It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Climate Change Alarmism

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Data about "climate change" hasn't been collected for thousands of years, not even hundreds of years, only a few decades. Yet the alarmists are "niche building", creating jobs for themselves as "experts" for the foreseeable future.

I doubt the alarms that are hyped constantly and just read an article that encourages me somewhat.

(Sorry I don't know how to make a fancy link. Maybe someday I'll figure it out.)

www.opinionjournal.com...

We all need a course in critical thinking instead of believing what we're told. Worse, those who "tell" us rely on our ignorance.




posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 10:41 PM
link   


Yet the alarmists are "niche building", creating jobs for themselves as "experts" for the foreseeable future.


Richard Lindzen, the Doctor who wrote the article has been creating a good job for himself writing for the Cato Institute's Reason Magazine.

The Cato Institute gets it money from Exxon Mobil and others in the fossil fuel industry. The Cato Institute has a budget of about $14 million a year, derived from 15,000 contributors. At least $75,000 has been given by Exxon. Other investors include:Microsoft Corp- oration, Viacom International,Express, Chase Manhattan Bank, Chemical Bank,Citicorp/Citibank,Shell Oil Company and Tenneco Gas,Castle Rock Foundation (reformed Coors Foundation),as well as the American Petroleum Institute.

Richard Lindzen is also a contributing writer for the Tech Central Science Foundation. Tech Central has received $95,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

Richard Lindzen is also a member of The Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy. The Annapolis Center has received $658,575 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

In other words, Richard Lindzen gets his cash from the industry that stands to lose from greenhouse gas reduction.

It is funny how he says that other scientists are swayed into becoming "alarmist" over money.



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 11:30 PM
link   
As stated in the article linked, the promoters of climate change bully and intimidate using the "fossil fuel industry" as the bugaboo.
I don't buy it. Before fossil fuels everyone burned wood and coal and we didn't see "climate change" then.
Just as water purifies itself as it runs thru' the roots and plants in the streams and rivers, something, vegetation probably, absorbs the effects of fossil fuels. I believe we'll run out of fossil fuels before we see climate change of significance and who can say what it would be, global warming or an ice age?



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alikospah
As stated in the article linked, the promoters of climate change bully and intimidate using the "fossil fuel industry" as the bugaboo.
I don't buy it.

But you buy into "alarmists are "niche building", creating jobs for themselves as "experts" for the foreseeable future?"
There is way more money in oil than what ever an "alarmist" can make.




Before fossil fuels everyone burned wood and coal and we didn't see "climate change" then.

You mean before the 600 million cars hit the road?
Back in the 1800's when the population of the world was only 1.26 billion people?
Energy demands have skyrocketed to keep up with the current population of 6.52 billion.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alikospah
As stated in the article linked, the promoters of climate change bully and intimidate using the "fossil fuel industry" as the bugaboo.
I don't buy it. Before fossil fuels everyone burned wood and coal and we didn't see "climate change" then.
Just as water purifies itself as it runs thru' the roots and plants in the streams and rivers, something, vegetation probably, absorbs the effects of fossil fuels. I believe we'll run out of fossil fuels before we see climate change of significance and who can say what it would be, global warming or an ice age?


To be honest the effects of polution on this planet are quite noticeable, as for the polution output now compared to what it might of been 200 years ago, There is a huge difference. If you are really interested in this subject go ahead and do a couple of searches on this site about it, Its a worthwhile endeavor.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 12:33 AM
link   
Well, 6 million cars haven't done appreciable damage, certainly not like one single volcano that caused a year 'round winter. Puny man is going to have to equal such a volcano before I am convinced.
I do notice bad air during a temperature inversion but soon the prevailing winds clear that up and not much but plains is downwind and they aren't suffering in any way we can notice.
Mt. St. Helens caused some burning eyes for a few days but that also cleared up. Our planet seems to be able to repair itself for now.
I do notice fir trees up in the mountains are damaged from auto exhaust but they're unhealthy to begin with and who's to say it isn't from the asphalt? And right next to those damaged trees are young green trees coming up to replace the dying elder. That is minor in my opinon.
Man is scarcely a fungus on the surface of this planet when compared to meteorites and volcanoes.
Earth does change by cycles but we are insisting that it stay the way it is now because we want it to. Kind of unreasonable.
As for job creation, fossil fuel extraction provides employment for many. "Niche builders" are only talking scare talk and for themselves at the expense of our taxpayers. There is a difference. We can listen but we must judge for ourselves instead of just taking their word for it. They say disaster but nothing is happening and not likely to happen for hundreds of years yet. By then, we'll have different technology and perhaps will not have fossil fuels anymore. Then the scaremongers will have to create some other disaster.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 12:47 AM
link   
Reliable instramental records only go back as far as 145 years is true. It's a fact we are all stuck with. Another Fact is that 2005 was the warmest year in those 145 years.

