pidge have to spend time arguing with people like young dan - what is wrong?

(not that you shouldn't counter him pidge..)

Code Twinkle wrote:

polar bears are eating eachother and still people like pidge have to spend time arguing with people like young dan - what is wrong?

(not that you shouldn't counter him pidge..)

Link?

Code Twinkle wrote:

polar bears are eating eachother and still people like pidge have to spend time arguing with people like young dan - what is wrong?

(not that you shouldn't counter him pidge..)

I may be deluding myself, but perhaps if someone were to give a user-friendly research based short account showing how carbon emissions have caused the warming trend experienced over the last 80 years?

Have you come across such a thing? I have read the IPCC summaries and I'm not sure that they do that.

A quick look on the internet shows that counter argument to the IPCC reports has grown dramatically. How commercially neutral this activity is I don't know. It means that meteorologists are going to have to defend and sharpen up their positions. I agree with Code Twinkle and Pidge that debating the issues is the right thing to do.

Some examples of the anti-IPCC case:

Link to climate blog

Replies / questions to IPCC

Of course there are other scientist who say that the IPCC do not go far enough and have exluded the most adverse scenarios for PR reasons.

Interesting studies showing how difficult and complex this is - on balance supports carbon emissions being a very big problem for us.

Water / Ice studies

Well fancy that. Was Ireland colder by 30 degrees when it was covered in ice or not.
The sink analogy is ridiculous because it assumes that the entire Earth can process a set amount of CO2 and no more or no less.
I you think that governments care about CO2 while they fly around in private jets then nothing that anyone says will sway you.
Meanwhile 31000 scientists here say it is mullarky. It gets little attention here because everyone is laughing at the likes of Gore http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734

youngdan wrote:

Meanwhile 31000 scientists here say it is mullarky. It gets little attention here because everyone is laughing at the likes of Gore http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734

Loads of websites and blogs have this story now

31,000 Scientists Rejecting Global Warming Theory to be Named Monday

Menorah

NewsMax

(even a site called
F*ck France ! )

youngdan wrote:

Well fancy that. Was Ireland colder by 30 degrees when it was covered in ice or not.
The sink analogy is ridiculous because it assumes that the entire Earth can process a set amount of CO2 and no more or no less.
I you think that governments care about CO2 while they fly around in private jets then nothing that anyone says will sway you.
Meanwhile 31000 scientists here say it is mullarky. It gets little attention here because everyone is laughing at the likes of Gore http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734

youngdan, do you not actually look at some of the sites you use as sources for your arguments?

Here are some of the other headlines from World Net Daily:

Gay Day squashed on campus
Obama poo-poos danger from tiny Iran; Bush sticks to no appeasement policy
City Clerk suing not to wed Gays
France admits talks with Hamas
How same sex marriage points to the end of the world
California: where compassion replaced wisdom


plus all these related 'stories'

HYSTERIA:
Exposing the secret agenda behind today's obsession with global warming
'Global Warming or Global Governance?' DVD reveals it's not about changing climate – it's about changing masters
The
Sky's Not Falling! Why it's OK to chill on global warming
Read the book that started it
all: Al Gore's 'Earth in the Balance'
Proof Al Gore full of hot air on 'global warming'
Get "Miraculous Messages: From Noah's Flood Until the End Times"
"GREEN WITH ENVY: Exposing radical environmentalists' assault on Western civilization"
You've been Amazon.conned about the rainforest!

