Joined: 02 Feb 2004 Posts: 4671 Local time: 2:11 PM Location: Ontario, Canada
Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 10:26 am Post subject:
Quote:
Munky, and all ye other "GW skeptics"... what exactly would you consider "really good proof"?
You shouldnt need to ask as such.
The only people I ever find who need to ask such questions are people who are of a position which has very weak evidence.
"What would be good evidence to you for God? Does God need to come give you the ultimate of omnipotent blow jobs?"
Quote:
The oil industry has put a great deal of money into playing down the facts of global warming
This is not a valid point as the oil industry has no power in shutting up or eliminating evidence. Scientists publish their information and that's what I have looked at.
Quote:
and trying to make it look like junk science, because they have a lot of money to lose.
The global warming alarmists make it look like junk science by itself.
Quote:
The government (in the States at least) has largely ignored and downplayed it - not wanting to get on the bad side of 'big business'.
You have yet to make a point at all. BEing downplayed or upplayed or sidewaysplayed means nothing. I've looked at the direct evidence available to all. Including people like al gore. I havent secretly been missing some bit of information or something.
Quote:
a) It is a fact that humans are responsible for the emission of billions of tonnes of CO2 every year.
No shit... but it's also a fact that Humans also account for about 3% of the total CO2 emitted per year. Of that 3% how much is related to cars rather then simply breathing from the 7billion people on earth... not a whole fucking lot.
Even then you have absolutely no link between global warming at CO2. You have at best a 60%~ correlation.... I've seen soooo sooo many better correlations which make absolutely no sense at all. Obesity vs Intelligence for example is in the upper 90% correlation... Obesity doesnt cause you to be retarded... obese people just happen to be retarded.
Quote:
b) It is a fact that greenhouse gases absorb heat from the sun.
A good explanation of exactly how this works can be found here.
Except these greenhouse gases account to about 0.04% of the atmosphere.
If you were to write an exam and you got a mark of 0.04% on the exam... you should be deported to retard land. When that 0.04% reaches around 90% composition I'll become worried. Hell considering fossil fuels and all these evil big business things are going to run out in about 100 years or so... and in the passed 150 years we only raised that 0.04% by about 0.01%... it's outright impossible for fossil fuels to do anything. Thusly your Grade 6 green house gas understanding really is bullshit.
Quote:
If there is a higher percentage of heat-absorbing gas in the air, this will cause the planet to slowly warm up. If we put it there, we're responsible.
Yep... you can stop driving your cars and stop breathing now. No worries you wont emit any greenhouse gases once you die.
Quote:
The information is all out there if you look for it. The newspapers aren't really a great source however, being more in the "teach the controversy" camp.
Wow this is the end of your post? You state basically nothing and then arrogantly believe that I've been educated to about a grade 6 level? That must be why I dont believe in your religion of global warming and praise the prophet Al Gore. Or that somehow the oil companies have somehow covered up this information which is highly available.
You are an ignorant piece of shit for assuming that you somehow know better then me. YEt you state just about no information at all. _________________ A cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his fleshand drink his blood; while telepathically tell him you accept him as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
Joined: 28 Jan 2003 Posts: 176 Local time: 1:11 PM Location: Chicago
Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 11:27 am Post subject:
Canid wrote:
Munky, and all ye other "GW skeptics"... what exactly would you consider "really good proof"?
The oil industry has put a great deal of money into playing down the facts of global warming and trying to make it look like junk science, because they have a lot of money to lose. The government (in the States at least) has largely ignored and downplayed it - not wanting to get on the bad side of 'big business'.
Is the money that the oil companies have given in a year as much as Al Gore makes spreading global warming fear in a year? I agree that self interest can affect the information that we get, but all the billions of government funding towards global warming, and all the money environmental organizations receives dwarfs anything that goes to skeptics.
Personally, I am skeptical that mankind is causing a catastrophic global warming, which is different from global warming. _________________
Joined: 28 May 2008 Posts: 860 Local time: 2:11 PM Location: Tennessee
Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 6:22 pm Post subject:
i read somewhere that they thought of pumping a lot of nitrogen into the air to neutralize CO2 and thusly cool the planet.
but that's just not possible on a biosphere scale.
Joined: 07 Jun 2008 Posts: 66 Local time: 1:11 PM Location: Manhattan Kansas
Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 6:40 pm Post subject:
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
runlikehell lied his ass off wrote:
And why do so many "rationalists" deny it? I think it is because of ideological reasons. Even though an atheist should be free of ideology, a lot of them have bought into Rand-style objectivism and libertarianism. Libertarianism requires that there be no human-caused climate change.
