Global warming debunked

[vern_humphrey]

And what if all global warming is caused by Milankovitch cycles, and cutting down manmade greenhouse gasses doesn’t do diddly-squat?

How are you going to stop it then?

If it’s part of a natural cycle, and we take heroic measures to reverse it – and it ends naturally with a cooling period, where will we be then?

 

[Lady_Cygnus]

As a scientist (almost have my Ph.D. in chemistry), that is almost offensive in its presumption. The idea that “well, that’s not a lot, therefore it’s not bad” is a dangerous statement. Many pollutants are monitored on the parts per million or parts per billion level, which is even smaller quantities than what you’re talking about. Let’s say we have your 56 gallon bathtub filled with water, and I told you that there was 0.5 mL of mercury in it. Would you want to drink it? It’s only 0.00024% mercury. Your gas pollution stats were 1000 times more concentrated than that. That’s not a lot, so it should be safe, right? That amount of mercury is 1.5 times the legally allowed amount in water supplies. Reference here]

Secondly, the whole point of global warming is that the temperature of the earth is rising by a degree or less. It is not a massive change, but that small change might have drastic influences just like adding another tenth of a milliliter of mercury to your bathtub full of water.

Personally, I don’t think we have all the stats in yet, so I’m not trying to insist that global warming is real and the rest of you are wrong. However, go ask the residents of L.A. on a smoggy day whether we have an impact on our environment. We shouldn’t act with reckless abandon, treating the earth like it’s a cheap plaything. God gave us a beautiful earth. Let’s try to live with it instead of in spite of it.

I didn’t mean to insult chemists and I hope I didn’t do that in doing the math wrong.

As for insulting by choosing the metaphor the way I did, I choose the metaphor because the pollutant one is even less appropriate. We are not talking about adding a pollutant to a clean atmosphere, but increasing the already present chemicals by a small amount and expecting a change in their reactions.

Secondly, I wouldn’t worry so much about the earth’s temperature changing by a degree or less - within the past 600,000 years it has changed by 12 degrees (grida.no/climate/vital/02.htm)

Yes the climate changed, creatures died and new came into being - but somehow life continued on. Just think, if the earth’s climate hadn’t changed we would still have dinosaurs, but no elephants or hummingbirds.

Finally, just because I think man-made global warming is bunk, doesn’t mean I think we should pollute to our hearts content. We do have an effect on our LOCAL climate and can improve conditions locally by our actions. This issue of local pollution is a diversion and is not a valid argument for or against global warming. All it does is attack the character of the person (evil polluter) instead of the argument (global warming isn’t man caused).

 

[LJN21]

Anytime you have people like Gore trying pushing something this hard I’m immediately very sceptical.

Some links I find interesting.

The drowning polar bears.
newsbusters.org/node/11879

Gore: “Do as I say, not as I do.”
associatedcontent.com/article/240224/george_w_bush_vs_al_gore_who_has_the.html

Darn Martians and their SUV’s
news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Mount Kilimanjaro not global warming?
engineeringnews.co.za/article.php?a_id=107320

While I do think we have a grave responsibility to be good stewards of what God has given us on this earth, I think man made global warming is a hoax.

Anyone have the information on how exactly the UN’s IPCC report is written? That’s really interesting.

 

[eponymic]

But what does that mean?

Uh, it means that the average temperature of the earth is increasing?

What are we willing to pay for this? And how do we keep other nations from sneaking more pollution at our expense?

And, what are the positive effects of warming? For example, Canada stands to have a major economic boom if some forecasts are true – longer growing seasons in the Prairie Provinces and the Northwest Passage may open up.

Is it possible the benefits may more than offset the negatives? That’s certainly what happened during the Medivial Warm.

If you live in Los Angeles, you’d say so – but we didn’t do it by setting our hair on fire and jumping off a cliff.

You’re trying to equate taking action against man made greenhouse gases with irrational panic. I’m not exactly sure why. I’m not saying we have to panic, nor if we don’t change our lifestyle we’ll all be dead in 5 years. I am saying that some of our current habits are acting only in our own self-interest, and we may want to act in a more ecologically friendly way.

Sure. In fact, there is one nearly in my backyard, on the Arkansas River.

