Global Warming

Airwaves · 06-25-2006, 07:27 PM

As I stated, I am not going to write anything that will change your mind, not with the attitude that you "take the research with a grain of salt" or, "Scientists have an agenda" (yep, funding is an issue but if the scientists are wrong, then their reputation and future funding sources instantly dry up, that's generally known as peer review). Or, my favorite, "Most scientists do not agree with the research". Those would be the " most scientists" who still believe smoking does not cause lung cancer? (now whose funding source is in question?)

It appears that you folks who believe everything is just fine, find a few scientists who disagree that the earth is subject to global warming and that that the majority of the global warming has occurred based on what "we" have done in the 20th century, so it must be so...

So scientific resarch isn't to be trusted, media reports on that scientific research isn't to be trusted, but God bless the politicians (scientists all!) who have kept us on the straight and narrow and away from Kyoto! (BTW, the US Govt is a major scientific funding source as well).

One day, your kids will thank you.

edit:
Don't know how to show you how I edited my post, Here are the edits
(that's generally known as peer review) and
"God bless the politicians (scientists all!)"

Great Idea · 06-26-2006, 11:33 AM

Weekend Pundit.... you reference McKitrick's articles as others supporting your opinion have on this post. You speak of FUNDING? Guess who has paid for all of his "research" and "articles"? The COAL and OIL industry. Internal documents and emails published from the oil/coal industry lobbyists admit to such studies and articles done to create "confusion" and doubt regarding the theories of global warming.

The hockey stick is very relavent data. In only several other periods over the last many thousands of years have steeper spikes been seen in increased temperature as we have seen in the last 140 years. (YES , these temperatures can be accurately measured scientifically via ice cores, tree rings and tree fossils as well as sediment layers) In either case it involved a CATASTROPHIC event. Volcanoes and meterors were the culprits. So why such a steep increase and dramatic change in such a SHORT amount of time? What is the catastrophic event this time? ( Yes 140 years is VERY short) CO2 and green house gases are clearly contributing to the dramactic changes we are all witnessing around us. The evidence that fossil fuels is contributing to this are overwhelming.

The final flaw and myth in your arguement is that scientists don't agree. Over 80 percent of the scientific community is in AGREEMENT regarding global warming and as to its root causes. Go to all the major research foundations and communities in the world and verify this for yourself. Only a few stand against the tide .... like McKitrick..... who along with most of his peers are paid lobbyists working for the fossil fuel industry. This isn't liberal noise.....

My final observation although not scientific should stir some consideration among skeptics....... just look around you! Do you really think all this drought then rain/flooding is normal?? 23 inches of rain since MAY1... we normally get 6 or 7. Just look at the flooding this spring, last fall as well as the hurricanes last season....... whats your gut tell you? Sure it happens once in a while but not every few months like it is now. My gut tells me that we need to start paying attention to what our earth/environment is trying to tell us...... something is "OFF" with our climate and we are contributing to it. AND we need to do EVERYTHING in our power to try and change it.

Weekend Pundit · 06-26-2006, 04:42 PM

Airwaves: I haven't said that I disagree that global warming, or rather, global climate change is occuring. Rather, I am disagreeing with the stated cause. Climate changes all the time. Anyone that believes the climate has always been like it has been over the last few decades is deluded or misinformed.

To hear some tell it, all climate change everywhere is our fault. This includes many of the same scientists that so many hold in such high regard, even though their theories, their computer models, and so on, haven't been able to predict what will happen next year, let alone 100 years in the future. That makes it all suspect.

Great Idea: In regards to funding, where do you think the scientists who say all global climate change is human-caused get their funding? I think you'll find that quite a bit of it comes from organizations, governmental agencies, or corporations that have a lot to gain should that be the case. The vested interest door swings both ways.

Great Idea · 06-26-2006, 05:18 PM

BUT not this fast without a direct cause. No one is disputing that is changes .... just as to the RATE at which it changes. Only drastic influences cause such dramatic changes in such a short period of time..... ie huge volcanic eruptions, meteors OR IN THIS CASE MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF CO2 EMMISSIONS THAT ARE MAN MADE...... As for who funds these so called "liberal" studies? You can look at all the different scientific groups that support these claims and there is a VAST array of sources and governments funding the data. Much of it comes from our own government. Many of these climate studies are continuously funded NO MATTER what the conclusions and unfortunately the funding hasn't increased with these findings at all. Many of the universities and NASA which is measuring this data is doing so much the way they always have. Are they now making it up to get .... what? Unlike the "science" you quote that gets paid directly fees to "testify" and contradict the facts for a fee. Most of the world's science supporting these conclusions don't have any agenda or benefit from such findings, unfortunely they just have environmental problems that need solutions.