And you felt like lying because.........?
Oh yeah, you lied. Big time. Huge.
If you feel that you didn't lie, please prove that libertarianism requires that there be no human-caused climate chance.
We're all waiting.
While you're at it, you might want to note that you made an unsupported assertion with the free market being unable to solve a problem like climate change, which necessarily means that you think only a government can do it. Please prove that, too.
Hint: pulling bogus shit out of your ass is what creationists do. Don't act like a creationist.
Well, the rest of the paragraph explained it, but apparently not clearly enough. I would also like to point out that I didn't lie- I told the issue as it appears to me. If it's wrong, it's still not lying because I am not intentionally trying to mislead anyone.
Libertarianism (at least in most of its forms) requires that there be no human-caused climate change because it places its faith in the free market, which cannot solve the problem.
That the free market cannot solve the problem of human-caused climate change was pretty clear, or so I thought. Since it wasn't, I can explain what leads me to make that assertion, and why it is not an unsupported assertion.
The free market is made up of many people and companies working in their own self interest. According to doctrine, a godlike "invisible hand" will result in greater good for all (of course, a true Randian wouldn't care about greater good for all, but oh well...). Now global climate change comes along. Can a bunch of people working solely in their own self interest solve it? Of course not. For example: burning fossil fuels creates carbon dioxide. But you can sell people fossil fuels for money. So the corporation will mine and sell the fossil fuels, because it is profitable. So what if it damages the earth? The corporation doesn't care. They'll do what's profitable. And the right thing isn't always profitable.
A second example (I could write a hundred of these, because they're occurring all around us): Cattle farming. Production of food contributes 18% of all greenhouse gas emissions. That's more than transportation. Cattle farming is a terrible offender. It's bad for the environment all around (and a major cause of deforestation-people cut down trees to make room for cows). So why don't food companies stop? Because it's so fucking profitable. Environment, or money? It's an easy question, but they choose the wrong answer.
A free market cannot solve climate change. People working in their own self interest do not care for the environment. And if you think that the corporations could make the right choice, well, please post a picture of yourself so that I can laugh at your naive, starry-eyed face.
Ameliorating climate change and other environmental problems will require someone to stand up and say, "You just can't do that anymore." It will take regulations, it will take laws, it will take controls. These regulations will restrict the free market. Restricting the free market is a deadly sin to libertarians. However, there is no other way to attack the problem. Libertarians can see that.
So they deny the problem. They say things like, "There's more ice here than last year," when the trend for the past three decades has been melting. They say that greenhouse gases only make up .04% of the atmosphere, ignoring the fact that they already warm up the earth from an uninhabitable subzero temperature to what we have now, and they are quite capable of warming the atmosphere at least a few degrees more. They take quotes from climate scientists out of context and they get their anti-scientific views into the newspapers because of "both sides of the issue" policies. A vast majority (not everyone, but nearly everyone) of people who deny climate change have some vested interest. Look at the Bush Administration: they were always suckers for big business, what with Dubya being an oil millionaire and all. They denied climate change until just around a year ago, and still refuse to come up with solutions. Climate scientists have nothing to gain by saying that there is global warming. Who are you going to trust?
I, for one, trust the people whose jobs it is to look through climate charts, core samples, satellite data, and graphs of trends and to figure out what is going on. If you want to trust the people who are on ExxonMobil's payroll, fine.
If you want to give a reply, make sure it has substance. I'd actually be glad to hear some serious dissent, as long as it's scientific. Saying "runlikehell is a big fucking liar" just doesn't cut it. _________________ Blind faith is always misplaced.
Joined: 08 Mar 2003 Posts: 10021 Local time: 1:11 PM Location: USA
Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 7:12 pm Post subject:
runlikehell lied his ass off wrote:
And why do so many "rationalists" deny it? I think it is because of ideological reasons. Even though an atheist should be free of ideology, a lot of them have bought into Rand-style objectivism and libertarianism. Libertarianism requires that there be no human-caused climate change.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
And you felt like lying because.........?
Oh yeah, you lied. Big time. Huge.
If you feel that you didn't lie, please prove that libertarianism requires that there be no human-caused climate chance.
We're all waiting.
While you're at it, you might want to note that you made an unsupported assertion with the free market being unable to solve a problem like climate change, which necessarily means that you think only a government can do it. Please prove that, too.
Hint: pulling bogus shit out of your ass is what creationists do. Don't act like a creationist.
runlikehell wrote:
Well, the rest of the paragraph explained it
Not even close. You lied your ass off, and you know it. Don't try to backpeddle. Just own up to lying and be an adult about it.
runlikehell wrote:
Libertarianism (at least in most of its forms) requires that there be no human-caused climate change because it places its faith in the free market, which cannot solve the problem.