---

Previous stories:
Propaganda-driven kids attack think tank
Does 'climate change' mean 'changing data'?
Al Gore's global warming debunked – by kids!
Enviro rules prevent man from going green
Ted Turner predicts 'mass cannibalism' by 2040
Top hurricane scientist cools to global warming
Will hurricane
'expert' be sued for being wrong?
Baptists: No change on climate change
Scientists meet in NYC to challenge Gore, U.N.
Garbage in, garbage out: More bad warming data
Global warming shocker -- Who's minding the thermometers?
Weather Channel founder: Warming 'greatest scam in history'
Anti-global warming report a hoax
Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' required for city employees
Think tank: Withdraw Gore film's Oscar
Sun still main force in climate change
Study finds CO2 didn't end ice age
Kids global warming book 'deceives'
500 scientists refute global warming dangers
Sizzling study concludes: Global warming 'hot air'
Newsweek v. Newsweek on global warming denial
Laurie David climate book targets children
Fox News targeted for global warming 'stance'
Low temp blamed for small crowd at global warming fest
U.N. leader: Darfur slaughter triggered by global warming
Light bulb ban craze exceeds disposal plans
Gore refuses to take energy pledge
Harvard Ph.D ties illegals bill to global warming
Consumers in dark over risks of new light bulbs
Planet Earth banning common light bulbs
Gore plan would 'ban new cars and people'
Gore home's energy use: 20 times average
Retirees trade sailing dream for Al Gore war
U.S. climate researcher: We've got 10 years left
Pat Robertson converts - to 'global warming'
ABC News begs: Send us 'global warming' evidence
Protest decries 'global-warming cover-up'
Global warming? It's in the stars, says scientist
Environmentalists blast Gore: 'Take back toxic electronics'
Poll: 70% of evangelicals see global warming threat
Scientists slam Gore
Barbra Streisand: 'Global warming emergency'
Bush, 'global warming' to blame for hurricane?
Putin adviser says Kyoto 'smoke screen'
'Global warming' hype reaches fever pitch
Whites more to blame for 'global warming'?
Study: 'Global warming' claims overheated?
Gore decries 'global warming' in bitterly cold NYC
'Global-warming' experts ripped for heating planet
Global warming on Mars - without SUVs!
'Global warming' good for wine?
'Black' hurricane names brewing swirl of dissent
Pollution fights 'global warming'?
Limbaugh excoriates Bush on global warming
Bush taking 'dark path' on global warming?


Are you beginning to see a trend here?

Auditor #9 wrote:

youngdan wrote:

Meanwhile 31000 scientists here say it is mullarky. It gets little attention here because everyone is laughing at the likes of Gore http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734

Loads of websites and blogs have this story now

And virtually none of them have pointed out that "31,000 scientists" means 31,000 people with university science degrees. This is the petition:




I hope you will excuse me pointing out that a monkey can fill out that petition, let alone someone with a "science degree" from one of the US's apparently infinite supply of degree mills and Creationist colleges. At the absolute limit, this can be most charitably described as "31,000 petition cards 'signed' by self-described 'science graduates'".

I smell fish. And not in a good way. This is the kind of mendacious crap that passes for debate, is it? "Dr Mickey Mouse, PhD tickbox, sez 'gloabl warming izzunt reel". I'd ask who believes this kind of shite, but I already know.

Seinfeld. I just linked from the handiest place I found. It is on tons of sites
Ibis. I am not one to gloat but did you not see that the signature on that paper was Edward Teller. Maybe it is time for you to have a more open mind.

youngdan wrote:

Seinfeld. I just linked from the handiest place I found. It is on tons of sites
Ibis. I am not one to gloat but did you not see that the signature on that paper was Edward Teller. Maybe it is time for you to have a more open mind.

I have seen better signatures on Creationist "lists". I'm afraid that kind of "argument from authority" doesn't mean anything. If I was persuaded by it I'd be a chain-smoking Bible-toting backwoods fundamentalist....and vice versa, obviously.

Youngdan, do you have any scientific qualifications?

Check it out Ibis before you dig the hole any deeper. Teller did sign.
Yes I do have a college degree.

ibis this is the second argument from authority - we've already had the one that says global climate change is happening because of concentrations of co2...

Sometimes I think if we were really concerned about it we would do two logical things - tax meat instead of petrol and grow more trees. Two arguments from our own site here below - mine is from the start of this thread.

(taxing food is political suicide which is why it's not done but I think Saturday Boy could have an argument for doing it with meat and not just for global warming effects but less of it might help with the HSE heart-attack budget too)

TheSaturdayBoy wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

We have visited this topic before (cows - gas - vegetarianism) as apparently it is quite a bit problem for Ireland. Posters here with farm backgrounds say that Ireland is too damp to be good for growing grain and vegetables and that our climate and soils are ideally suited to grass fed cattle. I think its down to the dirty old business of dragging in some referenced data if we want to slug this one out to good effect.
Just to put my cards on the table, unless you count the odd rasher, I never eat meat more than once a week.

I can't throw in any detailed irish data, but talking globally, it makes environmental and ethical sense to move away from a high meat diet. As I understand it, the land required to produce your pound of meat, is significantly more that that required to produce an equivalent amount of vegetables / grain etc. Leaving the environment out of it for a minute, in a time of growing food shortages, using a more efficient way of creating food makes sense. And throw in the environmental impacts - whether that's methane production of deforestation, the argument for a low-meat or no-meat diet becomes compelling.

