Quote :

"Yes, it might make parts of the earth unlivable. But it will also make other parts of the earth livable. That's the way a GLOBAL even works. So, the hardiness zones shift around a bit over the next 1000 years. Big fucking deal."

Are you that fucking complacent???? Some parts being devoid of life compared to now where the entire planet is habitable. Just because your bitch ass doesn't live somewhere doesn't mean that it is completely absent of an intricate eco-system. And what happens when current habitats are displaced by increased desertification? If there is the least hint that humans are in any way the cause of it then are we not obligated to be responsible for our actions?

8/6/2006 1:32:15 AM

Quote :

"Not to mention a very strange article from some unknown institution that actually claims global warming is a good thing http://stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html"

this is where i stopped in that "article":

Quote :

"Warmer periods bring benign rather than more violent weather. "

i mean jesus christ.

8/6/2006 1:32:17 AM

Quote :

"Warmer periods bring benign rather than more violent weather. "

Uhm, caused by what?

8/6/2006 1:48:13 AM

That's not too far from the truth kinda. We actually get or most powerful storms during the winter because of the huge temperature differentials/pressure gradiants, but they don't have as much energy to play with like summer storms do so it is kind of a wash.

8/6/2006 4:25:10 AM

Quote :

"Not to mention a very strange article from some unknown institution that actually claims global warming is a good thing http://stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html"

you're right, it is a very strange article. but it's neither "from" nor endorsed by the stanford university, as you oh-so-cleverly dubbed the "unknown institution"

what it is, is a 10-year old article written by a professor of ECONOMICS and posted on his PERSONAL WEBPAGE.

while we do know that Prof. Moore was economic advisor to the Reagan Administration, the only thing that is "unknown" is hi credentials to critique oceanic and atmospheric science. But, you know, that never seems to stop these economics majors





[Edited on August 6, 2006 at 4:53 AM. Reason : ]

8/6/2006 4:41:51 AM

Quote :

"Some parts being devoid of life compared to now where the entire planet is habitable."

The roaving sands of the Sahara have been devoid of life for milenia. The Sahara may grow, it may arrest and begin shrinking as higher temperatures increase evaporation and thus precipitation.

8/6/2006 8:39:33 AM

I'm no geologist, but I was under the impression that desert + rain just equals wet desert.

8/6/2006 9:20:11 AM

If the rain soaks the ground enough then you get a seasonal desert (flooded grass paradise during the rainy season, blowing sand desert otherwise), there is an impressive example of one in Africa.

If the rain is sustained year round then permanent grassland is grow.

8/6/2006 12:41:48 PM

i'm no geologist, but i'd say keeping the areas which have been habitable for thousands of years habitable is probably a good thing for many of our cities and all. maybe i'm just short-sighted

8/6/2006 1:04:49 PM

^ no, i think driving big fast cars for the next 20 years is more important

8/6/2006 1:32:50 PM

^^ Where did you get the idea that our cities exist in habitable places?

I refer you to Las Vegas.

8/6/2006 1:49:28 PM

yes this is where loneshark lives

8/6/2006 2:14:59 PM

Quote :

"The roaving sands of the Sahara have been devoid of life for milenia."

[Edited on August 6, 2006 at 4:24 PM. Reason : .]

8/6/2006 4:13:39 PM

I THINK HES TALKING ABOUT RELATIVE QUANTITIES OF HUMAN LIFE

or not

8/6/2006 4:38:07 PM

Quote :

"^^ Where did you get the idea that our cities exist in habitable places? I refer you to Las Vegas."

i refer you to the logistical nightmare that getting las vegas water is

8/6/2006 4:38:15 PM

I REFER YOU TO NEW ORLEANS

8/6/2006 4:40:51 PM

Quote :

"^ no, i think driving big fast cars for the next 20 years is more important"

Yes, because cars are the only source of greenhouse gases in the world.

8/6/2006 5:09:39 PM

Quote :

"I THINK HES TALKING ABOUT RELATIVE QUANTITIES OF HUMAN LIFE"

Yes, Josh got it, but my statement was technically false. A correction would be to point out that since life exists in roaving sands of the sahara desert, global warming simply can't conjure up anything less hospitable.

8/6/2006 8:27:33 PM

Quote :

"global warming simply can't conjure up anything less hospitable"

yes it can. look at mars. once CO2 causes global warming, and all the plants and animals die, we wont have a real atmosphere. welcome to mars.

8/6/2006 8:41:03 PM

Mars? The average temperature on Mars is like -100 degrees. That planet's atmosphere is less than 1% as dense as ours.


Maybe you mean Venus.

8/6/2006 8:53:32 PM

CO2 levels would need to go up like 20 fold just to equal 1% of the atmosphere, (it is a trace gas, afterall).

