Yes, but Al Gore hasn't started any wars.

6/1/2007 3:50:20 PM

dont take this as any type of link between 9/11 or iraq because i'm not trying to make that link at all

but we have 100% concrete proof that terrorism is real and has killed americans

we do NOT have 100% concrete proof that humans cause global warming that will kill americans

so to most rational and logical people, "fear mongering" is a lot more merited when you have factual hard evidence that what you fear actually exists

6/1/2007 4:51:35 PM

No, global warming is an incremental problem. You are looking for a quick bang, a building falling. There will be no 9/11 for global warming. Its a cumulative problem, one in which human nature allows a creeping acceptance because it gets a teensy bit worse every year.

Take it this way.... say you lived in Raleigh in 1970 and you drove on I-40 during rush hour. There are hardly any cars on the road and its easy for you to move freely so you say nothings wrong. Every year theres a few more cars on the road, and you just come to accept there are more. Fast forward to 2007. Theres gridlock, people stopped, horns honking and wrecks everywhere. It didn't get this way overnight. It got there gradually. People who move to Raleigh today accept that this is the way it is. Someone who left in 1970 and came back today would wonder how we ever got ourselves in such a terrible quagmire.

The statistical and scientific data doesn't lie. You are applying an irrational degree of proof onto something that has been peer reviewed, tested and proven by scientific results reproduced by thousands of parties of the most intelligent and trusted scientists around the world. You are looking for something concrete to hold in your hand because you lack the intellectual capacity to understand the true nature of the problem.

6/1/2007 5:04:45 PM

Quote :

"The statistical and scientific data doesn't lie"

it doesnt tell the truth either...it simply guesses...or more specifically, people look at the data and make guesses..and those guesses are apparently good enough for you to believe as facts

you wouldnt happen to be an atheist or agnostic, would you? its funny to me that people who can use logic to convince themselves that theres no proof of God (which there isnt) somehow like to buy into the anthro GW propaganda with no proof

but please, tell yourself whatever you need to to convince yourself that global warming is a more serious threat than terrorism...don't go on facts like 'thousands of deaths directly linked to terrorism' vs ' zero deaths directly linked to anthro gw'...go on what you interpret to be facts like 'its possible that this happens'

i guess i just cant understand the thought process of someone who dismisses real threats like terrorism as 'rare unlikely' occurrences, and swears by possible threats like 'scientists predict the future to be'

Quote :

"you lack the intellectual capacity to understand the true nature of the problem"

its like some people think scientists are some kind of superhumans who know everything...they're people just like you and me

funny too, when i say "its not just co2, the system is a lot more complex", your point about not being able to understand the full capacity of the problem apparently doesnt apply

6/1/2007 5:19:10 PM

^ A better metaphor.

You own a house at the beach, which is 34 feet above high tide (elevated on stilts). Scientists tell you the sea is rising 2.5 mm annually. Let us say you can slow the sea level rise by exerting imense effort today and everyday. Should exert the effort now? Why? Your house is in no danger; it will not be in any danger for 100 years, even then it will only be in the face of a storm surge. At that time, you can simply jack your house up higher, having saved the expense of slowing the rise over the past 100 years.

6/1/2007 5:20:00 PM

^and to expand on that idea....if a huge hurricane comes in, it could wash your house away regardless of your preparations...just like hurricanes have been doing before humans were on earth and long after we're gone...there hasnt ever really been anyone ever who could fuck with mother nature if mother nature wants to have her way

6/1/2007 5:22:01 PM

Terrorism is a serious threat, but it isn't also the only threat. If global warming truly reaches its full potential and causes the degree of damage to our food supplies and property as it as forecasted, it will have done far more damage than terrorism.

And in the past, CFC's were found to be creating holes in the Ozone layer. We used our scientific data to discover this was occuring and expanding, so we banned CFC's (Freon for example). Now the holes are getting smaller. We can use scientific data to discover, model and evaluate complex environmental phenomenon and use it for making policy.

