Rant

[aekdbbop]

Yep. Here's a better pic.

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20080428,00.html

oh cool! Time magazine is going green now.. cause they have a green cover.. good for them! Doing something for the environment!

haha

 

[the_bird]

At least nobody reads Time anymore, so they aren't killing as many trees as they used to!

 

[DeadYetiBrew]

I am tired of the debate all together....

Some people say it doesn't exist, the Carbon Dioxide is a product of raised temperatures not the other way around.

Some people say, "WE'RE KILLING THE PLANET!".

Some people say, no it's the earth that emits more 'greenhouse gasses'.


Let's put it this way, There's a million different variables, the earth is an Open System, look it up along with scientific method.

NONE of these THEORIES have been proven therefore everyone needs to stop bickering about this bullcrap and get down to proving one or the other. You CANNOT look at one scientific fact and base bullcrap off of it.

I'll say it again, These are all THEORIES! You can not prove something is fact without scientific theory, which is almost impossible to do with an Open System like the earth.

There is actually no way to measure the Carbon Dioxide output of the earth to compare it with man's output. The historical record is well crap because so many things can occur.

 

[Dr_Deathweed]

NONE of these THEORIES have been proven therefore everyone needs to stop bickering about this bullcrap and get down to proving one or the other. You CANNOT look at one scientific fact and base bullcrap off of it.

I'll say it again, These are all THEORIES! You can not prove something is fact without scientific theory, which is almost impossible to do with an Open System like the earth.

Actually they are HYPOTHESES, theories have been tested time and time again, and are only one step from law. Current "only theories" today include matter, gravity, a heliocentric universe, and evolution. While these may be "only theories, they have held true against rigorous testing, and whole fields of science have been devoted to them, let alone, being taught as "fact" at most schools and universities that are worth their salt. On the other hand, GW is a HYPOTHESIS, meaning it is merely an idea that hasn't been rigorously tested yet. But you are right, it is FAR from fact.

 

[Rick_R]

Hey, why actually go look up long-term scientific data

I find it interesting that there are folks who, while discussing the earth's climate, consider the existing scientific data to be long term.

Rick

 

[EdWort]

It warmed 40 degrees today from this morning to now. Uh Oh.

 

[Rick_R]

It warmed 40 degrees today from this morning to now. Uh Oh.

I stand corrected on my long-term data comment.

Rick

 

[EdWort]

I guess that's OK, cause it will cool 40 degrees tonight till tomorrow morning.

it's amazing how the climate changes from day to day, week to week, month to month. Could it be just a natural phenomena?

 

[Dr_Deathweed]

10,000 years ago most of the US was covered in glaciers. 65 million years ago most of the southeasten US was covered by a shallow sea. I am guessing the climate was changing durring these times, as well as little things like plates shifting.... But hey, a couple decades of temperature readings I guess make us experts on global climate trends....

 

[mot]

Im not sure about the GW but I do know that the push for solar/wind/geothermal/nuclear power can only bring good.

nuclear is the key word there and that is it

 

[mot]

Um, have YOU done any research? If you think that global warming and green products are "crap" then I would guess that you haven't either.

I can't stand people on either side of the debate who make unfounded unqualified absolute statements about the subject. I lie somewhere in the middle: the scaremongors like Al Gore are part of a concerted effort to frighten the people by cherry-picking facts and laying doomsday scenarios. The other side is populated largely by wholesale deniers who approach the issue with a position and then try to justify that position by ranting about hwo global warming is a myth.

What I can't figure out is why more people can't approach the issue with an open mind and no preconceptions and base their position on the facts and evidence. Both sides are guilty here.

i do go into everything with and open mind and global warming is a total made up thing and if you can show me some FACTS that prove otherwise i would be happy to look at them

 

[mot]

I just read somewhere or heard on the radio, Don't remember which that Al gore is finally admitting he is pulling in scores of cash off this.

who do you thinks owns a lot of the carbon credit and who do you think is pushing that stuff......as he flies around in his jet plane

 

[mot]

Well, that is a completely different discussion actually. GW refers to carbon emissions only. There is a whole plethora of emissions that are pollutants that are not related to GW. I don't think there are many people who think that less pollution is a bad thing.

exactly right.. must get ten characters

 

