Thread Options
|
#714386 - 04/11/07 02:34 AM
Re: The Politics of Attacking Al Gore
tahdah
|
Power Poster
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,624
|
Well if there is global warming, why do I have to set my heat up to 68 in April? I'm having a real problem with this. The peach crop is devasted in SC and NC as well as many other crops. My herbs are all dying, as they usually come up this time of year. Easter Sunday the priest said that he felt he should be celebrating Christmas rather that Easter since it was so cold. I'm not buying into global warming. When my airconditioning bill out runs my heating bill, I might agree. global warming actually does make it colder at odd times of the year... due to the rising water temperatures, the gulf streams and such will change, thus changing weather patterns... At least that is what I've heard...
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#714436 - 04/11/07 01:13 PM
Re: The Politics of Attacking Al Gore
Hated By Some
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 10,068
Fortress of Solitude
|
In much the way you write off studies conducted by PhDs who dissent on global warming, calling it anecdotal.
_________________________
"Beneath an ever watchful eye...the angels of the temple fly"
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#714511 - 04/11/07 02:08 PM
Re: The Politics of Attacking Al Gore
Imagine
|
10K Club
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 34,318
under the Lone Star
|
I can miss this, just got the scoop from the Sheryl Crow tour stopping in town last night to let us know that our Mothership Earth is sick, and we are simultaneously the disease and the cure. They left town in a very nice biodeisel bus.
_________________________
Societies that do not find work in and of itself "pleasing to God and requisite to Man," tend to be highly corrupt.
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#714521 - 04/11/07 02:15 PM
Re: The Politics of Attacking Al Gore
TheManofSteel
|
10K Club
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 13,603
Somewhere vanilla
|
In much the way you write off studies conducted by PhDs who dissent on global warming, calling it anecdotal. no, i'm calling the observations of some BOLers anecdotal. my real question here is WHY do you want us to keep our status quo regarding our planet/environment?
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#714527 - 04/11/07 02:18 PM
Re: The Politics of Attacking Al Gore
Hated By Some
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 10,068
Fortress of Solitude
|
In much the way you write off studies conducted by PhDs who dissent on global warming, calling it anecdotal. no, i'm calling the observations of some BOL anecdotal. my real question here is WHY do you want us to keep our status quo regarding our planet/environment? And show me where I claimed I want status quo? I support sound environmental protection measures,not drastic measures based upon inconclusive and highly debateable scientific positions.
_________________________
"Beneath an ever watchful eye...the angels of the temple fly"
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#714543 - 04/11/07 02:29 PM
Re: The Politics of Attacking Al Gore
TheManofSteel
|
10K Club
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 13,603
Somewhere vanilla
|
And show me where I claimed I want status quo? well, you did start this thread that intimates "global warming is a hoax. go back to doing what you were doing." but now that you've admitted that it is change you are scared of (how conservative of you ) what sorts of drastic measures don't you want to see? like i said before, iran is not worth the risk so we must invade but the future liveability of our planet is worth the risk because well, it's not us being affected (just like the federal deficit).
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#714548 - 04/11/07 02:33 PM
Re: The Politics of Attacking Al Gore
Hated By Some
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,121
|
np, comments like that are simply people trying to hear what they want to. they will ignore things like the rate at which ice caps and glaciers are melting compared with previous global climate changes. and even assuming that there is no "global warming" which has been exacerbated by us, they are oblivious to the actual changes taking place on earth because of the anecdotal evidence in pleasantville. Why has Mars' average temperture increased almost exactly as much as Earth's average temperture in the last 30 years?
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#714551 - 04/11/07 02:37 PM
Re: The Politics of Attacking Al Gore
Hated By Some
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 10,068
Fortress of Solitude
|
And show me where I claimed I want status quo? well, you did start this thread that intimates "global warming is a hoax. go back to doing what you were doing." but now that you've admitted that it is change you are scared of (how conservative of you ) what sorts of drastic measures don't you want to see? like i said before, iran is not worth the risk so we must invade but the future liveability of our planet is worth the risk because well, it's not us being affected (just like the federal deficit). Not wanting drastic change is the equivalent of fearing change? And Iran situation is comparable to the global warming debate? That's apples and oranges on a monolitihic scale. Look into fruit farming, Ron, it'll suit you The thread is on dissent, not calling it a hoax.
Last edited by AMLFella; 04/11/07 02:38 PM.
