Global Warming is BS
Brian Bagnall
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?"
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
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$ia5....@newsfe13.lga...
Glen Hallick
Glen
"Brian Bagnall" <bbag...@mts.net> wrote in message
news:%xj%f.2624$ia5....@newsfe13.lga...
hurric...@hotmail.com
<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
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
"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
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
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
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
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
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
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$ds...@newsfe24.lga...
Glen Hallick
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message news:xrk%f.7809$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
"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
Glen
"Brian Bagnall" <bbag...@mts.net> wrote in message
news:Mgu%f.556$LS3...@newsfe16.lga...
Michael Voytinsky
> Your assumption is the warming of the planet is purely natural all the while
> ignoring the influences of +6 billion people. Just right there you have
> failed.
People are not natural?
What are they, supernatural?
> Easily? Gees man, first conspiracy theories and now myths. Simply because
> humankind managed to survive the Ice Age does not mean it was easily done.
Surviving a warm climate will be much easier than surving the ice age.
> Are you then suggesting it is all well and fine for people to pollute as
> much as they want, because in your view humankind can't catch up with
> nature?
I cannot speak for your interlocutor.
However, what seems to be the discussion here is greenhouse gasses
specifically, not polution in general.
So, while I do not think that greenhouse gasses specifically are a
problem - other forms of polution are a problem. I would personally
like to see the incredible particulate polution prevalent in much of
Asia change to nice, clean CO2.
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler
wrote:
: "Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message
: news:xrk%f.7809$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.
Glen Hallick
"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.
>
> 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
> 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
"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
> 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
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
> 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
> > 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
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
>
>>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
that's pollution, but hardly going to have any direct consequences of
global warming.
Try and stay on topic if you can...
Mr. Frederick
> 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
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
> 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
> 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
"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
> 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
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
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
news:a7R%f.28665$4S.6905@edtnps82...
> In van.general Irish.Eyes <Irish...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> Even NASA is on the global warming bandwagon... bunch of alarmists,
>> no
>> doubt...
>
> NASA along with pretty much all real scientists have reached a
> consensus
> that global warming is a fact and it is is caused primarily by human
> activity.
Think of the increased funding and increased exposure NASA receives if
this is true. They have a vested interest in Global Warming, just like
the UN.
- B
> But it doesn't matter, really, as long as doing something about it
> means
> a potential hit to the pocketbook, modern society will never get on
> board. Maybe when the insurance industry collapses because it can
> no
> longer afford to pay out those natural disaster claims, people will
> stop
> listening to the crackpots.
Not true, if there was a problem we would certainly want to step up
and deal with it. The thing is, oil will run out as an economically
viable fuel source in 50 years. By your best reckoning that's another
0.5 degree increase, then oil will be effectively gone. I think
mankind and animals can adapt to a 0.5 degree increase, which by the
way would occur whether we burned fossil fuels or not.
- B
Mr. Frederick
news:RAU%f.277$b%2....@newsfe19.lga...
When you convert to degree days, you have more days above freezing each
year, therefor more melting, earlier growing and hatching seasons, and in
hot areas, more days of fire conditions. Study some basic science before
you stick your foot in your mouth and pronounce it tastes like chicken.
Carter
> 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.
That is all absolutely true. If we humans stopped all
greenhouse gas and other pollution causing activities today (IOW
went back to being cave men) what would be the effect on global
warming?
Carter
Carter
That's only a great analogy if you subscribe to the notion that
all global warming is being caused by human activity.
Carter
Brian Bagnall
news:nicoya-A8D912....@shawnews.wp.shawcable.net...
Tony, here's a quote ripped from a government of Canada website:
"Human emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, currently
estimated at about 28 billion tonnes annually, represent approximately
5% of the average natural flow of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere
through plant and soil respiration and venting from the surface waters
of the oceans (a total of about 550 billion tonnes each year)."
The thing is, can the earth deal with that extra 5%. We do know that
the earth has in the past had CO2 levels higher than at present,
something like 400,000 years ago (that's from memory). We weren't
around with cars when it happened so I'm not too concerned. I we can
survive it once with little technology, we can survive it again. The
source of your supposed problem - oil - is going to run out soon
anyway, so the problem will take care of itself.
