Quote :

"Even if we all magically agreed tomorrow that humans are responsible for the warming in question, what could we actually do about it? We do have the ability to affect weather in a minor way, but we certainly cannot exert long-term control over the climate of the world. To think we could is sheer arrogance! "

there are at least two contradictions here

10/17/2006 1:19:19 AM

^ NB: Weather does not equal climate.

[Edited on October 17, 2006 at 2:55 AM. Reason : = No.]

10/17/2006 2:53:01 AM

PS: Affect in an intentional and a positive way. I think most people will get my meaning, by the way.

10/17/2006 2:58:44 AM

what we could do about it is slow down the trend of polluting more and more and more. and then eventually (with new technology etc) we may even be able to reverse the trend of forever increasing our impact on the environment.

10/17/2006 8:15:05 AM

^ May be able to affect.

10/17/2006 9:53:13 AM

Quote :

"sarijoul: there are natural oscillations in climate from year to year"

yet its absurd to think there are natural oscillations in climate for longer periods of time? like say for example the natural oscillation which is the slight rise in temperatures over the last 100 years?

10/17/2006 9:56:08 AM

that's wholly possible too. but your example doesn't really prove anything.

the point is: every scientist worth his salt can see a correlation between carbon dioxide levels and temperature.

now whether the temperature will rise above acceptable levels because of machine-produced carbon dioxide is not entirely clear. i personally think that if it doesn't have a big effect now, it probably will in the future if we keep increasing our output at the current pace.

[Edited on October 17, 2006 at 10:02 AM. Reason : .]

10/17/2006 10:00:34 AM

Quote :

"whether the temperature will rise above acceptable levels because of machine-produced carbon dioxide is not entirely clear"

congratulations...thats what ive been saying all along...glad to see you're coming around to science

10/17/2006 10:11:23 AM

The media is making a direct correlation between global warming and stronger hurricanes--particularly Katrina. In addition, they blame President Bush for global warming and in turn the hurricanes.

If this position is logical, shouldn't weaker hurricanes mean there is no connection or that the connection is not nearly as strong as was claimed by some? Under this model, such as it is, shouldn't Bush now get credit for the lack of serious hurricanes?

Hurricanes:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2006-09-11-warming-hurricanes_x.htm

Bush:
http://www.cnsnews.com/SpecialReports/archive/200412/SPE20041215a.html

But giving Bush any credit is just not fashionable--to hell with facts:

"The Bush administration in 2001 ordered pollution cuts from heavy-duty diesel engines and diesel fuel used in highway trucks and buses. This year it proposed requiring a 90 percent reduction in pollution from diesel-powered construction and other off-road equipment, starting with 2008 models." (Full article linked below.)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/23/tech/main589926.shtml

10/17/2006 10:44:26 AM

Quote :

"i've thought that the hurricane argument on either side is pretty much a red herring. hurricanes are uncommon enough and unpredictable enough that not much can be said for the limited data set that we have. average temperature on the whole is an entirely different story. we have plenty of data regarding global and localized weather trends."

10/17/2006 11:32:23 AM

Many of you are obviously unfamiliar with the Socratic method.

10/18/2006 12:11:20 AM

Quote :

"The 2006 hurricane season has--thankfully--been downgraded. Are Al Gore et al wrong about humans causing global warming?"

Doesn't mean that he or anyone else was wrong for trying to bring about accountability for human actions (or inactions) pertaining to the environment.

10/18/2006 7:22:27 AM

Doesn't mean he and others were right, either.

[Edited on October 18, 2006 at 7:27 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on October 18, 2006 at 7:40 PM. Reason : Word]

10/18/2006 7:27:05 PM

Alarmists, socialists, and those who wish to just stay in lock-step with the left are who we are talking about here. they arent right.

10/18/2006 7:50:47 PM

I think it has been said that refuting proof of global warming is the same as refuting proof of gravity. 99.9% of all scientists agree on it, its just a couple crackpot theorists at Bumfuck U. the oil companies have embraced to help protect their revenue stream, regardless of the consequences of their actions.

