Jump to content


Global Warming


  • Please log in to reply
70 replies to this topic

Poll: Global Warming

Is global warming real?

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.

Is it possible to reverse the effects?

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Vote Guests cannot vote

#16 greywolf

greywolf

    The Wanderer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 684 posts

Posted 04 March 2007 - 05:43 AM

@Japofran: I agree 100%. I love the bit on cow farts, too. We think alike, you and I. ;)

@Potatoe: Perhaps you could elaborate on your arguments a bit more? I'd like to hear your reasoning behind the idea that it's a proven fact. Even the theory of relativity is not a fact - it is a theory, like everything else in science. It's just that the relativity theory has withstood many, many years of scrutiny, and is generally accepted as fact. However, global warming (more specifically, the CO2-greenhouse effect relationship) is not near as old as the relativity theory, much less proven. Scientists still disagree about it, although the media generally portrays global warming as fact and not theory. Some linkage to articles that back you up would be nice.

@Juni/Tai: About the poll - I wasn't aware that some people think that man is indeed partially responsible - I've only heard/read about the general extremes, and figured I had myself covered with the "little to no impact" part of the poll. Apologies. :)

As for your assessment of man's impact on the environment, I can agree with you to some extent. Obviously, razing thousands upon tens of thousands of acres of forest in South America and other similar acts of environmental destruction (like oil spills and strip-mining) do hurt the environment. However, I don't agree with you about the global warming part for reasons I'm about to explain.

@Everyone: Everyone seems lie at varied points on the spectrum of how much impact man has on global warming. However, none except Japofran (and even then, only a little) have addressed the actual supposed cause - CO2 levels. The entire theory of man-made global warming rests upon the idea that CO2 causes the greenhouse effect. Thus, when more CO2 is in the atmosphere, there is a concentrated effect, and the earth gets warmer. The point of the skeptics is that CO2 doesn't have any effect (or if it does, it's fairly negligible) on the greenhouse effect. They either ascribe to the idea that the earth is going through natural temperature cycles, the sun's temperature has a direct relationship with the earth's (as Japo mentioned), or something else I haven't heard of. This page has quite a bit of information on all sides of the debate, if anyone wants to peruse it.

I'd also like to discuss the wonderful examples we have championing the environmentalist cause and the issue of buying carbon credits. I mentioned that in my first post and would like to hear some commentary on that (particularly from the pro-man-made side).

#17 DakaSha

DakaSha

    Happy Little Tree-hugger

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2013 posts

Posted 04 March 2007 - 12:11 PM

@tai

i meant it exactly as i said it. everybody whos cynical about it. and if that means people here then tough luck (i didnt really read any posts so its not directed towards anyone... but if somebody was like that then yes i mean it). im not taking it back.

being cynical about the planet and its well being is telling me and everybody/everything else on the planet to go *meep* itself so no i dont have deep seated guilt feelings now

but ok warning recieved and ill just lay back from this thread now... i hope :) (at least in that manner)

edit: and no im not being rebellious or trying to get people mad. just speaking my feelings really

Posted Image
For all you artists here... and we have enough. Please draw me something :D Click Here. If possible include your nick. A simple Test. dunno of the PICKLEWAESEL order!!1!2


#18 Tulac

Tulac

    The Great Red Lemur

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1546 posts

Posted 04 March 2007 - 12:27 PM

These two graphs clearly speak for themselves:
Posted Image
Posted Image
I see a corelation with CO2 emissions and rising temperatures and corellation with solar heat up to 1970's (which is when human CO2 emmisions got really big).

Quote

Connect the dots, and you have a shifting of wealth from wealthy 1st-world nations to smaller, 3rd world nations who are exempt from Kyoto, and thus don't have to pay extra money to remain eco-friendly. Socialism, anyone? (Specifically, check entry #3 in the dictionary reference.)
That one's easy, you first need to reach a certain technological level, for the ecological measures to be profitable. That sounds like pure capitalism to me.
For example, to be able to adopt filters in industry, that industry has to be profitable for a couple of years so that the next cycle of investment will be turned into those filters. If the filters would be employed during the initial investment the costs of running that plant would be too high.

Quote

being cynical about the planet and its well being is telling me and everybody/everything else on the planet to go *meep* itself so no i dont have deep seated guilt feelings now
I agree on that, you can't just wait and be cynical about, when it's our environment in question there's no making chances, especially if something as silly as profit is in question.

