I'll add to this: Global Warming isn't fake because it has happened, it can happen naturally. But the earth is slow, it takes millions of years for major changes to happen. That's why ice core samples have shown that for thousands of years, the level of CO2 on earth had been pretty constant, the level that has been very good to us humans. Since the industrial revolution, the amount of CO2 has increased by over 30%.
going nuts about a 50-100 year climate change on a planet that's been around for billions+ years doesn't seem terribly statistically significant. I'd rather be focusing on chemical/metal processing plants that poison our air/food/water with things far more dangerous than greenhouse gases.
Water absorbs CO2. Oceans suck it up and it's acidity gets higher. If it gets high enough, fish and other marine life start dying and coral starts dissolving. Not so good stuff.
Could the rampant dumping of mercury/heavy metals and other industrial waste into our water also be a leading contributor to the death and mutation of numerous marine creatures?
Dear Sam, I have no idea about GW, no expertise, but if the credentials listed in the OP are acturate I am willing to accept their views at the table of reasonable discussion. That's all.
I'd rather not have an argument about the argument or about the metaphors you've applied to the discussion. If you have something to add of substance, that would be swell.
We tend to think of the ocean as self healing or on an unimaginably large scale. If there were 200 million trillion gallons of water in the ocean, local pollution will affect the surrounding waters, maybe kill off most life for a certain radius, but once the pollution stops, it can start healing again. CO2 circulation works on a global scale and there are several incalculable feedback mechanisms that play into the final number. But that final number is an average, and ocean acidity is an average.... In short: Solid industrial waste in oceans are mostly local pollutants because its effects are normally seen instantly and the amount of waste is proportionately small Gaseous waste are global pollutants because its effects are seen long term because it takes a large amount of waste to accumulate to a tipping point.
1. it was on drudgereport this morning 2. i'm all about finding out why these guys on this report are either misquoted, paid off, or whack jobs. if you learn of that, please share it.
this is where i am, exactly. and there's equally impressive resumes on the other side of the discussion as well. again..if they're paid off or they're influeneced in some other way that makes their voice less credible, i'm interested.
Tyrant! Hear, Hear! So the best you can come up with is the age old "everything in moderation is better"? Seriously you guys want everybody to change the way they live, eat, drive and work all because you think all this human interaction could lead to destruction of this planet. Some of you keep pointing at the free market enterprises such as Exxon Mobil as they evildoers in this world but don't have any idea of the horrors this green scare will do to American industries like mining, energy, chemical processing and even the automobile industry which is already on its last leg. This kind of authoritarian regulation whether from Washington or from the UN, can only lead to the destruction of business in this country. You think 7% employment is severe wait till you see when the coal and oil industry go bankrupt. Maybe then you will be satisfied with this experiment of global warming. Go look at the Kyoto travesty and see how many countries actually followed that stuff. Nobody in their right mind supports this stuff cause its counterproductive to growth especially in industrial nations. China keeps cranking out new coal plants every day.
^It appears rich nations agree with you... Rich nations plan "great escape" on climate: China http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersEdge/idUSTRE4B92UV20081210?sp=true By Gabriela Baczynska and Gerard Wynn POZNAN, Poland (Reuters) - Some rich countries are planning a "great escape" from promises to fight climate change as recession bites and a deadline nears to agree a new treaty, China's climate ambassador Yu Qingtai told Reuters on Wednesday. "The only conclusion many people like me are drawing is that some (rich) countries are preparing for the great escape from Copenhagen," Yu said in an interview. His comments underlined concerns that U.N.-led climate global negotiations in Poznan, Poland, are treading water as many delegates and observers question the chance of agreeing a comprehensive treaty as planned in Copenhagen next year. Developing countries complain that rich states, most to blame for global warming, cannot even agree a range of emissions cuts nor specific funding to help the South to prepare for climate change, as promised under earlier conventions. Representatives from some 190 countries are meeting in Poland to push talks aimed at clinching agreement on a new climate pact by the end of next year, to replace the Kyoto Protocol after 2012. It was increasingly doubtful that agreement was achievable next December as a timeline narrowed toward that meeting, Yu said. Most agreement had to be reached by June because of U.N. rules demanding a further six months to fine-tune, he added. A year ago, the world signed up for a two-year push to agree in Copenhagen a comprehensive new climate treaty to run as of 2013 called a second commitment period. "The closer we get to Copenhagen the more pessimistic I get," Yu said. "The most urgent decision is that the developed, rich countries set targets for the second commitment period." "A year has passed and we haven't even started to talk about it. There's