Unlike your quoted sources that have a huge agenda called MONEY.

Heres some food for thought Weekend Pundit...... if your I am wrong and you are correct and we follow the majority of the available scientific data now available supporting global warming/CO2 we just end up with a cleaner environment and some much needed new industry...... IF you are wrong and I am right yet we continue to do little and nothing, keep the status quo of fossil fuel waste (your way) and the results are catastrophic environmental damage and possibly worse......... which side of that equation do you really want to be on??? Lets play it safe and clean up our act so that our children and future generations will look back and be proud of what we accomplished.

SIKSUKR · 06-27-2006, 08:16 AM

I love all this talk about CO2 emmisions causing global warming.Now tell us how you would change this short of going back to the stone age.Any ideas that help help reduce emmisions are worth exploring and we have already made great strides since the 70's,but to think we can switch away from fossil fuels with the snap of a finger is very niave.The developing countries would almost certainly not go along with these drastic changes and we have to be competitive in the world market.The one good thing about high oil prices is it makes other energy sources more competitive and in turn can spurn the growth towards alternative energy.There is nothing wrong about exploring other energy sources that will be clean burning or zero emmisions but were not prepared to switch over.I would love to see the US have zero dependence on oil if for nothing else,not being under the thumb of the big oil producing middle east.We are heading in the right direction,just don't let the chicken little scare tactics shape our society.

ApS · 06-27-2006, 08:48 AM

Slowly and imperceptably: There will be more algae and milfoil growth, more exotic plants and creatures, water temperatures will creep upwards and more boaters, tourists, and swimmers will cavort in its warmer waters. Residents will add air conditioners to their homes, camps, and trucks.

It also appears that those who reject Global Warming are "invested" in the belief that it's not happening; for example, I've never owned a car, boat, or anything with more than an economical four cylinder engine. I have no trouble realizing that the world is a warmer place.

On the other hand, a respondant with one or more road vehicles with V-8s (or greater) and/or with boats with 1 (2, or even 3) V-8 engines are heavily invested in the belief that Global Warming must not affect their chosen life style pursuit, and therefore a carefully-considered response to the concept will be clouded.

More Reading:
Here's a piece on Greenland's icecap: While it's written sensationally for this particular newspaper's subscribers (i.e., sea levels to rise 21 feet, but doesn't state that ALL of Greenland's ice must melt for that to happen), it does give incite into the personal effort that scientists must go through to make such Global Warming determinations .

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...ge=4&track=rss

Great Idea · 06-28-2006, 01:35 PM

The REAL "HYPE" that exists comes from the oil industry saying there is a
" lack" of options/technology or it will be "too expensive" or painful to covert to other fuel sources......although challenging the options are numerous.

http://autos.msn.com/as/minishow/art...s=bibendum2006

Airwaves · 06-29-2006, 09:50 PM

There are alternatives to fosile fuels. The problem really isn't research and development, it's distribution!

The Oil companies have things locked up nicely. Otherwise we could seriously look at things like Hydrogen and electric vehicles to replace gasoline driving autos.

Without a distribution network all the research and development in the world that comes up with alternative sources of energy will be for naught.

The introduction of a distribution network for hydrogen/electric or other sources of energy that can be (and eventually will be) produced in the U-S will reduce the importation for foreign oil and all that such importation means.

This is not the proper forum to go "political" but if the US Government wanted to facilitate these "alternative" sources, they would by forcing the creation of a distribution network, much like they tried to do with telephone services when Ma Bell was deemed to be a monopoly.

How do you reduce greenhouse gasses....did I mention the development of a solid, realistic distribution network?

ITD · 06-30-2006, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airwaves

There are alternatives to fosile fuels. The problem really isn't research and development, it's distribution!

The Oil companies have things locked up nicely. Otherwise we could seriously look at things like Hydrogen and electric vehicles to replace gasoline driving autos.

Without a distribution network all the research and development in the world that comes up with alternative sources of energy will be for naught.

The introduction of a distribution network for hydrogen/electric or other sources of energy that can be (and eventually will be) produced in the U-S will reduce the importation for foreign oil and all that such importation means.

This is not the proper forum to go "political" but if the US Government wanted to facilitate these "alternative" sources, they would by forcing the creation of a distribution network, much like they tried to do with telephone services when Ma Bell was deemed to be a monopoly.

How do you reduce greenhouse gasses....did I mention the development of a solid, realistic distribution network?

If hydrogen were readily available for use as a fuel, a distribution system would quickly be developed.

Hydrogen is not readily available in nature, it is always combined with something else. The processes that currently produce hydrogen use more energy than the collected hydrogen will produce. Those processes use mostly energy derived from fossil fuels. There is a professor from U Lowell who feels hydrogen can be economically produced using nuclear energy, he is probably right but nuclear power has its own political problems.

