CO2 and climate change-Really ?¿

[OneWithWood]

I yield.  Bring on the nukes and let's quit farting around.   :D

[Fla._Deadheader]

 

Posted by: OneWithWood
Insert Quote
I yield.  Bring on the nukes and let's quit farting around.

  Has anyone been watching the Discovery Channel, with all their facts about a guy named Khan, that developed a way to use Uranium to make a Bomb, using centrifuges ???  No need to make Enriched Uranium, anymore. It's a REAL shortcut to bomb making.  :

  There have been thousands of these Centrifuges made and sold or traded. Hussein was supposed to have gotten them. That's ONE reason he's gone.

  Libya has the bomb. Pakistan and India have the bomb. North Korea is a prime suspect ???There is evidence that MOST of the middle east countries have the bomb, just not talking about it ???

  Israel has the Bomb. Rumors are, the Saudis have the means to make the Bomb.

  Won't have to worry much longer about Global Warming  : : :

[Don P]

But, historically, 2 generations after the war, the population is past the pre war level. If there's one thing we do well, its make more of us. Course we have ways of making big war that we've not tried on any scale before.   

[Tom]

Pick a place on the time scale above and I'll bet somebody could get us there.  :D

[Fla._Deadheader]

Here's the info y'all have been looking for. Just found this on Yahoo news.

But the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N.-sponsored group, says global warming caused by humans has led to an increase in stronger hurricanes.

[OneWithWood]

It definately has lead to an increase in hot air!  :D

[Tom]

Did someone call me?   :D

[Cedarman]

I am watching China as the source of an explosion of some sort.  With their rule of one child only and most of them wanting a male, there will be an over supply of men. This will lead to an especially unstable society.  How do they get rid of all these men?
It has already been suggested. 

[Ron Wenrich]

The one child policy will lead to labor shortages in the near future.  The expansive growth that you have been seeing is unsustainable.  Fewer workers will mean higher wages and higher priced goods.

I talked to a guy yesterday that has made trips to Uganda.  He says the Chinese are there building big dams and using it for hydroelectricity.  Wonder what they're up to.  Could it be that are grooming 3rd world countries for their cheap labor?  Just a thought.

[DanG]

China want's to trump our "only Superpower" status by becoming the "only Megapower."  I personally don't think they'll make it, but I won't be here to see if I'm right.  I applaud their effort to get their population under control, though.  Even if their plan is flawed, they were in that old position of, "We gotta do SOMETHING, even if it's wrong!"

On this side of the big salty pond, we keep pumping billions of $ into fertility research. ??? :  For cryin' out loud, we wouldn't even be having this discussion if it were not for the fact that we already have too many people!  Folks have got to get away from this mentality that puts procreation on a pedestal as the ultimate means to personal gratification.  What's the big deal here?  I can tell you this;  I am every kind of Pappy that a Pappy can be.  I got one natural child, one adopted child, and 5 stepchildren.  From those, I have 5 natural Grandkids, plus one from the adopted guy, plus 8.7 from the step-bunch, plus one GGkid, also from the steps.  I'm da Pappy of all Pappies!  I can also tell you this;  Every one of those kids is just as special, and just as aggravating, as if they all came from the same place!  You don't have to reproduce your own genes to get satisfaction out of raising a kid.  You can get that satisfaction out of raising a kid that needs a home and a family.  Heck, I know plenty of people that shouldn't have even considered reproducing themselves.  There are some gene pools that need draining!  In my always humble opinion, we should offer a tax deduction for the first child, none for the second, and a penalty for all after that.  Maybe if we put it in monetary terms, folks would look at it differently.

[Bill]

DanG - so I guess I know how you feel about paying people to have more kids  ;D

For the whole fuel ( esp fossil ? ? ? ) issue - I like to think of it like a bunch of trees - you can cut some down but sooner or later someone's gonna have to plant some for the next guy ( grandchild ? ) to cut and near as I can recall it takes awhile to grow a gallon of unleaded. Now I'm in the diesel camp - I like that Rudolph Diesel designed his engines to run on peanut oil so farmers wouldn't need nasty old businessmen. Course someone's already said iffen we could grow it they'd find a way to outlaw or tax it to death.

Interesting stuff about hydrogen - h2 + o = energy and h2o. Split h2o and you get back h2 and o to start over - oh if it were so easy.

[metalspinner]

There are some gene pools that need draining!  In my always humble opinion, we should offer a tax deduction for the first child, none for the second, and a penalty for all after that.

:D :D :D  That's one of the funniest things I've heard in a while.

[logwalker]

Mr Gore is flying back to Stockholm in a private jet to receive his Nobel Political Peace Prize. He will burn more fuel on the trip than I use in a year.

[Furby]

But you aren't as important as he is, what do you expect?

