Quote :

"Even if these had valid sources, they still form a ridiculous argument You're simultaneously arguing that climate change does and doesn't exist."

I'm glad TreeTwista gets this. I said that the climate does fluctuate, and then I pointed out what doesn't affect those changes (or at least significantly change them). How's that hard to follow.

Quote :

"SCIENCISTS DON'T KNOW SHIT ABOUT SCIENCE!"

Unfortunately the alarmists don't quote that many scientists that actually study climate.

I'm going to bed. I'll cite my sources later b/c I do have them.

[Edited on February 27, 2007 at 11:34 PM. Reason : j]

2/27/2007 11:32:05 PM

If we can transcend the left and right to and fro for a moment, I do believe in efficiency and sustainable human development; I have taken and am taking coursework in these areas and others. Professor Will Hooker-NCSU--and I've never met the man--promotes an interesting model for urban ecosystems referred to as "permaculture"--I like the philosophy of taking responsibility for one's own needs.

http://www.technicianonline.com/media/storage/paper848/news/2006/08/03/Features/Creating.Urban.Ecosystems-2143125.shtml

[Edited on February 28, 2007 at 12:13 AM. Reason : .]

2/28/2007 12:11:46 AM

Yes, you can spend 20 hours a week tending your own garden with animals. Or, at least you can if you are a professor and have a "flexible schedule".

Personally, I believe in efficiency and sustainable human development. So stop wasting resources on your 1/4th acre that barely feeds you and put your effort towards something much more beneficial to society: teach more classes, take a second job at Wal-Mart, volunteer at a homeless shelter.

Now, this is just me. I don't enjoy raising chickens (loud ass creatures). But maybe that is how you get your jollies. But just realize that you are raising 25% of your food because it makes you feel good, not because it is making society any more "sustainable" than it otherwise would be.

2/28/2007 1:42:33 AM

^ Notice I didn't post global sustainable human development. I think relatively small urban ecosystem models and their rural counterparts make sense in some geographic areas and probably don't make sense in others--it is the smaller ecosystems collective power that could make some meaningful difference. But make no mistake, we will always need large operations and their capital goods to input, transform, and output agricultural products to feed the masses in an effective and efficient manner.

And don't knock "25%" too much, LoneSnark. If you removed a constraint and increased production by 25 percent at a facility that you managed, you would probably get a bonus.

I was actually hoping for a respite from the debate in this thread. Alas, it is not to be.

2/28/2007 4:01:23 AM

But he didn't just increase production, he took on a second job. So, doubling the workforce and only getting a 25% boost in production would not earn me any praise.

I supposed I should have just said it: you are making an assumption which has yet to be demonstrated: That modern society is in any way unsustainable.

2/28/2007 8:39:13 AM

^ I didn't say. . .nevermind, goddammit.

2/28/2007 11:03:18 AM

Alright, I did some searching for sources and while I didn't find (or feel like looking hard enough) sources for all my statements, here is what I have.

My comment regarding the worthlessness of the Kyoto Protocol: Thomas Wigley "The Kyoto Protocol: CO2, CH4, and Climate Implications" Geophysical Research Letter 25 (1998: 2285-88)

I'm not sure of his qualifications, but looks like he's a climate researcher.

In regards to my statement about saving lives through milder winters:
"If the Southern UK is warmed by 3 degrees C by the 2050s, 2,000 more people would die in the summer heat waves each year, but 20,000 fewer would die of cold in the winter" Source is the UK Department of Health.

US Benefits of a warmer climate:
Yale professor Robert Mendelson testifying to the Senate.

http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/0718men.pdf

Here are a few other tidbits I ran over while looking for sources:

"The greenhouse effect must play some role (in global warming). But those who are absolutely certain that the rise in temperatures is due solely to carbon dioxide have no scientific justifcation. Its pure guesswork" ~ Henrik Svensmark, director of the Centre for Sun-Climate Research, Danish National Space Center, from the Copenhagen Post Oct 4th, 2006

"Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention." ~ Professor Bob Carter, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Australia.

2/28/2007 1:08:58 PM

Quote :

""If the Southern UK is warmed by 3 degrees C by the 2050s, 2,000 more people would die in the summer heat waves each year, but 20,000 fewer would die of cold in the winter" Source is the UK Department of Health."

Tens of thousands of people die because of cold winters in the UK? Really?

