Global Warming II

[VanC]

Hate to rehash this, but found these articles interesting:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/Thom ... al_hot_air


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/Denn ... ust_denial

 

[peg4x4]

Gov Perry is trying to push more coalburning plants on us-says they don't pollute as much..can't call him the names I want to,
gotta settle for "Bought & Paid For"

 

[Cattle Rack Rancher]

I didn't jump in on this one last time, but I think I will now. I guess whether climate change and global warming is man made or not is irrelevant. The biggest effect of global warming is supposedly more erratic weather patterns. As in when it rains, its going to rain and when there's a drought, it will be a severe drought. Those erratic weather patterns are going to have an effect on my farm livelihood and the future of my children so I think I'd prefer to be safe than sorry. I don't know how someone could argue that the reduction of the rainforests combined with throwing so much carbon dioxide into the air couldn't have an effect on the environment. From what I remember from school, the forests produce about 20% of the earth's oxygen with the other 80% of oxygen coming from the ocean. The fossil fuels that we are burning took millions of years to build up in the earth and we have released most of that millions of years worth of supply in less than a century. How could that not have an effect? The other thing I understand is that the greenhouse effect is a cumulative problem. Also, from what I understand, if the earth starts heating up, it will gain momentum and over time the heating will become quicker and quicker until the earth becomes uninhabitable. I remember reading an article on the planet Mercury which is about 800 degrees right now and the author said that although it was the same size as the planet earth and at one time may have been able to support life, the 'runaway greenhouse effect' had heated it up to its current temperature. I hate to be a conspiracy theorist, but it is my suspicion that big oil and the automobile manufacturers are in cahoots. How else could you explain the advances in technology in the last ten years and yet we still have gasoline engines that get about the same mileage they did 20 years ago? I'm of the belief that the these supposedly great minds should be able to find a more environmentally sustainable way of going forward. These days, too many of these big businessman are worshiping at the altar of the great God 'Cash' and I for one am not willing to sacrifice the lives of my descendants for simply economic reasons. If there's any chance that this global warming is man made, better to play it safe for all involved. Beware of false idols. End of rant.

 

[badaxemoo]

VanC wrote:

Hate to rehash this, but found these articles interesting:

Thanks for the links, Van. That's an interesting website.

I could be wrong, but I'm guessing the other thread on global warming got locked because it spun off into the religion-creationism debate.

Just a couple of responses to this one:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/Thom ... al_hot_air

Back in the 1970s, the environmental hysteria was about the dangers of a new ice age. This hysteria was spread by many of the same individuals and groups who are promoting today's hysteria about global warming.

There was conjecture about climate change in the other direction during the 1970s. However, the number of climatologists that made these projections was nowhere near the percentage that make up the consensus on global warming today.

Also, our ability to analyze climate change, while still far from perfect, is a magnitude better than it was 30 years ago. While junk data will still result in a junk model, think about how much computing power has improved other scientific research fields. The complexity of today's models could not be supported on stadium's full of 1970s era computers.

It is not just the sky that is falling. Government money is falling on those who seek grants to study global warming and produce "solutions" for it. But that money is not as likely to fall on those skeptics in the scientific community who refuse to join the stampede.

I'm not so sure about this one. Look at who controlled Congress for the last 12 years. The chair of the Senate Resources Committee refused to have meaningful hearings on the topic, and instead used his post to grandstand and call global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American public".

Bush tried to muzzle several of his top climate scientists because their findings pointed to clear human influence in climate change.

If grants were as politically charged as the author implies, it would be safer to assume that money may have flowed to researchers whose results seemed to debunk anthropogenic climate change. I think it is probably a testament to the validity of modern science that the current consensus has been achieved despite huge political pressures to the contrary.

I agree with an earlier assertion you made that nearly everyone has an agenda, but my experience with the scientists I went to school with is that in many cases, they are apolitical, often to the degree that I find them quite boring in conversation!

Yes, Virginia, there are skeptics about global warming among scientists who study weather and climate. There are arguments both ways -- which is why so many in politics and in the media are so busy selling the notion that there is no argument.

I don't want to rehash the arguments about the importance of peer-reviewed journals or the frequently lacking credentials of the climate change critics.

However, if anything, the media has been biased against the theories that state that humans are contributing to global warming. Almost all stories about this topic in the popular media mention that global warming is "controversial". They often imply that it is a question that is still being debated by two warring camps of climatologists when that is simply not the case.

But I'm sounding like a broken record!


I didn't find the second article that enlightening because I thought it was a bit partisan and I question it's criticism that people on the left view their opponents as "bad" while people on the right view their opponents as "wrong". I think people on both sides of the spectrum are about as likely to characterize each other in either way.

Just look at this board! It's full of evil liberals and malevolent conservatives (or is it ignorant liberals and clueless conservatives?)