[mot]

I suppose it was only a matter of time before the "use anecdotal observations in place of long-term scientific data" crowd arrived on the scene. "See, it's snowing in April, there can't be Global Warming!". Then in july when it's 110º, they scurry away and the other side comes out with "See how hot it is! That's because of Global Warming!" Hey, why actually go look up long-term scientific data when I can just walk out on the front porch and extrapolate a global phenomenon based on the conditions outside my front door?!

f*cking YAWN.

well people that think that way jeezz I wont even go there how dumb would you have to be

 

[mot]

Okay a) it is true the earth has been cooling for a decade, however; the mean temp is still at all time highs when you look over the course of the last several centuries.

b) Global Warming is not a local phenomenon. It is not about whether or not it is raining or snowing or hot or cold in one location at one point in time. It is about a wholesale warming of the earth with all that that entails.

The largest fall out from global warming will not be that NYC is covered in water or the next ice age (as the scare mongers love to harp on), it will be that more and more arable land (you know, the stuff you can grow food on) will be unable to sustain crops. Take a look at what is happening in Australia right now. After 6 years of drought, their rice production is tanking and it is causing a food crisis throughout Asia. These types of events are going to happen more and more throughout the world in the next 50 to 100 years, every single reputable scientist agrees.

And what's the best part of all of this, there is a tipping point, after which no matter what actions we take the effects will be irreversible; by the time the hard-core effects are felt (at which point all the denialists will finally stop being in denial) we will be past this tipping point and it will be too late. The only debate left is when this tipping point will occur; some say it's a ways off, others say we have already past it, either way, it's coming.

My question to all the denialists is this: Why are you so vehement in your opposition? What is it going to cost you to reduce your own carbon imprint that you are so dead set against it, especially when, if you are wrong, it will cost us all everything? Honestly, unless you are an oil executive I just don't get it.

reputable scientists.....you need to watch great global warming swindle it may still be available on you tube or google

 

[mot]

Where's the proof?


The earth warms & cools all the time. It's been here much longer than Man has.


Sorry, consensus among a few scientists is not science. There are many that do not agree. Ever think how much of the food crisis can be blamed on bio fuels and Ethanol production? My tax dollars go to American farmers with the express purpose of them NOT to farm their land. Why do we do that?


We've heard it all before when the ice age was coming. We're still waiting.


Because if it is not contested, it will continue to erode our freedoms and libertys while lining the pockets of the people perpetrating this scam.

I'm all for conserving, but don't force me to buy a certain type of lightbulb. Don't tell me that my exhalations are considered a pollutant, don't tell me to drive a certain kind of car, or raise taxes on gasoline, or increase interest rates on a mortage because a house has a certain number of square feet. It's all a way of controlling the masses. They want to change behavior through taxes and it's BS.

We would be much better off spending our time & effort helping people and developing countries learn to adapt to the changing climate instead of believing mankind has any chance of actually impacting climate change.

Whatever we do won't make any significant impact when the biggests culprit (China) goes on unchecked. It won't do anything besides making a few people very rich while hamstringing our economy.

I have planted trees, shrubs & hops this year and AlGore's Carbon footprint is the size of Rhode Island.

exactly to everything you just said, they now realize what a dumb frickin idea ethanol is...they have been pushing it forever and some are still pushing it, then they realize what can happen to the water table, food, food prices, the pollution etc.

 

[mot]

glad to see i started a huge rant with everyone else.....lol

edwort you rule!


well i am off to buy some cfl's lol

 

[PeteOz77]

"Climate Change" = The NEW Y2K Hysteria. It's a way to convince people to spend BILLIONS to try to make a difference, that may or may not impact the earth's climate.

We don't cal it "Global Warming" anymore, because "Climate Change" covers any fluctuation in the weather.

Our planet has had many fluctiations throughout it's life, including many ice ages, droughts, and extreme tropical phases. All of these changes took place with NO intervention from mankind. Where is my proof? Believe it or not, nature has been recoding these things for us..again without the assistance of mankind. The history of these changes can be seen in layers of sediment, rings in trees, fossils etc.