Some deserts will grow, some will shrink, some places will flood, all in all nothing apocalyptic is going to happen.

8/6/2006 9:02:25 PM

im not really sure what he was talking about but if we didnt have an atmosphere the Earth would be cold as shit

8/6/2006 9:03:11 PM

Quote :

"once CO2 causes global warming, and all the plants and animals die, we wont have a real atmosphere. welcome to mars."

yes people global warming will lead to a freezing planet. its not that difficult to understand. first it gets hot, then the animals/plants die, then our atmosphere thins, then everything freezes.

8/6/2006 10:28:52 PM

Quote :

"first it gets hot, then the animals/plants die"

You skipped a step. We have plants that can withstand any temperature. No such animals exist. As such, if the temperature goes up high enough to kill off stuff it will be CO2 sources that die, survived by CO2 sinks. Thus, assuming this batshit insane scenario ever occurred it would still be self correcting.

Quote :

"then our atmosphere thins, then everything freezes."

Second point, the Earth's plant and animal life only affects composition, not quantity, of atmosphere on the planet. The Earth loses a lot of atmosphere to space and ground sinks, all of which gets replaced, such as through volcanic eruptions.

[Edited on August 6, 2006 at 11:29 PM. Reason : .,.]

8/6/2006 11:26:00 PM

Quote :

"We have plants that can withstand any temperature. "

The magic ones?

8/6/2006 11:55:23 PM

Quote :

"CO2 levels would need to go up like 20 fold just to equal 1% of the atmosphere, (it is a trace gas, afterall)."

Trace != insignificant however. How many parts per million of mercury makes up our ocean due to pollutants that WE (humans) have put there? Yet there is no denying their impact as a trace substance. CO2 is the greenhouse gas pony to ride because it is what is given off my the burning of fossil fuels. And since curbing fossil fuels is the goal, then it is safe to conclude that the focus would be on CO2. And the "but CO2 is plant food" arguement is still garbage when humans insist on destroying millions of acres of natural forest habitat every year.

8/7/2006 1:07:20 AM

Quote :

"self correcting"

ive never heard any scientist say that the earth is always self-correcting of its climate.

ive always heard climate scientists say the earth only has the capacity to adjust itself so far, once you move beyond a certain point, you overwhelm the ability of the earth to equilibrate itself.

but these are the arguments id expect from an oil-company ally who rather have a few extra dollars then a planet where his children can walk outside and not be burned by the sun inside 15 minutes.

8/7/2006 2:43:46 AM

Quote :

"when humans insist on destroying millions of acres of natural forest habitat every year."

Not the U.S. North America experiences more growth than harvest every year, we have more forested acreage today than we did in 1920.


[Edited on August 7, 2006 at 8:20 AM. Reason : .,.]

8/7/2006 8:19:44 AM

thats only for the US. its a drop in the bucket compared to the whole.

besides, they'll all die when it gets too hot.

8/7/2006 8:32:09 AM

the oil companies are trying to hide the undisputable truth that americans are the main cause of global warming. 100% of scientists know for a fact that americans who drive SUVs are the sole cause of this unquestionable end of mankind

8/7/2006 11:14:35 AM

100% of scientists know for a fact that soapboxers that post pompous crap are the sole cause of this unquestionable end of mankind.


besides, they'll all die when it gets too hot.

[Edited on August 7, 2006 at 12:09 PM. Reason : .,.]

8/7/2006 12:09:10 PM

any scientist who doesnt completely agree with the theory that humans are the main cause of global warming is clearly in bed with the oil companies. al gore however is a brilliant scientist with no alterior motives

8/7/2006 12:21:59 PM

^ Finally we come to the truth.

8/7/2006 12:49:18 PM

the inconvenient truth

8/7/2006 12:54:47 PM

its funny cause we learned in history of the middle ages that between the years 800 and 1300AD there was unheard of hot weather in all of Europe (north and south) that has never been seen before or after the time period.

It's all just another cycle that the world went through

8/7/2006 3:03:17 PM

^but that doesnt make sense...al gore said the last 10 years were the hottest in the last 650,000

8/7/2006 4:00:07 PM

Quote :

"Not the U.S. North America experiences more growth than harvest every year, we have more forested acreage today than we did in 1920."

Your graph ends in 1991

8/7/2006 4:02:32 PM

We use the graphs we have.

8/7/2006 4:20:35 PM

the ones not censored by oil companies

8/7/2006 5:11:29 PM

Exactly. If there was any probative value to the newest graphs then the oil companies would let... nay, make us see them.