 

[ALACOWMAN]

VanC wrote:

Hate to rehash this, but found these articles interesting:

Thanks for the links, Van. That's an interesting website.

• I could be wrong, but I'm guessing the other thread on global warming got locked because it spun off into the religion-

creationism debate.

Just a couple of responses to this one:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/Thom ... al_hot_air

Back in the 1970s, the environmental hysteria was about the dangers of a new ice age. This hysteria was spread by many of the same individuals and groups who are promoting today's hysteria about global warming.

There was conjecture about climate change in the other direction during the 1970s. However, the number of climatologists that made these projections was nowhere near the percentage that make up the consensus on global warming today.

Also, our ability to analyze climate change, while still far from perfect, is a magnitude better than it was 30 years ago. While junk data will still result in a junk model, think about how much computing power has improved other scientific research fields. The complexity of today's models could not be supported on stadium's full of 1970s era computers.

It is not just the sky that is falling. Government money is falling on those who seek grants to study global warming and produce "solutions" for it. But that money is not as likely to fall on those skeptics in the scientific community who refuse to join the stampede.

I'm not so sure about this one. Look at who controlled Congress for the last 12 years. The chair of the Senate Resources Committee refused to have meaningful hearings on the topic, and instead used his post to grandstand and call global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American public".

Bush tried to muzzle several of his top climate scientists because their findings pointed to clear human influence in climate change.

If grants were as politically charged as the author implies, it would be safer to assume that money may have flowed to researchers whose results seemed to debunk anthropogenic climate change. I think it is probably a testament to the validity of modern science that the current consensus has been achieved despite huge political pressures to the contrary.

I agree with an earlier assertion you made that nearly everyone has an agenda, but my experience with the scientists I went to school with is that in many cases, they are apolitical, often to the degree that I find them quite boring in conversation!

Yes, Virginia, there are skeptics about global warming among scientists who study weather and climate. There are arguments both ways -- which is why so many in politics and in the media are so busy selling the notion that there is no argument.

I don't want to rehash the arguments about the importance of peer-reviewed journals or the frequently lacking credentials of the climate change critics.

However, if anything, the media has been biased against the theories that state that humans are contributing to global warming. Almost all stories about this topic in the popular media mention that global warming is "controversial". They often imply that it is a question that is still being debated by two warring camps of climatologists when that is simply not the case.

But I'm sounding like a broken record!


I didn't find the second article that enlightening because I thought it was a bit partisan and I question it's criticism that people on the left view their opponents as "bad" while people on the right view their opponents as "wrong". I think people on both sides of the spectrum are about as likely to characterize each other in either way.

Just look at this board! It's full of evil liberals and malevolent conservatives (or is it ignorant liberals and clueless conservatives?)

that had to be what locked it. ive seen bs on the site that rambled on for days and should have been locked up long before. and as soon as you mention religon BAMB their all over it like clinton on a intern

 

[VanC]

I didn't find the second article that enlightening because I thought it was a bit partisan and I question it's criticism that people on the left view their opponents as "bad" while people on the right view their opponents as "wrong". I think people on both sides of the spectrum are about as likely to characterize each other in either way.

Agree. Don't have much use for Prager. Sowell and George Will are probably my two favorite conservative authors. Haven't found any favorite liberal authors yet. ;-) Any suggestions?

Just look at this board! It's full of evil liberals and malevolent conservatives (or is it ignorant liberals and clueless conservatives?)

All of the above.

 

[Saltydawg]

Badaxe, do you realize the polar icecaps on Mars are also melting? (true fact btw)

I wonder if these climatologists are also trying to blame that on humans as well :lol:

 

[ollie?]

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

 

[Tommy Ruyle]

Well stated ollie? :clap: :clap:

 

[aplusmnt]

http://www.fathersforlife.org/REA/warming6.htm

 

[Caustic Burno]

My question is if man is causing global warming now what was causing it in the time of the big lizards? They say they exsisted and the earth was tropical.

 

[dun]

My question is if man is causing global warming now what was causing it in the time of the big lizards? They say they exsisted and the earth was tropical.

Dinosaur flatulents

dun

 

[Cattle Rack Rancher]

My question is if man is causing global warming now what was causing it in the time of the big lizards? They say they exsisted and the earth was tropical.

From what I understand, a big part of that has to do with continental drift. At the time of the dinosaurs, there was just one big continent that was located closer to the equator so as much as we find big, ferny plants that are now in North America, its because the land actually used to be closer to the equator.

 

[Cattle Rack Rancher]

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

This information is ten years old. I've heard the same thing about acid rain. It helps some plants grow better and others grow not as well. I guess the question is, is whether you want the weather to change or not. I guess from my perspective, its hard for me to understand how cutting down the forests and throwing millions of years worth of fossil fuels into the atmosphere won't have an effect. I'm more concerned that it will make the weather patterns more erratic. I haven't been around for 200 years so I don't know whatthe weather was like that long ago but it seems to me that the hurricanes seem a little more severe and the droughts are a bit worse than they used to be. I think as a farmer that I probably notice these things more than people live in teh city do. Even if the extra carbon dioxide makes plants grow better, you still need the right amount of sunshine and rain to make them grow well.