2/28/2007 1:12:43 PM

someone needs to buy them some space heaters

2/28/2007 1:13:38 PM

but quiet guy said

Quote :

"yeah, becuase everyone knows more people die from the cold than the warm even though thousands have died from single heatwaves while hundreds have died from single blizzards "

should we believe quiet guy or the UK Departmnt of Health?

2/28/2007 1:19:48 PM

the uk isn't a particularly warm place on earth

2/28/2007 1:21:14 PM

so we should believe quiet guy? ok thanks for your vote

2/28/2007 1:22:18 PM

I'm just shocked that so many people die because of the cold in the UK. If 20,000 per year is the reduction in death...

2/28/2007 1:28:50 PM

^^^ So, we shouldn't be worried and Al Gore's full of shit, right? WTF?!

[Edited on February 28, 2007 at 1:29 PM. Reason : .]

2/28/2007 1:29:10 PM

I wouldn't be surprised if the UK Dept of Health estimated cold weather's indirect death toll via illness and the like. I'm sure that tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of Britons die of the flu and pneumonia every winter. That number would go down some if it weren't so cold.

2/28/2007 1:29:13 PM

Quote :

"the uk isn't a particularly warm place on earth"

why not? i mean arent we heating the planet at an alarming rate? how long until the uk is "particularly warm"?

2/28/2007 1:33:30 PM

Uh, global warming might actually freeze the UK.

If you had seen the movie, you might know this.

2/28/2007 1:35:34 PM

global warming might actually not do shit either

if you didnt believe everything you saw in MOVIES you might know this

2/28/2007 1:36:30 PM

Quote :

"if you didnt believe everything you saw in MOVIES you might know this"

At least I'm not basing my opinions on those got damn scientist.

That makes you happy. Right, Twista?

Scientists don't know shit.

2/28/2007 1:47:23 PM

^^^ Yeah, it was called The Day After Tomorrow.

[Edited on February 28, 2007 at 1:50 PM. Reason : .]

2/28/2007 1:50:23 PM

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/thousands_of_barges_could_save_europe_from_deep_freeze_9961.html

2/28/2007 1:52:18 PM

^^^at least i'm not oblivious to the fact that scientists have agendas, scientist vote, scientists' funding depends on how govt views them, scientists are imperfect people too

omg a scientist said it so its a fact

scientists only dont know shit when they're paid by exxon!

[Edited on February 28, 2007 at 1:55 PM. Reason : .]

2/28/2007 1:55:07 PM

You've convinced me, Twista.

I'll never trust a scientist again.

2/28/2007 1:56:50 PM

no you've convinced me...i will trust all scientists...even ones with vastly opposing viewpoints to other scientists

2/28/2007 1:57:14 PM

2/28/2007 1:58:14 PM

lol

nerd

2/28/2007 1:59:00 PM

It seemed apropos.

2/28/2007 2:07:48 PM

I mean, I lolled

and I know it's from one of those "nerd" games


but thats all I got

2/28/2007 2:08:51 PM

Well, Twista and I had just exchanged positions...

This one also kind of works:



[Edited on February 28, 2007 at 2:20 PM. Reason : star city sucks]

2/28/2007 2:13:09 PM

ah yes, the ever popular (in political debate) redx hominem

2/28/2007 2:15:41 PM

Stop making things up, Twista.

2/28/2007 2:21:48 PM

Dennis Miller had the best lines about this: "Other than the Tennessee Valley Authority, nobody uses more power in that state than Al Gore! And I saw him at the Oscars, so I know he's not using it on the treadmill!" Ha!

3/1/2007 12:41:02 AM

http://www.powerlinefacts.com/Sciam_article_on_lobbying.htm

3/2/2007 9:12:14 PM

http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=CZ434669U&news_headline=global_warming_is_lies_claims_documentary

Lies! All lies!

3/4/2007 10:13:29 PM

Remember Steve Buscemi's character in Billy Madison?

That's how I picture Wlfpk4Life, with Al Gore on his hit list.

Putting on lipstick.

3/4/2007 10:20:31 PM

^^




[Edited on March 4, 2007 at 10:25 PM. Reason : ]

3/4/2007 10:24:52 PM

People who deny global warming are fucking adorable. Much like the people who think Elvis is still alive in a bomb shelter. If they tell themselves something enough times- they eventually believe it.

3/5/2007 12:27:54 AM

Who is denying global warming in this thread?

Honestly?

Who?

