Global Warming is BS

15 views
Skip to first unread message

Brian Bagnall

unread,
Apr 12, 2006, 11:26:07 PM4/12/06
to
Anyone notice the increasing drumbeat of the Global Warming boogeyman?
Leading scientists from MIT and elsewhere say we are still coming out
of a natural ice age that largely ended 10,000 years ago and that's
why the earth is getting warmer. The shrinking of the polar caps that
is often cited as "proof" of global warming is exactly what you would
expect when ice retreats from continents after an ice age.

So yes, I guess global warming is happening but it's supposed to be
happening. Fluctuating global temperatures are a natural feature of
the planet. Any attempts to stop global warming are idiotic.

From Prof Bob Carter, a geologist at James Cook University,
Queensland:
"Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records
of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that
for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase
(there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that
differs significantly from zero). Yes, you did read that right. And
also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide
with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet
more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere."

He goes on to link this Global Warming alarmist nonsense with
(surprise) the UN:

"They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the
global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train
of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that
such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin.
Yet the public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this
possible?"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

This global warming thing is just the globalist agenda in action -
they want a global issue that they can use to solidify power. i.e.
Start a framework of international laws that they can start expanding
using gradualism. Just one more play from the dominant socialist
bankers.

- B

alberta_girl

unread,
Apr 12, 2006, 11:47:05 PM4/12/06
to
Global warming is inevitable, it's the cyclic pattern of our Earth.... but
human pollution eating away at the ozone layer, now that is cause for
concern.

"Brian Bagnall" <bbag...@mts.net> wrote in message
news:%xj%f.2624$ia5....@newsfe13.lga...

Glen Hallick

unread,
Apr 12, 2006, 11:55:39 PM4/12/06
to
Conspiracy theory crapola.


Glen

"Brian Bagnall" <bbag...@mts.net> wrote in message
news:%xj%f.2624$ia5....@newsfe13.lga...

hurric...@hotmail.com

unread,
Apr 13, 2006, 12:24:19 AM4/13/06
to
On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 03:47:05 GMT, "alberta_girl"
<hay_ca...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Global warming is inevitable, it's the cyclic pattern of our Earth.... but
>human pollution eating away at the ozone layer, now that is cause for
>concern.
>


bullcrap

03 is made as easily as it breaks up
time to go back to frenchland you frog
you aint no alberta girl

h
u
r
c

Peter D

unread,
Apr 13, 2006, 12:28:13 AM4/13/06
to
The problem with the kind of argument you use here, Brian, is that even if
you could get a consensus that it is a "natural" event (which you can't),
you don't deal with the reality that the palnet is warming, the ice caps are
melting, weather is changing dramatically, more floods are occuring, and the
only thing we can do is _reduce_ our inputs of whatever our activty adds to
the problem.

IOW, if the increased production of carbon dioxide and related greenhouse
gases does contribute to global warming (scientifically agreed on) we can do
something to reduce the "natural" (disagreed on) event.

Your argument is akin to a man standing by a stream for drinking water and
taking a piss while saying the water's dirty anyway.

"Brian Bagnall" <bbag...@mts.net> wrote in message
news:%xj%f.2624$ia5....@newsfe13.lga...

Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler

unread,
Apr 13, 2006, 1:02:51 AM4/13/06
to
In article <%xj%f.2624$ia5....@newsfe13.lga>,
"Brian Bagnall" <bbag...@mts.net> wrote:

: This global warming thing is just the globalist agenda in action -


: they want a global issue that they can use to solidify power. i.e.
: Start a framework of international laws that they can start expanding
: using gradualism. Just one more play from the dominant socialist
: bankers.

The fashion mags say tinfoil is the cool trend for summer, reflects the sun's
rays.


Cheers - Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler :)

--
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler - Master of Code-fu
-- nic...@ubb.ca -- http://www.ubb.ca/ --

Yojimbo

unread,
Apr 13, 2006, 3:24:44 AM4/13/06
to
Socialist bankers? They're the last people who would play Santa Claus to the
people who have no ability to repay international loans...though it would be
nice if they made domestic forgiveable loans in a random lottery of
homebuyers. I'd say it's politicos making these third world loans to gain
international leverage and domestic photo op value.
The closest point you can make to this is to say that, under Kyoto, the
third world would gain by selling energy credits, and the G7's would have to
lower emissions, and the only way to get people to 'volounteer' to use less
'carbons' is to raise prices through taxes. More ka-ching for the federal
governments. And we couldn't really cut back much; we still need to heat our
homes (especially in Canada), our businesses which would only pass it down
until they were no longer competitive, and basic transportation.