10/18/2006 7:58:13 PM

yeah, it's not like the UN doctored reports on global warming, attributing it to humans.
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/hot.htm

they might all agree that it is warming, they do NOT all agree that humans are the cause.

10/18/2006 8:02:59 PM

^^ Yeah, but are "99.9% of all scientists" in agreement that humans are causing global warming, Scuba Steve? And if they are, what can actually be done about it?

10/18/2006 8:22:12 PM

Randy and hooksaw, how did you two (or have you ever) come to the acceptance that CFCs were causing the depletion of the ozone layer. Some studies show that the ozone layer is being depleted and some "scientist" comes along and has the gaul to claim that humans are causing it. As a result CFCs are banned (at the cost to industry) and magically the ozone layer is getting better. So where were you to bitch and complain that it was just a ploy of the hippie left who hate capitalisim? Why couldn't you just chaulk it up to "natural processes" that were going to cause us to be baked by leathal amounts of radiation. Or was that just be sensationalized too?

10/19/2006 12:08:36 AM

Quote :

"magically the ozone layer is getting better"

^ Ha ha, wrong.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/enviro/EnviroRepublish_1449871.htm
The seasonal ozone hole over Antarctica has widened sharply this year, making it the biggest hole since 2000 and the third largest on record, says the European Space Agency (ESA).

10/19/2006 12:15:50 AM

^um...from your own article:

Quote :

"Global ozone layer But globally, it's a different story. Globally the decline in the ozone layer has slowed, US scientists show. But they say it will take decades to start recovering. The scientists say the 1997 Montreal Protocol, an international agreement to limit production of ozone-depleting chemicals, has apparently worked, but the damage to ozone has not been halted completely. An analysis of satellite records and surface monitoring instruments shows the ozone layer has grown a bit thicker in some parts of the world, but is still well below normal levels, the scientists report. Elsewhere, the decline in ozone levels has stabilised, says Dr Betsy Weatherhead, a researcher at the University of Colorado at Boulder and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "The observed changes may be evidence of ozone improvement in the atmosphere," she says. "

Nice try.

Like global warming, this is a slow process. People always seem to want to simplify these things, from Al Gore to the conservative reactionists, and say that it will happen in our lifetime. Not the case, but it is an issue, and it is happening, and we do need to do something about it for future generations. Not to mention, reducing emissions=cleaner air. I take it you opponents of emissions reductions have never been to Los Angeles, or even Atlanta (fastest growing smog in US, # in smog in the South) in recent years?

[Edited on October 19, 2006 at 12:34 AM. Reason : .]

10/19/2006 12:30:31 AM

It's okay. Because instead of addressing my real question the discussion is going to shift tracks over to the Ozone Layer. /sigh.

10/19/2006 12:32:20 AM

Well, if you can't win, just take your argument to the next point of bickering.

Notice how conservatives suddenly weren't all about this "OMG GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT REAL AND NOT CAUSED BY HUMANS IF IT IS REAL" until Mr. Lock Box started harping on it?

[Edited on October 19, 2006 at 12:38 AM. Reason : .]

10/19/2006 12:36:55 AM

Here's my original post. It seems that some people have forgotten it:

The 2006 hurricane season has--thankfully--been downgraded. Are Al Gore et al wrong about humans causing global warming?

http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/4294567.html

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/GlobalWarming/story?id=2110628&page=2

By the way, I remember a very different warning from scientists not that many years ago. The theory was presented on the TV show In Search Of, which was hosted by Leonard Nimoy, in an episode titled "The Coming Ice Age." You understand my confusion, of course.

http://movies2.nytimes.com/gst/movies/movie.html?v_id=24581

[Edited on October 19, 2006 at 1:27 AM. Reason : Italics]

10/19/2006 1:26:06 AM

So what's your point ultimately? We (humans) have not mastered the inner workings of the weather. Whoppty-do. It's the driving force to folks like me that makes me want to study weather. No one is going to argue that out understanding of both climotology and meso/macro meteorology improves day by day. The significance remains though to bring about awareness of humans' potential to affect or world and that we should be responsible for our actions. Just tossing our hand up and saying that tiny humans can't possibly change the big 'ol world is naive and dangerous.

