Global Warming ?

Yes BCGray. I was born in the post-war generation known as the boomers. They made us read books and become somewhat educated, in the maths and sciences. We know what science looks like and Al Gore doesn't have much of that. However, Al Gore does have philosophy in spades and a bunch of toadies to follow him around. But in keeping with the "real" agenda, I must confess, that I admire Gore, for being able to pull off this charade with a straight face. He's much too well educated to actually believe the bulk of his fairy tale and having been in politics, as long as he has, I believe he's using the band-wagon of Global Warming, cynically as a political platform. It's his reward for taking the long count in 2000. Finally he gets his payday.
.

 

A polotician leading a special interest group to further his political career?

Never happen prometheos. Mr. Gore must believe deeply in this or he would never allow his name to be associated with it.

 

Gore has been pushing for environmental awareness since the late seventies. He has dedicated his whole life to this issue. He didn't just jump on the train because it was the popular thing to do. He deeply believes in his work and I commend him for what he has done to raise awareness. I always took our environment for granted, but Gore's documentary changed that and I know I'm not the only one that feels that way.

 

I think there are two issues here. Is there climate change, and are we causing it?

On the first, I am of the opinion that there is little doubt that the climate is changing. I see now I am odds with one or two here that I thought I was in agreement with. No worries, that's what debate is for.

On the second issue, I just don't think there is proof that we are causing it. That's the point upon which I disagree with the likes of Gore and Suzuki. And further to that, I cannot agree with those who say we should meet our commitments under the Kyoto Accord. It wouldn't do any good, and would do us a great deal of harm.

Having said that, I am still of the opinion that people pollute too much, and will only stop when they are forced to. So they should be forced to.

 

I agree people do polute more than they should but what gets glossed over is most of the products we take for granted, small everyday things that people over look when talking about Gas guzzeling cars and oil wars are plastics.

Look around the room your sitting in right now, Hell, look what your going to use to type with when you bash my comments. 50 - 60% of every day items that you could not live without are produced by oil and oil by-products.

People are saying it doesn't have to be a radical change to help our situation but in all reality it would be beyond radical.

So change your old light bulbs and recycle all you want to. (You would be surprised at how much of your recycling efforts are wasted) but before anything that might help out even a little is going to happen, society would have to come to a screeching halt, and we would have to rethink every aspect of our lives.

 

A serious point I would like to make is that I think we all agree that we should keep our "BackYard" cleaner than we have in the past, this takes us THINKING and then DOING the best we can to reuse valuable finite resources.

The point that seems to cause contention is the "Shock Catch" phrases used by many, to scare and influence the masses. "True Science" can not function when "Emotions" are brought into the equation, but because some can not support their theories with Science, they resort to "Emotional Blackmail" to prove their point. That this makes "Great Press" is not lost on the Media and Government.

 

Yes. Exactly. Let's...

 

Seems like Mr. Gore has some cranial global warming to deal with:

http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367

 

Yep, Mr. Gore's own inconvenient truth.

 

OverCooked? confused

 

Well that's enlightening rolleyes

 

Someone call my name? :wave

It's always interesting to see that when we don't like a particular issue we result to attacking the messenger. Gore participates in a utility program that sells blocks of ”green power” for an extra $4 a month. Gore purchases 108 such blocks every month, covering 16,200 kilowatt-hours and helping subsidize renewable energy sources. It should also be noted that Gore's house is currently under renovation to add solar panels.

Also if you a little searching on the TCPR report you will find that the spokesperson for Gore's energy company, Laurie parker, said that the policy center never requested information about Gore's energy consumption and that they, the energy company, never provided the TCPR with any information.