Greg Carr

unread,
Apr 13, 2006, 6:31:07 AM4/13/06
to
With all the various record heat waves around the planet, retreating
glaciers, rising ocean levels and record hurricanes it seems obvious to
everyone who isn't a mouthpeice for old skool capitalism that global
warming is a fact.

Defender of Enormous Manhood

unread,
Apr 13, 2006, 8:47:43 AM4/13/06
to
I don't think anyone is arguing against global warming.
The dispute is weather it is a natural event or man-made.
There is evidence for both arguments.

In fact the evidence for a natural event is pretty stong, perhaps
stronger than the evidence for a man made event.

I guess the point is if it is natural, then human activity is not
relevant, either for being the cause or the solution.

But also keep in mind, green house gases is dirty filth shit. For the
most part it is pollution.
So regardless of global warming, cleaning up the shit is a worthwhile
endeavour!

Carter

unread,
Apr 13, 2006, 10:15:00 AM4/13/06
to
Of course it's a fact, nobody is arguing that it isn't. It has
nothing to do, however, with '...old skool capitalism..' It has
a great deal to do with the natural evolution of the planet. It
has happened before and will, in all probability, happen again.

What has to be dispelled is the idea that we humans, even if we
stopped all greenhouse gases today, can stop it.

Carter

Brian Bagnall

unread,
Apr 13, 2006, 11:33:22 AM4/13/06
to
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message
news:xrk%f.7809$WI1.1692@pd7tw2no...

> IOW, if the increased production of carbon dioxide and related
> greenhouse gases does contribute to global warming (scientifically
> agreed on) we can do something to reduce the "natural" (disagreed
> on) event.

Let me get this straight: Even though global temperature fluctuations
are a natural feature of earth, you propose that we try to stop it?

Man survived the last massive temperature change easily, even though
we had far less technology than we have today. You know why? We adapt.
We don't spend billions of dollars to try to alter a natural pattern
just to suit our short sighted needs.

> Your argument is akin to a man standing by a stream for drinking
> water and taking a piss while saying the water's dirty anyway.

Have you even looked at the amount of greenhouse gasses put out by
mankind compared to volcanoes? It is minute. Sorry, but we can't touch
mother nature on that account.

Yes, the temperature has increased barely a degree in the past 100
years, but wouldn't you be surprised if it remained static??? What if
it decreased? Would you be panicking that we have global cooling that
we need to stop? I say this again: We are still coming out of the last
ice age. This is expected.

I suppose the shrinking polar ice caps of Mars are also caused by
mankind?

The best thing we can do is keep using hydrocarbons at our present
rate until we run out. It is a finite resource. When it starts to
become scarce and expensive, free market pressures will take over and
we will start using a new, more environmentally friendly (hydrogen or
electricity) source of energy. And the government doesn't even need to
do anything to make this happen! Entrepreneurs will do it on their
very own.

- B


Brian Bagnall

unread,
Apr 13, 2006, 11:38:20 AM4/13/06
to
Yojimbo, international bankers are not the same as national banks,
such as Bank of Montreal, etc.. International bankers give loans to
governments. That is their bread and butter. They want to give
massive, taxpayer guaranteed loans to governments. There is no way for
them to lose on this scam. It is in their best interests to make sure
that big government politicians are elected year after year. They want
the government to spend big bucks - doesn't matter if it's on a
massive war in the middle east, or piddling it down the drain on huge
grants to native reserves, to social welfare dependants, inefficient
government organizations, or to useless global environmental projects.
It's all good for them. Unfortunately, it's not all good for us who
have to pay the bill to make them richer.

- B

"Yojimbo" <yoji...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:G%m%f.14$ds...@newsfe24.lga...

Glen Hallick

unread,
Apr 13, 2006, 12:29:14 PM4/13/06
to

"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message news:xrk%f.7809$WI1.1692@pd7tw2no...

snip.

>
> Your argument is akin to a man standing by a stream for drinking water and
> taking a piss while saying the water's dirty anyway.
>

Great line!!!


Glen


Glen Hallick

unread,
Apr 13, 2006, 12:38:09 PM4/13/06
to

"Brian 'I post therefore I am right' Bagnall" <bbag...@mts.net> wrote in
message news:6cu%f.529$LS3...@newsfe16.lga...

> "Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message
> news:xrk%f.7809$WI1.1692@pd7tw2no...
>> IOW, if the increased production of carbon dioxide and related greenhouse
>> gases does contribute to global warming (scientifically agreed on) we can
>> do something to reduce the "natural" (disagreed on) event.
>
> Let me get this straight: Even though global temperature fluctuations are
> a natural feature of earth, you propose that we try to stop it?

Your assumption is the warming of the planet is purely natural all the while
ignoring the influences of +6 billion people. Just right there you have
failed.