…]

We’ve spend billions to construct a storage facility at Yucca Mountain. It’s all ready to go – only environmentalists keep blocking it with legal maneuvers.

Save your spleen for them – if they’d get out of the way, we could cut fossil fuel use sognificantly.

Actually, if a sane, sober presentation is made the average citizen sees the logic behind nuclear power. The average citizen in France certainly does.

But the air is thick with propaganda here in the US.

I’m all for nuclear power, lets fire them up. However, I’m saying you’re misdirecting your spleen by saying the environmentalists are only to blame. If you go to your average midwestern small town, and tell them they you want to build a nuclear power plant just outside of city limits, do you think you’d find more support or opposition? People, as a whole, are scared of anything labeled “nuclear”.

And if we’d done what the radical environmentalists wanted, LA would be unpopulated today.

Proof?

What I see is people saying we shouldn’t be panicked into doing something counter-productive.

How is driving a fuel efficient vehicle instead of a giant gas-guzzling SUV “counter-productive”?

And if we panic, set our hair on fire and jump off the cliff, we won’t be able to reverse our actions when we find out we’re wrong.

Again with the setting your hair on fire. Yor metaphor is a bit flawed. What are you afraid of us doing that we cannot undo?

What do you mean by “prevent?” Do you mean we can stop or reverse whatever climate change is taking place?

We’re doing a pretty good job of cleaning things up without the panic of “global warming.” It remains to be proven if we can – or should – take more radical measures.

In the meantime, why not also take measures to capitalize on the benefits of “global warming” if it comes?

Again, I’m not suggesting we panic and take radical measures. I’m just saying we should realize that our own gluttony in wanting big cars and burning lots of fuel might not be a good thing. I don’t think we can stop climate change. The earth is constantly changing, evolving if you will, and we should adapt ourselves to our environment. This comes back to a point I made in my first post: we should adapt ourselves to live with our environment, not adapt our environment to better suit ourselves.

 

[eponymic]

And what if all global warming is caused by Milankovitch cycles, and cutting down manmade greenhouse gasses doesn’t do diddly-squat?

How are you going to stop it then?

If it’s part of a natural cycle, and we take heroic measures to reverse it – and it ends naturally with a cooling period, where will we be then?

I’m not saying we have to stop the earth from changing, I’m just saying that we should do our part not to make it change more than it would on its own.

 

[LJN21]

I’m not saying we have to stop the earth from changing, I’m just saying that we should do our part not to make it change more than it would on its own.

How much extra green house gasses are we putting in the atmosphere compared to say live stock or volcanic eruption? I’m not convinced we really make that much difference in green house emissions on the grand scale.

Course it wasn’t that long ago scientist were telling us we needed to put soot on the polar ice caps to melt them faster to prevent another ice age.

 

[goofyjim]

I’m not saying we have to stop the earth from changing, I’m just saying that we should do our part not to make it change more than it would on its own.

I agree.

 

[estesbob]

Proof?

How is driving a fuel efficient vehicle instead of a giant gas-guzzling SUV “counter-productive”?

.

You can have my SUV when you pry it from my cold dead hands.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Uh, it means that the average temperature of the earth is increasing?

Is that the mean, median, or mode that’s increasing?

As I said,

We have gone through short (multi-year) periods of cooler and hotter temperatures before.

Note that we have historical examples of short-term warming (the Medieval Warm) and cooling (the Little Ice Age.)

Is this simply another blip – like the Ice Age panic of some 30 years ago (you notice you rarely see mammoths walking down Main Street) or a longer-term warming?

You’re trying to equate taking action against man made greenhouse gases with irrational panic. I’m not exactly sure why.

Some 30+ years ago, when the panic-of-the-day was a coming Ice Age, there was a serious proposal to cover the polar ice caps with lamp black – to change the Earth’s albedo and “reverse” the “cooling trend.”

Can you imagine what Earth would be like today if we had done that?

I’m not saying we have to panic, nor if we don’t change our lifestyle we’ll all be dead in 5 years. I am saying that some of our current habits are acting only in our own self-interest, and we may want to act in a more ecologically friendly way.

How is this different from what we’re already doing?

I’m all for nuclear power, lets fire them up. However, I’m saying you’re misdirecting your spleen by saying the environmentalists are only to blame. If you go to your average midwestern small town, and tell them they you want to build a nuclear power plant just outside of city limits, do you think you’d find more support or opposition? People, as a whole, are scared of anything labeled “nuclear”.