- B
Glen Hallick
> "Király" <m...@home.spamsucks.ca> wrote in message
> news:a7R%f.28665$4S.6905@edtnps82...
>> 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.
>
> Think of the increased funding and increased exposure NASA receives if
> this is true. They have a vested interest in Global Warming, just like the
> UN.
>
And then your cherished experts that claim global warming is entirely a myth
are completely free of anykind of vested interests?
Glen
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler
wrote:
: "Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler" <nic...@ubb.ca> wrote in message
: news:nicoya-A8D912....@shawnews.wp.shawcable.net...
: > 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).
:
: Tony, here's a quote ripped from a government of Canada website:
: "Human emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, currently
: estimated at about 28 billion tonnes annually, represent approximately
: 5% of the average natural flow of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere
: through plant and soil respiration and venting from the surface waters
: of the oceans (a total of about 550 billion tonnes each year)."
I think you're a little confused about the numbers you're citing. The CO2 that's
in the environment moves in and out of different systems (oceans, forests, etc)
at certain rates. The amount of CO2 that goes through these cycles is on the
order of the 550 billion tonnes you quote, however that's NOT NEW CO2 being
added to the system, that only describes the movement of existing CO2.
The ocean has a capacity to permanently fix a certain small amount of the CO2
that is cycled through it, on the order of a few percent, and current human
emissions from fossil fuels ("new" carbon sources outside the normal carbon
cycles) overwhelms the ocean's capacity to remove that CO2 by 2-3x. This leads
to the currently observed spike in CO2 levels.
: The thing is, can the earth deal with that extra 5%. We do know that
: the earth has in the past had CO2 levels higher than at present,
: something like 400,000 years ago (that's from memory). We weren't
: around with cars when it happened so I'm not too concerned. I we can
: survive it once with little technology, we can survive it again. The
: source of your supposed problem - oil - is going to run out soon
: anyway, so the problem will take care of itself.
According to ice core data, over the past 400,000 years, CO2 concentrations have
varied between roughly 180 and 310ppm, and current levels are 381ppm.
Or, in the form of a pretty chart:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
Also, oil isn't the only fossil fuel. There's also coal and natural gas to
consider. Coal supplies are expected to last another 300 years, and natural gas
for at least 250 years.
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler
gu...@nospam.org (Karl Pollak) wrote:
: Climate change is thought to have been very harmful to dinosaurs.
: Who or which industries are to blame for that event? Do you believe that
: the dinosaurs were to blame for that climate change? If so, what should
: have they done differently to avoid or prevent it?
So, if I understand you correctly, recent climate changes are the result of a
city-sized asteroid slamming into the earth?
If so, holy crap I need to watch the news more often! I'm really missing out.
I mean jeez, you'd think someone would have at least told me. Thanks for
nothing, guys!
Brian Mason
If you think it's getting noisy now, just wait until May 24, when a
documentary on global warming entitled "An Inconvenient Truth" will be
released in theatres across North America.
Al Gore is the narrator. The documentary's perspective is spelled out
early, when Gore states "Scientific consensus is that WE are causing
global warming." Though it's billed not as scare-fest but as a
rallying cry, I note the trailer also includes the line "Nothing is
scarier than the truth."
Here's the trailer:
http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount_classics/aninconvenienttruth/trailer/
Brian Mason
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 22:26:07 -0500, "Brian Bagnall" <bbag...@mts.net>
wrote:
>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
>
>
Irish.Eyes
> "Irish.Eyes" wrote
>> 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.
Brian Bagnall:> 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.
Yes, you're right. I didn't factor in oceanic volcanos... That said,
what volcanos spew is organically compatible with the atmosphere and
planet, toxic gases and all. What is man made and spewed into the
atmosphere is not organically compatible with the planet. IOW - the
planet cannot reincorporate much of what we spew, because oil based
products - such a plastic - cannot biodegrade and recycle.
> 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?