DakaSha:if you go into a kindergarden and give all the kids rubber schlongs they will prob just hit each other over the head with them
DakaSha:and you have a class of little kids hitting eachother with rubber dongs which must be quite funny (also Picklweasel knight I am)


#19 Japofran

Japofran

    A Usual Suspect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 412 posts

Posted 04 March 2007 - 01:06 PM

Long post **sigh**

As for the graphs, there's a big controversy about them and now there are several alternative graphs. Just search the Web for "hockey stick", take this for instance, and this for a resource about the basis against the man-made global warming in general, with plenty of articles about the "hockey stick". The very author of the study that reached those graphs as a conclusion had to admit that the mathematical model he used produces graphs with that same hockey stick shape with any input, even if you don't use the scarcely known historical data but fictional randomly generated data. He still states that his study is still valid though. The case is that if man-made global warming was a reality objective scientific scrutiny would find it out, but if you set up a politically funded research and you know the conclusions you want to and will reach beforehand, you'll never get the truth. Plus the very scientists who believe in man-made global warming don't state it's "proven", only that they lean towards believing it.

As for man-made global warming being a proven fact, as I said not even the UN report states it, it says that it's "very likely" and that something should be done in case. But it doesn't have the nerve to state that we're scientifically certain of it. The UN report isn't neutral at all, yet it keeps some scientific rigour and if the media merely quoted it instead of fabricating apocalyptic stuff, the average man wouldn't have blind faith in global warming as he has. A scientific theory is the closest you can get to scientific truth, even being open to revision, but global warming is nowhere near being a theory. It's a hypothesis, that is a reasonable supposition not thoroughly based on experimental data, and a hypothesis which has resisted being upgraded to a theory during two decades in spite of all the funds spent on researching it, and which has received some bashings during these two decades.

As for the people who think that the "deniers'" --outrageous name we receive-- side is the only one with economic  motivations and lobbying and whatnot. First I could talk about political motivations because they're present in the pro-man-made side and not in the anti-man-made side, but I'll just drop it myself, Greywolf seems willing to discuss it though. But I'll say a couple of words about economic motivations, which tend to permeate the political field also.

First, what are the economic motivations of the anti-man-made side? I'd say defending the use of technologies that, it must be understood and accepted and flaming is not the way to convince anyone, we don't think they're harming the environment in the way the other side says. From the point of view of the companies, they're not harming anybody, they're providing a service you're not forced to hire and you can boycott them if you like --just don't buy electricity and go Rambo as Tai said--, and they think they don't deserve being unfairly charged or taxed or banned or in any way penalized. And from the point of view of the consumers, of the few who don't believe in man-made global warming and don't own stock of energy companies either, measures introduced to fight something we believe it doesn't actually exist have the effect of raising both energy prices and taxes collected to fund those measures. That is the measures decrease our living standards and purchasing power, and we think it's all for nothing. If you think these two points of view are criminal sue us.

On the pro-man-made side, and contrary to what most people believe or rather even know about, there are big fat economic motivations as well. During the Clinton administration the energy company Enron donated almost half a million dollars to the Democratic party and lobbied in favour of the Kyoto Protocol before it was even signed. A prestigious lawyer told how he was hired by Enron but not told about what would be his job until he accepted, supposedly becaus Enron didn't want its competitors to know about it. Seemingly Enron didn't want anyone to know, but when the first day they told their new employee that his main job would be lobbying the government in favour of signing the Kyoto Protocol, he immediately resigned and later told the story to the oh so few media interested.

The reason for certain companies' being interested in the Kyoto Protocol is always the same, they don't want to compete if they can receive subsidies. Enron had previously purchased from General Electric and others equipment for energy generation through renewable technologies. This equipment was a bad purchase if Enron had to compete because its costs are much higher than the fossil fuels technologies, but Enron planned thus to get a dominant or monopolistic position in the renewable energies sector, and money spent to lobby the government would be well worth it if it made the government bash their so-called non-eco-friendly competitors and massively subsidize them. That's not what I would call honest practices, and if I'm not wrong Enron was sentenced for an unrelated accounting fraud.

We have the same situation here in Spain, especially with a company called Acciona. It was dedicated to building roads and housing, which has been a very lucrative business with all the EU subsidies to infrastructures and with the humongous housing demand here during the last years. But now Spain will be giving to the EU rather than receiving, and the housing demand is saturated, so Acciona thought about entering the energy sector. But again they didn't want to compete if they could convince the government to subsidize them, so they've specialized in renewable energies. They've spent loads of cash in an advertising campaign about sustainable development. Why, because the high executives just feel better doing good to mankind and into the bargain they want the stockholders to oust them for trashing their profits? Yeah sure. And know what? Acciona pays Al Gore to lecture in Spain.