If you start talking about building a new nuclear plant, the radical environmentalists will be there, picketing, spewing out biased or false information and doing all they can to be sure people in that town are scared.

And they’ve been doing it for nearly half a century – so much of what we see in the way of public opinion is the result of long-term propaganda.

Proof?

Let’s see – no dams on the western rivers, lamp black on the polar ice caps, a cap on population. Those would have some effect, don’t you think?

How is driving a fuel efficient vehicle instead of a giant gas-guzzling SUV “counter-productive”?

Fallacy of limited alternatives. We have more choices than just those two.

Again with the setting your hair on fire. Yor metaphor is a bit flawed. What are you afraid of us doing that we cannot undo?

Did I tell you about the plan to cover the polar ice caps with lamp black?

Again, I’m not suggesting we panic and take radical measures. I’m just saying we should realize that our own gluttony in wanting big cars and burning lots of fuel might not be a good thing. I don’t think we can stop climate change. The earth is constantly changing, evolving if you will, and we should adapt ourselves to our environment. This comes back to a point I made in my first post: we should adapt ourselves to live with our environment, not adapt our environment to better suit ourselves.

Ah, hmmmm . . . we wear clothes, live in houses, plant and harvest crops and stuff like that to adapt our environment to better suit ourselves.

 

[goofyjim]

You can have my SUV when you pry it from my cold dead hands.

Maybe we can have tax credits for the ones who drive fuel efficient vehicles. After all, they are being forced to pay the same price for gas due to the increased demand from those SUVs.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Maybe we can have tax credits for the ones who drive fuel efficient vehicles. After all, they are being forced to pay the same price for gas due to the increased demand from those SUVs.

Maybe it should go the other way – because half of the supply and demand equation is supply. We have low supplies because:

1. We lack refinery capability – we havn’t build a refinery in this country in 30 years. Not “environmentally friendly” you know.
2. Lack of domestic supply – we can’t drill off either coast, nor in much of rthe Gulf (but the Chinese can – with Cuban permits.) And we can’t even** explore** the high arctic.
3. Lack of alternate energy sources. France, for example, is about 80% nuclear. We’re only 17% nuclear. And we haven’t been able to build a new nuclear plant in this country for over 30 years. Guess why?

 

[ricmat]

Funny how global warming seems to be the most popular topic on a religious web forum.

I would join in, but It’s deja vu all over again (with credits to Yogi Berra).

 

[LJN21]

Maybe we can have tax credits for the ones who drive fuel efficient vehicles. After all, they are being forced to pay the same price for gas due to the increased demand from those SUVs.

Your tax credit is paying for less gas, buy less gas pay less in taxes.

People that drive SUVs get to pay through the noise to fill it up. That’s the choice they make cause they want to drive one,

 

[LJN21]

Maybe it should go the other way – because half of the supply and demand equation is supply. We have low supplies because:

1. We lack refinery capability – we havn’t build a refinery in this country in 30 years. Not “environmentally friendly” you know.
2. Lack of domestic supply – we can’t drill off either coast, nor in much of rthe Gulf (but the Chinese can – with Cuban permits.) And we can’t even** explore** the high arctic.
3. Lack of alternate energy sources. France, for example, is about 80% nuclear. We’re only 17% nuclear. And we haven’t been able to build a new nuclear plant in this country for over 30 years. Guess why?

But but … we got corn ethanol [/sarcasm]

 

[eponymic]

Is that the mean, median, or mode that’s increasing?

Ooh. Rather smug, aren’t we?

Well, if you knew what temperature was, it’s a measure of the mean kinetic energy of molecules in a sample. By definition, it’s the mean. Maybe you should look it up before being so insulting next time.

As for the rest of this, I’m done arguing this. I’m clearly not going to make you consider any state other than what you already think. If you’d like to continue arguing on the internet, go ahead, but I have better things to do.

 

[estesbob]

Maybe we can have tax credits for the ones who drive fuel efficient vehicles. After all, they are being forced to pay the same price for gas due to the increased demand from those SUVs.

Or maybe we should recognize that one who lives in the Mountians and has to drive in all sorts of foul weather has different needs than one who lives in a city . Or maybe we should recognize that a large family needs a bigger, safer vehicle than someone who lives in NY city and can take the subway to work.