I think you're vastly underestimating our contribution to the toxicity
of this globe.... And, again, volcanos are spewing that which can be
reabsorbed into the planet. We're not...
> 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.
It's not just oil, though, is it? It's byproducts thereof which are
causing much of the problem.
BTW - you can mock all you wish...it still doesn't make you right...
Glen Hallick
"Karl Pollak" <gu...@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:4440052a....@news.pacificcoast.net...
> x-no-archive: yes
> "Glen Hallick" <gNOSPAM...@mts.net> wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
> But you are quite qwilling to swallow any pile of shit shoved at youy by
> the people who make a very comfortable living from issuing dire warnings
> about "global warming" and suck up tens of millions of public money to
> "research the issue" ???
I see you're into the conspiracy theory claptrap that Bagnall spouts. Gees I
would have _NEVER_ figures that from you.
>
>>However the impact of over 6 billion people on this planet
>>obviously means the natural course of the planet's environment has been
>>altered.
>
> Actually, you have no information to prove THAT position as well. It
> could
> very well be that 25 billion people would still not produce enough
> "effect"
> to alter the planet's environment. We would like to think that they
> might,
> but the proof is just not there. Not by any conventional scientific
> methods.
Bullshit.
Look what humankind has produced in the last 100-150 years. Vast industries,
scores of millions of vehicles, rapid consumption of natural resources,
greatly adding CO2 into the environment. And you like Bagnall claim this
does sweet bugger all?
>>> Perhaps you are already running out of
>>> reasoned arguments?
>>
>>Nope. Just dealing with the conspiracy theory loving loon as I see fit.
>
>
> Oh, OK, that makes sense.
Bagnall does not deal with reasoned arguements. To him his conspiracy theory
bullshit seems reasonable, but in reality he is nothing more than a
right-wing extremist devoted to lunacy of his conspiracy theories.
> Once you run out of reasoned arguments you
> declare your opponent consiracy thory loving bag-o-nuts loon.
I don't any reasoned arguements from you, only agreement with the silliness
that people like Bagnall chirp about.
> That resolves
> your problem of proof for your position and frees you to respond "as you
> see fit". Good strategy.
Gees, thanks.
>>> Have little green men on Mars been pissing in their drinking water?
>>
>>Still the dishonest scumbag Karl?
>
> I must be if you do not have any better response.
Your selective snipping to take things out of context is one thing you are
very good at. And you sit there trying to reem me out for what you see as
not having reasoned arguements. You're just a fucking hypocrite Karl.
Glen
Brian Bagnall
> x-no-archive: yes
> "Brian Bagnall" <bbag...@mts.net> wrote:
>
>>Thank you, Karl! Some of these people are so smug they actually
>>believe that there are pro-pollution people out there. How simple
>>does
>
> please do not confuse my contempt for your opponents with any
> imaginary
> support for the garbage that you have been polluting this newsgroup
> with.
> You would have far more credibility if you were not constsntly
> crusading.
What do you regard as garbage that I have posted? I am very pro
free-markets, very anti-big government and anti-one world government.
That summarizes my stance in a nutshell. You seemed like a reasonable
person until this bizarre post. Don't tell me you are falling for the
crap that others write about me? Because they write the same crap
about you and I certainly don't buy into it.
- B
Brian Bagnall
>>
>> 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.
>
> It's not just oil, though, is it? It's byproducts thereof which are
> causing much of the problem.
Let's say you are right about this, and the CO2 level is increasing
faster than the planet can absorb it, and that is responsible for the
one degree temperature change in the last 100 years. What solutions
does the scientific community propose?
- B
Brian Bagnall
news:ru5242dib0klt3q8p...@4ax.com...
> Brian,
>
> If you think it's getting noisy now, just wait until May 24, when a
> documentary on global warming entitled "An Inconvenient Truth" will
> be
> released in theatres across North America.
>
> Al Gore is the narrator. The documentary's perspective is spelled
> out
> early, when Gore states "Scientific consensus is that WE are causing
> global warming." Though it's billed not as scare-fest but as a
> rallying cry, I note the trailer also includes the line "Nothing is
> scarier than the truth."