By the way I don't know if you heard that Al Gore's house --or the biggest of his houses-- spends 20 (!) times as much electricity as the average American home. Well I respect anyone who believes in global warming even if I don't and advocates for action in a honest way, like the people who post here. But I just can't think good of this guy, given what he says vs. what he does. Plus he lost the election, period. The electoral law is as it is and I don't see the Democrats advocating for changing it or reviewing the federal constitution of the US either.

As for the influence of CO2. It does cause greenhouse effect, but. First, greenhouse effect occurs naturally and without it Earth would be frozen and life would be hardly possible. As I said during past eras there was 10 or more times as much CO2 as now. Secondly, even will all the CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere right now, still most CO2 in it has a natural origin. Thirdly and this is important, around 98 per cent of greenhouse effect is caused by vapour, yes, water in gas form (take a look at this). The pro-man-made side doesn't deny this, they can't, what they say is that this 0.X per cent of greenhouse gases we cause artificially will spoil some supposedly extremely delicate balance --although we know how widely the climate has historically changed without reaching the extreme of an ice age, and then again ice ages or any kind of ages are natural and we can't nor should try to do anything to influence the climate. Well you can believe in it just like Ahmadinejad believes in the coming of the 12th imam.

Anyway I'm only talking about global warming, I'm not saying that man doesn't harm the enviroment in other aspects.
..oO Mustached Crusader of the PEEKOCKSWOOZZLE Order Oo..
"STFU and show me your screenies!!"

#20 Tulac

Tulac

    The Great Red Lemur

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1546 posts

Posted 04 March 2007 - 01:28 PM

The point is that if the global warming is very likely caused by humans, we shouldn't wait, we should sacrifice 1% or 2% of GDP for the sake of future. We shouldn't wait for the huge damage already being done, like with ozone layer or acid rain.
I don't care for conspiracies and capital interest(on both sides as you say), and I repeat again we shouldn't take risks if the future of our planet is in question.
It's the same with asteroids, there's an incredibly low chance of one hitting(much higher are chances of humans causing the global warming) but still millions are invested in tracking asteroids (until 2010 all the dangerous asteroids will be cataloged), the same should be done with global warming on a larger scale, but face it, the danger is also larger.

DakaSha:if you go into a kindergarden and give all the kids rubber schlongs they will prob just hit each other over the head with them
DakaSha:and you have a class of little kids hitting eachother with rubber dongs which must be quite funny (also Picklweasel knight I am)


#21 Juni Ori

Juni Ori

    Gaming Guru

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4277 posts

Posted 04 March 2007 - 03:27 PM

I'll have to come back later and read onward from Japo's megapost, but now I must make a small note about the forests: there're actually areas where forests are growing. I'll try to find resources 'til I come back.
...70 years... LOL

#22 DakaSha

DakaSha

    Happy Little Tree-hugger

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2013 posts

Posted 04 March 2007 - 03:50 PM

isnt it kinda messed up though to have to say:

"there're actually areas where forests are growing"


its like: "Wow"

Posted Image
For all you artists here... and we have enough. Please draw me something :D Click Here. If possible include your nick. A simple Test. dunno of the PICKLEWAESEL order!!1!2


#23 Juni Ori

Juni Ori

    Gaming Guru

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4277 posts

Posted 04 March 2007 - 04:03 PM

Care to drop your fanaticism and take a little time to do some research? I bet you could find surprising facts about forests...
...70 years... LOL

#24 taikara

taikara

    Tai-Fu Mastah

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2389 posts

Posted 04 March 2007 - 04:20 PM

@Japofran: Very informative post, and well laid out :)

@Daka: It's perfectly fine if you feel that way, just do us a favor and try to express it in a more appropriate manner. I think we'd all like to keep the discussion friendly ;)
..<[[[Tofu Ninja of the Pickasldawessle Order]]]>..
QUOTE (Tai - in response to DD on how people who fear change are like cats)
you mean the "you moved my litterbox, so I'm going to pee in your clothes hamper" attitude?
Yes, I just quoted myself. ph34r my T4i-F00!!.
doodoodoo!!!