8/7/2006 5:18:24 PM

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/04.24/01-weather.html

Quote :

" Is there anything natural about such variability? To answer that question, researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) - right in the heart of New England's bad weather - took a look at how things have changed in the past 1,000 years. They looked at studies of changes in glaciers, corals, stalagmites, and fossils. They checked investigations of cores drilled out of ice caps and sediments lying on the bottom of lakes, rivers, and seas. They examined research on pollen, tree rings, tree lines, and junk left over from old cultures and colonies. Their conclusion: We are not living either in the warmest years of the past millennium nor in a time with the most extreme weather. "

Quote :

"This review of changes in nature and culture during the past 1,000 years was published in the April 11 issue of the Journal of Energy and Environment. It puts subjective observations of climate change on a much firmer objective foundation. For example, tree-ring data show that temperatures were warmer than now in many far northern regions from 950 to 1100 A.D."

Quote :

"Does this mean that the present global warming is more a product of natural changes than of carbon dioxide emissions and other industrial regurgitations? Soon won't go that far. But he does say "there's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. [The year 1998 was the warmest year on record, followed by 2002, then 2001.] In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed.""

8/7/2006 5:31:01 PM

citing the few skeptics doesnt change the fact that almost all experts agree global warming is caused by people.

ii can find people that believe the earth is flat. youre a fool to think the positon woth the least evidemce and least support by the experts is wrong.




[Edited on August 8, 2006 at 3:51 AM. Reason : etdfg]

8/8/2006 3:36:11 AM

Josh, your English broke down in a horrific display of brain to fingers malfunction, but I think I gathered your point.

I have to find 30,000 papers or so before you'll believe that there isn't a near consensus that humans are the cause of Global Warming. That burden of proof is ridiculous. Instead, I found highly respected research that has been discussed in the climate community as well as the halls of Harvard and that guy is "a single skeptic, big deal."

I tell you what, you find me a statistic that says how many climatologists (leave out the OBGYN, and the janitor like your other statistics) believe the Earth is warming primarily due to human activity vs. those that think the human activity isn't the primary cause.

Then we'll discuss consensus.
Good luck, its not easy to find.

8/8/2006 8:12:00 AM

Oh, and Josh, find me a few Geologists that still think the earth is flat. Not just some people, scientists...I want at least a Masters in geology that beleive that.

8/8/2006 9:53:25 AM

Quote :

"there's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations"

feel free to ignore this evidence since it doesnt fit in with your quaint theory that all scientists believe evil humans are creating the death of earth and the only solution is to drive electric cars and bankrupt the oil companies

8/8/2006 10:06:17 AM

Quote :

"citing the few skeptics doesnt change the fact that almost all experts agree global warming is caused by people."

Irrelevant. What percentage of the experts believe global warming is only caused by people? It sounds to me that most experts believe human released CO2 is merely exacerbating a natural warming trend.

8/8/2006 10:11:11 AM

Whats the problem with taking actions to reduce energy use as if it is humans? I dont understand why people fight this so much.

8/8/2006 10:21:17 AM

2000 The climate is not getting warmer.

2004 Ok, the climate is getting warmer, but human activity has nothing to do with it.

2006 Ok, human activity affects climate, but it's merely exacerbating a natural warming trend.

8/8/2006 10:41:39 AM

YEAH SCIENTISTS ARE SO DUMB THEY ONLY REALIZED THIS YEAR THAT THE EARTH HAS NATURAL TEMPERATURE FLUCTUATIONS

8/8/2006 11:54:39 AM

^^ So? In 2000 the evidence was not convincing, satellite measurements at the time contradicted the global warming theory. As of 2006 through brilliant work at NASA and other research facilities the Satellite data has been corrected, it now shows a gradual warming trend over the past 100 years. So, yes, the science no longer justifies disbelief in a warmer world.

Of course, I don't remember anyone arguing that humans were not warming the planet, in 2000 the argument was that a natural cooling trend was swamping the human induced warming. That the planet is now considered warming does not answer the assertion that natural influences are greater than the human induced influences.

All of this is just to inform you of your burden of proof. Not only do you need to eliminate natural influences from the current warming trend you will also need to isolate CO2 induced warming (felling forrest and farmland to build cities has a warming effect independent of CO2 emissions). After that, you need to demonstrate that the externality being suffered by humanity because of global warming is in excess of the already levied gasoline taxes. For example, in the U.S. government is already taxing CO2 to the tune of about $50 billion a year in gasoline taxes alone. That is easily enough money to compensate society for the miniscule long term damage of Global Warming.

Of course, if all you want is high gas taxes and the introduction of coal taxes then I'm with you, these proposals have value even before considering global warming.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question417.htm

[Edited on August 8, 2006 at 12:02 PM. Reason : ^]

8/8/2006 12:02:40 PM