Have you ever driven across Montana? Wyoming? The problem is that most of these wild idea about restricting car sizes and speed limits come from those who live in packed cities and have no idea what the needs of those who live west of the Hudson river are.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Ooh. Rather smug, aren’t we?

Well, if you knew what temperature was, it’s a measure of the mean kinetic energy of molecules in a sample. By definition, it’s the mean. Maybe you should look it up before being so insulting next time.

Maybe you should read before posting.

My question was, is this a long-term matter, or a short-term matter? We have seen things like the Medeval Warm, the Little Ice Age, and as recently as 30 years ago a prediction that another Ice Age was on the way.

As for the rest of this, I’m done arguing this. I’m clearly not going to make you consider any state other than what you already think. If you’d like to continue arguing on the internet, go ahead, but I have better things to do.

Good luck on your dissertation.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Or maybe we should recognize that one who lives in the Mountians and has to drive in all sorts of foul weather has different needs than one who lives in a city . Or maybe we should recognize that a large family needs a bigger, safer vehicle than someone who lives in NY city and can take the subway to work.

Have you ever driven across Montana? Wyoming? The problem is that most of these wild idea about restricting car sizes and speed limits come from those who live in packed cities and have no idea what the needs of those who live west of the Hudson river are.

Come and visit me in the winter.

The Ozarks are wet, very wet in winter. To get to my house, you turn off the paved road (no Redneck jokes, please ), drive 3.5 miles, turn off the county road, drive 0.6 miles, turn off the common road, and drive 0.25 miles. And keep your hands in sight untill called in.

We have in Arkansas a marvel of engineering called a “low water bridge.” This is basically a slab of concrete in the bed of the creek. When the creek is up, you make your own decision about whether you can cross or not.

I have seen a car swept off the low water bridge crossing the creek that flows past my house. (The sherriff, coming to the scene, asked, “You don’t reckon them boys left anyone in there, do you?” And I replied, “Dunno, Jim. Was either of them named Kennedy?”)

My wife had to cross that particular low water bridge every day on her way to work – she’s a nurse.

Guess what kind of a car she drives?

 

[estesbob]

Come and visit me in the winter.

The Ozarks are wet, very wet in winter. To get to my house, you turn off the paved road (no Redneck jokes, please ), drive 3.5 miles, turn off the county road, drive 0.6 miles, turn off the common road, and drive 0.25 miles. And keep your hands in sight untill called in.

We have in Arkansas a marvel of engineering called a “low water bridge.” This is basically a slab of concrete in the bed of the creek. When the creek is up, you make your own decision about whether you can cross or not.

I have seen a car swept off the low water bridge crossing the creek that flows past my house. (The sherriff, coming to the scene, asked, “You don’t reckon them boys left anyone in there, do you?” And I replied, “Dunno, Jim. Was either of them named Kennedy?”)

My wife had to cross that particular low water bridge every day on her way to work – she’s a nurse.

Guess what kind of a car she drives?

I have driven in the Ozarks many times. Used to Audit banks in Southern Missouri. Liked to across the border to fish. I am also one of the very few that realize the Lake of the Ozarks aint in the Ozarks!

 

[Lady_Cygnus]

Come and visit me in the winter.

The Ozarks are wet, very wet in winter. To get to my house, you turn off the paved road (no Redneck jokes, please ), drive 3.5 miles, turn off the county road, drive 0.6 miles, turn off the common road, and drive 0.25 miles. And keep your hands in sight untill called in.

We have in Arkansas a marvel of engineering called a “low water bridge.” This is basically a slab of concrete in the bed of the creek. When the creek is up, you make your own decision about whether you can cross or not.

I have seen a car swept off the low water bridge crossing the creek that flows past my house. (The sherriff, coming to the scene, asked, “You don’t reckon them boys left anyone in there, do you?” And I replied, “Dunno, Jim. Was either of them named Kennedy?”)

My wife had to cross that particular low water bridge every day on her way to work – she’s a nurse.

Guess what kind of a car she drives?

I know! I know! A wonderful Fuel efficient Mini like this one:
http://photos2.flickr.com/3639226_56366eb5d1.jpg

In Neon Pink