Informative links:
www.grida.no...

data.giss.nasa.gov...


Yet there is something a lot of skeptics either ignore or blatantly dismiss, it's called borehole measurments. Using this method we can make estimates that range back to 500 years. This gives us information for centuries worth of temperature data. Unfortunately this methlod smooths out short term or yearly fluctuations so we can not know anything about individual years using this method.

Informative links:
www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

www.ncdc.noaa.gov...


With the above information we can reasonbly conclude that it is warmer now then at any point in the past 500 years.


It's also possible to reconstruct data of temperatures much further back then 500 years ago. The types of evidence used in reconstruction are: tree rings, ocean sediment, coral growth, layers in stalagmites, etc. The reconstuctions are all slightly different and provide sometimes more and sometimes less global versus regional coverage over the last one or two thousand years but:


"they all show some similar patterns of temperature change over the last several centuries. Most striking is the fact that each record reveals that the 20th century is the warmest of the entire record, and that warming was most dramatic after 1920"

Informative links:
www.ncdc.noaa.gov...



With the above information we can reasonbly conclude that it is warmer now then at any point in the past one thousand years.




Puny man is going to have to equal such a volcano before I am convinced.


This is not only false, it's blatantly false when you examine the CO2 record from any of the dozens of sampling stations around the globe. If this were true, then the CO2 record would be full of spikes, one for each eruption. The fact is, it's a very smooth trend.

The sum of all volcanoes emit CO2 at a rate of 1/150th that of anthropogenic emissions.

Informative links:
cdiac.esd.ornl.gov...

volcanoes.usgs.gov...

volcano.und.edu...



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 01:30 AM
link   
We live on a world that changes, its a fact we can't get around. It will change no matter what we do. To try to make it stay the same is futile.
We have no way of knowing that this summer will be cooler or warmer until it happens but happen it will regardless of what we do.
We know volcanoes "pollute" the world worse than anything man can do so far but in the recent past volcanoes have been relatively quiet. Suppose several of them come to action and continue for months, years? That will change things and man can do nothing about it.
I would like to see man go back to a more natural life. Not just fossil fuels but the mass of chemicals we use are weakening us as a species. We have more sickness, disease and failure to thrive because of our reliance on chemicals, fertilizers, refrigerants, etc. Instead of chemical fertilizers we should be going back to composting, enriching the soil by collecting soil from rich areas like along riverbanks. We worry about the air but our soil is becoming sterile. That damages our food and ultimately, us. The air could be cleaner but healthier plants could do that as well as cutting fossil fuels.
We are becoming selective in our concerns, if we're going to try to improve things, it should be done widely instead of one factor only.
Fossil fuels are a target because they're a money concern and that gets peoples' attention. Let us improve everything at the same time and air pollution will take care of itself, by earth's mechanisms.
Let us work to control the solar effect, that will affect "warming" or cooling as well as restricting fossil fuels and the money they generate. Stop the third world from slash and burn methods, that will help the air. Why is it that the US is seen as the ones to fix the problem that we are not entirely responsible for if indeed it even exists? In the end, it all comes down to money, who gets it, who benefits. And envy somewhat.
We are an advanced nation. If we restrict ourselves, the whole world will suffer.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alikospah
We live on a world that changes, its a fact we can't get around. It will change no matter what we do. To try to make it stay the same is futile.


Agreed. To try to stop the wobble of the earth(which causes ice ages), would not only be futile, it would be suicidally stupid, however trying to stop a meteor impact much less so as it's something we can concievably deal with, the reason why I say this is that many eruptions in the past could have been triggered by non ELE impacts at the right place and time.

Limiting CO2 gasses and all the other nasty and noxious gasses and particulates like SO2, O3, and soot, would have a net benefit to society regardless. If you take a glance at the science behind climate change, study the relevant journals, search the various government websites dedicated to monitoring and reporting, use your eyes, ears and nose, it's quite obvious that a combustion based society is simply not sustainable in the long run for a number of reasons. Those reasons include: Refining Capacity not keeping up with demand, instability in S. America, Russia, and the Middle East, increased acip precipitation makes soil more acidic(especially in Canada where our bedrock is mostly granite) and increases maintaince costs significantly.