A simple Volcanic eruption could entirely wipe out the entire human race. This was witnessed in 1815 when Tambora erupted, and the entire planet experienced "The year without summer", and Europe and New England experienced snow in July, and lost nearly all of their crops. Had another volcano or two erupted at the same time, pretty much all but the hardiest people and animals and plants on the entire planet would have perished.

In my humble (non scientific) opinion, the planet will warm and cool regadless of ANYTHING the human race can do.

Can we stop or control Climate Change? I doubt it, We can't make it rain, or make it stop raining, so I really don't think we have control of the thermostat either.

Can we have an impact? Yeah, I believe we can.

I think every single person should do every single thing they can to consume as little as possible....in every facet of life. Less Oil, Less Electricity, Less Paper, Less Food etc. We should also do everything we can to pollute the air land and water as little as possible.

Do I think this will affect "Climate Change"? I doubt it, but we should be doing it anyway because even if the climate stays PERFECT forever, we are all still going to DIE if we run out of natural resources and/or pollute the hell out of our environment.

 

[DeadYetiBrew]

glad to see i started a huge rant with everyone else.....lol

edwort you rule!


well i am off to buy some cfl's lol

Yeah i think GW is a more heated debate than Aluminum vs Stainless Steel, lol...


Don't break em they contain 'dangerous amounts of Mercury' and you'll have to call EPA to de-mercury your house. *sarcasm*


BTW, the outside ones blow. we got one for an outside lamp and if blew 10 hours later, a regular bulb goes for a month at least......



PeteOz: Does this mean we should consume less beer too? (joke of course)

 

[PeteOz77]

PeteOz: Does this mean we should consume less beer too? (joke of course)

Of COURSE not!

 

[PeteOz77]

Oh, and just for the record, I am not a green freak. We are a 2 person household with two 4 wheel drives, and all the comforts, including 4 refridgerators. So I am sayin "Do as I say. not as I do! "

 

[Dr_Deathweed]

Oh, and just for the record, I am not a green freak. We are a 2 person household with two 4 wheel drives, and all the comforts, including 4 refridgerators. So I am sayin "Do as I say. not as I do! "

So, you are the Australian Al Gore huh?

 

[PeteOz77]

No, AL Gore is fatter, dumber and richer.

 

[Schlenkerla]

IMHO - I probably shouldn't post anything about this, frankly, because we can't do a damn thing to effect it. Mt St Helen's spewing ash and lava it had more to do with it recently more than anything else.

How niave we are to think we actually have effect on the earth when a catastrophy like a big volcano can wipe us out like nothing flat. Akin to ants on an ant hill. Think of the lost city in Italy...

There is no statistical proof of global warming because we haven't been tracking temps long enough to proove it is or isn't. My master's studies showed this... One can chunk out the data (segement) to get the end result you want but its only goes to say nothing is proof-positive. Toss an outlier here or there get the result you want its not significant enough to proove BS in either case.

I think its stupid to drive a hummer in down town Chicago to go get groceries. In Iowa with the buddies, 16 miles deep in the woods with a farm pick-up... looking for deer..... different story. I believe waste not, want not over vanity.

Who the flip cares, if you got the doe you should be able to spend it how you want to. No matter how dumb it is...

I do think the big three should be selling fuel-cell vehicles and getting away from combustion burning vehicles.

Don't be lead a stray to think we are to blame in the problem. The mother earth is out to do what she wants regardless of our efforts.

I liken this to the the thought the pres is responsible for the economy. Policies and taxes have minor effects, public opinion has more effect than anything else.

At the end of the day its all BS!!!!

:fro:

 

[MikeFlynn74]

No, AL Gore is fatter, dumber and richer.

Maybe hes not so dumb- Hes the one with the Lear Jet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor
Very interesting on Nuclear power the US refuses to embrace

 

[EdWort]

Oh, guys, ya get the whole day without any rebuttal from me. I'm off to an event where 180 cookers are increasing their carbon footprint by BBQ'ing with wood and charcoal, plus they have been popping caps on bottles & cans of beer, thus venting CO2 into the atmosphere. I'm also confident that a good amount of Methane has been vented last night with more to be vented today. What's funny is AlGore's jet spits out more just sitting on the tarmac waiting to take his fat a$$ off to visit with some of his elitist eco-snobs. Not to worry, he buys Carbon Offsets from himself and alleviates his guilt (takes money from one pocket and puts it in the other. The same pair of pants in his case, but it goes from your pocket to his in your case).