10/19/2006 1:34:45 AM

^^^ Concerning "Mr. Lock Box," Al Gore has been getting A LOT of press for his alarmist movie and speeches. His positions should be examined.

[Edited on October 19, 2006 at 1:38 AM. Reason : ^]

10/19/2006 1:37:27 AM

The same thing could be said about W. and his alarmist speeches about Iraq prewar. Should his positions be open to the same level of questioning?

10/19/2006 1:56:11 AM

HockeyRoman

Quote :

"We (humans) have not mastered the inner workings of the weather."

That IS the goddamned point! Many--including "Mr. Lock Box"--are acting as if we have mastered our understanding of the weather. And the smartest people in the room, these masters, are telling anyone who will listen that global warming is definitely happening and it is definitely the fault of humans and that George Bush is mostly to blame. Well, I'm not buying that brand of baloney.

What are the reasons I'm not? For one, twenty-plus years ago the smartest people in the room were telling anyone that would listen the world was going be frozen soon. This Chicken Little approach, of course, fills the coffers of special interest groups like the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, the DNC, and others, and funds research grants for liberal scientists. In addition, such alarmism feeds the news cycles of mainstream media outlets that don't have to be right, they just have to be RIGHT NOW--and this story is tailor-made for their hyperbole and fear-mongering. The scientists were wrong in the '70s and I think they are wrong now about human effect on global climatic patterns.

If you can't understand my position now, perhaps you're not paying attention. Or maybe you just don't want to understand.

10/19/2006 2:08:03 AM

^^ Yes.

10/19/2006 2:08:31 AM

Sure, I understand your point, but you should also understand whos cofferes have been filled by the oil lobby to repeatedly refute any possibility that humans should be responsible for their actions.

10/19/2006 2:19:43 AM

^ President Bush supports "aggressive long-term investment in alternative fuels" and has throughout his administration:

http://www.nbb.org/resources/pressreleases/gen/20060425_bushrfasummit.pdf

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/05/17/politics/main291921.shtml

And the Democrats feed just as readily at the trough of campaign contributions. And their slop comes from many of the same sources:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/081300-03.htm

http://www.opensecrets.org/newsletter/ce73/industriesfull.asp



[Edited on October 19, 2006 at 3:48 AM. Reason : Image]

[Edited on October 19, 2006 at 3:49 AM. Reason : Image Red X]

10/19/2006 3:45:48 AM

Other and then the horrific Clear Skies Act what other environmental protection legislation has he introduced that hasn't put big oil and big industry first? He keeps wanting to drill ANWR (which is another horse that has been beaten). But let's face it. Bush is not a defender of the environment no matter how many empty speeches he gives.

10/19/2006 4:53:03 AM

^ The efforts to block oil drilling in ANWR are some of the biggest bullshit moves by liberals ever. The objection to drilling has much more to do with left-wing politics than any actual harm to or concern for the environment.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179005,00.html

10/19/2006 10:56:15 AM

^you keep posting the facts, they'll keep blasting it as biased and far-right.

10/19/2006 2:31:00 PM

^^story author: worker for the heritage foundation. completely unreferenced or supported. try again.

10/19/2006 2:36:10 PM

Are you a fool? Do you automatically think conservative sources just make up statistics like this b/c they're conservative sources? Do you have any real reason to believe that they do?

I want to pull myself away from this, but you people's stupidity brings me back in every time

10/19/2006 2:37:54 PM

there aren't any stats in that article. just blind claims without facts or sources to back them up (save the geographical areas of a few of the places mentioned.