You see eliminating the use of CO2 producing processes and products would also eliminate a whole host of other issues along with it. Asthma rates would probably start to decline again for the first time in decades, Cancer rate may go down due to the reduced amount of carcinogens they inhale on a daily basis in a polluted area, etc.



We have no way of knowing that this summer will be cooler or warmer until it happens but happen it will regardless of what we do.


I think the point is that we don't know the consequences of our actions. It's suicidally stupid and/or arrogant to assume that our effect on the environment is limited. We can devestate the surface of most arable land several times over with our weapons or had you forgot about that? Given enough time us "Puny Humans," can think of many different ways in which we completely pwn nature.



We know volcanoes "pollute" the world worse than anything man can do so far but in the recent past volcanoes have been relatively quiet.


They have in the distant past when the earth was much more geologically active. The chances are that a supercaldera from blowing is still there and you're right there is nothing we could do about it, it would plunge us into an ice age fairly quickly. I still think that even though that possiblity is slim but possible, we shouldn't just shrug and say "Worse will happen sooner or later, so why bother?" Well the only way I can possibly respond to a sentiment like this is to say that we have no idea when or even if such were to happen. Again we don't know what the ultimate effect of our polluting ways will have on the planet, we can only guess and construct computer models(which are getting more and more accurate all the time).

If we are even going to get off this planet for good, we need to understand these things if we ever hope to terraform Mars or Titan in the distant future(if we survive).

The name of the game is Risk Management.



Suppose several of them come to action and continue for months, years? That will change things and man can do nothing about it.


Extreme hypothetical scenario. It's only happened once or twice before in earths geological history, one was the cause of one of the main extinctions I believe. The earth was more geologically active back then and as time passes the likelihood of such a doomsday scenario happening get slimmer every day. We should be more afraid of another Ice Age then anything else, but since those move at glacial rates normally, then we really shouldn't worry about it right yet....unless more and more computer models show that our actions are actually hastening the next ice age upon us. Instead of a gradual shift over to a glacial earth forming over a thousand years or more, we could be face an ice age that literally rushes towards us and for all we know it could be a matter of decades to a couple of centuries until we are in a full blown ice age. The point is WE DON'T KNOW. All we do no is that when humanity starting to grow extremely fast over the past 80 years, CO2 levels started a near virtical trend upwards along with a slower uptrend in global mean temperature at various levels. Larger and Larger Ice sheets are showing signs of thinning and weaking, the last "Huge" icebergs to break off from the main sheet will pale in comparision to some of the ones coming up.



I would like to see man go back to a more natural life. Not just fossil fuels but the mass of chemicals we use are weakening us as a species. We have more sickness, disease and failure to thrive because of our reliance on chemicals, fertilizers, refrigerants, etc.


Well that is your opinion, the history books shall decide wether or not we rose to the challenge to develop sustainable and green technologies to stretch out the resources of our planet to the point where we will be able to start mining the rest of the solar system. Still a ways off, but I'd like to see our species survive that long first. Lot's of risks out there and it is our duty as the only known technological species in existance to learn how to survive. If your doomsday scenario happens at some point in the distant future I'd at least like to know that we gave our great grandchildren a fighting chance to survive.



Instead of chemical fertilizers we should be going back to composting, enriching the soil by collecting soil from rich areas like along riverbanks.


I agree about the composting and that is getting more attention these days. My city implemented a composting pickup every week. We generate one bag of garbage a month now. (Most of what we put into compost is usually just kitty litter and meat waste products, the rest goes into our own compost unit).

However your comment about collecting soil from rich areas along riverbanks is a dumb idea. No offense, it's just that action widespread enough would cause erosion on a massive scale. That topsoil needs to be there in order to stop this erosion.



We worry about the air but our soil is becoming sterile. That damages our food and ultimately, us.


You know why it's becoming sterile? Because our combustible ways are spewing noxious acidic gasses into that atmosphere that then dissolve in water vapor and fall as acid precipitation. The lowest measured was something like 3.9(extremely acidic, if the soil was that acidic it would be considered a wasteland where not much could grow). However there is some hope. Some pioneering Hispanic Scientists set up an experimental off the grid village who basically made it economically and environmentally sustainable by regenerating the soil.

www.friendsofgaviotas.org...

www.dharma-haven.org...



The air could be cleaner but healthier plants could do that as well as cutting fossil fuels.


They are intricately interconnected. The Nitrogen Cycle is just as interconnected to the atmosphere as the Carbon Cycle is.

More links.







We are becoming selective in our concerns, if we're going to try to improve things, it should be done widely instead of one factor only.


