I Hate Dialysis Message Board
Off-Topic => Off-Topic: Talk about anything you want. => Topic started by: Black on May 20, 2007, 06:04:59 PM
-
I believe that there are natural fluctuations in the global temperature; IOW, global temperature fluctuations are predominantly caused by natural forces. It is my opinion, that those who blame only or mostly humans for global temperature fluctuations have an extremely over inflated sense of the importance of the human influence on the earth's temperature fluctuations.
:boxing; :lol; :popcorn;
-
Go see Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. That will put your hair on end.
-
Go see Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. That will put your hair on end.
Mediocre fiction.
-
I also believe there are natural temperature cycles. Things that we humans do, DO hurt the environment, but I don't believe we are the major contributor to the current warming trend.
-
It is a fact that humans have an effect on natural forces...when we build dams to divert water, develop wetland areas, pump pollutants into the atmosphere and water (does it not freak people out that mercury levels are so high in fish?) and fill land with trash and dump poisons on our lawns, which eventually find their way to our water supply. Now, I can't say that all or any of this causes global warming but I think it is everyone's responsibility to take care of the earth. The earth can heal itself to a point, but if we keep trashing it the way we have for the last 100 years, I can't imagine what it will be like in another 100 years (not too far away...my grandma lived to 103). Perhaps the temperature change is a sign that things need change; just like the increased incidence in asthma, allergens, certain types of cancers...even the hormones in milk that have caused girls to develop younger (and caused who knows what else.) Would the ice cap be melting at such a rate if humans weren't here? Don't know, but I know I will try to consume less energy, buy locally, and do what I can to preserve this world as much as possible for my grandchildren's grandchildren.
-
It is a fact that humans have an effect on natural forces...when we build dams to divert water, develop wetland areas, pump pollutants into the atmosphere and water (does it not freak people out that mercury levels are so high in fish?) and fill land with trash and dump poisons on our lawns, which eventually find their way to our water supply. Now, I can't say that all or any of this causes global warming but I think it is everyone's responsibility to take care of the earth. The earth can heal itself to a point, but if we keep trashing it the way we have for the last 100 years, I can't imagine what it will be like in another 100 years (not too far away...my grandma lived to 103). Perhaps the temperature change is a sign that things need change; just like the increased incidence in asthma, allergens, certain types of cancers...even the hormones in milk that have caused girls to develop younger (and caused who knows what else.) Would the ice cap be melting at such a rate if humans weren't here? Don't know, but I know I will try to consume less energy, buy locally, and do what I can to preserve this world as much as possible for my grandchildren's grandchildren.
I feel the same way you do. I am trying little things to help also. I catch myself digging through the trash at work to remove aluminum cans and plastic bottles. I think the staff are finally catching on, I have box at work they put their recyclables in for me. I bring them home every other day and put them in the recycle bin on trash day. :2thumbsup;
EDITED: Fixed quote tag error - Sluff/ Admin
-
I believe that Global Warming is very real. Man is taking into consideration all of his recorded data so how/why would someone say that they believe in "natural temperature changes"? Sure there is some fluctuation but a definite trend is obviously on our plates right in front of us. I don't get how this can be discredited. With every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Thats like 6th grade science. If you shit all over your house it's going to stink. If we continue to abuse our earth and it's natural resources it will in time go down the pipes. Everyone needs to contribute NOW.
Mediocre fiction.
Entertaining, yes, "mediocre fiction"........hardly. It accomplishes exactly what it was intended to, raise hairs on peoples arms raises self awareness, and reminds us of our planet that we need to care for.
-
Mediocre fiction.
Entertaining, yes, "mediocre fiction"........hardly. It accomplishes exactly what it was intended to, raise hairs on peoples arms raises self awareness, and reminds us of our planet that we need to care for.
It reminded me of what a hypocrite AL Gore really is.
Of course we need to take care of our planet. But Gore needs to practice what he preaches.
EDITED: Fixed quote tag error-kitkatz,moderator
-
But Gore needs to practice what he preaches.
Is he not? Or are you holding onto the past?
-
I think releasing carbon that has been locked up in fossil fuels for millions of years is increasing global temperatures.
The looming problem is that between India, China and Indonesia (and the rest of the developing world) the world will need to generate over 300% of current global energy production in the next 20 years. What you or I do to decrease our carbon footprint may make us feel good but one more high sulfur coal plant in China (and they need hundreds) will cancel anything you or I could accomplish.
The only way India, China and Indonesia et al could cope with the environmental changes that are coming our way would be if they were richer, yet to get richer they'll need more energy. It's a thorny problem.
My touchstone is that we should work to reduce human suffering - clean water, pennies worth of childhood vaccines, malarial mosquito eradication, etc. Technology-wise we should be able to remove carbon (or sulfur a more important greenhouse gas) from that atmosphere but it's a tricky process. It would be very helpful to honestly work the problem but if we don't talk about the needs of the developing world we're just spinning our wheels.
I am in favor of using much less oil for geopolitical reasons, climate change is about India, China and Indonesia et al.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1wogkDmLlQ
"It was hot when the world was created. Why do you think Adam & Eve were naked?"
-
GLOBAL WARMING: MYTH VS. REALITY
A few years ago, President Bill Clinton, addressing a group of meteorologists at the White House, said that "Global warming is a fact, and human activity is the cause."
Just recently, the U.N. came out with the IPCC report that said that Humans are the cause of Global warming.
Those two statements above are misleading, false, and CANNOT be backed up with scientific fact!
This may be a harsh reality in light of all of the recent news stories, but quite frankly, any supposed warming of the atmosphere may be coming from the hot air of politicians and environmental groups that are feeding us misinformation. Human activity is the least contributor of problems to the climate, and global warming, does not exist the way we have been led to believe.