Gore is a very wealthy man, and he lives a very affluent life style. I'm sure his footprint is less than other celebrities or politicians but I would like to see him take more action in reducing his own energy consumption. i.e. He doesn't 'need' that big pool on his estate. But that being said, I think the 30+ years of work he has done on raising environmental awareness and the continued work he will accomplish throughout his lifetime has far made up for any energy he has used before. Gore has been able to bring about the attention and awareness to the climate change issue that no regular person could match. Even if he's completely wrong about the human contribution to global warming, more people are aware of their environment because of his actions and hopefully the world will cleaner and healthier place as a result.

 

It will take more than one generation !

Less people = less usage

 

In the debate about global warming, I've read articles supporting the worries, and articles saying there is nothing to worry about, global warming is not happening. Apart from the fact that I've found the articles warning us about this seem more substantiated and appear to have their facts backed up better (this is a personal reflection), apart from that, what makes me sure I should worry, is the thought of who has something to gain in this?

Funny enough, most of the reports saying there is no threat, come from the US. It seems as if most of the rest of the world take this threat more seriously.

One of the major contributions to global warming is the oil consumption. And there is a lot of money in oil, on many different levels. Oil is today not just black gold that people were cheering in the Wild West. Oil today is wealth, power, and a hot political potato.

It isn't as if we should be totally dependant on oil. We knew a long time ago that oil is a limited resource and we need to find alternatives. Yet there is still surprisingly little research being done in finding alternatives. Dunno how interested in engines you are, but I am very interested, and I've studied the history of the combustion engine, and even though I marvel at how ingenious it is, face it, we are still talking about an invention that is about 150 years old. We are still talking about an engine that has roughly 35-40% efficiency ratio. We've had 50 years to think of something better, and the only thing we do is putting in common rail and magnetic valves to the existing crappy (yet so beautiful) engine, enhancing the energy we take out by 1 or 2 %.

Seeing this financial picture as a factor in "who wants to believe in global warming" makes me sure it is a real threat.

 

Your absolutely right. I believe people are complacent due to the fact it appears to be an impossible task. Trying to get people to ban together (for anything) even their own benefit is impossible. I've been beating my head against a wall for many years with little or no results. Oil prices or shortages are a big source of disappointment. Going back to the 70's when there was rationing, odd and even days that allowed you to buy gas, yet here we are 30 years later driving around in vehicles the size delivery vans with one small child strapped (hopefully) in the back. For a while solar was a partial hopeful but as it turns out people didn't like the looks of the panels on their roofs. Go figure, paying $9.00 a month compared to $60.00 for hot water. There are some interesting articles here.
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy?page=3

 

So, the 300 million people who live in the U.S. are the problem? While the other 5.5 Billion people on the planet are somehow more enlightned, and have of course altered their countries output of these gasses in accordance with the Kyoto Protocol?

I am being facetious here, my friend, and I honestly don't mean to sound a grouch - but I disagree that most of the reports saying there is no threat come from the U.S. - and the suggestion you made (probably unintentionally - but I base it on your own italics in the post - and the use of the term "Wild West" in relation to oil.) that the U.S. has something to gain somehow from Global warming confuses me. What would that gain be? By the way, if you look at the posts in this thread alone, a good percentage of those who doubt the veracity of the Global Warming scare come from countries other then America. Lots of oil elsewhere in the world . . . and Sweden itself produces (albeit not a lot), imports, and burns oil and natural gas. She also exports internal combustion automobiles. As does the rest of the planet.

You can find as many accredited scientists that debunk the human contribution to overall Global Warming as support it. They don't get the media hype the others get, but if you research it you can prove it yourself. You can also find as many substantiated articles debunking mankinds' effect on Global Warming as supporting it.

I am not saying that the study of Global Warming and it's causes should be ignored or abandoned . . . the world science "jury" is still out, and the question could go either way . . . my problem is with the mainstream media hype that the question is already resolved, and that mankind should spend huge effort, time, and money on this issue, to the detriment of all other environmental concerns. I am more worried about the loss of habitat for the earth's critters then I am about how much Co2 and methane they produce.

