Warming up

[UB9IB6]

Originally Posted by icuminpeace

I don't think I said the mission wasn't worthy, and I even stated that I do my part to conserve the earth. What I don't believe and support is what's currently being sold to us because I think the science is flawed and is being used to manipulate us to believing that there is only one way to do this (while making a buck).

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/bu...nt/03gore.html

No doubt ... But we can't stop doing what we can do on an individual basis.
Thanks for doing your part.

Change in habit and method of energy production is necessary to protect what we have. Can you imagine a life where we don't have to suck on the balls of OPEC? That'd be grand. Wouldn't we all agree to that?

[UB9IB6]

Originally Posted by icuminpeace

Energy companies know that once they run out of oil and natural gas, they're done. They have to invest in renewable energy or they will be the equivalent of the steam locomotives at the turn of the 20th century - obsolete.

I'm not so sure they are going to be obsolete. The petrol biz will
Eventually decline, but not before Exxon has oceans of slime waiting
To be converted to "go juice".

[Little Stevie]

Originally Posted by icuminpeace

What I don't believe and support is what's currently being sold to us because I think the science is flawed and is being used to manipulate us to believing that there is only one way to do this (while making a buck).

So you reject ice coring samples that reveal annual atmospheric conditions frozen into the layers of 4 billion years of ice buildup?

I certainly trust these over Lush Bimbo and the Koch Brothers who are either being paid or directly profiting from lax regulations and the putting off of air quality standards.

Next time you want to convince me you're on top of these issues, try understanding the sheer volume of the effect of 7 billion people on the earth versus 1 billion.

While you are contemplating what a tiny effect we have, think about the fact that only 3.5 billion people shit into any kind of wastewater filtered sewage system and that the others just shit on the planet and into its rivers, streams and oceans.

I have little patience with people who buy into the toxic agenda proposed by Big Oil and their ilk.

[icuminpeace]

Originally Posted by Little Stevie

So you reject ice coring samples that reveal annual atmospheric conditions frozen into the layers of 4 billion years of ice buildup?

I certainly trust these over Lush Bimbo and the Koch Brothers who are either being paid or directly profiting from lax regulations and the putting off of air quality standards.

Next time you want to convince me you're on top of these issues, try understanding the sheer volume of the effect of 7 billion people on the earth versus 1 billion.

While you are contemplating what a tiny effect we have, think about the fact that only 3.5 billion people shit into any kind of wastewater filtered sewage system and that the others just shit on the planet and into its rivers, streams and oceans.

I have little patience with people who buy into the toxic agenda proposed by Big Oil and their ilk.

If you have little patience, don't deal with me. Simple. Be careful, you might have a stroke one of these days.

[CuteOldGuy]

Stevie always has problems when he drinks caffeine in the evening. Pay no attention.

[I B Hankering]

As the good doctor says: "We frequently hear about the number of scientists who support it. But the number is not important: only whether they are correct is important."



Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever Quits Physics Group over Stand on Global Warming

Winning physicist Ivar Giaever resigned as a Fellow from the American Physical Society (APS) Tuesday, condemning the group's official stand on global warming.
In his resignation note, Giaever wrote: "In the APS, it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"

"The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period."

Giaever, co-winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1973, is an institute professor emeritus at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y., a professor-at-large at the University of Oslo, and the president of Applied BioPhysics Inc.

According to a Wall Street Journal report, Giaever declared himself a dissenter in 2008, "I am a skeptic... Global warming has become a new religion."

"I am Norwegian, should I really worry about a little bit of warming? I am unfortunately becoming an old man. We have heard many similar warnings about the acid rain 30 years ago and the ozone hole 10 years ago or deforestation but the humanity is still around. The ozone hole width has peaked in 1993," he continued.

"Moreover, global warming has become a new religion. We frequently hear about the number of scientists who support it. But the number is not important: only whether they are correct is important. We don't really know what the actual effect on the global temperature is. There are better ways to spend the money," he added.

Giaever is one of the most prominent scientists named in the 2007 Minority Report of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (updated in 2009) originally citing support of 400 "dissenting scientists", and growing to 700. He was also one of more than 100 co-signers in a March 30, 2009, letter to President Barack Obama which criticized his stance on global warming.



http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/2141...ysicist-re.htm

[Sidewinder]

When a friend of mine mentioned Muller's conversion in his blog, some other readers sent him some more data. It appears that the idea that Muller used to be on the denial side is questionable.

As for the ice core CO2 data, I saw some of that a while back. It also had what claimed to be temperature data. I did a bit of Matlab-ing, and plotted CO2 vs. temperature points. I got a beautiful random dot scattergram, with NO trends and no grouping. My read is that CO2 vs. temperature is not well-established.

One of the statements on the anti-AGW side is that the data actually shows that CO2 lags temperature by about 800 years. Warming causes CO2, not the other way around. When you show the graph with thousand or ten thousand year time scaling, the lag is invisible.

[Sidewinder]

Originally Posted by UB9IB6

What I do assert is ....
We as a human race aren't doing mother earth any favors.
Can we agree on that?