First of all, what is global warming? According to current scientific definition, it is an increase in the temperature of the planet over many years of time. Unfortunately, there is currently no set amount of degrees, and no set amount of time. Has this happened? Yes, and no. It all depends upon WHERE the temperatures are measured. In large cities, the temperatures have risen slightly, but in other areas, the temperatures have dropped. The increases are within the Earth's natural variation of temperature. Yes, there have been warmer winters and summers, and the temperature in the large cities has increased slightly, but throughout the years, there has been no significant change in the Earth's temperature.
Keep in mind, that the variations in climate over the years is due to natural causes, more than human interaction. Changes in the Sun's energy output, rotation of the Earth, revolution of the Earth, and debris from comets, meteors, and asteroids, actually have an effect on the climate. Add to that, dust from earthquakes and volcanoes, and we have even bigger impact from natural events. One volcanic eruption for example, puts more pollution into the atmosphere than ten years worth of human activity.
And what about this so called "man-made" pollution? We have all heard about it. But Is it causing the Greenhouse Effect, creating global warming, etc.? Hardly.
Most of the so called "greenhouse gasses" have natural sources; volcanoes, animal and plant respiration, and the oceans. The proponents of this greenhouse effect tell us that carbon dioxide is the main problem, and we should be spending billions of dollars trying to cut back on emissions from cars, factories, etc. According to governmental agencies, to cut back these emissions of twenty percent in the next ten years, we would have to spend about 100 billion dollars a year. And that would still leave one of the biggest polluters untouched; trees.
Yes, trees and plants only clean the air while they are growing. Once fully grown, they actually give off carbon dioxide! The carbon is incorporated into carbohydrate compounds and stored in plant tissue. When the trees and forests are fully grown, the Carbon Dioxide is released back into the air. Also, fallen leaves and branches give off Carbon Dioxide. That "haze" that makes the Smokey Mountains such a beautiful sight, is composed of natural compounds of which much of it is Carbon Dioxide.
Not to worry however, because carbon dioxide is not the main greenhouse gas that we have to worry about; water vapor is. But the environmentalists and the politicians can't do anything about it since it occurs naturally from evaporation, so they tell us that carbon dioxide is the problem. Keep in mind, that if we didn't have the small natural greenhouse effect that the water vapor gives us, the temperature on the Earth would be like that on Mars, where a warm day would be zero degrees!
Of all the Carbon Dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, 51 percent is from plants and trees, 45 percent from the oceans, and only three percent from the burning of fossil fuels!
Surprisingly, this much maligned "Greenhouse Gas" accounts for only 0.035 percent of our atmosphere. The real problem 'Greenhouse Gas" again, is actually water vapor, which accounts for about two percent of our atmosphere. However, it occurs naturally in our atmosphere, due to ocean and water evaporation, and since the global warming folks can't stop it, they ignore it and pick on the Carbon Dioxide instead. According to scientists with the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, "Water Vapor is the predominant greenhouse gas, and plays a crucial role in the global climate system".
The whole thing in a nutshell, is that the Earth's environment and it's climate are very complex, and to really understand what is happening, we must weed out the political, environmental, and media propaganda, and examine the facts. It is very hard to solve a problem, when one does not exist, and as far as global warming and human cause goes, there is no problem to be found, therefore there is none to solve.
Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"
Conveniently overlooked by global warming alarmists, the sun may very well be the most significant factor in changes in our planet's climate. Sami Solanki, Director of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany states, "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures." Increases and decreases in solar activity also seem to correspond with warming and cooling periods throughout the last 1,000 years.
William Gray of the Atmospheric Science Department at Colorado State University argues the notion of consensus (of scientists believing in Human induced Global Warming) is "one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people."
SCIENTISTS OPPOSING THE MAINSTREAM OF GLOBAL WARMING (Wikipedia)
Click HERE to see scientists opposing the Global Warming Scenario.
"For the problem with An Inconvenient Truth is that it is well-made propaganda for the global warming cause rather than well-made climate science. Nowhere does Mr Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet. Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change. This is not surprising, for no such evidence yet exists". "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science." "Yet we do not read about natural climate change in the everyday news. Instead, newspapers, radio and television stations bludgeon us with a merciless stream of human-caused global-warming alarmism, egged on by a self-interested gaggle of journalists, environmental lobbyists, scientific and business groups, church leaders and politicians, all of whom preach that we must "stop climate change" by reducing human CO2 emissions. Professor Bob Carter, Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University.
25 "Truths" left out of GORE'S INCONVENIENT TRUTH (By Iain Murray, National Review Online)
1. Carbon Dioxide’s Effect on Temperature. The relationship between global temperature and carbon dioxide (CO2), on which the entire scare is founded, is not linear. Every molecule of CO2 added to the atmosphere contributes less to warming than the previous one. The book’s graph on p. 66-67 is seriously misleading. Moreover, even the historical levels of CO2 shown on the graph are disputed. Evidence from plant fossil-remains suggest that there was as much CO2 in the atmosphere about 11,000 years ago as there is today.
2. Kilimanjaro. The snows of Kilimanjaro are melting not because of global warming but because of a local climate shift that began 100 years ago. The authors of a report in the International Journal of Climatology “develop a new concept for investigating the retreat of Kilimanjaro’s glaciers, based on the physical understanding of glacier–climate interactions.” They note that, “The concept considers the peculiarities of the mountain and implies that climatological processes other than air temperature control the ice recession in a direct manner. A drastic drop in atmospheric moisture at the end of the 19th century and the ensuing drier climatic conditions are likely forcing glacier retreat on Kilimanjaro.”