Like I said before - the Kyoto Protocol is flawed in science and driven by politics . . . I do not feel that billions and billions of dollars should be spent on this one unproven theory - and yes - it is unproven - to the neglect of other proven problems like the one you yourself posted concerning contaminated sea food, which is a proven, measurable, problem . . . where is the hysterical media outcry about that? What does the enlightned world (including the U.S.) do about that? Well - they suggest we not eat as much fish, etc. as we would like, since it's unhealthy . . . that's what they do. Lets instead spend tons of money on reducing factory outputs of gasses that mother earth puts out naturally . . . sometimes in unimaginable quantities as in the case of volcanic eruptions . . . but ignore the fact that our sea-life is being poisoned on a regular basis by human activity. Oh - lets also just ignore the multitude of man-made chemicals (and gasses) that have been developed in the modern world and are laying about everywhere - science has no idea how these will impact life on our planet . . . but why worry about that?

 

i have no wish to criticise any single land, if we are to believe the science it is carbon fuels that do the most damage therefore the auto is a big culprit and the reason everyone attacks the US is the love of the car and RVs,
maybe there is a little jelousy too as they have some of the cheapest gas in the world which allowes them to use large engines.
here in belgium you must pay a tax on the size of the motor plus with the high price of fuel most people drive compacts, of course there are large cars but you need deep pockets or a company credit card to be able to afford them

 

Doubters
6 U.S
3 Canada
2 undisclosed ??
1 Australia

Believers
2 U.S
2 Canada
1 UK
1 Sweden
1 Australia


interesting link ?
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html

 

Don't count me, I was playing devil's advocate

 

Know why the US doesn't get a lot of the cool cars as lot of other countries do? Because our emmisions laws. Point in case, there is a Mitsubishi Evo pushing 450hp from the factory that the US will never see, because of it breaking emmisions laws. To get the current Evolution here, and the Sti for that matter, they had to clean up their emissions.

Doesnt exactly hold up to the attack on US sending the world to hell in a handbasket, does it.

 

Good point, shanemail . . . I actually thought it was lower then 50 -50, overall. I just did a quick scan. At any rate it debunks the idea that most of the doubters come from the US alone.

 

thats not like you Adryn roflmao

its a rough count, its not always easy to tell where some people stand

 

hey AD that was not a personal attack if you read the text i say that the reason they attack the US.

i made the post a little bit tong in cheek my sense of humor is not to everones tast.

 

A Tad off of topic

but does that mean you wont get this either ?
http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews/coupes/0511_bugatti_veryon/

 

Oh, I didn't take it as an attack, just wanted to note that non US cars a lot of times tend to be lax on emissions

I was just thinking back to an article I read on this recently where Canadians were blaming Americans Apparently, they've never visited Mexico City

 

You misunderstood me! I'm not saying the US is the villain. I was making the observation that the reports come from the US, but that does not mean I think the US in itself has things to gain! The connection with the US is mainly that oil is such a political issue there these days. The people who are to gain the most are the oil companies. They are not so interested in us finding alternative sources.

I don't think that we manage particularly well in Sweden. We could do more, but financial interests put so much pressure on the politicians that the steps we should take are being prevented.

I agree with you that there are other huge issues, global warming is a small piece in the puzzle. Today, the puzzle is too big, we can't grasp the entire picture, we can just focus on the pieces where we see we can try to make a difference. I do believe the pieces fit together though. In the western world we have learned from our mistakes, and we are now cleaning up the mess that was caused by our ancestors 50 years ago, when the world was regarded as a huge garbage mountain where you could just chuck anything, and it would be "taken care of" by mother nature itself. Today we (hopefully) know better than that, and we see changes for the better. Today you can actually go swimming in central Stockholm, that was not recommended 50 years ago.

With the knowledge and the resources we have to take care of the waste we produce, I believe we have a responsibility to help other nations who haven't come as far, and assist them with technology and knowledge so that they don't do what we stopped doing 50 years ago.