>
> Man survived the last massive temperature change easily, even though we
> had far less technology than we have today.

Easily? Gees man, first conspiracy theories and now myths. Simply because
humankind managed to survive the Ice Age does not mean it was easily done.

> You know why? We adapt. We don't spend billions of dollars to try to alter
> a natural pattern just to suit our short sighted needs.


Who is the short sighted one?

>> Your argument is akin to a man standing by a stream for drinking water
>> and taking a piss while saying the water's dirty anyway.
>
> Have you even looked at the amount of greenhouse gasses put out by mankind
> compared to volcanoes? It is minute. Sorry, but we can't touch mother
> nature on that account.

Are you then suggesting it is all well and fine for people to pollute as
much as they want, because in your view humankind can't catch up with
nature?


> Yes, the temperature has increased barely a degree in the past 100 years,
> but wouldn't you be surprised if it remained static???

Barely a degree on a planetary scale is quite an increase. In the 100 years
prior to 1906 how much did the world temperature increase? The 100 years
before that?


> What if it decreased?

You would be spouting off conspiracy theories and myths trying to deny what
is occurring.


> Would you be panicking that we have global cooling that we need to stop? I
> say this again: We are still coming out of the last ice age. This is
> expected.

How do you figure that? Because there is vast amounts of ice in the Arctic
and Antarctic?


> I suppose the shrinking polar ice caps of Mars are also caused by mankind?

That's silly.


> The best thing we can do is keep using hydrocarbons at our present rate
> until we run out. It is a finite resource. When it starts to become scarce
> and expensive, free market pressures will take over and we will start
> using a new, more environmentally friendly (hydrogen or electricity)
> source of energy. And the government doesn't even need to do anything to
> make this happen! Entrepreneurs will do it on their very own.

Obey money and all be well. The market is never wrong. Your message
demonstrates the far reching extent of your stupidity. And I'm sure your
crybaby whinings of ad hominem attacks are soon to follow.


Glen


Glen Hallick

unread,
Apr 13, 2006, 12:38:47 PM4/13/06
to
You have been listening to TC far too much.


Glen

"Brian Bagnall" <bbag...@mts.net> wrote in message
news:Mgu%f.556$LS3...@newsfe16.lga...

Michael Voytinsky

unread,
Apr 13, 2006, 1:03:26 PM4/13/06
to
Glen Hallick wrote:

> Your assumption is the warming of the planet is purely natural all the while
> ignoring the influences of +6 billion people. Just right there you have
> failed.

People are not natural?

What are they, supernatural?

> Easily? Gees man, first conspiracy theories and now myths. Simply because
> humankind managed to survive the Ice Age does not mean it was easily done.

Surviving a warm climate will be much easier than surving the ice age.

> Are you then suggesting it is all well and fine for people to pollute as
> much as they want, because in your view humankind can't catch up with
> nature?

I cannot speak for your interlocutor.

However, what seems to be the discussion here is greenhouse gasses
specifically, not polution in general.

So, while I do not think that greenhouse gasses specifically are a
problem - other forms of polution are a problem. I would personally
like to see the incredible particulate polution prevalent in much of
Asia change to nice, clean CO2.

Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler

unread,
Apr 13, 2006, 2:20:36 PM4/13/06
to
In article <6cu%f.529$LS3...@newsfe16.lga>, "Brian Bagnall" <bbag...@mts.net>
wrote:

: "Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message

: news:xrk%f.7809$WI1.1692@pd7tw2no...
: > IOW, if the increased production of carbon dioxide and related
: > greenhouse gases does contribute to global warming (scientifically
: > agreed on) we can do something to reduce the "natural" (disagreed
: > on) event.
:
: Let me get this straight: Even though global temperature fluctuations
: are a natural feature of earth, you propose that we try to stop it?
:
: Man survived the last massive temperature change easily, even though
: we had far less technology than we have today. You know why? We adapt.
: We don't spend billions of dollars to try to alter a natural pattern
: just to suit our short sighted needs.

It depends what your definition of "massive climate change" is. Sure, we've
survived a lot of climate change in the past, and we have an accurate record of
that climate change in the form of ice cores.

From that very accurate record, we can say that without a doubt, the current
rise in greenhouse gasses and change in climate has NO historic parallel.

The earth has never, within the past millions of years, seen changing conditions
like the ones we're experiencing right now.

Yes, there are natural, cyclic variations in climate from a number of sources.
Current trends are far outside the statistical bounds of those natural
variations.


: > Your argument is akin to a man standing by a stream for drinking

: > water and taking a piss while saying the water's dirty anyway.
:
: Have you even looked at the amount of greenhouse gasses put out by
: mankind compared to volcanoes? It is minute. Sorry, but we can't touch
: mother nature on that account.