3. Glaciers. Glaciers around the world have been receding at around the same pace for over 100 years. Research published by the National Academy of Sciences last week indicates that the Peruvian glacier on p. 53-53 probably disappeared a few thousand years ago.
4. The Medieval Warm Period. Al Gore says that the “hockey stick” graph that shows temperatures remarkably steady for the last 1,000 years has been validated, and ridicules the concept of a “medieval warm period.” That’s not the case. Last year, a team of leading paleoclimatologists said, “When matching existing temperature reconstructions…the time series display a reasonably coherent picture of major climatic episodes: ‘Medieval Warm Period,’ ‘Little Ice Age’ and ‘Recent Warming.’” They go on to conclude, “So what would it mean, if the reconstructions indicate a larger…or smaller…temperature amplitude? We suggest that the former situation, i.e. enhanced variability during pre-industrial times, would result in a redistribution of weight towards the role of natural factors in forcing temperature changes, thereby relatively devaluing the impact of anthropogenic emissions and affecting future temperature predictions.”
5. The Hottest Year. Satellite temperature measurements say that 2005 wasn't the hottest year on record — 1998 was — and that temperatures have been stable since 2001 (p.73). Here’s the satellite graph:
6. Heat Waves. The summer heat wave that struck Europe in 2003 was caused by an atmospheric pressure anomaly; it had nothing to do with global warming. As the United Nations Environment Program reported in September 2003, “This extreme weather [sic] was caused by an anti-cyclone firmly anchored over the western European land mass holding back the rain-bearing depressions that usually enter the continent from the Atlantic ocean. This situation was exceptional in the extended length of time (over 20 days) during which it conveyed very hot dry air up from south of the Mediterranean.”
7. Record Temperatures. Record temperatures — hot and cold — are set every day around the world; that’s the nature of records. Statistically, any given place will see four record high temperatures set every year. There is evidence that daytime high temperatures are staying about the same as for the last few decades, but nighttime lows are gradually rising. Global warming might be more properly called, “Global less cooling.” (On this, see Patrick J. Michaels book, Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media.)
8. Hurricanes. There is no overall global trend of hurricane-force storms getting stronger that has anything to do with temperature. A recent study in Geophysical Research Letters found: “The data indicate a large increasing trend in tropical cyclone intensity and longevity for the North Atlantic basin and a considerable decreasing trend for the Northeast Pacific. All other basins showed small trends, and there has been no significant change in global net tropical cyclone activity. There has been a small increase in global Category 4–5 hurricanes from the period 1986–1995 to the period 1996–2005. Most of this increase is likely due to improved observational technology. These findings indicate that other important factors govern intensity and frequency of tropical cyclones besides SSTs [sea surface temperatures].”
9. Tornadoes. Records for numbers of tornadoes are set because we can now record more of the smaller tornadoes (see, for instance, the Tornado FAQ at Weather Underground).
10. European Flooding. European flooding is not new (p. 107). Similar flooding happened in 2003. Research from Michael Mudelsee and colleagues from the University of Leipzig published in Nature (Sept. 11, 2003) looked at data reaching as far back as 1021 (for the Elbe) and 1269 (for the Oder). They concluded that there is no upward trend in the incidence of extreme flooding in this region of central Europe.
11. Shrinking Lakes. Scientists investigating the disappearance of Lake Chad (p.116) found that most of it was due to human overuse of water. “The lake’s decline probably has nothing to do with global warming, report the two scientists, who based their findings on computer models and satellite imagery made available by NASA. They attribute the situation instead to human actions related to climate variation, compounded by the ever increasing demands of an expanding population” (“Shrinking African Lake Offers Lesson on Finite Resources,” National Geographic, April 26, 2001). Lake Chad is also a very shallow lake that has shrunk considerably throughout human history.
12. Polar Bears. Polar bears are not becoming endangered. A leading Canadian polar bear biologist wrote recently, “Climate change is having an effect on the west Hudson population of polar bears, but really, there is no need to panic. Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear (sic) to be affected at present.”
13. The Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream, the ocean conveyor belt, is not at risk of shutting off in the North Atlantic (p. 150). Carl Wunsch of MIT wrote to the journal Nature in 2004 to say, “The only way to produce an ocean circulation without a Gulf Stream is either to turn off the wind system, or to stop the Earth’s rotation, or both”
14. Invasive Species. Gore’s worries about the effect of warming on species ignore evolution. With the new earlier caterpillar season in the Netherlands, an evolutionary advantage is given to birds that can hatch their eggs earlier than the rest. That’s how nature works. Also, “invasive species” naturally extend their range when climate changes. As for the pine beetle given as an example of invasive species, Rob Scagel, a forest microclimate specialist in British Columbia, said, “The MPB (mountain pine beetle) is a species native to this part of North America and is always present. The MPB epidemic started as comparatively small outbreaks and through forest management inaction got completely out of hand.”
15. Species Loss. When it comes to species loss, the figures given on p. 163 are based on extreme guesswork, as the late Julian Simon pointed out. We have documentary evidence of only just over 1,000 extinctions since 1600 (see, for instance, Bjørn Lomborg’s The Skeptical Environmentalist, p. 250).
16. Coral Reefs. Coral reefs have been around for over 500 million years. This means that they have survived through long periods with much higher temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations than today.
17. Malaria and other Infectious Diseases. Leading disease scientists contend that climate change plays only a minor role in the spread of emerging infectious diseases. In “Global Warming and Malaria: A Call for Accuracy” (The Lancet, June 2004), nine leading malariologists criticized models linking global warming to increased malaria spread as “misleading” and “display[ing] a lack of knowledge” of the subject.