Natakel, you are a very dear friend and I value our friendship greatly! I did not intentionally jump on your country or try to make you out to be the bad guy. If I sounded harsh, I apologize. If we have different opinions about global warming, it doesn't matter, because we both have the best intentions, and we work on what we believe in, and what we think we can do something about!
http://web.comhem.se/solange/smileys/hug.gif

 

No the attack can be widened to North America in General (yes I am joking)


You know what they say about assuming , but I would take a wild guess at where the 2 undisclosed posters come from

 

That, I don't know. I'm not aware of any Bugati being sold in the US, that wasnt imported. Dont quote me on that.

I wouldn't kick a 1000 hp car out of bed though

 

. . . or the former members of the Soviet Union, for that matter . . .

ROTFL

 

cost em' 5 million pounds to make each one (according to Top Gear -UK)
selling them at a huge loss
just to prove they could do it

 

Great business sense.

roflmao

 

Solange, dear . . . I know you didn't jump on me or the US, and I am very, very sorry I came across that way . I consider you a very dear friend as well - in fact the best friend I have on the internet, and I am sorry I caused you concern.

I was thinking out loud (er, in type) and should have rephrased what I was saying before I posted. I confess I am too thin skinned about such topics, and in fact just came home from a lively discussion along much the same lines at work. My comments were affected by this previous debate, but that is no excuse for my crabby post.

You are one of the kindest, most open souls I have met - online or anywhere else. I am very fortunate that you consider me a friend, and I will always be yours. Co2 be damned!!

 

ExxonMobil amasses record $36B 2005 profit

 

http://www.breathingearth.net/

This link has a map showing each country's CO2 output with respect to their birth and death rates.

Of course, this is just gross output, but it makes it easy to see how the U.S. gets the rep it does!

 

I don't understand why a political stigma is being attached to this issue.

I can say from personal experience that global warming is NOT a new topic! I've been taught about it in PUBLIC (read: under government jurisdiction) schools since the earliest grades! That's pushing 20 years. In that time, Canada and the U.S. both have had political leaders on both sides of the fence, liberal and conservative, democratic and republican.

But now that there is some MEDIA attention on the subject, suddenly, it is PROPAGANDA!! OMG!!! POLITICAL LEADERS ARE TRYING TO MANIPULATE US INTO SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITIES!!! Those evil bastards.

We're technical people, here, let's look at this from a technical standpoint:

http://www.susps.org/images/worldpopgr.gif

This is a graph of the world population. I found this at this link, but you can find comparable data:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
http://www.susps.org/overview/numbers.html
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/P/Populations.html
http://www.math.duke.edu/education/ccp/materials/diffcalc/worldpop/world1.html

As you can see, something drastic has occurred with our population. Population growth was fairly constant for thousands of years, but in the course of the last 50 years, it has tripled!

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/e/e9/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png

This is a graph of Atmospheric CO2 concentrations. I found this at this link

Blue is data from the Vostok ice core samples (Link)
Green is data from the EPICA ice core samples(Link)
Red is data from the Law Dome ice core samples (Link)
Cyan is data from the Siple Dome ice core samples (Link)
Black is data from the Mauna Loa Observatory (Link) (You can also view the raw data)

All the data I can find shows a marked increase above any cyclical peaks in atmospheric CO2 concentrations since the 19th/20th century. This coincides almost exactly with the population explosion as shown above.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/globanntemp_pg.gif

This is a graph of global temperatures that I've found at this link, but comparable data can be found:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/obsdata/globaltemperature.html
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

AGAIN, we see an upward trend since the early 20th century. Now this COULD all be coincidence, but the odds are that it is NOT. I find it VERY hard to believe that all three of these surges occurred at the same time COINCIDENTALLY.