_________________________
"Beneath an ever watchful eye...the angels of the temple fly"
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#714558 - 04/11/07 02:41 PM
Re: The Politics of Attacking Al Gore
Hated By Some
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,121
|
straw, was i arguing that i know whether or not global warming is a hoax? i simply said that the rate of temperature rise for this planet--a planet with an atmosphere unique in our universe-- is greater than it was for any other "ice age" climatological change on this planet. so whether this means anything or not, it should at least be a cosmic wakeup call for us to be more earth-friendly because we see many examples day to day of us affecting the environment in ways other than global warming.
it simply seems to me that people want to deny it more for keeping the status quo regarding our raping of the earth in general than for its specific scientific merits. No, it means that we do not understand these processes to a sufficient degree to know what we do will help, harm or have no effect. Again, the difference between we should do something vs. we should do anything. We could cut global CO2 emissions (and I am not saying we should not), but it might not have any effect on climate change. It is possible that man is not the cause (I know this heretical, but given what we are seeing on Mars, it is worth discussing) and therefore we cannot control the environment.
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#714565 - 04/11/07 02:45 PM
Re: The Politics of Attacking Al Gore
Hated By Some
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 10,068
Fortress of Solitude
|
but fella, my reasons regard the non-scientists who wish to support the dissent: what is their reason for wanting to believe this? scientific debate? sorry, but i just don't buy that. i think their motivations are different. Among many reasons, are deflecting unsubstantiated reasons for making changes so drastic that it has significant negative effects on trade, commerce and the economy. Whereas reasonable actions, such as cessation of destruction of rain forests, controlled forst fires to reverse the negative effects of preventing the natural ones, replanting of trees, rigorous enforcement of endangered species acts, and the gradual weaning off of fossil fuels, all contribute to a healthy environment without the alarmist effects of the environmental extremists.
_________________________
"Beneath an ever watchful eye...the angels of the temple fly"
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#714567 - 04/11/07 02:49 PM
Re: The Politics of Attacking Al Gore
straw
|
10K Club
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 13,603
Somewhere vanilla
|
No, it means that we do not understand these processes to a sufficient degree to know what we do will help, harm or have no effect. so we are in the dark as to whether polluting, not planting trees and not recycling for example will help the earth? straw, i see a lot of merit in the actual global warming dissent. my pont is about better environmental stewardship in general. i've avoided this thread until now purposely to let it run its course regarding the science of global warming. my point is different. so i think we SHOULD cut pollution to combat things that affect our ozone layer because of harmful UV rays to humans NOW. i want us to plant more trees. i want us to NOT pollute industrial waste so it affects thequality of our drinking water or how the waste affects livestock or fishingstock, etc. do you see what i am saying?
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#714569 - 04/11/07 02:53 PM
Re: The Politics of Attacking Al Gore
TheManofSteel
|
10K Club
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 13,603
Somewhere vanilla
|
Among many reasons, are deflecting unsubstantiated reasons for making changes so drastic that it has significant negative effects on trade, commerce and the economy.
Whereas reasonable actions, such as cessation of destruction of rain forests, controlled forst fires to reverse the negative effects of preventing the natural ones, replanting of trees, rigorous enforcement of endangered species acts, and the gradual weaning off of fossil fuels, all contribute to a healthy environment without the alarmist effects of the environmental extremists.
i'm worried that with some if you give them an inch they will take a mile though. which is why i so concerned about the motivations of thenon-scientists who wish to promote the dissent: WHY do they want to promote the dissent? for pure scientific discourse or for ulterior motive. i agree with what you said that i quoted above though. i am not an extreme ecowarrior by any stretch. but i do think we need to fight those with a wanton disregard forthe environment.
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#714570 - 04/11/07 02:54 PM
Re: The Politics of Attacking Al Gore
Hated By Some
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 10,068
Fortress of Solitude
|
No, it means that we do not understand these processes to a sufficient degree to know what we do will help, harm or have no effect. so we are in the dark as to whether polluting, not planting trees and not recycling for example will help the earth? straw, i see a lot of merit in the actual global warming dissent. my pont is about better environmental stewardship in general. i've avoided this thread until now purposely to let it run its course regarding the science of global warming. my point is different. so i think we SHOULD cut pollution to combat things that affect our ozone layer because of harmful UV rays to humans NOW. i want us to plant more trees. i want us to NOT pollute industrial waste so it affects thequality of our drinking water or how the waste affects livestock or fishingstock, etc. do you see what i am saying? No we are getting somewhere. We are the stewards of the earth, so regardless of whether it becomes completely conclusive that humans have no effect on global warming, we still have a responsibility to keep a healthy environment. That is what I have reiterated time and again.