Obviously you haven't ever looked into it.
from <http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html>:

: Carbon Dioxide
: Present-day carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from subaerial and submarine
: volcanoes are uncertain at the present time. Gerlach (1991) estimated a total
: global release of 3-4 x 10E12 mol/yr from volcanoes. This is a conservative
: estimate. Man-made (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions overwhelm this estimate by
: at least 150 times.

That would be the first time I've heard of doing 150x more as "not being able to
come close". You must be using some strange dialect of English I'm not familiar
with.


: Yes, the temperature has increased barely a degree in the past 100

: years, but wouldn't you be surprised if it remained static??? What if
: it decreased? Would you be panicking that we have global cooling that
: we need to stop? I say this again: We are still coming out of the last
: ice age. This is expected.

The trend is expected, but the magnitude is wrong. It's like you fill up your
car at the gas station, then 2 blocks later you're running on empty. You might
say "oh gee, that's to be expected, seeing as my car burns gas", and I would say
"the rate of fuel consumption is shockingly outside of normal statistical
variation and is cause for concern, investigation and swift action".


: I suppose the shrinking polar ice caps of Mars are also caused by
: mankind?

The shrinking polar ice caps on mars are well within the expected range given
the cyclical changes of solar output we're currently seeing. These changes,
however, are not of sufficient magnitude to explain more than a tiny fraction of
the current trends on earth.


: The best thing we can do is keep using hydrocarbons at our present

: rate until we run out. It is a finite resource. When it starts to
: become scarce and expensive, free market pressures will take over and
: we will start using a new, more environmentally friendly (hydrogen or
: electricity) source of energy. And the government doesn't even need to
: do anything to make this happen! Entrepreneurs will do it on their
: very own.

Why would you suggest we *shouldn't* artificially help move things along?
There's nothing wrong with giving progress a swift kick in the pants to make
sure it keeps moving at an acceptable pace.

Your car is rolling towards the edge of a cliff. You have two options: assume
that the natural rolling resistance of your car will slowly stop your forward
motion before you reach the edge, or you could just slam on the damn brakes
before you end up splattered against the canyon floor.

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

Glen Hallick

unread,
Apr 14, 2006, 10:38:09 AM4/14/06
to

"Karl Pollak" <gu...@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:443f4346....@news.pacificcoast.net...
> x-no-archive: yes

> "Glen Hallick" <gNOSPAM...@mts.net> wrote:
>
>>Your assumption is the warming of the planet is purely natural all the
>>while
>>ignoring the influences of +6 billion people. Just right there you have
>>failed.
>
> Can you explain the previous fluctuations of temperature, such as the
> previous 2 ice ages, both of which ended long before there were as many as
> 63 people on Earth?

Not offhand. However the impact of over 6 billion people on this planet
obviously means the natural course of the planet's environment has been
altered.


>
>>Are you then suggesting it is all well and fine for people to pollute as
>>much as they want, because in your view humankind can't catch up with
>>nature?
>

> That's a bit of a jump, isn't it?

When it comes to dealing with Bag-o-nuts it isn't.


> Perhaps you are already running out of
> reasoned arguments?

Nope. Just dealing with the conspiracy theory loving loon as I see fit.


> Just because somebody does not accept the self serving
> and selfperpetuating "science of global warming" does not necessarily
> mean
> he's all for shitting in his own bed.

When it comes Bagnall and his conspiracy theories and his deep seeded hatred
of anything he assumes is socialist, he would shit on his bed if a red was
under it.


>>Barely a degree on a planetary scale is quite an increase. In the 100
>>years
>>prior to 1906 how much did the world temperature increase? The 100 years
>>before that?
>

> When you come with accurate observations, let us know.
> After that you can convince us that a 100 year segment of data is
> significant to cyclical events lasting tens of thousands of years.

Nice snip Karl, in terms of being dishonest.

>>> I suppose the shrinking polar ice caps of Mars are also caused by
>>> mankind?
>>
>>That's silly.
>

> Why?
>
> Have little green men on Mars been pissing in their drinking water?

Still the dishonest scumbag Karl?


Glen


Irish.Eyes

unread,
Apr 14, 2006, 11:29:09 AM4/14/06
to

"Brian Bagnall" <bbag...@mts.net> wrote in message
news:6cu%f.529$LS3...@newsfe16.lga...

> Have you even looked at the amount of greenhouse gasses put out by
> mankind compared to volcanoes? It is minute. Sorry, but we can't touch
> mother nature on that account.