I'm packing my small Egg and heading out. Cooking my Ginger Lime Chicken Skewers and Raspberry Chipotle Pork Tenderloin. Wish me luck. I'll post pics last this evening.

Tally Ho Co2!!!!

 

[Short Drive]

Fuel cell cars emit water vapor. A greenhouse gas. So if the whole planet drives fuel cell cars, what are the environazis going to do then? Sell water offset credits?

 

[z987k]

Maybe hes not so dumb- Hes the one with the Lear Jet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor
Very interesting on Nuclear power the US refuses to embrace

Oh there's more types of nuclear power generation that the US refuses to fund and research than that. I'm an extremely go green type of person, and while wind/solar etc is very nice, nuclear is the key to the rising demand of electricity. Unfortunately the masses are blithering idiots completely uneducated in even how basic fission works and why nuclear is very very safe.

Now on to the global warming issue. Eh you know what it's pointless. I'm not going to change anyone's mind either way and we can't sit here and make any reasonable argument with each other by typing what we know off the top of our heads. A real debate on this issue takes scientific data and studies. It's like writing a research paper without using any sources, only what you think you know.

That all said I don't think anyone should be allowed an opinion on the topic without actually doing some research into the topic (both nuclear and GW), learning how things really work. Otherwise where are you really drawing from? What someone who likely has a) an agenda or b) not reputable in the least on the subject, has said?

 

[Danek]

Fully understanding the scientific models that climate scientists use is very, very difficult. It involves dealing with many interacting factors, and depends on best estimates, rather than precise data, in a lot of cases. Researchers have been studying this for years, refining and improving the techniques, and have come up with some incredible tools for making predictions about an incredibly difficult subject. (Obviously they cannot have "facts" about what will happen in the future, because an event that hasn't happened yet cannot by definition be a fact). They can, however, make predictions based on past observations and future extrapolations. I've talked to research climatologists at the university where I work, and when they explain how they get their predictions, after about five minutes I have no understanding at all of what they're telling me. It's hard science.

Given how complex the subject is, what I don't understand is how people can have such certainty in their opinions. I genuinely don't understand how people can say that they know there is no such thing as dangerous man-made climate change. What's that based on? I might be wrong, but it seems to me that that kind of opinion is based on nothing at all of substance. I suspect very few of us understand the science that lies behind the predictions, so the honest answer is that we don't know whether the threat of climate change is real. That said, I do know that the majority of climatologists believe it's very real (though they differ hugely in the extent to which they think it'll be a problem), and that the minority of scientists who are skeptical get a disproportionately large amount of coverage in the media. Based on that, for want of a better heuristic, I'd be inclined to believe the threat is real. If I think climate change is real and it turns out I'm wrong, that'd be far less damaging than thinking climate change is a myth and being wrong about that.

 

[Philip1993]

My question to all the denialists is this: Why are you so vehement in your opposition? What is it going to cost you to reduce your own carbon imprint that you are so dead set against it, especially when, if you are wrong, it will cost us all everything? Honestly, unless you are an oil executive I just don't get it.

Quite simple. Latitude of acceptance. When you take the argument so far outside someone's comfort zone, you actually push them away. Hence, the anti-GW crowd exist because of the pro-GW zealots. If the "pro" argument were not so dramatized, then the response would not be so antagonistic. You're guilty of it as even as you pose the question. Look closely at your own words above for example (not attacking/accusing, just analyzing language);

"especially when, if you are wrong, it will cost us all everything?"

1) It will not "cost us everything". As you said earlier, it will be significant and difficult to address but it will not be the end of life on earth.

2) You said ""especially when, if you are wrong...". You clearly set up a situation where the opposition is either right or wrong. There is no grey scale. And if they are wrong, you are right and the only possible outcome is doom. Google "Pascal's gambit"

The discussion will NEVER be productive as long as those are the terms of debate. The GW discussion needs to encompass; How good is our data? What are the possible interpretations of this? What will happen if GW happens? What are the causes? Can we affect the causes?

Personally, Al Gore and his ilk are the biggest detriment the environmental movement has seen in recent decades.