That's both a non sequitur and unsupported assertion.
runlikehell wrote:
That the free market cannot solve the problem of human-caused climate change was pretty clear
It's not. It's a blatantly unsupported assertion.
runlikehell wrote:
The free market is made up of many people and companies working in their own self interest. According to doctrine, a godlike "invisible hand" will result in greater good for all (of course, a true Randian wouldn't care about greater good for all, but oh well...).
Yet another strawman. Do you enjoy fucking yourself over?
runlikehell wrote:
Now global climate change comes along. Can a bunch of people working solely in their own self interest solve it?
Why couldn't they? Answer: there is no reason why they couldn't.
runlikehell wrote:
Of course not.
Proof, please.
runlikehell wrote:
For example: burning fossil fuels creates carbon dioxide. But you can sell people fossil fuels for money. So the corporation will mine and sell the fossil fuels, because it is profitable. So what if it damages the earth? The corporation doesn't care. They'll do what's profitable. And the right thing isn't always profitable.
And that rules out a market solution? You're going from A to Z without the intervening 24 letters. You can't do that.
runlikehell wrote:
A second example
You need a first example for there to be a second one.
runlikehell wrote:
Cattle farming. Production of food contributes 18% of all greenhouse gas emissions. That's more than transportation. Cattle farming is a terrible offender. It's bad for the environment all around (and a major cause of deforestation-people cut down trees to make room for cows). So why don't food companies stop? Because it's so fucking profitable. Environment, or money? It's an easy question, but they choose the wrong answer.
Wrong according to whom? According to YOU, the wannabe-dictator? Yeah, that's it. You just want to be a dictator and you're trying to cover it up by blaming the incredibly-hampered-and-interfered-with market.
runlikehell wrote:
A free market cannot solve climate change.
Prove it.
runlikehell wrote:
People working in their own self interest do not care for the environment.
Prove it.
And if you think they do not, post a picture of yourself so that I can laugh at your hate-filled, wannabe-dictator, economically-ignorant self.
runlikehell wrote:
Ameliorating climate change and other environmental problems will require someone to stand up and say, "You just can't do that anymore."
And that means only government, right? Wrong.
runlikehell wrote:
So they deny the problem. They say things like, "There's more ice here than last year," when
...the photos show that there is more ice here than last year.
Yeah, it's called photographic proof. You may wish to familiarize yourself with it. Of course, you can lie your ass off again and deny that the photos exist, but then I'll just laugh at you.
Did you have anything of substance to offer? No?
Then you should probably not post again. _________________ aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
Joined: 02 Feb 2004 Posts: 4671 Local time: 2:11 PM Location: Ontario, Canada
Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 7:19 pm Post subject:
Quote:
Well, the rest of the paragraph explained it, but apparently not clearly enough. I would also like to point out that I didn't lie- I told the issue as it appears to me. If it's wrong, it's still not lying because I am not intentionally trying to mislead anyone.
Libertarianism (at least in most of its forms) requires that there be no human-caused climate change because it places its faith in the free market, which cannot solve the problem.
You are ridiculous.
If global warming turns out to be human caused and lets say libertarianism somehow(which really is impossible at this point) took power and had their system in play...
The Global Warming Foundation would be created by people like the Heart and Stroke Foundation. Who will generate lots of money and would get the job done.
Quote:
That the free market cannot solve the problem of human-caused climate change was pretty clear, or so I thought.
The free market has an incentive to do as such. Just as the free market sprang to life the heart and stroke foundation.
Quote:
The free market is made up of many people and companies working in their own self interest. According to doctrine, a godlike "invisible hand" will result in greater good for all (of course, a true Randian wouldn't care about greater good for all, but oh well...). Now global climate change comes along. Can a bunch of people working solely in their own self interest solve it? Of course not. For example: burning fossil fuels creates carbon dioxide. But you can sell people fossil fuels for money. So the corporation will mine and sell the fossil fuels, because it is profitable. So what if it damages the earth? The corporation doesn't care. They'll do what's profitable. And the right thing isn't always profitable.
YAwn,
Quote:
A second example (I could write a hundred of these, because they're occurring all around us): Cattle farming. Production of food contributes 18% of all greenhouse gas emissions.
Could you source that for me... because the numbers I have calculated put livestock farming near to 55% of all greenhouse gases. Humans breathing account for around 5% more. ETC ETC.