#25 DakaSha

DakaSha

    Happy Little Tree-hugger

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2013 posts

Posted 04 March 2007 - 05:42 PM

View PostJuni Ori, on Mar 4 2007, 05:03 PM, said:

Care to drop your fanaticism and take a little time to do some research? I bet you could find surprising facts about forests...

yeah like: "Forests grow.. its a natural fact"

Posted Image
For all you artists here... and we have enough. Please draw me something :D Click Here. If possible include your nick. A simple Test. dunno of the PICKLEWAESEL order!!1!2


#26 Juni Ori

Juni Ori

    Gaming Guru

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4277 posts

Posted 04 March 2007 - 06:23 PM

Okay, fine, if you want to play it this far:

Mass of forests in several larger regions, even whole large countries, is growing!

Now please, I bet you have brains, please use them. Rationalism isn't sin.
...70 years... LOL

#27 Japofran

Japofran

    A Usual Suspect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 412 posts

Posted 05 March 2007 - 10:53 AM

If you live in the UK or otherwise are able to receive Channel 4 --I'm not AFAIK--, you may want to watch this:

http://www.channel4....ndle/index.html

Funny thing is, the "related" links in the same page are all pro-man-made and even propagandistic, I guess it's the stuff they link as "related" to all their global warming stories. :)
..oO Mustached Crusader of the PEEKOCKSWOOZZLE Order Oo..
"STFU and show me your screenies!!"

#28 DakaSha

DakaSha

    Happy Little Tree-hugger

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2013 posts

Posted 05 March 2007 - 01:05 PM

View PostJuni Ori, on Mar 4 2007, 07:23 PM, said:

Okay, fine, if you want to play it this far:

Mass of forests in several larger regions, even whole large countries, is growing!

Now please, I bet you have brains, please use them. Rationalism isn't sin.

;)  :)

Posted Image
For all you artists here... and we have enough. Please draw me something :D Click Here. If possible include your nick. A simple Test. dunno of the PICKLEWAESEL order!!1!2


#29 greywolf

greywolf

    The Wanderer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 684 posts

Posted 05 March 2007 - 08:02 PM

Err, care to get back on topic and talk about the forest's eventual heat-death, instead? :)

This article is quite interesting, I think, and shows that even leading scientists disagree with the "consensus." He even brings up the hype and fear that lots of environmentalists are sowing.

@Japofran: ;) I couldn't agree more.

@Tulac: You have to look at the external forces influencing the two sides in order to make a decision. Many may say that the anti-man-made side is backed by big oil companies that have a distinct interest in disproving global warming, which is probably true, but not *every* scientist that doesn't support the man-made theory is biased in that manner. However, I will practically guarantee you that almost every scientist that supports the man-made theory is given grants by the government and other private agencies to continue their research. Now, why do you suppose those pro-man scientists would support that side? Could it possibly be to continue recieving grants? Why do you think the media has latched onto the pro-man side and virtually ignored the other? Could it be that more people will watch the stories about impending doom and destruction and the corruption of evil oil companies rather than a happy story about the rate of bunny reproduction? Personally, I think that the media (in america, at least) focuses on doom and gloom so much that they've created a kind of culture of fear. Although I don't think this is totally intentional, fear stories bring in more ratings than non-fear stories, and thus people think that crime levels have gone up for the last 50 years, when it has in fact gone down. Check out the wiki page for the culture of fear link I posted, and look at the list of dead media fear scams (the most prominent being Y2K, I think, besides global warming.)

Does anyone else care to take a gander at why else the media is so slanted towards a man-made global warming view?

#30 Juni Ori

Juni Ori

    Gaming Guru

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4277 posts

Posted 06 March 2007 - 05:23 AM

Greywolf, very good and strong points. However, I must say it may be, or may not be conscious choise of media to back up this "the end is near" theory. I think it must be that the "weak minded sheeps" who begin these cults are the reason behind: they create larger customer base. The same is still clearly visible in the great nuke-fear: several countries (you can take Sweden for example) that fear the possible disasters of nuclear plants and nuclear pollution actually have to buy foreign energy, usually from poorer countries, which usually means nuclear energy made with old technology! And everybody knows that second or third generation nuclear plants are outdated. This is not to say that nuclear energy is riskfree. No, it has risks, which may lead to local disaster. Nowadays it's still very unlikely. But if we want to slow the global warming, nuclear energy is number one choise, until we find better sources.

In any case I'm even still stunned how fanatics can be blind. Some of them have never even really dug into the issue (not saying all) and have only taken their share of propaganda and start taking part into protests, consider as enemies everyone who isn't believing to their agenda, etc. I guess I'm just too old and cynical to understand such a behavior.

Btw: Greenpeace was found by two men, now nuclear support is 50-50 between them... :)
...70 years... LOL