Combustion is a linchpin. It's a primary factor. Oil consumption in general is also a linchpin factor. We are an Oil based society. A lot of chemicals we use in the environment are also Oil derived. Oil is everything in this day and age. Havn't you learned that by now?



Fossil fuels are a target because they're a money concern and that gets peoples' attention. Let us improve everything at the same time and air pollution will take care of itself, by earth's mechanisms.


Again Fossile Fuels and Oil products are the linchpin of our society. Nothing else is.



Let us work to control the solar effect, that will affect "warming" or cooling as well as restricting fossil fuels and the money they generate.


Suicidally stupid idea IMO. We want to be producing ways to live in relative balance with our planet, not control it to the point where we are basically terraforming it into the desired form of the few.



Stop the third world from slash and burn methods, that will help the air.


How? Invade them? Pressure them with sanctions? Frankely those methods acount for a tiny percentage of overall pollutants with China and India roaring onto the scene. It does pose a problem in S. America now, with Brazil conducting it's slash and burn campaign. They are starting to curtail that though, and Brazil itself is going to extreme lengths to make itself independant of oils ASAP. Yes they may end up doing more harm then good, but with the above links I posted, even the most infertile soil can be restored with hard work and due dilligence.



Why is it that the US is seen as the ones to fix the problem that we are not entirely responsible for if indeed it even exists?


Carbon per person the US ranks 7th worst polluter in the world.

www.aneki.com...

The US is also the single largest producer of pollution in the world, though China and India are rapidly catching up, already surpassing the US in amount of Soot produced through the use of Coal plants.



In the end, it all comes down to money, who gets it, who benefits. And envy somewhat. We are an advanced nation. If we restrict ourselves, the whole world will suffer.


Whoa I was right. Arrogance is the primary issue here isn't it? Just out of curiosity who mentioned America first hmm? I was originally speaking in generalist terms about Humanity as a whole. We are all on the same boat travelling at increadible speeds through the cosmos, and all we can do is argue about who gets to sit where, all the while unaware they are veering dangerously close to a solid brick wall.

Well if you've read through all this then I congratulate you.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alikospah
As stated in the article linked, the promoters of climate change bully and intimidate using the "fossil fuel industry" as the bugaboo.
I don't buy it. Before fossil fuels everyone burned wood and coal and we didn't see "climate change" then.
Just as water purifies itself as it runs thru' the roots and plants in the streams and rivers, something, vegetation probably, absorbs the effects of fossil fuels. I believe we'll run out of fossil fuels before we see climate change of significance and who can say what it would be, global warming or an ice age?


The Romans used fossil fuels, but it's only in the past hundred years that the global economy has grown enough to start pumping out CO2 on an industrial basis, all over the world. That's the key point here - this isn't a matter of CO2 being put out by the factories in the north of England, as it was at the end of the 18th Century, it's the factories that are now everywhere.
And as for the experts - the first companies to start getting seriously worried about the effects of global warming were the reinsurance companies like Swiss Re, who will foot the bill from the insurance claims for flooding and other climate change effects. It's happening.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 04:25 AM
link   
Also if America becomes a leader in Green Innovations then it would set an example to the world and they'd be knocking down the door to buy American products again. I personally don't care who's getting rich from all this, if Chevron started to incorporate green alternative energy sources as a major arm of it's operation to start I would be happy. Some Oil companies are starting to put serious R&D and venture funding behind speculative ventures dealing in this area. I don't want to see a sudden shift, that could also cause more damage then good in the short and medium term(long term would be good though). If the momentum of the past 3 years keeps on going, then we all might be in for another economic boom, perhaps larger then the IT boom and much longer as well. Embrase it now or fall behind and end up paying more for the technology later, rather then raking in the economic dividends that such a Scientific, Engineering, Archectural, and Industrial gradual paradigm shift would entail, western countries who do not embrase this rout will be on the outside looking in for the first time in quite a while.

Economically, Morally, Geopolitically, and Environmentally, it just makes sense to go this rout.

[edit on 13-4-2006 by sardion2000]



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alikospah
Data about "climate change" hasn't been collected for thousands of years, not even hundreds of years, only a few decades. Yet the alarmists are "niche building", creating jobs for themselves as "experts" for the foreseeable future.




There's 1000's of years of CO2 data in the Vostok Ice cores.
Carbon dioxide level highest in 650000 years

If you want to stay in business, you better have an edge
Markets are generated by demand. This "climate alarmist market " came about when severe weather damage costs skyrocketed and industries started going bankrupt because of their lack planning towards climate change coupled with rising energy costs.