[jim king]

I too beleive in global warming as without it North America would still be under a glacier. I think what irritates everyone is the fact that so many people have taken a natural occuring phenomenon which has been going on for at least millions or billions of years and turning it into a mocked up crises which they claim to have control over by raising money for a solution. Reading that possibly the earth has warmed six tenths of one degree over the last 100 years assuming that the thermometers 100 years ago were as accurate as today I dont think I have to worry about my Great Grandchildren overheating.

It is as if nobody had a science class in school. We were all taught that there have been several glacial periods that covered many parts of the world and the dinasaur fossils found in the Western deserts of the US lived there when it was tropical and the same goes for the new dinasaur finds in what is now freezing cold Patagonia on the tip of South America.

Here are a couple of easy to read and seem to be quite unbiased links concerning our history. I am afraid that as important as some people apparantly think they are the cycles will continue.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ice/chill.html

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[cantcutter]

Something is changing.... I was born in a converted Ice House that my great grandparents owned. The "Ice Pond" next to it has not froze in my life time and apparently used to every year.

[Geoff Kegerreis]

I too beleive in global warming as without it North America would still be under a glacier. I think what irritates everyone is the fact that so many people have taken a natural occuring phenomenon which has been going on for at least millions or billions of years and turning it into a mocked up crises which they claim to have control over by raising money for a solution.

Your man Al Gore has made a ton of money off of this sort of scam and was about to make more on it until the skeptics made their cases mainstream.  His movie sucked and he gets the emmy for that - and then the Nobel peace prize for crusading this big critical effort (never mind that the figures he used in his movie have already been proven inaccurate).  All this hype for a ridiculous process that was around long before any of us were and will be around well after any of us are.


I get all this "carbon credit" junk in my e-mail box, invitations to meetings that are going to cost me $400, etc...what a bunch of nonsense.  None of them are worth a penny.

The bottom line, and I've been stating this for at least 5 years on the usenet and other forums is that it's mostly fabricated scare tactics to fool the wealthy out of their money so that researchers can get paid.  Period...and it's working.

[cantcutter]

So why would anybody care or believe that global warming is a scam? If it is as you say that Al is just scaring the rich out of their money to pay research scientist why would you care? Are you rich or a research scientist?

The bottom line is that it is a calculated scientific fact that we are dumping more CO2 into the environment than the environment can handle..... They could call it cotton candy if they wanted too......it doesn't change the fact that it is having an impact on the globe.

Don't belive the science if that is easier for you... We are pretty much screwed no matter if its real or not. If Global warming don't get us nature will some other way sooner or later. History has proven that more than once and nobody needs Al Gore to tell them that that is fact. 

[Ron Wenrich]

Here's the problem I've been seeing with the man caused global warming.  They say the science proves it, but, I have yet to see any conclusive study that says that CO2 actually is the culprit.  I've seen both sides of this arguement where one says that more CO2 is the cause of global warming, and another where global warming causes more CO2. 

Here's some science I do know.  Back about 750-800 years ago, things were warm.  It was so warm that the Vikings had settlements on Iceland, Greenland, and thought to have made it to Canada.  They didn't walk.  At the same time, farming records show that wheat was harvested right about where it is now. Grapes were also farmed in England.  This period was known as the Medieval warming, and both sides agree that it happened.

There was also a time when it was pretty cold.  That was the little Ice Age and that happened in the 1600s.  It should be noted that there was very little sunspot activity at the time.

I've talked to some foresters that have worked in relic communities.  These are stands of trees that are growing outside of their normal range.  How did they get there?  The common theory is that at one time the climate supported the range in that area.  The climate changed and the tree's range retreated to what it is today.  There are pockets that still support those trees.  I've seen both northern species and southern species that are in relic communitites.

For me, I think its a little of both.  Being a forester, I've always preached good land stewardship.  I also think that stewardship extends to other sources of pollution, be it land, water or air.  Some people live it, some just talk it.

[cantcutter]

You are absolutely right, the climate changes, always has and always will. The earth went into the ice age without the help of man. So far man has for the most part adapted.. Sea levels have risen in the past and they are on the rise now. There are signs of prehistoric roads on the bottom of the ocean so at one time those sites were high and dry......
Or the alien from The abyss has visited us in the past and built them there ;) 

The climate is getting warmer.... that is not in dispute. The science in question is whether man is too blame or is it a natural cycle? Most believe that carbon output in to blame and science is hoping to prove it. That is what science does; so what I don't understand is why some people are so dead against doing and paying for that research?

My feeling on the issue is that the atmosphere is like a river. If you dump in the river  the river is going to continue to flush itself out, but eventually will become over burdened and die. If you stop dumping in the river it will flush itself out and become viable again. So regardless of whether CO2 emissions is causing global warming or not, we need to start limiting dumping in the atmosphere because it does have an impact.     