 

[ollie?]

My question is if man is causing global warming now what was causing it in the time of the big lizards? They say they exsisted and the earth was tropical.

From what I understand, a big part of that has to do with continental drift. At the time of the dinosaurs, there was just one big continent that was located closer to the equator so as much as we find big, ferny plants that are now in North America, its because the land actually used to be closer to the equator.

:lol2: You surely don't believe in continental drift do you CRR? The pangea theory? :lol: Do you think the continents broke off the "mother" continent and drifted to where they are today? What did they float on? You are aware that there is ground under the ocean aren't you CRR :lol: . If they floated on molten lava as the theory suggests, how did they get the dirt out of the way so they could float to a different spot. Use you head man. That theory is stupid!

 

[ollie?]

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

This information is ten years old. I've heard the same thing about acid rain. It helps some plants grow better and others grow not as well. I guess the question is, is whether you want the weather to change or not. I guess from my perspective, its hard for me to understand how cutting down the forests and throwing millions of years worth of fossil fuels into the atmosphere won't have an effect. I'm more concerned that it will make the weather patterns more erratic. I haven't been around for 200 years so I don't know whatthe weather was like that long ago but it seems to me that the hurricanes seem a little more severe and the droughts are a bit worse than they used to be. I think as a farmer that I probably notice these things more than people live in teh city do. Even if the extra carbon dioxide makes plants grow better, you still need the right amount of sunshine and rain to make them grow well.

I think I read on their site CRR that 17,000 scientists (2000 of them related to this field) had signed the petition.) Because you are a farmer, is your observation more valid than their data? Admit it CRR , you've been duped. You bought the lie. You could never live long enough to notice a weather patern change. You're going by what CNN is telling you.

 

[Cattle Rack Rancher]

My question is if man is causing global warming now what was causing it in the time of the big lizards? They say they exsisted and the earth was tropical.

From what I understand, a big part of that has to do with continental drift. At the time of the dinosaurs, there was just one big continent that was located closer to the equator so as much as we find big, ferny plants that are now in North America, its because the land actually used to be closer to the equator.

:lol2: You surely don't believe in continental drift do you CRR? The pangea theory? :lol: Do you think the continents broke off the "mother" continent and drifted to where they are today? What did they float on? You are aware that there is ground under the ocean aren't you CRR :lol: . If they floated on molten lava as the theory suggests, how did they get the dirt out of the way so they could float to a different spot. Use you head man. That theory is stupid!

The plates are still moving and we are slowly getting farther away from Europe and Africa as time goes on. That's why the price of plane tickets keeps going up. But seriously, plate tectonics is what causes earthquakes and there is a ridge in the center of the Atlantic ocean where the lava is constantly boiling up and creating new ground. In the Pacific, the eastern plate is slowly being drawn back into teh earth from whence it came. See the links below.

http://kids.earth.nasa.gov/archive/pang ... dence.html

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/historical.html

 

[ollie?]

I'm aware of the theroy of recirculating dirt CRR. How long do you think it would take to move all the continents to their respective positions. If the pangea theory were true, the volcanos alone would have made the earth inhabitable. If you change the sea level a couple inches, the continents look nothing like they do currently (which is why pangea is believable, they try to show you how they fit back together.:lol2 You're a natural skeptic CRR. Use your head man. It's a stupid theory. The worst of the worst.

 

[ollie?]

BTW Crr, in the original pangea continent, they shrink africa by 60% (where did all the dirt come from) and central america was nonexistant. How did it get here? It's just the oddest theory I've ever seen when you get to looking at it. I can't believe I believed it for almost 40 years. What a hoax.

 

[Cattle Rack Rancher]

I'm aware of the theroy of recirculating dirt CRR. How long do you think it would take to move all the continents to their respective positions. If the pangea theory were true, the volcanos alone would have made the earth inhabitable. If you change the sea level a couple inches, the continents look nothing like they do currently (which is why pangea is believable, they try to show you how they fit back together.:lol2 You're a natural skeptic CRR. Use your head man. It's a stupid theory. The worst of the worst.

Well, the theory of plate tectonics also says that some day California is going to fall into the ocean. Please don't quash my hopes on that. I guess because these volcanoes are thousands of feet under the sea that they would only be heating the immediately surrounding water so I do think they wouldn't affect the surface temperature much. Of course this seems to me to be more than something that can be easily dismissed. It looks awful close to fact to me. At the evry least, you could do me the courtesy of looking at the links before just dismissing it out of hand.

http://www.marianatrench.com/mariana_tr ... graphy.htm

http://www.platetectonics.com/oceanfloors/africa.asp