>
> Here's the trailer:
> http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount_classics/aninconvenienttruth/trailer/
>
> Brian Mason
Great. If someone says it in a movie it must be true. I'm already
looking forward to the higher taxes and bigger debts.
- B
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler
wrote:
: Let's say you are right about this, and the CO2 level is increasing
: faster than the planet can absorb it, and that is responsible for the
: one degree temperature change in the last 100 years. What solutions
: does the scientific community propose?
Well, the obvious solution is to cut back fossil CO2 emissions to a level more
in line with the rate at which the CO2 can be re-fossilized.
Some of this involves moving to alternative energy sources (Nuclear power plants
rather than Coal for example, augmenting the grid with solar and wind power),
reducing energy consumption over all (more efficient vehicles, appliances),
using alternate carbon sources (ethanol from crops, oil from thermal
depolymerization of misc biomass), not releasing CO2 when fuels are burned
(carbon sequestration at power plants).
Global warming isn't something we can fix right away, but we can make some big
steps towards not making it worse.
Netkook Detector
In article <BHa0g.696$ZV4...@newsfe23.lga>, bbag...@mts.net says...
Netkook Detector
In article <ZW90g.24561$7a.803@pd7tw1no>, Irish...@shaw.ca says...
Netkook Detector
In article <tOa0g.697$ZV4...@newsfe23.lga>, bbag...@mts.net says...
Netkook Detector
In article <WQa0g.698$ZV4...@newsfe23.lga>, bbag...@mts.net says...
Brian Bagnall
released when the bond between the C atom and the O2 molecule are
seperated. Plants use the photosynthesis reaction to gain energy this
way, so we build a battery that uses the same principle. It will
eliminate the excess CO2 while providing us with energy!
BTW That was a joke. That's about as realistic as expecting the
government (at our level or the UN level) to be able to do anything to
change this. All they will do is throw away a LOT of our money in the
process of doing nothing. We will work our way through the oil/coal
dependency phase on our own and move on to other sources. It wil just
happen when we run out of oil. In the meantime, maybe the temperature
increased 1 degree instead of what 0.7 degrees like it would have
otherwise? The temperature never has remained static and never will.
- B
"Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler" <nic...@ubb.ca> wrote in message
news:nicoya-4E681F....@shawnews.wp.shawcable.net...
Peter D
news:nJU%f.60044$VV4.1...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
1. I have no idea.
2. That's riduculous.
3. No-one is claiming we must stop _all_ activity, only _reduce_ activity
and seek less-polluting ways to get the job done.
Peter D
> 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.
Nonsense. And nonsense.
Human activity has _some_ impact. Reducing the polluting effects of that
activity will have _some_ impact. The natural we can't do anything about.
> Can you tell us the degree to which human activity is responsible for
> global warming?
Yes. Some.
"KATO"
|_| |_|
| | /^^^\ | |
_| |_ (| "o" |) _| |_
_| | | | _ (_---_) _ | | | |_
| | | | |' | _| |_ | `| | | | |
| | / \ | |
\ / / /(. .)\ \ \ /
\ / / / | . | \ \ \ /
\ \/ / ||Y|| \ \/ /
\__/ || || \__/
() ()
|| ||
ooO Ooo
--
"You gotta be smarter than your oponant."
---- Big Dumb Dave. (bigdum...@yahoo.com)
"Members of the 3rd right (Nazi/facist)?"
---- Scotty a.k.a. mr. third right. (clueless...@canada.com)
.--------------------------------------.
( BAHHHH! KATO is an friend too )
( my rear end BAHHHHH! )
`--------------------------------------'
, ,/
O@O
@ @@@
@@@@@
@@@@@
|| ||
"Netkook Detector" <spo...@netkook.com> wrote in message
news:hmc0g.55034$K11.2241@clgrps12...
"KATO"
news:2mc0g.55033$K11.16340@clgrps12...
"KATO"
news:Nlc0g.55032$K11.35900@clgrps12...
"KATO"
news:Blc0g.55031$K11.8332@clgrps12...