[Ron Wenrich]

I think you'll have to agree that both sides of the argument seems to have a common ground.  That is, we ought to be doing something to limit pollution.  As you say, we can't keep dumping into the air.

But, when the argument centers on who's right, then money gets wasted just to prove points.  I'm not certain it is provable.  It doesn't matter who's right.  It just polarizes society and we get into a do nothing type of situation. 

Wouldn't it just be better if we said that there is warming; it could be natural or it could be manmade?  Then, get on with things. 

I contend it would be smarter to use research money on cleaner fuel technology.  Its a benefit that both sides could use.  The oil age is just about at an end, and we have nothing to replace it.  Our economy will not advance until a new fuel source is found. 

Mark Twain said "Everyone complains about the weather, but nobody does anything about it"  Things certainly haven't changed much.   ;)

[Tom]

Maybe the world could use a good "thinning".

[Geoff Kegerreis]

So why would anybody care or believe that global warming is a scam? If it is as you say that Al is just scaring the rich out of their money to pay research scientist why would you care? Are you rich or a research scientist?

I have never been wealthy by U.S. standards, but I have worked as a research scientist; not a principal investigator, but rather someone working in the lab (tree genetics/G.M.O.s) trying to produce results for the P.I. in the academic realm.

The bottom line is that it is a calculated scientific fact that we are dumping more CO2 into the environment than the environment can handle.....

Actually, that statement is not a scientific fact.  All scientific studies are relative based on the controls and external information.  In this case, we have neither the controls nor the information to make a prudent scientific judgment regarding how much CO2 "the environment can handle".

Are we headed for a period of increased global temperatures and world-wide environmental reaction because of this increase?  Possibly, but the probability cannot be calculated.  However, decisions are being made regardless of that little misnomer.

My point is that these "carbon credit" trading schemes are severely jumping the gun.  I find the whole matter absurd, really.  The U.S. congress is debating several bills surrounding this whole idea that humans can somehow "stop" or "reduce" this global warming by absorbing the carbon in young trees that grow faster, etc.  It's the old "any management is better than no management" ideal, which is based on ignorance - not stupidity, but ignorance...You cannot manage something unless you understand the likely outcomes of the management decisions.

From a scientific point of view, the entire topic is sheer madness.  It's not about science at all really, it's about politics.  Mark my words: by the time they're done with all this, the outcome will raise taxes and restrict citizens livelihoods.  Economically, it will be the equivalent of a casino: Don't create any money, just pass it around some so it can wind up in more people's hands. 

As far as Gore goes, his awards were of the entertainment and peace variety, not the scientific variety.  In any case, I seriously wonder about the reasoning capabilities of the panel judges.  Anyone who has half a brain would have found his movie horrid and basically, his ability to be a world traveler and use fuel resources many times larger than the average American and yet consider/sell himself as a "environmental crusader" and have success at that is flat out sickening....

...but then again, Idiocracy (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/) is happening at a faster pace than in that movie, which is quite a shame.

They could call it cotton candy if they wanted too......it doesn't change the fact that it is having an impact on the globe.

Well at least cotton candy is a reasonably measurable commodity.

Don't belive the science if that is easier for you... We are pretty much screwed no matter if its real or not. If Global warming don't get us nature will some other way sooner or later. History has proven that more than once and nobody needs Al Gore to tell them that that is fact.   

It's not global warming that will cause the human race the most misery.  It's socio-economics.  Who is in control, and where the money trail is leading.  Right now it's leading to CENTCOM in Iraq, where there are jets dumping payloads of fuel at high altitude (so it will evaporate before it hits the ground) every practice run to pad next fiscal year's DOD budget.  I think it's clear to most where that sort of decision is going to lead.

 

[Geoff Kegerreis]

I think you'll have to agree that both sides of the argument seems to have a common ground.  That is, we ought to be doing something to limit pollution.  As you say, we can't keep dumping into the air.

We are doing some things to limit pollution (catalytic converters are an example of this), but it's not enough.  Stop using leaf blowers instead of rakes, etc. might be a start.  This society is gung-ho on gasoline and power implements.  It's luxury gone wild essentially.  Americans driving 10 miles to their fast food restaurant to get a burger with beef shipped there from Bolivia.  That's America.  What's going to stop it from happening?  An economic depression - that's what.

Mark Twain said "Everyone complains about the weather, but nobody does anything about it"  Things certainly haven't changed much.   ;)

someone else said "Everyone wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die".  Nope, they sure haven't.

[Sprucegum]

Just so you know - a student at the University of Alberta did a study on catalytic converters and observed that they do not work in weather below -10    That was several years ago, wonder who listened to him?  :-\