States Calculate Global Warming Pricetag
In a new sign of growing concern about the impact of global warming on the health of the U.S. economy, the insurance commissioners of the 50 U.S. states last week voted unanimously to establish a task force on the possible impact of climate change on the insurance industry and its consumers.

The decision, taken by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, came during the same week that the world's biggest insurance broker, Marsh & McLennan, briefed its corporate clients, which include roughly 75 percent of the "Fortune 500" biggest companies, on the potential impact of global warming on their businesses.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Billion Dollar U.S. Weather Disasters -NOAA
The U.S. has sustained 67 weather-related disasters during the 1980-2005 period in which overall damages and costs reached or exceeded $1 billion at the time of the event. This report does not contain any events that had unadjusted damages/losses less than $1 billion dollars and then subsequently may have reached $1 billion after applying the (Gross National Product) GNP inflation/wealth index. Fifty-eight of these disasters occurred since 1988 with total unadjusted damages/costs exceeding $380 billion. Seven events occurred in 1998 alone--the most for any year in the summary period, though other years have recorded higher damage totals. Events are listed beginning with the most recent.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.




Big money is seriously worried for a reason....



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Before we can "set an example" for the rest of the world, I'd think we'd want to clean up our own culture. I rarely turn on the TV anymore because all I see is corruption.

For alternatives, we have had decades to develope alternate sources of energy and we haven't. I would think if it is so serious, we'd rebel and find the means to develope alternatives but not much is happening. What has been offered so far isn't worth buying into. I don't want a car I have to push uphill, that is as fragile as an eggshell and relies on air bags to take the place of strength.
Who's going to give up their SUVs first for the sake of the air?
And once we've set the example, to we go to pre-emptive war to force others to go the same way? We set the example of democracy yet went to war to force Iraq into democracy without knowing if it can be sustained.
Eastern Europe is still a disaster and there is no superfund to clean it up. Everyone is standing around waiting for the US to do something. And all along, we still don't see terrible wounds, poisoning of tracts of forest or anything to indicate that the fuel we use now is causing significant injury.
Meanwhile we're filling up every space we can find with more houses. Right now plans are going forward to put liners over cyanide laced mine tailings, cover it with topsoil and build several hundred more homes where trees and gardens will be forbidden because of the poison just under the surface.
If we didn't jam ourselves together so tightly, we could have smaller compact communities where everyone can walk or bike hither and yon.

Its like smoking. Smokers are banished from society. Non-smokers don't even want to see anyone smoking a cigarette outdoors. That is what people are concerned about, enforcing regulations on others but no real progress is being made but some are feeling self-righteous. Its the same with fossil fuels, people blame it but can't show real damage that isn't caused by other factors such as poor soil, poor husbandry. It is easy to blame fossil fuel and meantime do nothing that shows fossil fuel is actually the culprit.
Convincing proof hasn't been shown to me yet and I get a little tired of the constant finger pointing because its all talk and little action. Show me. Prove to me our 600 million autos are doing as much as the volcano that caused a year round winter.
The earth repairs itself, lets don't jump into the fire of alternatives without knowing what we're doing.
I believe fossil fuel is there for us to use, it powers nearly the whole world and civilization is improving, more people have a little prosperity because of fossil fuels. If we intend to dump fossil fuels, show us a viable alternative that won't do worse damage if said damage actually exists.
Pikes Peak highway is to be paved because the road is destroying wetlands. Never mind that wetlands come and go as the mountain is constantly recontouring according to gravitation. No, take off the gravel and put down asphalt instead and the wetlands present now will always be there. Only they won't, everything is sliding downhill and no one notices the new wetlands forming on their own with no help and no acknowledgement. We must enforce pavement even while no one wants it. Asphalt leaching into the soil will contaminate the watershed but no one wants to talk about that, instead a living mountain must be forced to remain exactly as it is today no matter how much harm that does.
That's where it is with fossil fuels, no proof and benefit to only the few but everyone feels good when they point the fingers.
I have lived 63 years and have yet to see any real lasting injury caused by fossil fuels. Earth has repaired itself and seems capable of doing so for several more centuries.

[edit on 13-4-2006 by Alikospah]



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 10:55 PM
link   
There is unquestioningly some alarmism coming out of the environmental groups, the tree huggers, and the animal rights groups, but there is also a lot of truth coming out of those same groups. There can be no debate on the issue of whether mankind is harming the planet--we are definitely causing harm because of our numbers and our lack of knowledge & concern for the environment. Whether or not we are solely, primarily, or only marginally responsible for the rapidly increasing CO2 levels, global temperature rises, etc. really makes no material difference. We know we bear some responsibility and we owe it to future generations to at least try to mitigate the damage we are causing and figure out a way to restore the environment to a more pristine state if we possibly can.