Except - volcanoes don't spew huge amounts of toxins into the air like
we do on a daily basis.... We pour millions of tons into the atmosphere
daily - on a global basis.
It's not just the greenhouse gases we need to concern ourselves with.
We're also altering the surface of this planet which, in turn, impacts
the atmosphere.
To believe we're not harming the planet is to be misguided, imo.

> Yes, the temperature has increased barely a degree in the past 100
> years, but wouldn't you be surprised if it remained static??? What if
> it decreased? Would you be panicking that we have global cooling that
> we need to stop? I say this again: We are still coming out of the last
> ice age. This is expected.
>
> I suppose the shrinking polar ice caps of Mars are also caused by
> mankind?

Likely caused by martiankind...but, whatever...Mars is a wasteplanet
now, isn't it?

> The best thing we can do is keep using hydrocarbons at our present
> rate until we run out. It is a finite resource. When it starts to
> become scarce and expensive, free market pressures will take over and
> we will start using a new, more environmentally friendly (hydrogen or
> electricity) source of energy. And the government doesn't even need to
> do anything to make this happen! Entrepreneurs will do it on their
> very own.

You say hopefully.... But, I wouldn't go betting the farm if I were you.
Even NASA is on the global warming bandwagon... bunch of alarmists, no
doubt...

Irish.Eyes

unread,
Apr 14, 2006, 11:34:20 AM4/14/06
to

"Michael Voytinsky" <micha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1144947806....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

> However, what seems to be the discussion here is greenhouse gasses
> specifically, not polution in general.

Does this make a difference to global warming?
Are you suggesting greenhouse gases aren't pollution, or vice versa?
These picayune distinctions are precisely that...picayune.


Irish.Eyes

unread,
Apr 14, 2006, 11:36:54 AM4/14/06
to

"Karl Pollak" <gu...@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:443f4346....@news.pacificcoast.net...

> Can you explain the previous fluctuations of temperature, such as the


> previous 2 ice ages, both of which ended long before there were as
> many as
> 63 people on Earth?

Is your information based on what you've been told/read - or based on
what you're capable of witnessing for yourself?


Brian Bagnall

unread,
Apr 14, 2006, 1:36:17 PM4/14/06
to
"Karl Pollak" <gu...@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:443f4346....@news.pacificcoast.net...
>
> Can you explain the previous fluctuations of temperature, such as
> the
> previous 2 ice ages, both of which ended long before there were as
> many as
> 63 people on Earth?

Some people don't really seem to understand that Global warming always
occurs after an ice. The only way the thermometer can go is up.

> That's a bit of a jump, isn't it? Perhaps you are already running
> out of
> reasoned arguments? Just because somebody does not accept the self

> serving
> and selfperpetuating "science of global warming" does not
> necessarily mean
> he's all for shitting in his own bed.

Thank you, Karl! Some of these people are so smug they actually
believe that there are pro-pollution people out there. How simple does
your world view need to be to believe people want polution? Like
because I'm objecting to the pseudo-science being presented in teh
name of more UN control, somehow I march around with a picket sign
yelling "More pollution!"

> When you come with accurate observations, let us know.
> After that you can convince us that a 100 year segment of data is
> significant to cyclical events lasting tens of thousands of years.

Think about this: it takes 100 years for the thermometer to go up one
degree. Oil isn't going to last much longer.At best we have what, 50
more years of economically viable oil before it becomes so expensive
that it's cheaper to use hydrogen? The earths temperature will
increase 0.5 degrees during that time - OH! AH! How will we ever
survive a 0.5 degree climate change??? (which BTW, the vast majority
of that change isn't even caused by hydrocarbon use.)

- B


Király

unread,
Apr 14, 2006, 1:39:18 PM4/14/06
to
In van.general Irish.Eyes <Irish...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Even NASA is on the global warming bandwagon... bunch of alarmists, no
> doubt...

NASA along with pretty much all real scientists have reached a consensus
that global warming is a fact and it is is caused primarily by human
activity. Sure you can find a few crackpots with PhDs who claim that
there is no link, but these "scientists" tend to be funded by the likes
of oil companies, the Fraser Institute, etc. They belong in the same
camp as the crackpots with PhDs who claim that there is no link between
smoking tobacco and lung cancer.

The only reason the crackpots get any attention at all is that the media
tends to give it to them.

But it doesn't matter, really, as long as doing something about it means
a potential hit to the pocketbook, modern society will never get on
board. Maybe when the insurance industry collapses because it can no
longer afford to pay out those natural disaster claims, people will stop
listening to the crackpots.

--
K.

Michael Voytinsky

unread,
Apr 14, 2006, 1:45:36 PM4/14/06
to
Irish.Eyes wrote:

> > However, what seems to be the discussion here is greenhouse gasses
> > specifically, not polution in general.
>
> Does this make a difference to global warming?