Netkook Detector
In article <44416526$0$1278$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>,
TURBAN...@horizen.net says...
Netkook Detector
In article <44416528$0$1214$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>,
TURBAN...@horizen.net says...
Netkook Detector
In article <4441652b$0$21384$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>,
TURBAN...@horizen.net says...
Netkook Detector
In article <4441652d$0$10016$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>,
TURBAN...@horizen.net says...
Carter
> "Carter" <per.ardua@adastra> wrote in message
> news:vEU%f.60038$VV4.1...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
>
>> 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.
>
> Nonsense. And nonsense.
What is?
> Human activity has _some_ impact. Reducing the polluting effects of that
> activity will have _some_ impact. The natural we can't do anything about.
Of course. That's why I used the phrase '..for the most part..'
It seems we agree.
>
>> Can you tell us the degree to which human activity is responsible for
>> global warming?
>
> Yes. Some.
Agreed and I have yet to see the highly paid self serving
scientific researchers present a more specific estimation.
Carter
>
>
Carter
> "Carter" <per.ardua@adastra> wrote in message
> news:nJU%f.60044$VV4.1...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
>> Peter D wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>> That is all absolutely true. If we humans stopped all greenhouse gas and
>> other pollution causing activities today (IOW went back to being cave men)
>> what would be the effect on global warming?
>
> 1. I have no idea.
Nor, apparently, do the highly paid self serving scientific
researchers.
> 2. That's riduculous.
What is?
> 3. No-one is claiming we must stop _all_ activity,
I never claimed anyone claimed that.
only _reduce_ activity
Tall and unrealistic order.
> and seek less-polluting ways to get the job done.
We have been doing that for decades.
Carter
>
>
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler
"Brian Bagnall" <bbag...@mts.net> wrote:
: That's about as realistic as expecting the
: government (at our level or the UN level) to be able to do anything to
: change this. All they will do is throw away a LOT of our money in the
: process of doing nothing.
Did I ever say that the government is competent?
As stupid and ineffective as the political process is, giving up will just make
it worse.
: We will work our way through the oil/coal
: dependency phase on our own and move on to other sources. It wil just
: happen when we run out of oil.
And by that time it may be too late to stop runaway positive feedback loops, and
there will be nothing we will be able to do to keep the earth even remotely
habitable. I'd rather avoid that scenario, wouldn't you?
: In the meantime, maybe the temperature
: increased 1 degree instead of what 0.7 degrees like it would have
: otherwise? The temperature never has remained static and never will.
As I recall, current projections are that even if CO2 output stopped tomorrow,
global temperatures would rise 3 degrees just from the CO2 we've already dumped
into the atmosphere.
That's why I say the difference now is between things getting fucked up and
things getting REALLY fucked up.
And yes, the temperature of the earth has never remained static, but current
trends are well outside the limits of previous variations. That's cause for
concern, and cause for action. While we can't predict *exactly* what will
happen, we can conclusively say that all reasonable predictions involve a whole
lot of "shit gets fucked up, real bad".
Carter
More government grants for more self serving study.
Carter
>
> - B
>
>
Carter
> In article <tOa0g.697$ZV4...@newsfe23.lga>, "Brian Bagnall" <bbag...@mts.net>
> wrote:
>
> : Let's say you are right about this, and the CO2 level is increasing
> : faster than the planet can absorb it, and that is responsible for the
> : one degree temperature change in the last 100 years. What solutions
> : does the scientific community propose?
>
> Well, the obvious solution is to cut back fossil CO2 emissions to a level more
> in line with the rate at which the CO2 can be re-fossilized.
>
> Some of this involves moving to alternative energy sources (Nuclear power plants
> rather than Coal for example, augmenting the grid with solar and wind power),
> reducing energy consumption over all (more efficient vehicles, appliances),
> using alternate carbon sources (ethanol from crops, oil from thermal
> depolymerization of misc biomass), not releasing CO2 when fuels are burned
> (carbon sequestration at power plants).
>
> Global warming isn't something we can fix right away, but we can make some big
> steps towards not making it worse.