There is no question we can do some good for the environment if we all pitch in and try. But in that statement also lies the problem we face. How much are we (each of us) willing to give up or change the way we do things to help the environment. Apparently we aren't willing to give up our large vehicles, or lessen our dependence on plactics, fertilizers, pesticides, paper products, etc., etc.. How much should we change or give up, what's fair? Our representatives in the government have decided the Kyoto protocols are not fair, but what is?

It is certain we cannot continue on the way we are going now or eventually we will completely poison the environment and ourselves along with it. Furthermore, the longer we wait to start doing something meaningful, the harder it becomes to do something meaningful. Individuals, companies, and governments all complain about the associated costs of lessening our dependence on oil and oil based products and they are absolutely right, it will be costly. Right now we can shoulder our share of those costs, but in another 20, 30, 50 years we may not be able to do so. We can pay now, or we can really PAY later.

[edit on 13-4-2006 by Astronomer68]



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 10:56 PM
link   
Whew what a interesting thread cuppel things I need to get out here as well lol

Lets start with the volcano thing while volcanoes produce a lot of CO2 any major eruptions that put any substantial amount up is rare. Though did you know the main co2 monatering station used for statistics is situated next to a volcano on Hawaii! Lol

Sardion I have to say a good job with the replys …lots of boxes though lol

While the oil companies have the worl by the balls. It only makes sence they would wish to branch out b/c oil has a bad rap. As for alternative energy do you think the reach in to E85 or bio diesel would make a good step toward what you all are wanting?

Though the co2 cycle is a lot like the first picture there is a second that processes just as much if not more carbon though carbon fixing of carbonic acid. Most forget about that.

Global warming while it is true the world is warming the rate it has has not changed for 1000 years and there is data to prove it relating to tree rings.(from data from more thean one sorce.) though the world is warming it is unclear what will happen next it can continue warming or global dimming or a trigoring of a new ice age. All these have nonbias “experts” and data backing them.

Regenmacher im gona pick on you for some thing

I request for you to remove the second graph for you putting false data up intentionally or unintentionally. First its full of crap your saying the us didn’t spend more than 1 bill in 2000 for weather BULL we prob spent that much just on salt and what constitutes extreme? THE DATA IS BULL either you have tampered with it aka plagiarism or you got it from some one who did b/c the date for the data is 2001(numbers bottom right) but there is clearly a line on 2005 and who is this for the US or AUS? Who it’s just a stupid tampered graph that is one sided data. Second vostic is a interesting thing to look at it is full of inconsistencies between ice cores it should not be taken as absolute fact.

I advise that you look at where your getting the stuff you post instead of just lies and propaganda.

And I have a word about proof for things

5000 years ago every one knew the world was flat

100 years ago every one knew that it was imposable for humans to go supersonic

75 years ago every one knew that mass could not be converted to energy

40 years ago every one knew that there where not plates floating on the mantle

My point is that at each of these they had firm data proving that each of these could not have been done or was imposable. The fact that you have supporting data and a sound theory is not enough. Experts if you so call them have been a bunch of liars for all of time hell look at meteorologists and the weather reports how much of a expert are they. Look at doctors just b/c a person is a expert in there field means NOTHING.

The truth is that we have no clue what is going to happen.. though we should be care full not to kill the planet the living things on this earth still put out more than 100 times more co2 than man does including breathing and industry. Science and politics have never and will never go together. So anything you find on cnn msnbc or any media source you should severely question .



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alikospah
Before we can "set an example" for the rest of the world, I'd think we'd want to clean up our own culture. I rarely turn on the TV anymore because all I see is corruption.


TV isn't the issue here and neither is culture. We are not talking about US Cultural Imperialism.



For alternatives, we have had decades to develope alternate sources of energy and we haven't.


Actually we have developed alternatives, two of which is now economically viable and competitive with oil. Those two alternatives that are ready for prime time NOW are Wind and Tidal, if you had checked out the state of the industry before making an ASSumption you would know that those industries are growing at a rate that is measurable in double digit percentiles yearly.



I would think if it is so serious, we'd rebel and find the means to develope alternatives but not much is happening. What has been offered so far isn't worth buying into. I don't want a car I have to push uphill, that is as fragile as an eggshell and relies on air bags to take the place of strength.


Have you ever driven a hybrid before? I don't drive personally but I've been in them before and they don't seem to be all that much worse at climbing hills then most cars of the same size and weight.



Who's going to give up their SUVs first for the sake of the air?