Apparently if everyone in the US switched to a vegan diet it would have a greater beneficial effect on carbon emissions than if they all ditched their SUVs... food, as it were, for thought.

Auditor #9 wrote:

The UK Indo today reckons that there is plenty of evidence to say that deforestation is responsible for releasing great quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere and that this is largely being ignored.

In the next 24 hours, deforestation will release as much CO2 into the atmosphere as 8 million people flying from London to New York. Stopping the loggers is the fastest and cheapest solution to climate change. So why are global leaders turning a blind eye to this crisis?

Quote :

The accelerating destruction of the rainforests that form a precious cooling band around the Earth's equator, is now being recognised as one of the main causes of climate change. Carbon emissions from deforestation far outstrip damage caused by planes and automobiles and factories.

The rampant slashing and burning of tropical forests is second only to the energy sector as a source of greenhouses gases according to report published today by the Oxford-based Global Canopy Programme, an alliance of leading rainforest scientists.

Deforestation: The hidden cause of global warming

Are we flogging the wrong horses?

youngdan wrote:

Check it out Ibis before you dig the hole any deeper. Teller did sign.
Yes I do have a college degree.

In...?

Auditor #9 wrote:

ibis this is the second argument from authority - we've already had the one that says global climate change is happening because of concentrations of co2...

No, that is an argument from scientific work. The petition, and the fact that Edward Teller signed it, are arguments respectively from populism and authority. Science is decided by evidence, modelling, and results - not by how many people disagree with it, or how senior they are. Those are PR tactics, and tell us nothing worth knowing.

Ibis. I came out of UCG with a Civil Enge degree. I am no Einstein by any means but have a few brain cells.
Ibis. If you have a little spare time I would ask you to do a bit of research on Armand Hammer. He was an American Communist Industrialist that helped Lenin and continued to help them until he died in 1990. He owned Occidental Petroleum. He took Gore's old man who was a nobody and made him a Senator in Tennessee. All it takes in this country is cash in enough back pockets. He then made Gore a rich man in the employ of Occidental. Gore poisoned half Tennessee with his mining pollution. The likes of Gore is just a frontman.
Why do you think the Chairman of British Petroleum is so anxious to get Ireland to vote Yes on the Lisbon Treaty.
All these things are tied together for anyone who wants to check it out.

youngdan wrote:

Well fancy that. Was Ireland colder by 30 degrees when it was covered in ice or not.
The sink analogy is ridiculous because it assumes that the entire Earth can process a set amount of CO2 and no more or no less.
I you think that governments care about CO2 while they fly around in private jets then nothing that anyone says will sway you.
Meanwhile 31000 scientists here say it is mullarky. It gets little attention here because everyone is laughing at the likes of Gore http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734

Yes youngdan, but how many of them are dead?

Quote :

The late Professor Frederick Seitz, the past president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and winner of the National Medal of Science, wrote in a letter promoting the petition, "The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds."

"This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful," he wrote.

I might be more easily persuaded that he was referring to up to date research results if he was still alive.

I can say one thing for sure Cactus. None of them died from global warming

youngdan wrote:

I can say one thing for sure Cactus. None of them died from global warming

Quote :

Scientists say heat waves are already increasing as Earth’s climate warms.

Linda Mearns: One of the most dramatic effects it has had is indeed in terms of increased frequency of heat waves and the effect that has on human health.

That was Linda Mearns, a climate scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado and an author on a recent report by scientists from around the globe who are working with the IPCC, or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Mearns spoke of a coast-to-coast heat wave in the U.S. in 2006, in which over 200 people died of heat stroke.

Linda Mearns: At one point, all of the lower U.S. was basically in a condition of thermal stress. And that’s something that’s very interesting and important, because if you have a very large extent of the population under heat stress, you want to pump up the air conditioning, but it’s much more difficult to borrow energy from adjacent areas if they are also under heat stress.

Since 1990, the U.S. has had its 10 hottest years on record.

Can you be sure that none of them had a science degree ?

Cactus. Even a mule has enough brains to find a bit of shade when the Sun is splitting the rocks. Dummies and unfortunates have always died from heatstroke.