Hydrogen is also very unstable (Hindenberg) and very difficult to store due to high pressure required and small molecule size. Gasoline is much more stable and exists as a liquid at room temperature.

If an economically viable source for hydrogen becomes available, you will see it take over oil as an energy source. There is nothing the "scary and omnipotent" oil companies will be able to do about it. Developing a distribution system before that source is available is like putting the cart before the horse, it doesn't make sense.

06-25-2006, 07:27 PM	#1
Airwaves Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: I'm right here! Posts: 1,153 Thanks: 9 Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts	As I stated, I am not going to write anything that will change your mind, not with the attitude that you "take the research with a grain of salt" or, "Scientists have an agenda" (yep, funding is an issue but if the scientists are wrong, then their reputation and future funding sources instantly dry up, that's generally known as peer review). Or, my favorite, "Most scientists do not agree with the research". Those would be the " most scientists" who still believe smoking does not cause lung cancer? (now whose funding source is in question?) It appears that you folks who believe everything is just fine, find a few scientists who disagree that the earth is subject to global warming and that that the majority of the global warming has occurred based on what "we" have done in the 20th century, so it must be so... So scientific resarch isn't to be trusted, media reports on that scientific research isn't to be trusted, but God bless the politicians (scientists all!) who have kept us on the straight and narrow and away from Kyoto! (BTW, the US Govt is a major scientific funding source as well). One day, your kids will thank you. edit: Don't know how to show you how I edited my post, Here are the edits (that's generally known as peer review) and "God bless the politicians (scientists all!)" Last edited by Airwaves; 06-25-2006 at 10:57 PM.

06-26-2006, 11:33 AM	#2
Great Idea Member Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 38 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Lets look at some FACTS..... Weekend Pundit.... you reference McKitrick's articles as others supporting your opinion have on this post. You speak of FUNDING? Guess who has paid for all of his "research" and "articles"? The COAL and OIL industry. Internal documents and emails published from the oil/coal industry lobbyists admit to such studies and articles done to create "confusion" and doubt regarding the theories of global warming. The hockey stick is very relavent data. In only several other periods over the last many thousands of years have steeper spikes been seen in increased temperature as we have seen in the last 140 years. (YES , these temperatures can be accurately measured scientifically via ice cores, tree rings and tree fossils as well as sediment layers) In either case it involved a CATASTROPHIC event. Volcanoes and meterors were the culprits. So why such a steep increase and dramatic change in such a SHORT amount of time? What is the catastrophic event this time? ( Yes 140 years is VERY short) CO2 and green house gases are clearly contributing to the dramactic changes we are all witnessing around us. The evidence that fossil fuels is contributing to this are overwhelming. The final flaw and myth in your arguement is that scientists don't agree. Over 80 percent of the scientific community is in AGREEMENT regarding global warming and as to its root causes. Go to all the major research foundations and communities in the world and verify this for yourself. Only a few stand against the tide .... like McKitrick..... who along with most of his peers are paid lobbyists working for the fossil fuel industry. This isn't liberal noise..... My final observation although not scientific should stir some consideration among skeptics....... just look around you! Do you really think all this drought then rain/flooding is normal?? 23 inches of rain since MAY1... we normally get 6 or 7. Just look at the flooding this spring, last fall as well as the hurricanes last season....... whats your gut tell you? Sure it happens once in a while but not every few months like it is now. My gut tells me that we need to start paying attention to what our earth/environment is trying to tell us...... something is "OFF" with our climate and we are contributing to it. AND we need to do EVERYTHING in our power to try and change it.

06-26-2006, 05:18 PM	#4
Great Idea Member Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 38 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Is has happened before .... BUT not this fast without a direct cause. No one is disputing that is changes .... just as to the RATE at which it changes. Only drastic influences cause such dramatic changes in such a short period of time..... ie huge volcanic eruptions, meteors OR IN THIS CASE MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF CO2 EMMISSIONS THAT ARE MAN MADE...... As for who funds these so called "liberal" studies? You can look at all the different scientific groups that support these claims and there is a VAST array of sources and governments funding the data. Much of it comes from our own government. Many of these climate studies are continuously funded NO MATTER what the conclusions and unfortunately the funding hasn't increased with these findings at all. Many of the universities and NASA which is measuring this data is doing so much the way they always have. Are they now making it up to get .... what? Unlike the "science" you quote that gets paid directly fees to "testify" and contradict the facts for a fee. Most of the world's science supporting these conclusions don't have any agenda or benefit from such findings, unfortunely they just have environmental problems that need solutions. Unlike your quoted sources that have a huge agenda called MONEY. Heres some food for thought Weekend Pundit...... if your I am wrong and you are correct and we follow the majority of the available scientific data now available supporting global warming/CO2 we just end up with a cleaner environment and some much needed new industry...... IF you are wrong and I am right yet we continue to do little and nothing, keep the status quo of fossil fuel waste (your way) and the results are catastrophic environmental damage and possibly worse......... which side of that equation do you really want to be on??? Lets play it safe and clean up our act so that our children and future generations will look back and be proud of what we accomplished.