I don't think anyone will. What IS happening right now is that they are giving up their SUVs because they cannot afford to fill them up due to their slave-wage existance and the price of Oil.



And once we've set the example, to we go to pre-emptive war to force others to go the same way? We set the example of democracy yet went to war to force Iraq into democracy without knowing if it can be sustained.


Iraq isn't the issue and the example I'm talking about is a similiar example the US set in the post-WW2 world, economically speaking that is. Everyone wanted to be like america so much that just about every major city in the western world is modelled off of New York city. It's the example of success. When someone fishes for his dinner every night and finds a section of the river to be teeming with fish, the other fishermen will take note that this guy is haulin in more product then anyone else. That example is then followed and now instead of one fisherman, fishing that one section teeming with fish, the river banks are lined with fishermen wanting the same deal as the first successful fishermen. This is an economic analogy and should not be taken too far, but hopefully you've got my point.



Eastern Europe is still a disaster and there is no superfund to clean it up. Everyone is standing around waiting for the US to do something.


I could care less what the US does in eastern europe. All I care is what Eastern Europeans are doing in Easter Europe, just as I care what American's are doing in America. Yes I'm not american, I'm canadian so I have to put up with the acid precipition which mostly comes from smokestacks in the "great" USA. Also the reason why people want the us to do more then it's doing is quite clear. But incase you don't know the reasons here is a short list:

1. It's the worlds sole Superpower

2. It's the worlds most industrialized country

3. It's the worlds largest pollutor.

4. It's the worlds richest country.

5. It's the most technologically sophiticated country in the world.



And all along, we still don't see terrible wounds, poisoning of tracts of forest or anything to indicate that the fuel we use now is causing significant injury.


The use, mining, refining of Oil is the problem, not just Fuel use. Why do you try to dumb this whole thing down? It's a very complicated problem.



Its like smoking. Smokers are banished from society. Non-smokers don't even want to see anyone smoking a cigarette outdoors. That is what people are concerned about, enforcing regulations on others but no real progress is being made but some are feeling self-righteous.


Yeah and the evidence is mounting and being brought to light that second hand smoking is just as deadly as first hand. Not a very good example... also it's been shown that Cigs pollute just as much as a motocycle in particulate emissions, produces more sulfur dioxide, and just plain stinks.



Its the same with fossil fuels, people blame it but can't show real damage that isn't caused by other factors such as poor soil, poor husbandry. It is easy to blame fossil fuel and meantime do nothing that shows fossil fuel is actually the culprit.


Did you miss my posts above? Did I not show you that any and all particulate emission has a direct effect on the soil? You have not learned anything from any post I've placed on this thread have you? There is a sandbox over in the corner over there for you to stick you head into.



Convincing proof hasn't been shown to me yet and I get a little tired of the constant finger pointing because its all talk and little action. Show me. Prove to me our 600 million autos are doing as much as the volcano that caused a year round winter.


When did this happen in recent geological history(within the past 10,000 years)?



The earth repairs itself, lets don't jump into the fire of alternatives without knowing what we're doing.


Actually that is a belief, not based on any science. The Earth doesn't repair itself. It seeks the closest thing to equilibrium that it can possibly achieve due to some very basical laws of physics and thermodynamics. If planets naturally did what you believe it to do, then Mars would still be habitable.



I believe fossil fuel is there for us to use, it powers nearly the whole world and civilization is improving, more people have a little prosperity because of fossil fuels. If we intend to dump fossil fuels, show us a viable alternative that won't do worse damage if said damage actually exists.


Really? Did some magical hand from the sky put it there just for us "Puny Humans" to use? Also I don't think I've ever said we should dump the stuff overnight and you are basically paraphrasing what I said above. Also there is no such thing as one "viable alternative," to gasoline. Once it's completely gone we are gonna have to cobble up another infrastructure step by laborous step. It's called the natural evolution of Technology and we better do it sooner rather then later.



Pikes Peak highway is to be paved because the road is destroying wetlands. Never mind that wetlands come and go as the mountain is constantly recontouring according to gravitation.


Don't know where that is nor do I care. I have no idea what this has anything to do with except your are wrong when you say that Mountains are eroded away by gravity. Gravitation is merely the curvature of spacetime, Mountain erosion is caused by things like Air and Water, they are build up through a process called "Uplifting." That is when plates smash into each other in super slow motion pushing up tons of rock and rubble into a peaked formation. Then once the motion stops abiotic factors start wearing them down. Guess what? We are even tampering with that process as well. Combustion causes acid precipitation. You can see it's effect on stone mason work as well as concrete and in natural ecosystems. Lake water that is too acidic can cause mass dieoffs, just as algae blooms from fertilizer runoff causes dieoffs due to the O2 the algae need to grow.