Tony, I agree with you. Those steps are realistic and doable
over time, unlike the the Kyoto accord which wants it done
overnight relatively speaking.
Carter
"KATO"
news:Eme0g.55197$K11.54210@clgrps12...
"KATO"
news:vme0g.55196$K11.24607@clgrps12...
"KATO"
news:mme0g.55195$K11.7658@clgrps12...
"KATO"
news:cme0g.55194$K11.34610@clgrps12...
Netkook Detector
In article <44419592$0$17794$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>,
Netkook Detector
In article <4441958f$0$10732$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>,
Netkook Detector
In article <44419594$0$1121$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>,
Netkook Detector
In article <44419597$0$10662$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>,
klunk
"Carter" <per.ardua@adastra> wrote in message
> klunk wrote:
>>> Your car is rolling towards the edge of a cliff. You have two options:
>>> assume
>>> that the natural rolling resistance of your car will slowly stop your
>>> forward
>>> motion before you reach the edge, or you could just slam on the damn brakes
>>> before you end up splattered against the canyon floor.
>>
>> great analogy Tony! 8-D
>
> That's only a great analogy if you subscribe to the notion that all global
> warming is being caused by human activity.
since i don't subscribe to such a ridiculous notion AND i think it's a great
analogy, it appears YOUR conclusion is faulty ;-)
klunk
"Glen Hallick" <gNOSPAM...@mts.net> wrote in message
news:bjW%f.13995$Ku3....@newsfe15.lga...> news:pEU%f.278$b%2....@newsfe19.lga...
>> "Király" <m...@home.spamsucks.ca> wrote in message
>> news:a7R%f.28665$4S.6905@edtnps82...
>>> 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.
>>
>> Think of the increased funding and increased exposure NASA receives if this
>> is true. They have a vested interest in Global Warming, just like the UN.
>>
>
>
> And then your cherished experts that claim global warming is entirely a myth
> are completely free of anykind of vested interests?
actually, his "cherished experts" are himself, since he's apparently "qualified"
enough on the subject to be able to write off NASA as a "bunch of
alarmists"..... he must have spent his entire life working on this very
problem.... studying the impact of water levels rising along with ocean current
temperatures.... his studies must have included in-depth examinations of animal
migratory patterns and particulate exhausts world-wide and has derived some
"reasonable calculations" for "sustainable" growth as the increasingly
integrated world-wide economy pushes the third world into rapidly adjusting to
first-world consumption patterns..... ya..... he's got ALL the answers.... so we
must listen.... or else
for me..... all it takes is a good long look at a satellite photo of North
America.... and the contrast between what's grey and what's green eventually
sinks into my central nervous system and shouts with horror
gap...@vcn.bc.ca
"D> Your argument is akin to a man standing by a stream for drinking water and
"D> taking a piss while saying the water's dirty anyway.
Very good analogy!
--
Because I care,
|<+]::-( ("Cyberpope," the Bishop of ROM!)
(aka Reverend George A. Pope)
(Please quote with "gapope wrote...")
-=-
In essentials, unity;
In non-essentials, liberty;
in all things, charity. -- Baxter quoting Augustine
-=-
note new preferred reply email: Cyberpope67(at)yahoo(dot)com
(replies to this vcn address likely to be auto-deleted without reading)
PS This post specially encoded for verification purposes
--
.
from gapope(at)vcn(dot)bc(dot)ca << Official Reply Address for Usenet Post
.
gap...@vcn.bc.ca
"B> So yes, I guess global warming is happening but it's supposed to be
"B> happening. Fluctuating global temperatures are a natural feature of
"B> the planet. Any attempts to stop global warming are idiotic.
The issue isn't so much it's happening (as you say, there's an ongoing
fluctuation), but to keep us from sharply affecting it negatively. . . (which
we have, as 6 billion people with technology/etc., the capability of doing)
gap...@vcn.bc.ca
"M> I don't think anyone is arguing against global warming.
"M> The dispute is weather it is a natural event or man-made.
"M> There is evidence for both arguments.
"M>
"M> In fact the evidence for a natural event is pretty stong, perhaps
"M> stronger than the evidence for a man made event.