strong resistance even on a range let alone country-specific targets," he added. U.N. climate chief Yvo de Boer said on Tuesday that he did not expect the Poznan talks to agree any specific emissions reduction targets. FINANCING, TECHNOLOGY China also wants specific commitments on funding to help developing nations prepare for global warming and clean up their own act, and has suggested annual contributions equaling 1 percent of the national wealth of rich countries. "It's an idea on the table to emphasize what's needed," Yu said. "The (1992) convention on climate change talks about the need for additional finance. So far we have not seen meaningful movement on this." "Without meaningful progress on these issues the whole process will get stuck." Yu would not comment specifically on goals which U.S. President-elect Barack Obama called for during his campaign, to bring U.S. greenhouse gases down to 1990 levels by 2020 and cut them by 80 percent by 2050. "We look forward to see a new administration more prepared to take action," he said, and called for urgent steps. "We have this saying in China 'A journey of a 1,000 miles starts with taking the first step'. And I think it's equally true for fighting climate change." (Editing by Michael Roddy)
How many times are we going to have to hear about some miniscule group of folks (probably with interesting connections and/or scientific backgrounds) who disagree with the overwhelming consensus on global warming? It's 1) really lame 2) disengenuous 3) sad
You might want to thoroughly check out this website: Global Warming Here is a letter of introduction- Letter from Frederick Seitz Research Review of Global Warming Evidence Enclosed is a twelve-page review of information on the subject of "global warming," a petition in the form of a reply card, and a return envelope. Please consider these materials carefully. The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds. This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful. The proposed agreement would have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world, especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries. It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice. We urge you to sign and return the petition card. If you would like more cards for use by your colleagues, these will be sent. Frederick Seitz Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. President Emeritus, Rockefeller University Paper: Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide MadMax, SamFisher- interesting site.
I was going to use an analogy involving used toilet paper as the foundation the Oregon Petition was built upon, but decided better against it... http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine
I hate having my motives questioned when I start a thread. I don't pretend to have all truth. I don't pretend to be smarter than the people on either side of these discussions.
yes.....um, should that even be a question? If someone came out and said picking your nose leads to brain cancer and death, and a bunch of research is done, showing that picking your nose does actually lead to brain cancer, wouldn't you not ever pick your nose? what if a very small percentage of people said they were nose-picking experts and that the research is wrong, and that there is no problem with nose picking? would you then go back to picking your nose? what if that percentage of "non-believers" of the nose-picking scare was actually larger, say 30%-40%, and that of that 30%-40% you had some actual nose doctors and real scientists? would you then go back to picking your nose? what if that percentage of "non-believers" of the nose-picking scare was even larger than that, even a majority, say 60%-70%, and that of that 60%-70% you had some actual nose doctors, real scientists and validated research showing there are plenty of people out there who pick their nose and have no problems? would you then go back to picking your nose? of course not. even a minor chance of something of that level of destruction would make you change your habits...ESPECIALLY considering that picking your nose is a disgusting habit. Not only should you not do it anyway, doing it could potentially lead to your immediate death...even if that probability is low, why would you do it? of course, no comparison is perfect. you could argue that it is relatively easy to stop picking your nose and not doing so doesn't lead to any serious economic or lifestyle changes. true, and maybe if the dissenting view was closer to that last scenario above, then you would stop and reconsider. but it's not. so, yes, instead of waiting to find out if that small portion of the population, backed by an even smaller portion of scientists, backed by an even smaller portion of scientists even remotely associated with this field, backed by even a smaller portion of scientists who are experts specifically in climate change, are right and humans aren't the problem, I'd rather everybody change the way they live, eat, drive and work because there is a possibility (and in this case, a likelihood), the human interaction could lead to destruction of the planet. And the good news. If approached, handled, and managed correctly now, even as some industries struggle, new ones will be created, new jobs will arise, new technologies will be invented, and overall improvements to the way we live will come out of that change, too. THIS MESSAGE BROUGHT TO YOU BY HANP: HUMANITY AGAINST NOSE-PICKERS
My friend is in the environmental science industry and he told me that anyone who is young enough and plans to live a long time better eat all of the cheap fruit they like now. Food, water and anything that needs a bunch of water to grow is gonna be expensive.