10/19/2006 2:40:25 PM

Quote :

"The U.S. Department of Energy’s own Energy Information Administration predicts that Arctic Refuge drilling would reduce the price of gas by no more than a few pennies per gallon when it is at or near peak production twenty years down the road."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy

Why put efforts into knocking off a few more pennies when we could give tax breaks to companies developing and producing renewable/more efficient resources?

Oh, and by the way...the frontrunner for the GOP nomination in 2008? John McCain? He's a member of the Republicans for Environmental Awareness (with 3 other brave Senators). They oppose drilling in ANWR.


[Edited on October 19, 2006 at 3:42 PM. Reason : .]

10/19/2006 3:38:42 PM

^ Holy shit! I can sort of understand you not trusting Fox News, but do you actually consider Wikipedia.com to be a more reliable source? Un-fucking-believable!

This type of predictable response is the reason I usually don’t quote Fox News. Unfortunately, Chicken Noodle News et al just won’t cover certain stories and broadcast certain editorial positions if they don’t fit the left-wing paradigm. In any event, if I cited the most ironclad of sources, many of you Kool-Aid drinkers would reflexively dismiss the report as rubbish and the source as unreliable.

Drilling in ANWR is not the only answer to our country’s energy needs, but it could and should be a significant part of the answer. I have yet to hear of anyone finding a panacea for the energy problem. Furthermore, I have yet to see anyone disprove the points listed in the article at issue.

10/19/2006 7:32:14 PM

Drilling ANWR is not a solution this country's energy needs. Drilling ANWR is putting a band-aid on a gun shot wound.

10/19/2006 7:56:53 PM

That Faux News article was laughable at best. I would expect better from you. You want to apply a band-aid to and amputation at the expense to the environment? Fine, but please don't insult yourself and us by siting "myths".

^Get out of my brain!!

[Edited on October 19, 2006 at 8:01 PM. Reason : I swear I typed it before he did.]

10/19/2006 8:01:20 PM

^ Periods are placed inside closing quotation marks. ^ and ^^ And Band-Aids are known to stop some bleeding. If you have a real solution that will stop all of the figurative bleeding, let's hear it.

10/19/2006 9:43:42 PM

PS: The following quotations are from President Bush's May 17, 2001, energy policy speech:

Quote :

"The plan addresses all three key aspects of the energy equation: demand, supply and the means to match them. First, it reduces demand by promoting innovation and technology to make us the world leader in efficiency and conservation. Second, it expands and diversifies America's supply of all sources of energy — oil and gas, clean coal, solar, wind, biomass, hydropower and other renewables, as well as safe and clean nuclear power. Third and finally, the report outlines the ways to bring producers and consumers together by modernizing the networks of pipes and wires that link the power plant to the outlet on the wall. Our new energy plan begins with a 21st century focus on conservation. The American entrepreneurial system constantly invents ways to do more with less. We pack more and more computing power on to a chip. We cary more and more messages over a cable and we squeeze more and more power out of a barrel of oil or a cubic foot of natural gas. A new refrigerator you buy today, for example, uses 65 percent less electricity than one that was made 30 years ago. Overall, we use 40 percent less energy to produce new goods and services than we did in 1973. But this steady improvement slowed in the 1990s. Our energy plan will speed up progress on conservation where it has slowed and restart it where it has failed. It will underwrite research and development into energy-saving technology. It will require manufacturers to build more energy-efficient appliances. We will review and remove the obstacles that prevent business from investing in energy-efficient technologies like the combined heat and power system I toured this morning. Conservation does not mean doing without. Thanks to new technology, it can mean doing better and smarter and cheaper."

Quote :

"And Arctic sites like ANWR, we can build roads of ice that literally melt away when summer comes and the drilling then stops to protect wildlife. ANWR can produce 600,000 barrels of oil a day for the next 40 years. What difference does 600,000 barrels a day make? Well, that happens to be exactly the amount we import from Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

This is one hell of a large and comprehensive "Band-Aid," folks.