I can't say that I see all the pieces of this puzzle; I don't think anyone is qualified to make that claim, but by applying the good old scientific tool known as Occam's Razor, we can say that the simplest explanation is most likely to be the correct one. We shave off unnecessary complication. No government conspiracy. No elaborate natural patterns.

I can't think of anything much simpler than increased population = increased CO2 emissions = increased global temperatures. This is the pony I'm putting my money on.

To all the doubters: WHERE IS YOUR DATA?!?!?!

Not to single anyone out, but I'm particularly interested in the data on volcanic activity. I can't find ANYTHING to support this claim!

http://www.gaspig.com/volcano.htm
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/index.htm

This is the reason why the topic is so alarming!!! Nature balances itself, yes. Mankind is able to mitigate the effects, but not eliminate them completely. It's what nature will have to do to counterbalance what we have offset! Storms of increasing strength. Decreased resource availability. I don't believe we can run from it forever.

 

Thats a very handy link to have - thanks

It is a pity they dont have more data fields involved, but, you have to draw the line somewhere I guess.

Once you analyze the stats it appears that the
USA, Australia and Canada really need to think about how much CO2 they are emitting per capita

perhaps these countries especially (which shamefully includes my own) should find out how/why the UK emits approximately half as much per capita, with a similar standard of living

Some other points of interest that i stumbled across
for every 1 person who dies in India - approx 2.75 are born
for every 1 person who dies in China - approx 2 are born
for every 1 person who dies in Afghanistan - approx 2 are born
and
for every 1 person who is born in Germany - approx 1.3 dies !

 

What an excellent post, Mada_Milty. A lot of work went into that. Thank you.

I'm one of those who see climate change as real, but thinks that we can't say for sure how much of it is down to us.

I agree totally that the issue has become political, and as such, many would not be willing to change their minds in the face of evidence contrary to their position. It's important not to be dogmatic about it.

A couple of things concern me. If it is part of a natural cycle at this time in our evolution, then your data would not show how much of the changes are due to us, and how much would be part of the cycle. It would be a coincidence, but not a staggering one.

The other thing is, the more we are causing it, the less chance there is we can do anything about it. If there is no natural cycle, and the climate is changing due to the emissions we have put into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution, then what effect can we have now?

That's not to say that every sensible measure should not be taken. But some of the measures that have become fodder for the cultists that have sprung up are no good, and that must be acknowledged.

Some Canadians want this country to meet its Kyoto commitments. One the one hand, without worldwide commitment, Canada could shut down completely and the world would take up the greenhouse gas slack within two years. One the other, we could buy credits from other countries for billions of dollars, and emissions wouldn't actually drop by a molecule. Either way, lots of money is spent for political purposes without affecting climate change.

Better to put that money towards improving technology, until the day arrives when the world is ready to speak with one voice on the issue.

All this is not to say that individual measures should not be taken. There is a lot that people can do to reduce their imprint, and they should be doing it. But it is pointless, in my mind, to take the really big steps until we are all walking in the same direction.

 

I get the feeling we will reach apocalypse one way or another, a long time before we reach Unity

Our global population rate is increasing way too fast for intellectual evolution to catch up

We seem to take it for granted, but, the earth is finite - therefore there is a usage per capita rate relating to total population that cannot be indefinately maintained

 

*Insert smile bowing down to your greatness* -Why don't we have one of those?

Seriously, thanks for putting all that information into an easy-to-understand, and relatively short post. VERY handy.

 

Thank you for the kind words, but we don't have one because nobody is greater than the rest.

I just wanted to make it clear HOW I came to believe what I do. I think if everyone could at least explain WHY they believe what they do, we would get a better understanding of each other, and when we can also include the evidence that supports our beliefs, that we'll also form a better understanding of the issue, itself.

 

That being said, I would like to understand MrPewty better, as I'm not sure I'm following him here.

Can you elaborate? If we extend our data over a large time-scale, could we not see a natural cycle, and how much we've contributed?