Quote:
That's more than transportation. Cattle farming is a terrible offender. It's bad for the environment all around (and a major cause of deforestation-people cut down trees to make room for cows).
and loads of people plant TONS of trees to build paper farms and such. The net increase has actually been an increase in overall trees in the last 5 years.
Quote:
So why don't food companies stop? Because it's so fucking profitable. Environment, or money? It's an easy question, but they choose the wrong answer.
Um... more like that it's fucking necessary fucktard.
Quote:
A free market cannot solve climate change. People working in their own self interest do not care for the environment. And if you think that the corporations could make the right choice, well, please post a picture of yourself so that I can laugh at your naive, starry-eyed face.
The evil Mcdonalds serves transfats and saturated fats and literally gives you HDL french/freedom fries. They dont care about your heart and if you get a heart attack or stroke... meh. It's all profitable.
Oh wait the heart and stroke foundation is the shit. I couldnt tell you how many thousands of dollars ive personally raised for them.
Quote:
Ameliorating climate change and other environmental problems will require someone to stand up and say, "You just can't do that anymore." It will take regulations, it will take laws, it will take controls. These regulations will restrict the free market. Restricting the free market is a deadly sin to libertarians. However, there is no other way to attack the problem. Libertarians can see that.
Nope. You are wrong. The government will never ever regulate how much you can breath, how much you can eat, etc etc. Not to mention the fact that you have absolutely no evidence which links greenhouse gases to global warming. OR at least that human emited greenhouse gases which account for 3% of the 0.04% total... which is a really fucking small amount.
Quote:
So they deny the problem. They say things like, "There's more ice here than last year," when the trend for the past three decades has been melting.
I cant even find the Canadian scientist who studies the sun who also predicts an ice age.
Quote:
They say that greenhouse gases only make up .04% of the atmosphere, ignoring the fact that they already warm up the earth from an uninhabitable subzero temperature to what we have now, and they are quite capable of warming the atmosphere at least a few degrees more.
No. You need to educate yourself.
Quote:
A vast majority (not everyone, but nearly everyone) of people who deny climate change have some vested interest.
Actually I have about $20,000 sitting aside right now waiting for the next big battery technology to spring out of development/quality assurance. Currently the tech going into the electric cars are about a decade old tech which bloomed a decade ago and is only popping up now for cars and such.
Hell the electric cars planned arent even using the best kind of the decade old tech. _________________ A cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his fleshand drink his blood; while telepathically tell him you accept him as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
Joined: 30 Aug 2006 Posts: 8036 Local time: 2:11 PM Location: D-brane
Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 5:00 am Post subject:
Meanwhile in the news:
“Climate change has the power to unsettle boundaries and shake up geopolitics, usually for the worse. In June, the tiny South Pacific nation of Kiribati announced that rising sea levels were making its lands uninhabitable and asked for help in evacuating its population. Bangladesh, low-lying, crowded and desperately impoverished, is watching the waves as well; a one-yard rise would flood a seventh of its territory. But while most of the world sees only peril in the island’s meltwater, Greenland’s independence movement has explicitly tied its fortunes to the warming of the globe.
Changes in the ocean eat the ice sheet from underneath,” says Sarah Das, a glaciologist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts. “Warmer water causes the glaciers to calve and melt back more quickly.” Hunters who use the frozen surface of the winter ocean for hunting and travel have found themselves idle when the ice fails to form. The whales, seals and birds they hunt have begun to shift their migratory patterns. “The traditional culture will be hard hit,” says Jesper Madsen, director of the department of Arctic environment at the University of Aarhus in Denmark. “But from an overall perspective, it will have a positive effect.” Greenland’s fishermen are applauding the return of warm-water cod. Shops in the island’s capital have suddenly begun to offer locally produced potatoes and broccoli — crops unimaginable a few years earlier.
Joined: 02 Feb 2004 Posts: 4671 Local time: 2:11 PM Location: Ontario, Canada
Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 5:09 am Post subject:
How odd...
Considering the fact that Ice melting takes up less space. Meaning that if water levels are rising... it means that ice caps are actually getting larger rather then melting.
Oh right photographic evidence shows that this is the case. Oh right that must mean that Global Cooling is terrible. We are fucked.
Oh hell Lake Erie is the great lake which is closest to where I live and we are actually seeing the water levels of lake erie and other great lakes are actually decreasing quite alot.
Reutter said scientists are also still struggling to figure out how to control Lake Erie's dead zone, an oxygen-deprived area devoid of life in the deepest parts of the lake's central basin, created when the oxygen supply is cut off by warmer layers of water near the surface. While some scientists have theorized that the dead zone is a naturally occurring phenomenon, others say that climate change and phosphorus are to blame. As the water level in Lake Erie decreases, the lake becomes warmer, causing concerns about the dead zone's expansion.