18. Antarctic Ice. There is controversy over whether the Antarctic ice sheet is thinning or thickening. Recent scientific studies have shown a thickening in the interior at the same time as increased melting along the coastlines. Temperatures in the interior are generally decreasing. The Antarctic Peninsula, where the Larsen-B ice shelf broke up (p. 181) is not representative of what is happening in the rest of Antarctica. Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, Professor Emeritus of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, acknowledges, “Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems.” According to a forthcoming report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, climate models based on anthropogenic forcing cannot explain the anomalous warming of the Antarctic Peninsula; thus, something natural is at work.
19. Greenland Climate. Greenland was warmer in the 1920s and 1930s than it is now. A recent study by Dr. Peter Chylek of the University of California, Riverside, addressed the question of whether man is directly responsible for recent warming: “An important question is to what extent can the current (1995-2005) temperature increase in Greenland coastal regions be interpreted as evidence of man-induced global warming? Although there has been a considerable temperature increase during the last decade (1995 to 2005) a similar increase and at a faster rate occurred during the early part of the 20th century (1920 to 1930) when carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases could not be a cause. The Greenland warming of 1920 to 1930 demonstrates that a high concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is not a necessary condition for period of warming to arise. The observed 1995-2005 temperature increase seems to be within a natural variability of Greenland climate.” (Petr Chylek et al., Geophysical Research Letters, 13 June 2006.)
20. Sea Level Rise. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change does not forecast sea-level rises of “18 to 20 feet.” Rather, it says, “We project a sea level rise of 0.09 to 0.88 m for 1990 to 2100, with a central value of 0.48 m. The central value gives an average rate of 2.2 to 4.4 times the rate over the 20th century...It is now widely agreed that major loss of grounded ice and accelerated sea level rise are very unlikely during the 21st century.” Al Gore’s suggestions of much more are therefore extremely alarmist.
21. Population. Al Gore worries about population growth; Gore does not suggest a solution. Fertility in the developed world is stable or decreasing. The plain fact is that we are not going to reduce population back down to 2 billion or fewer in the foreseeable future. In the meantime, the population in the developing world requires a significant increase in its standard of living to reduce the threats of premature and infant mortality, disease, and hunger. In The Undercover Economist, Tim Harford writes, “If we are honest, then, the argument that trade leads to economic growth, which leads to climate change, leads us then to a stark conclusion: we should cut our trade links to make sure that the Chinese, Indians and Africans stay poor. The question is whether any environmental catastrophe, even severe climate change, could possibly inflict the same terrible human cost as keeping three or four billion people in poverty. To ask that question is to answer it.”
22. Energy Generation. A specific example of this is Gore’s acknowledgement that 30 percent of global CO2 emissions come from wood fires used for cooking (p. 227). If we introduced affordable, coal-fired power generation into South Asia and Africa we could reduce this considerably and save over 1.6 million lives a year. This is the sort of solution that Gore does not even consider.
23. Carbon-Emissions Trading. The European Carbon Exchange Market, touted as “effective” on p. 252, has crashed.
24. The “Scientific Consensus.” On the supposed “scientific consensus”: Dr. Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, San Diego, (p. 262) did not examine a “large random sample” of scientific articles. She got her search terms wrong and thought she was looking at all the articles when in fact she was looking at only 928 out of about 12,000 articles on “climate change.” Dr. Benny Peiser, of Liverpool John Moores University in England, was unable to replicate her study. He says, “As I have stressed repeatedly, the whole data set includes only 13 abstracts (~1%) that explicitly endorse what Oreskes has called the ‘consensus view.’ In fact, the vast majority of abstracts does (sic) not mention anthropogenic climate change. Moreover — and despite attempts to deny this fact — a handful of abstracts actually questions the view that human activities are the main driving force of ‘the observed warming over the last 50 years.’” In addition, a recent survey of scientists following the same methodology as one published in 1996 found that about 30 percent of scientists disagreed to some extent or another with the contention that “climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes.” Less than 10 percent “strongly agreed” with the statement. Details of both the survey and the failed attempt to replicate the Oreskes study can be found here.
25. Economic Costs. Even if the study Gore cites is right (p. 280-281), the United States will still emit massive amounts of CO2 after all the measures it outlines have been realized. Getting emissions down to the paltry levels needed to stabilize CO2 in the atmosphere would require, in Gore’s own words, “a wrenching transformation” of our way of life. This cannot be done easily or without significant cost. The Kyoto Protocol, which Gore enthusiastically supports, would avert less than a tenth of a degree of warming in the next fifty years and would cost up to $400 billion a year to the U.S. All of the current proposals in Congress would cost the economy significant amounts, making us all poorer, with all that that entails for human health and welfare, while doing nothing to stop global warming.
OH, and By the way....
Al Gore’s Personal Energy Use Is His Own “Inconvenient Truth”
Gore’s home uses more than 20 times the national average
Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.
Gore’s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).
In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.
The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.
Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.
Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.
Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.
“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.
In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.
The Great Global Warming Swindle.
This is a 1hr 15 minute scientifically accurate program debunking the Al Gore CO2 industrial world doom myth. It uses real science and historical climatological records. It was produced by channel 4 news in England and the media in the United States has yet to show it. For those who want to see real science, as opposed to those who want to be "hogwashed" by misinformation from "An Inconvenient Truth" and all of its followers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU
GLOBAL WARMING: WHO TO BELIEVE?
One must keep in mind, that temperatures on the Earth will rise, and fall, but are within the normal cycles of our planet's climate. According to scientists at the National Climactic Data Center, the weather and climate during the past 20 years has not been out of the ordinary. And further more, the study of tree rings and cores drilled in the ice caps, going back more than 100 years, has indicated no significant change in the climate. These studies have also indicated that the last big warm-up of the Earth was about 600 years ago, long before there was human interaction from factories, cars, and the burning of fossil fuels.