You are suggesting in effect that science, and the scientific method on which both NC State and the entire world is predicated on is invalid. I am going to point the finger at who is wrong, and its you.

*points finger*

6/1/2007 5:28:39 PM

not saying invalid...just saying imperfect...humans causing global warming through co2 emissions is not FACT...yet so many people think it is fact...how can you build a quality house (discussion) with a halfassed foundation (thesis)

6/1/2007 5:32:55 PM

name me one thing in this world that is perfect

one

6/1/2007 5:34:04 PM

thats not the point

the point is, its all speculation...should we base all our policies and everything we do on speculation of what might possibly happen in the future if our predictions and guesses happen to possibly come true?

let alone its BAD speculation...we have been around a couple thousand years...some earth cycles take millions of years to get through one revolution (of the cycle)...yet super scientists know everything?

how can you absorb all the data and info you're told in all the science classes you've taken (not specifically data and info on modern climate change...but on earth in general...how it works...the expanse of geologic time...the lack of reliable data before the 20th century) and not be skeptical?

and let me add the obligatory "nobody in this thread is denying that humans might be causing global warming...we simply havent seen sufficient evidence to convince us"

6/1/2007 5:36:01 PM

But that is the point. you said you wanted 100% concrete proof, which is perfection. Tell me what possible proof, besides the entire sky staying permanently black from suspended carbon, would make you believe (by which time we would all be dead).The answer is none. You don't understand even the most simple concept of how environmental problems are studied and addressed.

You have a right to be skeptical, but not unreasonable.

[Edited on June 1, 2007 at 5:44 PM. Reason : .]

6/1/2007 5:41:29 PM

i understand the CONSENSUS 30 years ago was that IF WE DONT START WARMING THE EARTH WE'LL ALL FREEZE TO DEATH AND SEA LEVELS WILL DROP

how did that environmental "PROBLEM" turn out?

i think overall you'd just rather call people dumb for not being alarmists like you

cant build a house without a good foundation...and when your foundation is money and preemptive wild guesses, i dont want to live in that house

Quote :

"You have a right to be skeptical, but not unreasonable."

well i am clearly skeptical...and you are clearly unreasonable...because anyone should have SOME Skepticism...whereas, if I read you correctly, you pretty much are completely convinced its a fact

6/1/2007 5:48:18 PM

Quote :

"Sea levels have been rising since the last ice age. They rise a couple of millimeters each year, and that rate has been pretty consistent every year. They have risen a little over 7 inches in the last century, at a rate of 1 to 3 mm annually. If it hasn't been a problem over the last millenium, why should it be a problem in the future? If temperatures rise 6 degrees over the next century, rising sea levels are the least of our worries."

That's pretty ignorant of you to say that.

How do you know rising sea levels haven't been a problem in the last decade, let alone in the last millenium?

Large patches of land in Bangladesh and other countries have disappeared under water in the past few years. And if levels rise by 17 inches, that would be devastating for millions of people.

6/1/2007 5:49:55 PM

Quote :

"How do you know rising sea levels haven't been a problem in the last decade, let alone in the last millenium? "

i know they've risen about 360 feet in the last 20,000 years...360 FEET OF SEA LEVEL CHANGE...without any SUVs or coal plants...so what makes you think what we do has much of an effect?

6/1/2007 5:52:50 PM

Where did I say we are making the sea levels rise?

All I said is rising sea levels are predicted to seriously disrupt the lives of 10s of millions in the next few decades.

6/1/2007 6:00:24 PM

well, i must admit you got me on the supernova vs. red giant point

6/1/2007 6:07:22 PM

Quote :

"not saying invalid...just saying imperfect...humans causing global warming through co2 emissions is not FACT"

So you honestly do not believe that taking millions of tons of carbon, which has been in a solid state for millions of years and releasing said carbon into the atmosphere has no affect?

6/1/2007 6:16:27 PM

^I already went there. BTW we emit millions of tons per day.