Although Lake Erie's water levels are not of primary concern right now, Reutter said, that could change as water levels in the upper Great Lakes continue to decrease.
In reality global warming is causing the great lakes to decrease in water levels. If anything. Global cooling is what causes water levels to increase.
So josephpalazzo you are now trying to convince us of the impending ice age now? _________________ A cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his fleshand drink his blood; while telepathically tell him you accept him as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
Joined: 02 Feb 2004 Posts: 4671 Local time: 2:11 PM Location: Ontario, Canada
Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 7:00 am Post subject:
ok first of all jackass. Some random 3 minute long youtube video isnt going to mean jack shit... especially when it's supposedly coming up against the fact that ice takes up more space then water. It's a pretty easy scientific fact that is quite easily checked.
So lets rip apart your youtube video. Which accounts to about a geocities website in quality information.
Globe has gotten hotter? Yes indeed by 0.6 degrees celsius.
Scientists believe it's because of human activity??? Um ya they do BELIEVE... they dont have any actual evidence which corroborates such claims. They have as I say... just correlation.
Fossil fuels and greenhouse effect... ya um we account for 3% TOTAL. That is from cow farts to humans breathing to cars exhaust. Which is 3% of 0.04% Then you have to break down that 3% down into fossil fuels vs breathing vs farts and you find that fossil fuels and such account for about dill fucking weed worth of anything.
Arctic sea ice is shrinking? Oh right we already kind of disproved that using evidence in this thread.
Some predict rising water levels? Oh right that's bullshit as proven by me.
Oh wow this video is already over....
So basically this youtube video that was probably made by some grade 2 educated drop old lady. Who basically said nothing that entire time.... is somehow global warming 101.
So josephpalazzo are you going to respond to anything I've said or am I going to have to just point out that you are providing evidence for global cooling and self-refuting yourself? _________________ A cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his fleshand drink his blood; while telepathically tell him you accept him as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
Joined: 07 Jan 2008 Posts: 106 Local time: 2:11 PM
Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 5:31 pm Post subject:
munky99999 wrote:
Quote:
Munky, and all ye other "GW skeptics"... what exactly would you consider "really good proof"?
You shouldnt need to ask as such.
I ask you, as I would ask a creationist "What would you consider "proof" of evolution?"
Since you are trying to argue on a scientific basis, and your arguments use half-facts - facts based in reality but misinterpreted to give you the wrong answer - I would like to know what you would consider proof, since actual proof isn't proof enough to you.
munky99999 wrote:
Quote:
The oil industry has put a great deal of money into playing down the facts of global warming
This is not a valid point as the oil industry has no power in shutting up or eliminating evidence. Scientists publish their information and that's what I have looked at.
The oil industries don't, but the governments do, and have.
What the oil industry has power to do is marketing, which they have, just like the smoking lobby did for years. Picking facts, which sound weak out of context, such as "greenhouse gasses only make up 0.04% of the atmosphere" (which I don't think is correct - the number is closer to 2% I believe), and playing them down, implying "that's not enough to make a difference." Other techniques include parading the very very small percentage of scientists who "aren't convinced" before the public, so it looks like there's controversy, which there really isn't (again, about as much as there is between creationism and evolution among scientists). Picking specific, individual predictions that have proved wrong, and using them to dispute the larger picture.
Discrediting real science and publicizing it is what big oil and government have done, and that was my point. That you must be aware that much of the literature available is tainted.
munky99999 wrote:
Quote:
a) It is a fact that humans are responsible for the emission of billions of tonnes of CO2 every year.
No shit... but it's also a fact that Humans also account for about 3% of the total CO2 emitted per year. Of that 3% how much is related to cars rather then simply breathing from the 7billion people on earth... not a whole fucking lot.
Even then you have absolutely no link between global warming at CO2. You have at best a 60%~ correlation....
There is more than just a correlation, there is a scientific explanation for HOW greenhouse gasses cause the greenhouse effect. The chemistry is outlined in the page I posted and goes into some detail - if you are disputing it, dispute the chemistry outlined there.
I don't know if your numbers are correct here, I'm not going to look them up, it is almost irrelevant.
In any case, cars are not, by a long shot, the worst offenders.
Air planes and coal power plants are far worse problems.
3% is believable, and more than enough, if that 3% is not reabsorbed.
You can see on the chart that the yearly rise is smaller than the yearly fluctuation, but the problem is that it is going up far faster than natural phenomenon would cause. That means that ecosystems do not have the same timeframe in which to adjust as they would if the change were gradual, over a few thousand years.