_________________________
"Beneath an ever watchful eye...the angels of the temple fly"
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#714572 - 04/11/07 02:56 PM
Re: The Politics of Attacking Al Gore
Hated By Some
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,121
|
No, it means that we do not understand these processes to a sufficient degree to know what we do will help, harm or have no effect. so we are in the dark as to whether polluting, not planting trees and not recycling for example will help the earth? straw, i see a lot of merit in the actual global warming dissent. my pont is about better environmental stewardship in general. i've avoided this thread until now purposely to let it run its course regarding the science of global warming. my point is different. so i think we SHOULD cut pollution to combat things that affect our ozone layer because of harmful UV rays to humans NOW. i want us to plant more trees. i want us to NOT pollute industrial waste so it affects thequality of our drinking water or how the waste affects livestock or fishingstock, etc. do you see what i am saying? I do and some of it makes sense i.e. plant more trees, limit industrial waste, etc. Just good common sense. However, some of the drastic measures, that will hurt developing nations the most, that may not be the cause of global warming, I think, should be given a harder look than is currently allowed in the dogmatic environment we are in regarding this issue.
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#714576 - 04/11/07 02:58 PM
Re: The Politics of Attacking Al Gore
straw
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 10,068
Fortress of Solitude
|
straw, was i arguing that i know whether or not global warming is a hoax? i simply said that the rate of temperature rise for this planet--a planet with an atmosphere unique in our universe-- is greater than it was for any other "ice age" climatological change on this planet. so whether this means anything or not, it should at least be a cosmic wakeup call for us to be more earth-friendly because we see many examples day to day of us affecting the environment in ways other than global warming.
it simply seems to me that people want to deny it more for keeping the status quo regarding our raping of the earth in general than for its specific scientific merits. No, it means that we do not understand these processes to a sufficient degree to know what we do will help, harm or have no effect. Again, the difference between we should do something vs. we should do anything. We could cut global CO2 emissions (and I am not saying we should not), but it might not have any effect on climate change. It is possible that man is not the cause (I know this heretical, but given what we are seeing on Mars, it is worth discussing) and therefore we cannot control the environment. This is just to add some stats to your quotes, Straw. This is from the study I posted on page 14 of this thread, third post down right after a Neo post: (view full-size image) Figure 1 2. CO2 in our atmosphere has been increasing steadily for the last 18,000 years-- long before humans invented smokestacks ( Figure 1). Unless you count campfires and intestinal gas, man played no role in the pre-industrial increases. As illustrated in this chart of Ice Core data from the Soviet Station Vostok in Antarctica, CO2 concentrations in earth's atmosphere move with temperature. Both temperatures and CO2 have been steadily increasing for 18,000 years. Ignoring these 18,000 years of data "global warming activists" contend recent increases in atmospheric CO2 are unnatural and are the result of only 200 years or so of human pollution causing a runaway greenhouse effect. Incidentally, earth's temperature and CO2 levels today have reached levels similar to a previous interglacial cycle of 120,000 - 140,000 years ago. From beginning to end this cycle lasted about 20,000 years. This is known as the Eemian Interglacial Period and the earth returned to a full-fledged ice age immediately afterward. view full-size image Figure 2 3. Total human contributions to greenhouse gases account for only about 0.28% of the "greenhouse effect" (Figure 2). Anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide (CO2) comprises about 0.117% of this total, and man-made sources of other gases ( methane, nitrous oxide (NOX), other misc. gases) contributes another 0.163% . Approximately 99.72% of the "greenhouse effect" is due to natural causes -- mostly water vapor and traces of other gases, which we can do nothing at all about. Eliminating human activity altogether would have little impact on climate change. view full-size image Figure 3 4. If global warming is caused by CO2 in the atmosphere then does CO2 also cause increased sun activity too? This chart adapted after Nigel Calder (6) illustrates that variations in sun activity are generally proportional to both variations in atmospheric CO2 and atmospheric temperature (Figure 3). Put another way, rising Earth temperatures and increasing CO2 may be "effects" and our own sun the "cause". -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FUN FACTS about CARBON DIOXIDE Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants
_________________________
"Beneath an ever watchful eye...the angels of the temple fly"
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#714583 - 04/11/07 03:03 PM
Re: The Politics of Attacking Al Gore
straw
|
10K Club
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 13,603
Somewhere vanilla
|
I think, should be given a harder look than is currently allowed in the dogmatic environment we are in regarding this issue. hey, i agree 100%. butin this dogmatic environment you know how one side argues theextreme and the otherargues its reciprocal. so, i have tried to 1)call those whose are supporting the dissent for selfish reasons and 2)get everyone to realize there are legitimate reasons tobe good stewards of our earth.
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
|