The effects of particulate pollution are easy to demonstrate - just
spend a few days in Mexico City or almost any big city in China.

Focusing on global warming (and I do not see why this is a problem in
any case) ignores things that are obviously, indisputably harmful.

> Are you suggesting greenhouse gases aren't pollution, or vice versa?

I am suggesting that they are a fairly insignificant forms of pollution
compared to other forms, and focusing on them - together with
apocalyptic, obviously bogus predictions - is a mistake that leads to
real problems being ignored.

Also, it depends on which greenhouse gases you are talking about. CO2
is not pollution, but various sulphur compounds are.

Brian Bagnall

unread,
Apr 14, 2006, 1:44:24 PM4/14/06
to
"Irish.Eyes" <Irish...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:9dP%f.16578$7a.7504@pd7tw1no...

>
> Except - volcanoes don't spew huge amounts of toxins into the air
> like we do on a daily basis.... We pour millions of tons into the
> atmosphere daily - on a global basis.
> It's not just the greenhouse gases we need to concern ourselves
> with. We're also altering the surface of this planet which, in turn,
> impacts the atmosphere.
> To believe we're not harming the planet is to be misguided, imo.

You aren't familiar with volcanic eruptions, then. The vast majority
of the planet's volcanoes lie along a suboceanic faultline in the
middle of the Atlantic, called the mid-Atlantic ridge. Those things
are spewing gasses 24/7, from one end of the globe to the other.

Now compare this: all of mankind, on the entire globe, can be given a
sizable piece of property with a driveway, yard, house and living
accommodations for 4 people - typical family size. All those people
easily fit in the state of Texas, with room left over. Only about 1/4
of them drive cars. They drive maybe 40 minutes per day average. Each
car really doesn't spew out that much C02. Do you think that compares
to volcanoes running from one pole to the other?

Oil will last 50 more years. Let's *pretend* oil was 100% responsible
for the temperature increase (it's not, but lets play make believe).
Let's say our oil remains an economically viable fuel for that whole
50 years, somehow remaining cheaper than hydrogen and electricity the
whole time. That's a 0.5 degree temperature change. OOoooh! How will
mankind and animals adapt to a 0.5 degree temperature change? God help
us all. I hope I never have to live in such a terrible world.

- B


ray

unread,
Apr 14, 2006, 2:05:56 PM4/14/06
to
Karl Pollak wrote:

>
>>Barely a degree on a planetary scale is quite an increase. In the 100 years
>>prior to 1906 how much did the world temperature increase? The 100 years
>>before that?
>
>

> When you come with accurate observations, let us know.
> After that you can convince us that a 100 year segment of data is
> significant to cyclical events lasting tens of thousands of years.
>

An analogy I like for this one is using two minutes of the second period
of a hockey game to predict the final score.

ray

unread,
Apr 14, 2006, 2:10:00 PM4/14/06
to
sure it does. If my buddy discharges his RV's sewer into your basement,
that's pollution, but hardly going to have any direct consequences of
global warming.

Try and stay on topic if you can...

Mr. Frederick

unread,
Apr 14, 2006, 3:50:11 PM4/14/06
to

"Michael Voytinsky" <micha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1145036736.2...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

> Irish.Eyes wrote:
>
> > > However, what seems to be the discussion here is greenhouse gasses
> > > specifically, not polution in general.
> >
> > Does this make a difference to global warming?
>
> The effects of particulate pollution are easy to demonstrate - just
> spend a few days in Mexico City or almost any big city in China.
>
> Focusing on global warming (and I do not see why this is a problem in
> any case)

People tend to think of themselves, and how they might enjoy slightly warmer
winters, but they ignore the big picture. Hawaii is loing beaches from
rising sea level. In Bermuda, rising sea level is leading to saltwater
inundation of coastal mangrove forests. In New York City, record heat, July
1999. the warmest and driest July on record, with temperatures climbing
above 95oF (35oC) for 11 days -- the most ever in a single month. In Mexico
, the worst fire season ever, 1998, 1.25 million acres (505,857 hectares)
burned during a severe drought. Smoke reaching Texas triggered a statewide
health alert. Glacier National Park, Montana, all glaciers in the park will
be gone by 2070 if retreat continues at its current rate. The glacier
feeding the Bow River is receding. In the next 50 years it will be gone.
In Spain, half of glaciers present in 1980 are gone. Caucasus Mountains,
Russia, half of all glacial ice disappeared in the past 100 years. Recife,
Brazil, sea level rise, shoreline receded more than 6 ft (1.8 m) per year
from 1915 to 1950 and more than 8 ft (2.4 m) per year from 1985 to 1995.
Andes Mountains, Peru, glacial retreat accelerates seven-fold. The edge of
the Qori Kalis glacier was retreating 13 ft (4.0 m) annually between 1963
and 1978. By 1995, the rate had stepped up to 99 ft (30.1 m) per year.
Argentina glaciers in Patagonia have receded by an average of almost a mile
(1.5 km) over the last 13 years. There are hundreds more examples. Boy,
good thing it's BS or we could really be in trouble.

Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler

unread,
Apr 14, 2006, 3:51:00 PM4/14/06
to
In article <1dR%f.686$ZV4...@newsfe23.lga>, "Brian Bagnall" <bbag...@mts.net>
wrote:

: "Irish.Eyes" <Irish...@shaw.ca> wrote in message

: news:9dP%f.16578$7a.7504@pd7tw1no...
: >
: > Except - volcanoes don't spew huge amounts of toxins into the air
: > like we do on a daily basis.... We pour millions of tons into the
: > atmosphere daily - on a global basis.
: > It's not just the greenhouse gases we need to concern ourselves
: > with. We're also altering the surface of this planet which, in turn,
: > impacts the atmosphere.
: > To believe we're not harming the planet is to be misguided, imo.
:
: You aren't familiar with volcanic eruptions, then. The vast majority
: of the planet's volcanoes lie along a suboceanic faultline in the
: middle of the Atlantic, called the mid-Atlantic ridge. Those things
: are spewing gasses 24/7, from one end of the globe to the other.

That "large amount" is a known quantity, and roughly in the range of 150 million
tons of CO2 per year.

Humans are responsible for more like 8 billion tons per year (and rising).


: Now compare this: all of mankind, on the entire globe, can be given a

: sizable piece of property with a driveway, yard, house and living
: accommodations for 4 people - typical family size. All those people
: easily fit in the state of Texas, with room left over. Only about 1/4
: of them drive cars. They drive maybe 40 minutes per day average. Each
: car really doesn't spew out that much C02. Do you think that compares
: to volcanoes running from one pole to the other?

There's 22lb of CO2 released from every gallon of gas burned, that's about one
pound per mile for the average car.

Multiply that by the average yearly mileage of 15000 to 30000, and you get 15
tons of CO2 released every year per car. By your estimates of 1 car for 4
people, that's 22 billion tons of CO2 per year, not counting any other energy
usage.

That's a lot of CO2.


: Oil will last 50 more years. Let's *pretend* oil was 100% responsible

: for the temperature increase (it's not, but lets play make believe).
: Let's say our oil remains an economically viable fuel for that whole
: 50 years, somehow remaining cheaper than hydrogen and electricity the
: whole time. That's a 0.5 degree temperature change. OOoooh! How will
: mankind and animals adapt to a 0.5 degree temperature change? God help
: us all. I hope I never have to live in such a terrible world.

Current hydrogen production can come from one of two places: cracking water
which uses a huge amount of energy, usually from fossil fuel power plants, and
breaking it from natural gas which results in considerable carbon emissions.

World wide (1998 numbers), the energy production from Nuclear, Hydro and other
sources amounts to only 14.2%. The other 85.8% is generated from Coal, Oil and
Natural Gas. Do you not see a big problem with that?


This isn't a problem that the market will fix, because there's large deferred
costs associated with the use of fossil fuels. If you drive a gas guzzler to
work, you're not going to have a tornado come by and level your house that
evening as a direct result of the CO2 you released. It's only after 20, 30, 40
years that it'll come back and bite you in the ass.

This is why there needs to be regulation. The free market forces can't react to
a situation like that.


You also deeply misunderstand the impact of climate change. 0.5 degrees is
barely noticeable on its own, yes. But, that 0.5 degrees, spread out over the
whole earth, represents a massive change in the amount of energy in the global
climate system, which WILL drastically change climate patterns the world over.
Floods, droughts, tornados, blizzards, hurricanes, rising sea levels - those
have a lot bigger impact than the simple half degree change that brings them on.

That doesn't even count the positive feedback loops that a higher global
temperature can trigger, releasing even more CO2, raising the temperature more,
and so on. Venus is a nice planet to look at, but I wouldn't want to live there.

Peter D

unread,
Apr 14, 2006, 4:39:28 PM4/14/06
to
"Brian Bagnall" <bbag...@mts.net> wrote in message
news:6cu%f.529$LS3...@newsfe16.lga...
> "Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message
> news:xrk%f.7809$WI1.1692@pd7tw2no...
>> IOW, if the increased production of carbon dioxide and related greenhouse
>> gases does contribute to global warming (scientifically agreed on) we can
>> do something to reduce the "natural" (disagreed on) event.
>
> Let me get this straight

Sure, let's see if you can do that -- actually comprehend what was written.