To quote the page I posted before "Although Earth's atmosphere is 90% opaque to long wave IR radiation, the vast majority of the atmosphere is not composed of gases that cause the greenhouse effect. Molecular nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2) make up roughly 98% of our atmosphere, and neither is a greenhouse gas. So, although the greenhouse effect is very powerful, a very small fraction of Earth's atmospheric gases generate the effect."
AND
"Earth's average surface temperature is around 15° C (59° F). Without the greenhouse effect, it would be about 30° C (54° F) colder than that!"
That means that that tiny little 2% of the atmosphere is responsible for a 30 degree difference in our surface temperature
munky99999 wrote:
Quote:
b) It is a fact that greenhouse gases absorb heat from the sun.
A good explanation of exactly how this works can be found here.
Except these greenhouse gases account to about 0.04% of the atmosphere.
Again, not sure where you got 0.04% from, but 0.04% or 2% the difference that gas makes is immense. As someone said earlier, if you compare global temperature to body temperature, think of it as giving the planet a fever - a few degrees do a lot.
munky99999 wrote:
Wow this is the end of your post? You state basically nothing and then arrogantly believe [yadda yadda yadda. Lots of insults directed at yours truly.]
If you want to go into the details, that's fine. I'm not assuming anything, other than that those I am directing these posts at either don't have a sufficient understanding of the facts, or don't want to. I try and present the basics of a concept in a simple and clear way, so that anyone unfamiliar will get it.
I find the concepts far more useful than the numbers, so I don't tend to argue by throwing statistics at people.
To address your later post:
munky99999 wrote:
Considering the fact that Ice melting takes up less space. Meaning that if water levels are rising... it means that ice caps are actually getting larger rather then melting.
Sea ice displaces the same amount of water as after it melts. The ice above the surface makes up for the difference in volume between ice and water.
The ice that effects sea levels is inland ice, above sea level. The significance of sea ice melting is the loss of its reflective surface. Instead of reflecting the light off the ice, it warms the oceans, increasing the pace of global warming.
munky99999 wrote:
Oh hell Lake Erie is the great lake which is closest to where I live and we are actually seeing the water levels of lake erie and other great lakes are actually decreasing quite alot.
Lake Erie is a lake - inland, above sea level. Warmer air would mean more evaporation, and decreasing water levels, just as you observed.
The dead zones mentioned in the post you replied to might also be attributed to higher temperatures. Warm water is less effective at dissolving gases. This means less oxygen in the water, which means less life. _________________ I like arguing, just not with brick walls.
Joined: 07 Jun 2008 Posts: 66 Local time: 1:11 PM Location: Manhattan Kansas
Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 8:18 pm Post subject:
Well, munky, you did research and engaged in conscious thought. I still disagree with your view, but your response certainly has more substance than Knight_of_BAAWA's, and for that, I applaud you.
munky99999 wrote:
Quote:
Well, the rest of the paragraph explained it, but apparently not clearly enough. I would also like to point out that I didn't lie- I told the issue as it appears to me. If it's wrong, it's still not lying because I am not intentionally trying to mislead anyone.
Libertarianism (at least in most of its forms) requires that there be no human-caused climate change because it places its faith in the free market, which cannot solve the problem.
You are ridiculous.
If global warming turns out to be human caused and lets say libertarianism somehow(which really is impossible at this point) took power and had their system in play...
The Global Warming Foundation would be created by people like the Heart and Stroke Foundation. Who will generate lots of money and would get the job done.
I have no idea why (although lack of careful thinking probably had a bit to do with it) but the idea of a "Global Warming Foundation" did not occur to me. It's an interesting idea. I personally don't think it would do the job though. We have private anti-climate change crusaders now (like Al Gore), but most of them are kind of ridiculous. I still think a government, or some kind of authority that could coerce the worst offenders would be the best idea.
Quote:
Quote:
That the free market cannot solve the problem of human-caused climate change was pretty clear, or so I thought.
The free market has an incentive to do as such. Just as the free market sprang to life the heart and stroke foundation.
I agree that the free market does have an incentive to stop global warming- the problem is, the payoffs would be in the long term and the human tendency is to just look at the short term benefits. That's why oil companies keep investing in more reserves when there's a limited supply of oil in the ground.
If you look at a lot of "green" companies now, their alleged solutions are more PR than anything else. Take ethanol for example. It's kind of a bad idea, and the research showing negative benefits (rising food prices, production of even more greenhouse gases) have been around for a long time. A responsible person or company could see that it isn't helping the environment- but it makes money and gives the impression that it is helping the environment.