I'm looking at the graphs of CO2 concentration, and temperature. There is some evidence of a cyclical nature here, but it also looks like we break the cycle, or at least shift it upwards...

While there are measures we can take to reverse what we've done (for example, carbon capturing techniques), I think this is where nature balancing itself comes into play.

Things tend to move from high concentration to low.
Heat flows from areas of high temperature to low.
Liquid and gas both flow from areas of high pressure to low pressure.
Electricity flows from areas of high electric potential to low electric potential.

The excess heat in the atmosphere can radiate away from the planet.
Excess CO2 could be diluted in the carbon cycle

Can you explain how you came to your conclusion?

 

I was also taught about global warming and the carbon cycle in school 15 years ago,as I remember it was quite a large part of the exams also

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lgzz-L7GFg

 

I have never said I don't believe that we have an impact on the planet. I have doubted some of the studies on HOW MUCH of an impact we actually have.

Your post is well constucted and clearly worded and I can feel how seriously you take this topic. Thank you for your excellent post.

I have never been one to fall for propaganda and can see right through any sort of political spin put on by either side of this argument.

I thought I made my beliefs clear in a previous post but I suppose not clear enough.

Untill Everyone, Worldwide, is willing to take a serious look at the ENTIRE industrial production side of our society NOTHING is going to happen. There are Thousands of Trillions of dollars tied up in how we live. ENTIRE COUNTRIES depend on how we live. We are willing to go to WAR to protect how we live.

Call me naive but I dont see any change coming in the near future, do you?

 

....

 

I like pretty charts. I used to make lots of pretty charts and graphs, to explain what my bosses wanted explained, in a way that made their performance look good. I know how to use raw data and chart the results in two different graphs so that an audience will deduce an opposite result for each. The difficulty arises because we usually have faith that the person who created the chart, is both honest and impartial to the result. That never happens, of course. The "Carbon Dioxide Variations" graph is very interesting and often shown as "proof". However, an "honest" graphmaker will also provide sample datasets so that the casual statistician can assess the graphmakers art. What they fail to mention, is that the CO2 ice core samples are extrapolated data. This is not one to one data as they'd have you believe. You cannot, in good conscience, graph extrapolated data with live measured data on the same graph, without telling Mr. Joe Public what you've done. While you're at it you should also explain that it is a misleading practice that all crafty statisticians use because they know that Mr. Joe Public is easily misled by this technique. My point is that, in 100,000 years from now, the average planetary temperature will be just as warm as it is now and they'll be beaming a holographic chart into your brain, that shows ice core samples from the 21st century and it will look exactly like the CO2 ice cores data, do on our graph, today. But hopefully they won't be in a panic about a naturally occurring cycle of the planet. The coming ice age is NOT stoppable. It's happened before, with or without mankind there to witness it, and it will probably continue to happen, as long as the sun continues to shine. There is only one thing to keep in mind, during the next few hundred years. There are people out there who want your money, and they will use "climate change paranoia" and any other means to get it.
.

 

boy this really brought the pro and anti lobbies together.

great discussion thoughconfused

 

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

 

*sigh*
Anyone who bothered to follow the links in the legend under the Carbon Dioxide Variations graph would know that the data WAS included, as well as an explanation of each of the samples. I thought that was enough, but I'll make it even easier for the casual statistician. Here are the direct links:

Vostok Data

EPICA Data

Law Dome Data

Siple Dome Data

Mauna Loa Data

Yes, the world is full of opportunists, and they're pretty good at making a profit off of just about everything. Any way the cookie crumbles, they will be trying to get your money.

HOWEVER they could also try to profit off of (or at least maintain profits by) lulling you to sleep about the issue! That would be much easier, as apathy isn't hard to inspire. Confusion is usually enough to do it. There's also evidence that this happening, and it's been covered in this very thread:

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=55

These links outline some of ExxonMobil's tactics.

 

The IPCC Homepage