It's a natural event being worsened ny man-made actions. . .
gap...@vcn.bc.ca
"B> Let me get this straight: Even though global temperature fluctuations
"B> are a natural feature of earth, you propose that we try to stop it?
Strawman!
What people want is to stop accellerating it!
gap...@vcn.bc.ca
"H> > I suppose the shrinking polar ice caps of Mars are also caused by mankin
"H>
"H> That's silly.
Of course not, that's caused by Martians!
And the greenhouse problem on Venus by Venutians!
TC
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
--
***************************
Socialist 'Max the Canuck' on
Tues, Mar 22 2005 3:05 pm said to a conservative poster:
"Since I'm a left wing feller, I wanna make sure you look as bad as
possible."
"Brian Bagnall" <bbag...@mts.net> wrote in message
news:%xj%f.2624$ia5....@newsfe13.lga...
> 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
>
>
>
Carter
Ya, the Reader's Digest version. ;^)
Carter
Irish.Eyes
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message
news:cPT%f.18212$WI1.6921@pd7tw2no...
> 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.
Exactly. Anyone who gardens can attest to witnessing these changes.
Every year I see more damage in the foliage around me. Seems to me
people don't really pay attention to their surroundings... We can see
the signs of damage - all we need do is observe.
Still, there will be those who take issue with what is happening - and
demand we observe it as a "natural" occurrence. What we spew into the
atmosphere isn't all *natural*...much is man made, and it's toxic.
Mark_R...@hotmail.com
> 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.
Unfortunately, this is what we are up against. People who are
profoundly ignorant of basic science and are proud of it. This man
hasn't made the slightest attempt to research what a one degree
increase in global temperature translates to despite his obvious access
to the Internet.
Why? Because he'd have to change his views on a whole host of topics
if he admitted he was wrong on this one. He'd have to question other
deniers, and their motives, and their political affiliates and their
motives, etc. etc., a positive feedback loop not unlike the one warming
the planet.
He'd rather go down fighting and take the rest of us with him.
Brian Mason
<fre...@DIESPAMDIEflashmail.com> wrote:
>Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.
>
>http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
Thanks, TC, for the interesting link.
Brian Mason
The Last Sane Person On Usenet
brianmason_Ta...@shaw.ca says...
It certainly is refreshing that he's devoting his energies into an actual
contentious issue. The rest of the netkooks should learn from this example.
Brian Bagnall
news:PmU%f.18495$7a.11379@pd7tw1no...
>> Your car is rolling towards the edge of a cliff. You have two
>> options: assume
>> that the natural rolling resistance of your car will slowly stop
>> your forward
>> motion before you reach the edge, or you could just slam on the
>> damn brakes
>> before you end up splattered against the canyon floor.
>
> great analogy Tony! 8-D
Not really.
Q: You are driving your car down the highway towards a turn on the
edge of a cliff. What do you do?
A: Navigate the turn and keep going.
- B
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler
"Brian Bagnall" <bbag...@mts.net> wrote:
: "klunk" <kl...@theothershoe.org> wrote in message
I'm sure when half the coastal cities on the planet are swimming under 6 feet of
water, the people who used to live there will be very comforted by the fact that
you don't believe in global warming.
If you want to take a vacation in the Maldives, you'd better make it quick. They
will be gone within our lifetime.
Carter
> In article <jqD4g.1796$nC7....@newsfe20.lga>,
> "Brian Bagnall" <bbag...@mts.net> wrote:
> : Q: You are driving your car down the highway towards a turn on the
> : edge of a cliff. What do you do?
> :
> : A: Navigate the turn and keep going.
>
> I'm sure when half the coastal cities on the planet are swimming under 6 feet of
> water, the people who used to live there will be very comforted by the fact that
> you don't believe in global warming.
I don't think he said he didn't believe global warming. What he
is trying to say is that it can't be stopped, so adapt, make the
turn.
>
> If you want to take a vacation in the Maldives, you'd better make it quick. They
> will be gone within our lifetime.
I doubt that, unless you were born yesterday. Even then it would
be doubtful.
Carter