According to the Laboratory of Climateology in Arizona, "environmental disaster is nowhere imminent", and according to Richard S Lindzen from M I T, one of the nations leading experts on atmospheric science, "we don't have any evidence that global warming is a serious problem".
Fred Singer, the first director of the United States Satellite Program has another view. IF, and he emphasizes IF, global warming takes place, it could be beneficial. According to him, fears about the rising sea levels are not necessary. New research indicates that increased ocean evaporation due to warming, would lead to more rain, and therefore to more ice accumulation in the polar regions. This in turn, would actually drop sea levels. Also, due to less temperature gradient between the Equator and the Poles, severe weather would be less frequent.
Recent Statements About Global Warming From Scientists
In recent studies, Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics looked at more than 200 studies that examined climate data from such phenomena as the growth of tree rings which are sensitive to climatic conditions and climate change. They concluded that many records reveal that the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climate period. They said that two extreme climate periods-the Medieval Warming Period between 800 and 1300 and the Little Ice Age of 1300 to 1900-occurred worldwide, at a time before industrial emissions of greenhouse gases became abundant.
"The climate has warmed in the last century, but this took place before 1940. ...we don't think it was human activity. Satellite records of the temperatures from 3 miles up, do not show any warming at all. Heat Islands caused by urbanization have distorted thermometer temperatures."
(Prof. Fred Singer-Atmospheric Physicist, University of Virginia)
"40 years of ice accumulation would have buried the planes under 40 feet of ice." (the planes were under 268 feet of ice.) Why was there so much ice over the planes at a time when global warming and the melting of the polar ice caps were such big news?...Greenland has been cooling for the last 50 years...
(Weatherwise Magazine)
"We don't even know if man-made aerosols are warming or cooling the planet. Man-Made aerosols tend to be processed out of the atmosphere by clouds within a few weeks."
(NASA Earth Observatory Internet Bulletin)
"The coverage of ice in the Arctic has been virtually unchanged since 1979, while Ice in the Antarctic regions has actually increased." Temperatures over time, aligned themselves very well with the variations in the Solar Cycle, ...using temperatures form the 1880's to 1999."
(WSI-Intellicast Meteorologists using data from NOAA and Goddard Space Flight Center)
"NOAA research shows that the tropical multi-decadal signal is causing the increased Atlantic hurricane activity since 1995, and is not related to greenhouse warming".(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)
"I'm saying that the sun has an effect. But I'm also saying it's uncertain how much global warming has to do with the sun and how much is caused by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The greenhouse effect must play some role. But those who are absolutely certain that the rise in temperatures are due solely to carbon dioxide have no scientific justification. It's pure guesswork." (Danish National Space Center)
"You have these news events where people are taken to Glacier National Park or to Alaska, and they are shown a glacier that has been retreating," says Professor Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "The assumption is it's global warming. But then you look at the markers and you see that the retreat began around 1820. That's not due to global warming, at least not from man. In other words, these things happen."
"Few people contest the idea that some of the recent climate changes are likely due to natural processes, such as volcanic eruptions, changes in solar luminosity, and variations generated by natural interactions between parts of the climate system (for example, oceans and the atmosphere). There were significant climate changes before humans were around and there will be non-human causes of climate change in the future." (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)
"I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can’t find them. Here are the basic facts you need to know: Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab. The climate of this planet has been changing since God put the planet here. It will always change, and the warming in the last 10 years is not much difference than the warming we saw in the 1930s and other decades. And, lets not forget we are at the end of the ice age in which ice covered most of North America and Northern Europe." (ABC-TV Alabama affiliate weatherman James Spann)
"There was a lot of global warming in the 1930s and '40s, and then there was a slight global cooling from the middle '40s to the early '70s. And there has been warming since the middle '70s, especially in the last 10 years. But this is natural, due to ocean circulation changes and other factors. It is not human induced. Nearly all of my colleagues who have been around 40 or 50 years are skeptical as hell about this whole global-warming thing. But no one asks us. If you don't know anything about how the atmosphere functions, you will of course say, 'Look, greenhouse gases are going up, the globe is warming, they must be related.' Well, just because there are two associations, changing with the same sign, doesn't mean that one is causing the other."(William Gray, hurricane expert and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at Colorado State University)
Bernie Rayno, senior meteorologist with AccuWeather said in February 2007, "Our climate has been changing since the dawn of time. There is not enough evidence to link global warming to greenhouse gases."
Boston College's professor of geology and geophysics Amy Frappier explained in February 2007, "The geologic record shows that many millions of years ago, CO2 levels were indeed higher - in some cases many times higher - than today." Frappier noted that greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere do not consistently continue to have a warming effect on Earth, but gases instead stabilize in the atmosphere and cease having a warming effect. "At some point the heat-trapping capacity of [the gas] and its effect get saturated," said Frappier, "and you don't have increased heating."
Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top young scientists recanted his belief in manmade emissions driving climate change. "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming," Shaviv said in January 2007. But Shaviv now points to growing peer reviewed evidence that the sun has been driving the temperature changes and said, "Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming."
Climate Scientist Fred Singer & Environmental Economist Dennis Avery's 2006 book: "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years" details the solar-climate link using studies from peer reviewed literature and "shows the earth's temperatures following variations in solar intensity through centuries of sunspot records, and finds cycles of sun-linked isotopes in ice and tree rings."
Niger Calder, former editor of New Scientist, also expressed his view last week that the UN rejects science it sees as "politically incorrect" and the UN denies that "climate history and related archeology give solid support to the solar hypothesis."
Panel of Broadcast Meteorologists Reject Man-Made Global Warming Fears in February 2007 - Claim 95% of Weathermen Skeptical "You tell me you're going to predict climate change based on 100 years of data for a rock that's 6 billion years old?" Meteorologist Mark Johnson said. "I'm not sure which is more arrogant, to say we caused (global warming) or that we can fix it," Meteorologist Mark Nolan said.