06-27-2006, 08:16 AM	#5
SIKSUKR Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 5,075 Thanks: 215 Thanked 903 Times in 509 Posts	Let's hear a solution. I love all this talk about CO2 emmisions causing global warming.Now tell us how you would change this short of going back to the stone age.Any ideas that help help reduce emmisions are worth exploring and we have already made great strides since the 70's,but to think we can switch away from fossil fuels with the snap of a finger is very niave.The developing countries would almost certainly not go along with these drastic changes and we have to be competitive in the world market.The one good thing about high oil prices is it makes other energy sources more competitive and in turn can spurn the growth towards alternative energy.There is nothing wrong about exploring other energy sources that will be clean burning or zero emmisions but were not prepared to switch over.I would love to see the US have zero dependence on oil if for nothing else,not being under the thumb of the big oil producing middle east.We are heading in the right direction,just don't let the chicken little scare tactics shape our society. __________________ SIKSUKR

06-27-2006, 08:48 AM	#6
ApS Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Florida (Sebring & Keys), Wolfeboro Posts: 5,938 Thanks: 2,205 Thanked 776 Times in 553 Posts	But How is Global Warming Affecting Lake WInnipesaukee? Slowly and imperceptably: There will be more algae and milfoil growth, more exotic plants and creatures, water temperatures will creep upwards and more boaters, tourists, and swimmers will cavort in its warmer waters. Residents will add air conditioners to their homes, camps, and trucks. It also appears that those who reject Global Warming are "invested" in the belief that it's not happening; for example, I've never owned a car, boat, or anything with more than an economical four cylinder engine. I have no trouble realizing that the world is a warmer place. On the other hand, a respondant with one or more road vehicles with V-8s (or greater) and/or with boats with 1 (2, or even 3) V-8 engines are heavily invested in the belief that Global Warming must not affect their chosen life style pursuit, and therefore a carefully-considered response to the concept will be clouded. More Reading: Here's a piece on Greenland's icecap: While it's written sensationally for this particular newspaper's subscribers (i.e., sea levels to rise 21 feet, but doesn't state that ALL of Greenland's ice must melt for that to happen), it does give incite into the personal effort that scientists must go through to make such Global Warming determinations . http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...ge=4&track=rss

06-26-2006, 04:42 PM	#3
Weekend Pundit Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Gilford Posts: 347 Thanks: 26 Thanked 69 Times in 42 Posts	Airwaves: I haven't said that I disagree that global warming, or rather, global climate change is occuring. Rather, I am disagreeing with the stated cause. Climate changes all the time. Anyone that believes the climate has always been like it has been over the last few decades is deluded or misinformed. To hear some tell it, all climate change everywhere is our fault. This includes many of the same scientists that so many hold in such high regard, even though their theories, their computer models, and so on, haven't been able to predict what will happen next year, let alone 100 years in the future. That makes it all suspect. Great Idea: In regards to funding, where do you think the scientists who say all global climate change is human-caused get their funding? I think you'll find that quite a bit of it comes from organizations, governmental agencies, or corporations that have a lot to gain should that be the case. The vested interest door swings both ways.

06-28-2006, 01:35 PM	#7
Great Idea Member Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 38 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Solutions/answers are everywhere!! The REAL "HYPE" that exists comes from the oil industry saying there is a " lack" of options/technology or it will be "too expensive" or painful to covert to other fuel sources......although challenging the options are numerous. http://autos.msn.com/as/minishow/art...s=bibendum2006

06-29-2006, 09:50 PM	#8
Airwaves Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: I'm right here! Posts: 1,153 Thanks: 9 Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts	There are alternatives to fosile fuels. The problem really isn't research and development, it's distribution! The Oil companies have things locked up nicely. Otherwise we could seriously look at things like Hydrogen and electric vehicles to replace gasoline driving autos. Without a distribution network all the research and development in the world that comes up with alternative sources of energy will be for naught. The introduction of a distribution network for hydrogen/electric or other sources of energy that can be (and eventually will be) produced in the U-S will reduce the importation for foreign oil and all that such importation means. This is not the proper forum to go "political" but if the US Government wanted to facilitate these "alternative" sources, they would by forcing the creation of a distribution network, much like they tried to do with telephone services when Ma Bell was deemed to be a monopoly. How do you reduce greenhouse gasses....did I mention the development of a solid, realistic distribution network?