> Even though global temperature fluctuations are a natural feature of
> earth, you propose that we try to stop it?

Too bad you failed (again). I'm saying -- read slowly if it helps -- that
even if it's a natural feature (you have yet to prove that so I'm not
allowing it as a given) then minimizing fossil fuel burning, reducing
pollution, regrowing trees and other plants that act as carbon sinks and are
beneficial because they remove greenhouse gases from the air, are possible
acts by humans.

>> Your argument is akin to a man standing by a stream for drinking water
>> and taking a piss while saying the water's dirty anyway.
>
> Have you even looked at the amount of greenhouse gasses put out by mankind
> compared to volcanoes? It is minute. Sorry, but we can't touch mother
> nature on that account.

The volcanoes we can't do anything about. Reducing and replacing is
something we can do. If you like, pissing in a stream instead of onto the
land so that the liquid filters through the soil before it enters to water,
is something we can do.


Peter D

unread,
Apr 14, 2006, 4:42:48 PM4/14/06
to
"Michael Voytinsky" <micha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1144947806....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

> Glen Hallick wrote:
>
>> Your assumption is the warming of the planet is purely natural all the
>> while
>> ignoring the influences of +6 billion people. Just right there you have
>> failed.
>
> People are not natural?
>
> What are they, supernatural?
>
>> Easily? Gees man, first conspiracy theories and now myths. Simply because
>> humankind managed to survive the Ice Age does not mean it was easily
>> done.
>
> Surviving a warm climate will be much easier than surving the ice age.

It's not just the warning of the planet that's the problem. The loss of the
protection of the ozone layer, increased solar radiation and the resulting
damage to our genetic code, increased cancers, damage to plants, animals,
and humans, all are factors that need to be considered. The planet isn't
just getting warmer, the sun is getting more dangerous because the
protection that we've been afforded for millenia is decreasing more rapidly
than our (us and the rest of nature) ability to adapt or evolve.


klunk

unread,
Apr 14, 2006, 4:53:20 PM4/14/06
to

"ray" <rollingv...@domain.invalid.com> wrote in message
news:YzR%f.17622$P01.17066@pd7tw3no...


let's switch it up a bit then, your scenario that is..... your buddy is a cattle
rancher, one of many whom each have many cattle spanning huge tracts of land
that are cut out of the counryside to make way for efficient farming methods due
to economies of scale..... those economies of scale result in concentrated
masses of "over-populated" cattle creating an "over-poopulation" problem.....
their droppings on an individual level are insignificant.... granted..... but
because our hamburger-heavy western-styled lifestyle has been (expanding at
rates not unlike those resembling early religiously-driven conquering crusades
for territories, hearts and minds and) creating, through the cumulative effects
of supply and demand, large pockets of over-representation of cattle and cattle
by-product...... all resulting in many different problems such as feeding and
herding, etc, but most significantly, are contributing, as a sum total, an
ENTIRE THIRD of the volume of gasses created that we've been talking about....

so to simplify.... your buddy discharges a bit, but him and his buddies
together.... YA direct consequences on global warming as a result of his
polluting activities....

how about the toxic dumping buddy who's activities literally kill large tracts
of land that help to keep it all in balance.... multiplied by a few hundred and
a few thousand buddies... and you start to see numbers that effect many things,
including the massive rapes of the amazon jungle that play a huge part in our
world's natural ability to deal with greenhouse gases... and yeah.... if you
look closely enough, you just might see some of the connections taking place
like a domino effect that gets faster the more it comes into focus and just
barrels right over you when you finally get a chance to get a good look at
it....


> Try and stay on topic if you can...

no one ever went off topic... so why would you suggest that....?


klunk

unread,
Apr 14, 2006, 5:20:47 PM4/14/06
to
> Your car is rolling towards the edge of a cliff. You have two options: assume
> that the natural rolling resistance of your car will slowly stop your forward
> motion before you reach the edge, or you could just slam on the damn brakes
> before you end up splattered against the canyon floor.

great analogy Tony! 8-D

Brian Bagnall

unread,
Apr 14, 2006, 5:34:34 PM4/14/06
to
"Mr. Frederick" <fped...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4_S%f.12208

Right... a one degree increase in temperature during the last 100
years is responsible for all that. OR the earth is a very big place
and all kinds of natural events occur over the globe all the time.
Take your pick.

- B


Carter

unread,
Apr 14, 2006, 5:39:39 PM4/14/06
to

Actually what is BS is the notion that all of this is being
caused by us humans. Everything you described, for the most
part, is the result of natural global warming.

Can you tell us the degree to which human activity is responsible
for global warming?

Carter

Brian Bagnall

unread,
Apr 14, 2006, 5:38:22 PM4/14/06