No, take off the gravel and put down asphalt instead and the wetlands present now will always be there. Only they won't, everything is sliding downhill and no one notices the new wetlands forming on their own with no help and no acknowledgement. We must enforce pavement even while no one wants it. Asphalt leaching into the soil will contaminate the watershed but no one wants to talk about that, instead a living mountain must be forced to remain exactly as it is today no matter how much harm that does.


Do you know where asphault comes from?

en.wikipedia.org...

It also is covered when I say the problem is the use of Oil products. Asphault is an oil product and is quite toxic. People are looking for alternatives, but without support from the tax paying public, the people who write the checks that pay for the research won't care. They only care when a requisite number of people care.



I have lived 63 years and have yet to see any real lasting injury caused by fossil fuels. Earth has repaired itself and seems capable of doing so for several more centuries.


This proves what exactly(besides the stubborness part that is)?

[edit on 14-4-2006 by sardion2000]

[edit on 14-4-2006 by sardion2000]



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 09:41 AM
link   

So anything you find on cnn msnbc or any media source you should severely question.


Indeed. Google Scholar is a good place to start if anyone else is interested in learn further about this.

Food for thought though....

www.sciencemag.org...#

Backcheck the references if you doubt and do the research study yourself. They give you enough information to do such a thing. Of course it would take hundreds of hours to collect and evaluate the information, I would be very interested to see just what the Science Journals have to say in a new analysis. I wish I had time to do it myself actually.

[edit on 14-4-2006 by sardion2000]



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 02:35 PM
link   
I'm very unhappy with the auto situation. I won't drive a plastic car and haven't seen enough about hybrids to know if they're worth what they undoubtably cost.
I just bought a used car in fine condtion, a '77 Pontiac. I like it, its big and roomy, has that secure heavy car ride and will go uphill. This is my last car and I rarely go anywhere so I consume very little gasoline. But I have the freedom to go my way when I want.
Now there are groups that wish to deprive us of what we like and replace it with poor, shoddy substitutes that don't even have a track record yet.
They are saying stop polluting with gasoline but how much are they polluting in the fabrication of these immitations that no one is mentioning?
Just like smoking, a few are trying to dictate to the majority. Even if we all go hybrid, the asphalt will still be there, it just won't be mentioned because of the "niche builders" and "job creation". In the end, we're not going to be very pleased with the results but the few will feel self righteous.
It still comes down to money, envy and who has the power. And that's just in the US. I considered once getting one of those motor-rickshaws. That would cut the gas consumption then they pollute with their lawn-mower engines. I've never seen one in the US. Where they are, pollution is a real problem but it is still laid on our backs. While the rest of the world pollutes, even deliberately, pressure is on the US to make all the changes. In Southeast Asia, the city air is dense with pollution, smoke from the oil burning motors. Where's the pressure on them to go back to bicycles and burros? One reason is there are no "niche builders" and "job creators" there. They don't care and they ARE suffering from the bad air. But its up to the US to clean up OUR much cleaner air.
It was said that of the nations, US ranks 7th in pollution, yet we are at the top of the first world nations. That would indicate we are doing something even with our gas burning, steel cars.
But if you want to go whole hog, start farming burros, bicycles and stop building roads everywhere. Dirt roads are just as good and you can slow down and enjoy the scenery instead of driving thru' the mountains at 75mph.
I'm not going to give up my auto for a plastic car. I keep it tuned up and running clean. I rarely go but when I do, I want to go in comfort and the pleasure of a car I enjoy. Or don't I have that freedom anymore?
I want some security from a truck bearing down on me, security that a plastic, powerless hybrid can't give me. We're a large country, do you seriouly believe people are willing to putt-putt at 40mph when they go to grandma's house? Or get out and push in the mountains when they go uphill?
With all the scolding, people are still buying SUVs, bigger and stronger every year.
There has to be another solution, autos are not the only source of pollution, not even a major source. Develop another kind of fuel that will run the big cars that people will go for. Or spend on the high speed luxury trains that people will like and get the airplanes out of the skys. Out-source all our polluting concerns, bar none, no exceptions. There doesn't seem to be a happy medium.

As a Canadian are you actually claiming US pollution is going against the prevailing northwest wind? What about Canada's own industrial manufacturing plants (such as coal-fired power plants, pulp and paper plants, smelting plants and cement plants)
exhaust particles from trucks and automobiles?
Yet you scold the US for your own mess. Why am I not surprised?




top topics



 
0

log in

join