At that point, you have to start running the numbers for real. The AGW crowd scream about manmade CO2. What they are VERY careful to avoid mentioning is that manmade CO2 is only about 10% of the total. Mother Nature puts the other 90% of it out there, both as continuing processes (animals, including humans, consume oxygen and emit CO2), semi-continuing processes (forest fires: forest fires are a NORMAL part of the life cycle of a pine tree forest, although you probably don't learn this unless you live in a pine forest area that depends somewhat on logging for jobs), and the occasional volcano blowing its top.

That last is a biggie. ONE typical volcano eruption puts more CO2 into the atmosphere in one belch than all of the industrial processes put together.

Research "The Year With No Summer", "1800-And-Froze-To-Death" for more information.

[UB9IB6]

Originally Posted by Sidewinder

At that point, you have to start running the numbers for real. The AGW crowd scream about manmade CO2. What they are VERY careful to avoid mentioning is that manmade CO2 is only about 10% of the total. Mother Nature puts the other 90% of it out there, both as continuing processes (animals, including humans, consume oxygen and emit CO2), semi-continuing processes (forest fires: forest fires are a NORMAL part of the life cycle of a pine tree forest, although you probably don't learn this unless you live in a pine forest area that depends somewhat on logging for jobs), and the occasional volcano blowing its top.

That last is a biggie. ONE typical volcano eruption puts more CO2 into the atmosphere in one belch than all of the industrial processes put together.

Research "The Year With No Summer", "1800-And-Froze-To-Death" for more information.

Thank you for a thoughtful post. You seem to have made good points,
My statement continues to be that the things we do in the name of progress, convenience etc. does indeed have a negative impact on our environment .
One example is high enough levels of pharmaceuticals in our water supply that they can be detected. Ground water pollution from fracking . Pesticide runoff from our lawns.

By the logic presented above, one would assume that anything we do to our planet is negligible . That one volcano fart is worse than all of the vehicles and business pollution over the decades is hard for me to swallow.
While there may be merit to your statements. I feel that it is a dangerous and slipery slope we are on and not taking very drastic measures to curb the damage we are doing is only doing a disservice to future generations .

[CuteOldGuy]

If the government was really concerned about deforestation by logging, alternative fuels, and a host of other ills, they would legalize the production of commercial hemp. It is such a versatile crop, but since it cuts into the profits of other, more well funded industries with higher paid lobbyists, it is not allowed.

http://www.nemeton.com/static/nemeto...atis/hemp.html

[Little Stevie]

Originally Posted by UB9IB6

Thank you for a thoughtful post. You seem to have made good points,
My statement continues to be that the things we do in the name of progress, convenience etc. does indeed have a negative impact on our environment .
One example is high enough levels of pharmaceuticals in our water supply that they can be detected. Ground water pollution from fracking . Pesticide runoff from our lawns.

By the logic presented above, one would assume that anything we do to our planet is negligible . That one volcano fart is worse than all of the vehicles and business pollution over the decades is hard for me to swallow.
While there may be merit to your statements. I feel that it is a dangerous and slipery slope we are on and not taking very drastic measures to curb the damage we are doing is only doing a disservice to future generations .

Exactly, UB91B6!

The volcanic ash that causes a nuclear winter effect is partially made up of larger particles (unlike the CO2 emitted in many of our daily human offerings) and as such eventually settles to earth and poses no more airborne risk! For people to step back and not take ownership of ADDING to the problem significantly is to deny that SEVEN billion people can EXACERBATE the GW phenomenon.

When Costco ALONE sells enough toilet paper in a single year to encircle the earth 12 times at the equator and for mile-wide rivers to be clogged with man-made floating plastic containers, it is time to quit denying and start realizing that the earth's ability to recover is finite and that to believe any other way is deadly folly.

[CuteOldGuy]

You want to ban toilet paper, Stevie? Interesting.

[Little Stevie]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You want to ban toilet paper, Stevie? Interesting.

Another lie! Where did I say that, COF?

[CuteOldGuy]

I was asking a question based on your post saying how toilet paper was going to clog rivers, etc. It couldn't have been a lie, since I didn't state a fact. I was asking for clarification of your post.

Here. Let's make it easier. What can we do to reduce the amount of toilet paper produced in the US, and minimize its negative effects on the environment?

You've been hitting the caffeine a little early today, haven't you?

[UB9IB6]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I was asking a question based on your post saying how toilet paper was going to clog rivers, etc. It couldn't have been a lie, since I didn't state a fact. I was asking for clarification of your post.

Here. Let's make it easier. What can we do to reduce the amount of toilet paper produced in the US, and minimize its negative effects on the environment?

You've been hitting the caffeine a little early today, haven't you?

+1000 on the earlier hemp statement. Funny how
There was a tax placed on anyone who didn't grow hemp in colonial times.
It's a shame that mother earth gave us such a useful plant and
Corporate and gov fucks cloud it's image with propaganda and hype.

We can decrease the amount of toilet paper by limiting the number of people
I'm all for responsible reproduction. And population decline.