Quote :

"Do you really think that we can release trillions of tons of fossil fuels into the air and it just disappears into nowhere and has no effect? To do so would violate the Law of Conservation of Matter, a basic principle of physics."

[Edited on June 1, 2007 at 6:34 PM. Reason : .]

6/1/2007 6:32:45 PM

Quote :

"i understand the CONSENSUS 30 years ago was that IF WE DONT START WARMING THE EARTH WE'LL ALL FREEZE TO DEATH AND SEA LEVELS WILL DROP"

Thirty years ago was the technological ice ages. That doesn't necessarily imply that our equipment is so drastically better now that we can conclusively say our information and understanding is good enough to really make the claims we are making...but, our equipment is pretty fucking good now compared to 30 years ago.

6/1/2007 7:04:02 PM

^

6/1/2007 7:06:04 PM

^ and 30 years from now our equipment will be even better. jeez, man.

Quote :

"Do you really think that we can release trillions of tons of fossil fuels into the air and it just disappears into nowhere and has no effect? To do so would violate the Law of Conservation of Matter, a basic principle of physics."

Did you really just say that? Methinks that idiots like you are getting into the scientific community way too easily. The Law of Conservation of Matter says NOTHING about global warming. It simply would say that that shit is likely to still be around in some form. It doesn't say what effect that form might have on ANYTHING.

Quote :

"It's not that the earth is warming, it's that it's warming faster than what should be normal."

And how do we know what is "normal?" Are you saying that we now know everything there is to know about our climate? If so, then why can't we forecast the weather for tomorrow? IIRC, a lot of this stuff is based on ice core samples. What is the granularity on these things? a year? 10 years? 100 years? At best, you are getting an average rate of change. You aren't seeing year to year fluctuations, yet all of this CONJECTURE is based on our year to year variations. To take this to the extreme, from January to June there is a HUGE average temperature increase. Clearly, it must be due to Global Warming, right?

Quote :

"The statistical and scientific data doesn't lie"

maybe not, but it sure as hell can deceive.

Quote :

"And in the past, CFC's..."

And, more importantly, with CFC's, we were able to directly test the effect of CFCs in real time, which makes that analogy useless to this discussion.

Quote :

"You are suggesting in effect that science, and the scientific method on which both NC State and the entire world is predicated on is invalid. I am going to point the finger at who is wrong, and its you. *points finger*"

Now, if only the "climate scientists" who are all crying wolf about GW would follow the scientific method, then maybe we could get some truth out of all of this. I mean, it'd be great if they stopped ignoring one of the hugest factors in our climate (you know, the SUN) as they go about their business "studying" the climate.

BTW, aren't we still sticking to the story that humans contribute only like 4% of the CO2 produced every year? If so, then I think I'd be looking at something else as the cause of GW, and not our miniscule increases.

6/1/2007 8:57:26 PM

Quote :

" Did you really just say that? Methinks that idiots like you are getting into the scientific community way too easily. The Law of Conservation of Matter says NOTHING about global warming. It simply would say that that shit is likely to still be around in some form. It doesn't say what effect that form might have on ANYTHING."

Did you EVEN READ WHAT I SAID. Just because we burn fossil fuels doesn't mean they just disappear. They stay around, although in a different form. I never said the Law of Conservation of Matter mentioned global warming. You are so anxious to put your own little arrogant spin on this discussion that you are trying to insult me and then you restate the exact fucking thing I said. Jesus Christ you are an idiot. Methinks you should shut the fuck up.

[Edited on June 1, 2007 at 9:08 PM. Reason : .]

6/1/2007 9:03:56 PM

given that you said that IN REFERENCE TO GLOBAL WARMING, I'd say it's fair to attack it from the basis of GW. Plus, note a couple of key words here:

Quote :

"Do you really think that we can release trillions of tons of fossil fuels into the air and it just disappears into nowhere and has no effect? To do so would violate the Law of Conservation of Matter, a basic principle of physics."