"And more scientists who don't believe in predictions of climate catastrophe need to rise above their fears of losing funding and speak out. Otherwise, this growing storm of global warming hysteria could do some real damage." (Dr. Roy Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite.)
In response to Al Gore's movie on global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth," where he hints that Hurricane Katrina is the result of Global Warming, and that more Hurricanes have, and will occur due to Global Warming:
Subscribing to the theory that the Atlantic Basin is in a busy cycle that occurs naturally every 25 to 40 years, are Chris Landsea, science and operations officer at the National Hurricane Center in Miami, and William Gray and Phil Klotzbach of Colorado State University, who pioneered much of modern hurricane-prediction theory.
"There has been no change in the number and intensity of Category 4 or Category 5 hurricanes around the world in the last 15 years," Mr. Landsea said, in a telephone interview from Miami. Mr. Emanuel of MIT said that, globally, the number and intensity of hurricanes are unchanged over the past 30 years.
According to NOAA hurricane records going back into the mid-1800s, hurricanes come in cycles. There have been quiet periods, with less hurricane activity, followed every 25 to 40 years by active periods, that last about 25 years. The current active period began in 1995 and is expected to last another 10 to 15 years.
At Colorado State University, Phil Klotzbach wrote an article, published in the Geophysical Research Letter and concluded that where sea-surface temperature has increased, there is in fact a slight decrease in hurricane activity.
"With regards to the number of Category 4-5 hurricanes, there has been a large increase in North Atlantic storms and a large decrease in Northeast Pacific storms," wrote Mr. Klotzbach in "talking points" for the paper on his Web site. "When these two regions are summed together, there has been virtually no increase in Category 4-5 hurricanes."
"Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise." (Letter to Canadian Prime Minister from 60 world leading climate Scientists)**** See the list of scientists below.
1) Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and
paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
2) Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries
and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility
and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide;
currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and
Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
3) Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences
(paleoclimatology) , Carleton University, Ottawa
4) Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and
associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University,
Ottawa
5) Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment
Canada.
Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards
6) Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences,
Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.
7) Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics,
University of Guelph, Ont.
8) Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of
Winnipeg; environmental consultant
9) Dr. Andreas Prokoph, adjunct professor of earth sciences,
University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology
10) Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology) , fellow of the Royal
Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO
Meteorological Group, Ottawa
11) Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and
associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University
of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
12) Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of
Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics
Research Group, University of Alberta
13) Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography,
University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
14) Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in
environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics,
University of Victoria
15) Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and
Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax
16) Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former
meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization.
Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter,
U.K.
17) Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of
Meteorology, University of Alberta
18) Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va.,
and Sioux Lookout, Ont.
19) Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal
consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.
20) Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant,
Calgary
21) Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ont.
22) Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology,
Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology
23) Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for
Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.
24) Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University;
Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of
State Climatologists
25) Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and
Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of
earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia
26) Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James
Cook
University, Townsville, Australia
27) Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head
National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former
Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission
for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review
28) Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal
Netherlands Meteorological Institute
29) Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclim atologist,
Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations,
New Zealand
30) Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences,
University of Virginia
31) Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics &
geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
32) Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study,
Salinas, Calif.
33) Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System
Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville
34) Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and
Atmospheric
Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minn.
35) Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University
of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks
and Environment, CNRS
36) Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and
Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working
group II, chapter 8 (human health)
37) Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific
Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw,
Poland
38) Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christianse n, reader, Dept. of Geography,
University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy & Environment
39) Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board,
Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International
Relations) and an economist who has focused on climate change
40) Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of
Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey
41) Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre,
Meteorological Institute, Norway
42) Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science,
University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological
Service (MetService) of New Zealand
43) Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The
Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001,' Wellington,
N.Z.
44) Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of
Connecticut
45) Dr Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of
Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.
46) Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with
Imperial
College London, U.K.
47) Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and
Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member,
United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural
Disasters, 1994-2000
48) Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences,
University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite
Service
49) Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and
isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the
Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the
Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society
50) Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy
conversion,
Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
51) Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher,
Boston,
Mass.
52) Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-
author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously
with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland
Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific
climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany
53) Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired),
Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology,
University of Helsinki, Finland
54) Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical
Geography and Quaternary
Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
55) Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorolo gist, previously with
the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric
consultant.
56) Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and
Medicine, Cave Junction, Ore.
57) Dr. Arthur Rorsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics,
Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands
organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food and
public health
58) Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.;
international economist
59) Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science
consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.
60) Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The
University of Auckland, N.Z.
Scientists threatened for questioning Man's impact on climate
Scientists threatened for 'climate denial'
By Tom Harper, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:24am GMT 03/11/2007
Scientists who questioned mankind's impact on climate change have
received death threats and claim to have been shunned by the
scientific community.
They say the debate on global warming has been "hijacked" by a
powerful alliance of politicians, scientists and environmentalists
who have stifled all questioning about the true environmental impact
of carbon dioxide emissions.
Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of
Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since
raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate
change.
One of the emails warned that, if he continued to speak out, he would
not live to see further global warming.
"Western governments have pumped billions of dollars into careers and
institutes and they feel threatened," said the professor.
"I can tolerate being called a sceptic because all scientists should
be sceptics, but then they started calling us deniers, with all the
connotations of the Holocaust. That is an obscenity. It has got
really nasty and personal."
Last week, Professor Ball appeared in The Great Global Warming
Swindle, a Channel 4 documentary in which several scientists claimed
the theory of man-made global warming had become a "religion",
forcing alternative explanations to be ignored.
Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at
Massachusetts Institute of Technology - who also appeared on the
documentary - recently claimed: "Scientists who dissent from the
alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and
themselves labelled as industry stooges.
"Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they
fly in the face of the science."
Dr Myles Allen, from Oxford University, agreed. He said: "The Green
movement has hijacked the issue of climate change. It is ludicrous to
suggest the only way to deal with the problem is to start micro
managing everyone, which is what environmentalists seem to want to
do."
Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said: "Governments
are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who
disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present
system."
Links to other sources explaining the Global Warming myth.
The links below, will take you to articles from newspapers and web sites throughout the world, that explain via graphs and scientific facts, that Global Warming due to Human activity is a myth and hype.
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=010405M
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
-
I believe that Global Warming is very real. Man is taking into consideration all of his recorded data so how/why would someone say that they believe in "natural temperature changes"?
Because for one man has been on earth less than a blink of an eye in terms of earth age and man's recorded data has been around even less.
Global warming has been occurring since the last ice age and has occurred many times in our planets history.
Granted we should limit the amount of pollution that is produced more for health reasons but to think man is the number one thing responsible for global warming is laughable.
-
Because for one man has been on earth less than a blink of an eye in terms of earth age and man's recorded data has been around even less.
Global warming has been occurring since the last ice age and has occurred many times in our planets history.
Granted we should limit the amount of pollution that is produced more for health reasons but to think man is the number one thing responsible for global warming is laughable.
I didn't realize we were debating if Man is the only/main reason for Global Warming. I assumed we were talking about if Man's actions effect it or not (which is where recorded data would be relevant).
I would not argue that the earth itself and it's environment have nothing to do with warming and I'm not sure Al Gore or many others would either.
The point is that we (humans) DO cause Global Warming and we DO need to recognize the FACT and take action to preserve what we have. Similar to having a chronic illness....preserve the good days for as long as possible. Everything is energy and to not take care of it be efficient as possible is tragic.
-
I do think we as humans have a direct effect on the Earth. We can harm it or help it along. We can all do simple things like recycle and reuse things.
-
The Great Global Warming Swindle.
This is a 1hr 15 minute scientifically accurate program debunking the Al Gore CO2 industrial world doom myth. It uses real science and historical climatological records. It was produced by channel 4 news in England and the media in the United States has yet to show it. For those who want to see real science, as opposed to those who want to be "hogwashed" by misinformation from "An Inconvenient Truth" and all of its followers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU
-
I think the idea that coal is better than wood is overlooking the importance of the age of the carbon or maybe a better term would be the carbon's vintage. Coal is carbon that has be sequestered for millions of years while all living plants are part of the current carbon cycle.
I was reading about ideas people have to somehow remove carbon from the environment - artificial algae blooms, for instance. There are a number of people advocating that sort of thing but then I got to thinking do you really want to take responsibility for the weather? What would be the target weather? Who would decide?
-
We are indisputably damaging our environment. Whether or not you believe that Global Warming is a problem, we are poisoning our world and altering our environment in ways that will have serious, detrimental consequences. Belief or disbelief in one aspect - global warming - is no excuse for not doing something to lower your own carbon footprint if you can!
-
I have to say I'm more worried about pollution in the oceans than the carbon emissions.
-
NYC taxis are going "green".
-
I have to say I'm more worried about pollution in the oceans than the carbon emissions.
Another situation where we could do so much better.
-
I think the idea that coal is better than wood is overlooking the importance of the age of the carbon or maybe a better term would be the carbon's vintage. Coal is carbon that has be sequestered for millions of years while all living plants are part of the current carbon cycle.
I was reading about ideas people have to somehow remove carbon from the environment - artificial algae blooms, for instance. There are a number of people advocating that sort of thing but then I got to thinking do you really want to take responsibility for the weather? What would be the target weather? Who would decide?
As to burning coal there are far more harmful things from it than adding to global warming, that being the pollutants from burning coal such as mercury and uranium. Those have a more direct affect on humans, animals and the land vs global warming affects from it.
-
The Great Global Warming Swindle.
This is a 1hr 15 minute scientifically accurate program debunking the Al Gore CO2 industrial world doom myth. It uses real science and historical climatological records. It was produced by channel 4 news in England and the media in the United States has yet to show it. For those who want to see real science, as opposed to those who want to be "hogwashed" by misinformation from "An Inconvenient Truth" and all of its followers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU
First off, I have not been "hogwashed", and I think that is an ignorant, opinionated statement. While it may be true that natural factors have a greater impact on global warming then the human element that does not excuse us from recognizing the effects WE DO contribute to the issue. There isn't really anything else to say about that.
Answer this one question, Why would you not do all you can to keep your environment as healthy as possible?
Secondly, if you think people who have even become the slightest bit more aware of the environment and their effects on it from watching "An Inconvenient Truth" are "FOLLOWERS" you are truly, truly, mistaken. They are people who are concerned and the ones who will deserve the credit for preserving this little planet we all live on, they are the one's cutting a new path and leading the way to preserve nature, not just shitting all over it and take it for granted. I am sorry that you have such a poor view on this subject, maybe you should try to think a little differently about it, but if you don't, then don't worry about it because others will do it for you.
I could care less about the politics (if any) behind Al Gore's movie. In my opinion it was a great success in raising awareness and I commend the effort he put into it. All of those speeches he gave, all over the country. You can find fault in anything if you want to bad enough, what I don't get is why people want to discredit an effort to save our world. Just goes to show the world if full of all types of ass holes.
-
Just goes to show the world if full of all types of ass holes.
I think this is completely uncalled for and inappropriate. >:(
-
would it have been okay if I had said.....Just goes to show the world is full of all types of but heads.
-
Not to me. It's more about calling someone a name.
-
Not to me. It's more about calling someone a name.