10/19/2006 9:59:08 PM

Quote :

"Holy shit! I can sort of understand you not trusting Fox News, but do you actually consider Wikipedia.com to be a more reliable source? Un-fucking-believable!"

christ, youre retarded. they cited their sources. you didnt even read the article, did you? The cited source was:

Quote :

"^ [3]Energy Information Administration. Impacts of Modeled Provisions of H.R. 6 EH: The Energy Policy Act of 2005"

Hmm...I think 2005 came more recently than 2001, but what do I know. We all know someone just made that up anyway.

I already know you're going to spin this over and over right back to your perspective, since after all you are the only one not "drinking the kool-aid" or "buying the liberal media" (among other cliches) you free-thinking genius, you.

I mean, if they can get the stuff out without harming anything, if it's more like Prudehoe Bay than one would think (based on LIBERAL MEDIA PROPAGANDA, I'm sure), then ok, go for it. If there is a risk that it will harm the existing reserve and its populations, then no. I'm a pragmatic as well as an evironmentalist (which, as we know, puts me in lock step with LIBERAL MEDIA KOOL AID PROPAGANDA FROM THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS).



[Edited on October 19, 2006 at 10:11 PM. Reason : .]

10/19/2006 10:04:18 PM

^ A typical left-wing response: When you don't like what you hear, the source is "stupid" or "retarded." Fuck off.

10/19/2006 10:09:40 PM

^i could say the same for you. what is your beef with the us energy info admin? is the same government that said drilling ANWR in 2001 was good in your quote there lying now? and i didnt call your source retarded, i called YOU retarded for not seeing that there was a legit source cited in the fucking article. i like how youve pained me as a "left-wing wacko" because i take the environmentalist side. you know who else is on my side? Lincoln Chafee, from my home state of Rhode Island. He's a Republican and a great Senator.

every time you have your shit blown up, you respond with a "fuck you". you have serious anger problems. youre goddam 40 years old, why are you on an internet message board telling a 21 year old to "fuck off"?


[Edited on October 19, 2006 at 10:17 PM. Reason : .]

10/19/2006 10:13:17 PM

I see a lot of words presented by W. but where is the substance? I was optomistic when I heard his State of the Union (think it was two years ago) where he talked about alternative fuels as well as missions back to the moon and even to Mars. But none of those have materialized. Should I dig up the conversation that lays out how little oil will be gathered and how long it would be before the oil is even flowing? Maybe less focus on blowing up (the wrong) brown people and some substantial investment into real alternatives from dead dinosaurs and Bush might regain his credibility on energy policy.

10/19/2006 10:17:05 PM

Quote :

"should I dig up the conversation that lays out how little oil will be gathered and how long it would be before the oil is even flowing?"

i posted that and he said it was bullshit b/c the source you speak of was used in a wikipedia article.

10/19/2006 10:19:34 PM

Yes, despite the original source, Wikipedia.com pages can be manipulated by anyone--unless the area has been locked. When I referred to "source," I meant any source: me, the article, and so on.

Concerning my age, what the fuck does that have to do with anything? Your ageism is noted well, and it is typical of many twentysomethings I have encountered. I find it questionable that such a vast repository of knowledge is contained in the age range from 20 to 29, as SO many of you continually purport.

I have never had my "shit blown up" on TWW, as you put it. On the contrary, like your heroes Bill Clinton, Al Franken, and many other liberals, when YOU are confronted with strong evidence of something, you pop a stitch and call others "retards" or some such. Stop calling me names, MOTHERFUCKER! And I'll return the courtesy.

10/19/2006 10:40:04 PM

PS: Left-wing ideology is really selling like hotcakes:

Air America Radio Goes Bankrupt

http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_286154346.html

10/19/2006 10:52:09 PM

NPR going strong in the triangle. and it's far smarter commentary and programming than air america ever was.

10/19/2006 11:21:11 PM