I believe the word for you, now, is "PWNT"

6/1/2007 9:09:43 PM

I believe the word is horseshit. If something doesn't exist then it can't affect anything. If matter still exists, then it obviously continues to interact with other matter, and exhibits the same characteristics of their base elements, in this case carbon. What is at issue is essentially people are saying that some how that carbonic gasses emitted from vehicles do not exhibit the same traits and properties as similiar/identical natural carbonic gasses that trap heat in the atmosphere. Evidently we live in a bizzaro universe where we suspend the laws of physics and all rational thought because a couple nutjob conservatives don't understand that simple fact.And that is horseshit.

[Edited on June 1, 2007 at 9:27 PM. Reason : .]

6/1/2007 9:15:07 PM

Aaronburro still online, over an hour since I last posted.... still clinging to that "pwnt" statement?

6/1/2007 10:35:48 PM

Quote :

"If matter still exists, then it obviously continues to interact with other matter"

sure, but the NATURE OF THAT INTERACTION is the question here. Thus, the reason that your whole statement is bogus.

And, evidently we live in bizarro universe where an increase of 1% of CO2 emissions somehow has an amazing overall effect on the climate...

6/1/2007 11:16:34 PM

Where did you make this one percent number up? Atmospheric carbon concentrations have increased nearly 30% since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Do you honestly think you have somehow pulled one over on the most brilliant geniuses and researchers alive, on the most widely researched, tested and independently verified scientific experiment of mankind and figured this all out? Jesus, theres really no helping you. The steepness of your ignorance is profound.

6/1/2007 11:59:18 PM

Oh, I'll bet someone has pulled something over on you, given that it's NOT the most "brilliant scientists and researchers" who are harping so heavily about GW. It's mostly random scientists with almost no background in climate science. Most of the legitimate climate scientists are on the fence.

And again, just because CO2 levels have risen dramatically DOES NOT mean that it is due to humanity. You'd have to be an idiot to assume that, given the 4% number that I threw out earlier, that humans are in any way responsible for a "30%" rise before you even begin to look for alternative explanations. Unfortunately, that's exactly what most GW proponents are doing, ignoring more reasonable answers in order to choose the more politically convenient answer.

And, where did I make up the 1% number? I threw it out there as a worst case estimate of humanity's overall increase to CO2 production, based on the 96% figure thrown out as being from natural causes.

6/2/2007 12:05:05 AM

Stupid! Existing natural carbon is almost exclusively within the carbon cycle, and is emitted by various causes and absorbed by plants and the ocean etc yielding no net gain. Anthropogenic carbon is newly being introduced into the system, having been sequestered underground for millions of years and being newly introduced into the system. So everyday we are introducing millions of new tons of carbon into the atmosphere. And why shouldn't that carbon have the same heat retentive properties as all other atmospheric carbon?

6/2/2007 12:14:27 AM

no one is saying it doesn't have the same heat retention properties. The question is whether the added CO2 is having the GW effect or not, or if it is something else which is being largely ignored by your "scientists" who had their conclusions made up long before they started their "experiments." You know, the ones with margins of errors in the 100's of %'s and all...

6/2/2007 12:17:23 AM

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#Q4

Quote :

"Are greenhouse gases increasing? Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are about 370 ppmv. The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today, has not been exceeded in the last 420,000 years, and likely not in the last 20 million years."

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

Quote :

"Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes."

Quote :

"Sequences of annual tree rings going back thousands of years have now been analyzed for their 13C/12C ratios. Because the age of each ring is precisely known** we can make a graph of the atmospheric 13C/12C ratio vs. time. What is found is at no time in the last 10,000 years are the 13C/12C ratios in the atmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the 13C/12C ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase -- around 1850 AD. This is exactly what we expect if the increased CO2 is in fact due to fossil fuel burning. Furthermore, we can trace the absorption of CO2 into the ocean by measuring the 13C/12C ratio of surface ocean waters. While the data are not as complete as the tree ring data (we have only been making these measurements for a few decades) we observe what is expected: the surface ocean 13C/12C is decreasing. Measurements of 13C/12C on corals and sponges -- whose carbonate shells reflect the ocean chemistry just as tree rings record the atmospheric chemistry -- show that this decline began about the same time as in the atmosphere; that is, when human CO2 production began to accelerate in earnest.***"

6/2/2007 12:17:31 AM

^ Hey there, theres no room for facts here in this debate! Aaronburro is obviously more informed than the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, based on his gut instincts and half assed logic.