Quote:
Quote:
A second example (I could write a hundred of these, because they're occurring all around us): Cattle farming. Production of food contributes 18% of all greenhouse gas emissions.
Could you source that for me... because the numbers I have calculated put livestock farming near to 55% of all greenhouse gases. Humans breathing account for around 5% more. ETC ETC.
Yeah, I know it's from wikipedia, but this section is lifted from an article somewhere else. If it isn't up to your standards, I could probably find the original somewhere.
Quote:
Quote:
That's more than transportation. Cattle farming is a terrible offender. It's bad for the environment all around (and a major cause of deforestation-people cut down trees to make room for cows).
and loads of people plant TONS of trees to build paper farms and such. The net increase has actually been an increase in overall trees in the last 5 years.
Tree farms are not exactly the same as a tropical rainforest in environmental value.
Quote:
Quote:
So why don't food companies stop? Because it's so fucking profitable. Environment, or money? It's an easy question, but they choose the wrong answer.
Um... more like that it's fucking necessary fucktard.
It's absolutely necessary that everyone in the USA have a steady supply of unhealthy, environmentally damaging beef? I beg to differ.
Quote:
Quote:
A free market cannot solve climate change. People working in their own self interest do not care for the environment. And if you think that the corporations could make the right choice, well, please post a picture of yourself so that I can laugh at your naive, starry-eyed face.
The evil Mcdonalds serves transfats and saturated fats and literally gives you HDL french/freedom fries. They dont care about your heart and if you get a heart attack or stroke... meh. It's all profitable.
Oh wait the heart and stroke foundation is the shit. I couldnt tell you how many thousands of dollars I've personally raised for them.
The first part? Well, yeah. They may remove transfats and such. Still bad for you though. And honestly? I don't think McDonalds cares that much. Their salads are just as bad for you as a cheeseburger, but it gives the impression that they're doing something. That's what's important.
And the Heart and Stroke Foundation? Good for you. I'm serious. I hadn't heard of it before, and I looked it up, and, wow, that's a good organization. They have done an amazing amount for a completely volunteer-funded venture. And they have made a difference.
I'm still doubtful the same tactic could help reverse something like climate change. Bad diet is one aspect of society. Climate change is contributed to by almost everything- the causes of it are so deep in everything. Urbanization contributes. Manufacturing contributes. Livestock contribute. Private organizations will certainly help. But the main thing it will take will be something along the lines of the Kyoto Protocol, except with balls.
Quote:
Quote:
Ameliorating climate change and other environmental problems will require someone to stand up and say, "You just can't do that anymore." It will take regulations, it will take laws, it will take controls. These regulations will restrict the free market. Restricting the free market is a deadly sin to libertarians. However, there is no other way to attack the problem. Libertarians can see that.
Nope. You are wrong. The government will never ever regulate how much you can breath, how much you can eat, etc etc. Not to mention the fact that you have absolutely no evidence which links greenhouse gases to global warming. OR at least that human emmited greenhouse gases which account for 3% of the 0.04% total... which is a really fucking small amount.
What about this?
or this?
Sorry that they're kind of wordy. But they show my point- there is a scientific consensus that there is an increase in temperature, and that the primary cause is human activity. I'll trust the people who do the science. Maybe they're wrong. But chances are, they're not.
Quote:
Quote:
So they deny the problem. They say things like, "There's more ice here than last year," when the trend for the past three decades has been melting.
I cant even find the Canadian scientist who studies the sun who also predicts an ice age.
You know? I had forgotten about this. It's a mistake, a symptom of hasty internet arguing. I would like to point out, though, that the data at this point is scarce. Also, if they are right, the "ice age" is ironically likely caused by a global increase in temperature. At least that's what the articles you linked me said. Once again, the long term, overall change is warming.
Quote:
Quote:
They say that greenhouse gases only make up .04% of the atmosphere, ignoring the fact that they already warm up the earth from an uninhabitable subzero temperature to what we have now, and they are quite capable of warming the atmosphere at least a few degrees more.
No. You need to educate yourself.
If you look in a mirror and repeat that line, it will make more sense.
Seriously, though, look here. I didn't make that up.
Quote:
Quote:
A vast majority (not everyone, but nearly everyone) of people who deny climate change have some vested interest.
Actually I have about $20,000 sitting aside right now waiting for the next big battery technology to spring out of development/quality assurance. Currently the tech going into the electric cars are about a decade old tech which bloomed a decade ago and is only popping up now for cars and such.
Hell the electric cars planned arent even using the best kind of the decade old tech.