Well then I felt similar to being called a "follower" and the insinuation that I have been "hogwashed". I know two wrongs don't make it right, but screw that. Sorry you don't like what I had to say but that's the world we live in (not that justification is/was necessary).
-
edited cause I am not feeling quite so bitchy today ;D
-
I think the idea that coal is better than wood is overlooking the importance of the age of the carbon or maybe a better term would be the carbon's vintage. Coal is carbon that has be sequestered for millions of years while all living plants are part of the current carbon cycle.
I was reading about ideas people have to somehow remove carbon from the environment - artificial algae blooms, for instance. There are a number of people advocating that sort of thing but then I got to thinking do you really want to take responsibility for the weather? What would be the target weather? Who would decide?
As to burning coal there are far more harmful things from it than adding to global warming, that being the pollutants from burning coal such as mercury and uranium. Those have a more direct affect on humans, animals and the land vs global warming affects from it.
Bigsky I don't know what part of a very large state you are in but isn't there all sorts of problems with old mines in MT? I read Collapse by Jared Diamond who I believe lives in Missula but part of his book talked about some of the problems with the old mines.
There are cities in China where the air polution is so toxic it's a danger to live there - I heard a report about some terrible situations there. I can't help but feel like we're all "downwinders".
-
This from a bunch of people who rely on plastic to live. How many of you reuse your dialyzers? Day after day your lines and dialyzers fill our landfills. Just how much are you willing to contribute to environmental savings?
10 years ago it was all about the Ozone layer and how that would destroy us. I tell you what if the BIG one hits California we won't have to worry about "Global Warming."
:sarcasm;
-
I think about the plastic all the time. Our clinic is no reuse and has been for some time now. I even think about the empty medication vials as well. Glass vials everywhere. Does Davita still do reuse? I try not to obsess about it but it drives me nuts to see people throwing away plastic bottles and aluminum cans, when the city gives us the recycle bins to put out with our trash each week. I guess we all could do better. I am trying to switch over from clay kittie litter to wood but my cats want no part in it. I will keep trying to do better. :thumbup;
-
... I am trying to switch over from clay kittie litter to wood but my cats want no part in it. ...
Try putting a VERY thin layer of the wood litter on the bottom of the pan, gently sprinkle the clay litter over the wood and then pour it to the usual level in the pan. That way the cats are raking the wood up to the top themselves and they won't blame you! Increase the amount of wood VERY slowly. Plan on taking at least a couple of months to get to where the clay is just a thin layer on top, and then in another month you can quit using the clay completely. Works for most cats, but of course, not all. There are also flushable forms of cat litter which break down in the sewer system and do not add to the land fill.
If you live in the country you can make your own litter disposal system: cut the bottom out of a small garbage can (with a tight fitting lid). Dig a hole two or three feet deep. Make the top of the hole only slightly larger than the bottom of the can and slightly smaller a foot or so down in the hole. Set the can down in the hole and fill around the outside until the hole is sealed. Every time you dump the littler add at least a quart of slightly warm water and periodically add the"waste digester" usually recommended for septic tanks. When it gets close to the top of the hole, pullout the trash can, cover up the hole and dig another one. It is VERY important that the lid be tight fitting or you'll have a sewer smell down wind. :lol; I do this for my dog kennel and it works very well.
-
The tree huggers will love that!
:yahoo;
-
I believe that Global Warming is very real. Man is taking into consideration all of his recorded data so how/why would someone say that they believe in "natural temperature changes"? Sure there is some fluctuation but a definite trend is obviously on our plates right in front of us. I don't get how this can be discredited. ...
[/size]
It can be discredited easily by looking at the whole picture instead of just a tiny piece. Looking only at recent history and attributing global temperature changes to humans, is like looking only at the elephant's trunk and saying an elephant looks like a huge snake. If you really want to know the truth, and not just the propaganda of people with their own agenda, check these out. It won't take 10 minutes but it should be a real eye opening few minutes.
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
scroll down and look at the graph for CO2 and Temperature
http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
scroll down and look at the graph
Don't feel bad about being taken in. If you look only at this
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ei/ei_reconsa.html
it does look like an alarming picture, but it is only the elephants trunk and very misleading.
If you are really interested in the things that do have a major effect on our temperatures (and air quality) check out this:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/of97-262/of97-262.html (only deals w/ the US)
http://starbulletin.com/96/05/01/news/story1.html
When the volcano Tambora erupted in 1815 it caused the "The Year There Was No Summer" in 1816 - thousands died from the cold and starvation due to worldwide crop failure.
Dust storms in the large deserts can affect weather on other continents.
Mother Nature dwarfs any impact we could possibly have on global temperature.
All that being said, I do believe all humans should do whatever we can conveniently and economically do to lessen our impact on our environment. Note that I used the qualifiers "conveniently" and "economically" as I do not believe the impact we can have is significant enough to bother making the effort to do anything which is not convenient or economical.
The tree huggers will love that!
:yahoo;
Yes, Rerun, they should. It's biodegradeable and trees are a renewable resource. Tree farms have raised the tree count to a higher number than there were when the Pilgrims landed and provide jobs from seedlings to finished product. Most wood litter is made from waste which would ordinarily be discarded.
-
The earth is alive and everyone knows that mother nature is the dictator, the all powerful, much much stronger/important than man. It is a simple point that humans occupy this environment, and to think that our actions/effects mean nothing is absurd. Go and inhabit the moon and tell me in just 100 years you had no impact on it.
Black, I reviewed your post and I can appreciate the big picture and I understand it clearly. I don't think anyone, including Gore, discredits the facts. I think it is also a fact that we do contribute to the issue, regardless of the degree of our effect, we should be aware of it, and do smart things to minimize our footprints. I want to leave earth as healthy as it was when I arrived.