Oh I also heard the other day on the same NPR broadcast that the Bush Administration had slashed the budgets of the NASA and NOAA climate change program budgets by a third, cuts scientists described as "crippling" to their agency's mission. Seems the Bushies all say there isn't enough data (although it has been studied for at least 45 years) and also wants to slash all current and future research so any more data will never be collected.

[Edited on June 2, 2007 at 12:33 AM. Reason : .]

6/2/2007 12:20:26 AM

If you need to put "scientists" and "experiments" into scare quotes, you just lost the debate.

6/2/2007 12:33:26 AM

^ given that their "science" and "experiments" are extremely suspect, I think the quotes are warranted, especially when margins of error are, again, in the range of 100s and 1000s of percent.

^^^haha. thanks for the "there is no scientific debate on this point." Too bad that there actually IS a debate, it's just being squashed by people claiming there is no debate. Good work.
Also, note that it says "in the last 10K years." That's pretty fucking significant. Furthermore, without looking at that data more closely, the "ratios being low" doesn't mean anything, since it could be only sightly lower.

^^ Hey, I hear that Clinton wanted the scientists to fudge the numbers and statements in SUPPORT of global warming, too. huh, go figure. I guess two can play at that game.

[Edited on June 2, 2007 at 12:39 AM. Reason : ]

6/2/2007 12:35:33 AM

No, there is no debate in the scientific community. There is only people who are trying to suppress and discredit the evidence to fulfill their political and economic goals.

6/2/2007 12:40:47 AM

Yeah, every major scientific organization agrees that there is not debate over our contribution to CO2 levels.

But there actually is. Because aaronburro says so.


And dude, if this isn't common sense to you, then... shit, man... The earth naturally emits and sequesters more or less...

shit.

You know what, before I waste my time, cite something half-credible stating that we're only responsible for 1% of the 30% rise in CO2 over the past however many years.

Quote :

"Hey, I hear that Clinton wanted the scientists to fudge the numbers and statements in SUPPORT of global warming, too. huh, go figure. I guess two can play at that game."

I heard he also shot Vince Foster

[Edited on June 2, 2007 at 12:43 AM. Reason : .]

6/2/2007 12:42:07 AM

Hey, keep claiming there is no debate. It only makes you more credible. TT and I have posted numerous examples of "debate," but none of them ever pass your muster. I wonder why. oh, that's right, because you've already made up your mind, and nothing will convince you otherwise. You know, kind of like the GW "scientists." There's no point in reposting all of that info here, because you'll do exactly like salisburyboy does when presented with facts: ignore them. But hey, if you'd like to read it again, it's in the other multi-page GW thread in TSB. Knock yourself out, mang.

6/2/2007 12:44:55 AM

Your profile lists you as a nuclear engineering and computer science major... do you not even believe in the scientific method and validity on which your whole field is based? Or are you some jackass business major trying to impress people with credentials you haven't earned?

6/2/2007 12:47:33 AM

Oh, I believe in the method. I also realize that GW proponents DON'T follow it. You don't make conclusions and then find evidence for them. AND, you DON'T sit on experiments with horrendous margins of error and claim them to be irrefutable proof. Then again, you also don't declare debate over just so you can declare it over, but whatever.

6/2/2007 12:50:53 AM

I remember your source-- and it was like 12 non-experts questioning parts of global warming. Can't say that it was at all convincing.

Oh, or are you talking about the two or three Canadian guys with their fake scientific association?


I can't remember. Maybe if you posted a source that was actually worth a crap I'd remember.