You are right here. I made a sweeping generalization based on a few examples. I'll concede the point. I still stand by the gist of it though. The loudest deniers in the public sphere have a very good reason to deny scientific consensus- and it's money. _________________ Blind faith is always misplaced.
Joined: 08 Mar 2003 Posts: 10021 Local time: 1:11 PM Location: USA
Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 8:26 pm Post subject:
runlikehell wrote:
Well, munky, you did research and engaged in conscious thought. I still disagree with your view, but your response certainly has more substance than Knight_of_BAAWA's, and for that, I applaud you.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Your post was "The market can never ever never ever never ever never ever fix the problem. So there NYAH!"
Where's the substance in that, hypocrite? _________________ aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
Joined: 02 Feb 2004 Posts: 4671 Local time: 2:11 PM Location: Ontario, Canada
Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 8:33 pm Post subject:
Quote:
I ask you, as I would ask a creationist "What would you consider "proof" of evolution?"
already answered this.
Quote:
Since you are trying to argue on a scientific basis, and your arguments use half-facts - facts based in reality but misinterpreted to give you the wrong answer - I would like to know what you would consider proof, since actual proof isn't proof enough to you.
lets hope you can actually reply to anything of mine and show this to be as such.
Quote:
The oil industries don't, but the governments do, and have.
now you are back peddling and saying that it's now the government who is somehow covering up the truth... even though somehow it's also the governments who are actually providing the data... ya um you're full of shit arent u.
Quote:
What the oil industry has power to do is marketing, which they have, just like the smoking lobby did for years.
I dont watch tv or something... I didnt get my information from the oil companies. I got it from the scientists.
Quote:
Picking facts, which sound weak out of context, such as "greenhouse gasses only make up 0.04% of the atmosphere" (which I don't think is correct - the number is closer to 2% I believe), and playing them down, implying "that's not enough to make a difference."
CO2 and other together and then rounded up is 0.04% as I said. Again please educate yourself before trying to argue something... you cant claim that im picking facts and taking them out of context.... hell you even say that it isnt correct and you THINK its 2% which is false.
Quote:
Other techniques include parading the very very small percentage of scientists who "aren't convinced" before the public, so it looks like there's controversy, which there really isn't (again, about as much as there is between creationism and evolution among scientists).
YEt for some reason I havent done this. I havent even mentioned scientists... with the exception of the 3 groups of scientists who predicted an ice age this year.
I'm going on the facts and evidence and that's it. Why you say all this is beyond me.
Quote:
There is more than just a correlation, there is a scientific explanation for HOW greenhouse gasses cause the greenhouse effect.
We can look at say venus whose atmosphere is 97% CO2. We then see a greenhouse effect of great magnitude. We understand this.
However on earth where CO2 is so small... it certainly isnt a factor.
Furthermore lets for sake of argument say CO2 is causing global warming. Which isnt something we can scientifically do at the moment.
Humans account for 3% of CO2 in the atmosphere. That is to say 3% of the 0.04%
Now interestingly you give me a graph that shows what CO2 was in 1960... lets say 320 ppm
Lets say we start with 320 ppm of CO2. We then humans grow up and ADD that 3% we didnt even exist before 1960. You get 330 ppm.
Fuck me... so your own graph just proved that we humans cannot possibly be the cause of global warming. How fucking awesome.
Quote:
3% is believable, and more than enough, if that 3% is not reabsorbed.
No no... that is 3% total that is to say EVER! Meaning volcanoes and decaying plants and such make up the 97%. Meaning natural means is what has increased significantly and we are fucked if you believe(obviously not on evidence) that CO2 is the devil and cause all our ills.
Quote:
"Earth's average surface temperature is around 15° C (59° F). Without the greenhouse effect, it would be about 30° C (54° F) colder than that!"
That means that that tiny little 2% of the atmosphere is responsible for a 30 degree difference in our surface temperature
Already pointed out how this is wrong.
Quote:
Again, not sure where you got 0.04% from, but 0.04% or 2% the difference that gas makes is immense. As someone said earlier, if you compare global temperature to body temperature, think of it as giving the planet a fever - a few degrees do a lot.
No but as we just proved using your evidence that the CO2 increase in the atmosphere is not human caused. Thusly having fuck all to do with cars, cow farts, or planes.
Quote:
Sea ice displaces the same amount of water as after it melts. The ice above the surface makes up for the difference in volume between ice and water.
Nope. You are wrong here. Furthermore we have already had evidence in the thread pointing out how the ice infact is NOT melting and instead solidifying further. Meaning global warming is bullshit and we are according to you... going to an ice age. _________________ A cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his fleshand drink his blood; while telepathically tell him you accept him as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