3/5/2007 11:59:18 AM

Quote :

"You can see the problems with the science of global warming, but people just don’t believe you "

^^people who dont know the difference in denying something and not being convinced in something are fucking adorable...these are the same jackasses who think agnostics are atheists...if they only pay attention to the information they choose, its easy to convince themselves of something even with insufficient evidence...after all, its better to be certain and possibly wrong than to be skeptical and undecided!

[Edited on March 5, 2007 at 1:02 PM. Reason : .]

3/5/2007 12:55:12 PM

The science that I have seen from skeptics does not discredit global warming. Most skeptics argue that warming and cooling are natural phenomenon, which is true. The global warming debate is not focused around that, that is pretty much conceded by all parties. It is focused on the fact that anthropogenic (human generated) emissions are accentuating the natural warming trend.

I listened to a lecture by Professor Eban Goodstein on his explanation of the problem as "a carbon blanket". As we have burned trillions of gallons of fossil fuels within the last 100 years or so, the law of conservation of matter dictates that this material just does not disappear. A lot is absorbed by plants and the ocean, but what we are in effect doing is creating a thin but noticeable carbon blanket around the earth. It makes it a bit easier to understand this when you put it in these terms. You can find it on I-Tunes under Yale School of the Environment.

3/5/2007 1:06:53 PM

Quote :

"Most skeptics argue that warming and cooling are natural phenomenon, which is true. The global warming debate is not focused around that, that is pretty much conceded by all parties. It is focused on the fact that anthropogenic (human generated) emissions are accentuating the natural warming trend. "

I agree that the debate as at the cause of the warming trend, whether it be natural or manmade...but when you say its a natural phenomenon "which is true" are you saying this warming IS natural? The main problems I have seen with the science are that you cannot quantify how much effect people are having, even though the news will tell you that humans are DEFINITELY the main cause of this warming...I still dont know how they can come to that conclusion

3/5/2007 1:10:44 PM

But since we know how much green house gas and pollutants into the atmosphere shouldn't we be responsible for that much?

3/5/2007 2:03:22 PM

Yeah I guess...but we don't exactly know what that amount is doing...if it is doing something that is helping the temperatures rise faster then we should address it...if it is not really contributing to global temperature trends, then doing anything would be a waste...its easy to look at a temperature/time graph and notice temperatures have risen...from there on it gets a lot more complicated

3/5/2007 2:09:34 PM

BUT TWISTA, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!

oh, and I like how quiet_guy said solar cycles "start it, but CO2 finishes it." that's about as big of a cop out as I can imagine.

[Edited on March 5, 2007 at 3:21 PM. Reason : ]

3/5/2007 3:13:09 PM

Quote :

"but we don't exactly know what that amount is doing"

x = amount humans put into the air
We can measure how much x raises the temperature. Now if x is balanced by CO2 scrubbing done by green plants then it is all well and good. But it seems like there is more heating than scrubbing so it is worth while to make sure that we aren't the problem especially with the contributing factors of increased insolation and volcanic activity.

3/5/2007 3:26:52 PM

^the primary problem with your thinking there is that you are stating it is a fact that increased C02 causes an increased temperature in the atmosphere. There is no proof to back that up.

[Edited on March 5, 2007 at 7:34 PM. Reason : k]

3/5/2007 7:33:32 PM

^ ARE YOU INSANE?

Do you think we have gotten 15 pages into this thread without addressing that very simple fact?

Wow. I'm absolutely shocked that you even said that.

3/5/2007 7:47:24 PM

Quote :

"We can measure how much x raises the temperature."

Not with any accuracy. Hence the inaccuracy of past climate projections and the wide-ranging projections by the IPCC.

There are just too many factors to isolate the radiative forcing effects of CO2 with any accuracy at this time.


[Edited on March 5, 2007 at 7:55 PM. Reason : 2]

3/5/2007 7:54:40 PM

^ thats like saying we can't exactly predict how much it's going to rain during a hurricane, so we might as well not prepare for it.


We might know that for example, the storm is coming that is going to dump 4-6 inches of rain and that will cause flooding. We can't say that exactly 5.3821 inches are going to fall, but we know that a significant enough amount is coming to create some major problems.

3/5/2007 8:02:49 PM

^^^you've got to be kidding man. or maybe I wasn't clear. sorry, how about "the addition of manmade CO2 to the atmosphere." B/c you can't find anything conclusive there.

3/5/2007 8:27:55 PM