6/2/2007 12:53:09 AM

As the planet warms the permafrost up north melts, releasing large stores of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Now, sure, we can argue it was rising CO2 levels which caused global warming and the resultant melting permafrost and even faster rising CO2 levels.

But the scientists have spoken; the result of all this will be about 2 degrees global rise, primarily during the winter, over the next century coupled with a foot or so rise in global ocean levels.

Now, in Bangladesh and elsewhere in the Indian ocean (as mentioned above) this rise will be much higher due to continental tilt (remember the earthquake that caused the tidal wave? the continental plate is sinking as another plate is pushed on top of it; global warming or not low lying areas will vanish over the following centuries).

As for the rest of us? Nothing much will change. Over the span of decades growing seasons will lengthen, and as weather patterns shift some areas will desertify, others will flood. With patience market forces will tame the changes with irrigation and flood control systems, ultimately shifting production to where it is most effective. Just the place of origin for food will change, not its price. This is because the planet will not turn into a desert; the oceans throw up a lot of vapor into the air, it is going to fall somewhere. If it doesn't fall in North America, maybe we will find it in Australia, turning it from one of the world's largest deserts to the world's bread-basket. But this is the worst-case scenario; the 2-degree rise during the 20th century had very little negative impact, plenty of possitive; why should the 21st century be so different?

6/2/2007 1:06:28 AM

Quote :

"There is no debate"

That sounds like what somebody says when they're full of shit and they want to censor anyone who dares question them

I would say "there is no debate" too if I knew that by allowing people to debate, a lot of my shit would be debunked and bam, I would lose funding

6/2/2007 4:00:32 PM

No, the scientific debate is over. The only people who want to "debate" know are doing so only to derail meaningful action to combat the problem. This problem has been studied since the mid 60's and debated since the early 80's. After nearly 50 years of study and 30 years of debate, it's time to do something about it. You will not be swayed by any degree of evidence, so we dismiss you as the partisan hacks you are.

6/2/2007 4:19:59 PM

hey look, just what i said...like clockwork

6/2/2007 4:29:49 PM

Treetwista10

6/3/07

NEVER FORGET

[Edited on June 2, 2007 at 4:30 PM. Reason : .]

6/2/2007 4:30:43 PM

good job derailing meaningful action debate

also i'm glad you know that i'm a "partisan hack" even though i've never voted or given any money or service to any political party or organization...i guess if i wasnt a "partisan hack" and i was simply a skeptic, that entire possibility would completely blow your mind so much where you would just choose to dismiss that as being impossible...i'll bet in your mind "there is no debate" about whether or not i'm a partisan hack, because "there is no debate" that humans are causing catastrophic global warming

6/2/2007 4:32:41 PM

Well you can research the debate that has been going on for over 30 years now. All of your questions have been answered thousands of times before. You just choose not to accept the answers. Theres no use in starting from zero every single time people discuss global warming. It would be like having to argue with someone whether or not airplanes can overcome gravity every time you discuss aviation. We have passed the point where it would be reasonable to assume that any one discussing global warming would have at least a minimal understanding of the concepts at hand.

6/2/2007 6:13:42 PM

this thread topic is [new]

6/2/2007 6:22:44 PM

^the fact that this topic has been discussed so much and continues to be discussed should tell most people that its not as one-sided of an issue as they would like to believe

Quote :

"All of your questions have been answered thousands of times before. You just choose not to accept the answers"

or perhaps, when the questions are brought up, people use the "there is no debate" hardheaded reply and choose to ignore that? i put a question mark even though i know its rhetorical and obviously true

6/2/2007 6:38:35 PM

really? They've been studying this since the 60s? But I thought in the 70s people were freaking out about GLOBAL COOLING. where were these people then? Or, were they the ones screaming Chicken Little about global cooling? just curious...

set em up, btw

[Edited on June 2, 2007 at 9:24 PM. Reason : ]

6/2/2007 9:23:22 PM