stop breathing...there is no excuse for you to emit any of that poisonous CO2...I just hope the terrorists don't make a dirty bomb that would unleash CO2 everywhere oh man CO2 is horrible and the United States is the only country emitting it

11/21/2007 11:27:12 AM

ok that was just stupid

11/21/2007 12:09:02 PM

already smart guy, how do we get China and India to stop "polluting" CO2?

11/21/2007 1:16:15 PM

this just gets funnier and funnier

11/21/2007 1:44:23 PM

so I guess the reason Al Gore isn't running for President when he could clearly get more support than any of the other Dem candidates is because his Oscar and Nobel prize pretty much put him above President Clinton now

11/21/2007 1:59:48 PM

Quote :

"already smart guy, how do we get China and India to stop "polluting" CO2?"

Economic sanctions. That seems to be the only way to get people to do anything. Without a financial disincentive, people will not willingly incur the additional costs. Plus it would keep the markets competitive, so we would not be punished for enacting our own measures.

[Edited on November 21, 2007 at 2:12 PM. Reason : .]

11/21/2007 2:11:13 PM

for example? its not like China and India have as advanced technological and industrial societies as we do where they could afford to significantly cut pollution...we (The United States) effectively clearcut the entire eastern half of the United States during our country's growth...they said a squirrel used to be able to travel from the Mississippi River to the Atlantic Ocean without touching the ground...but now we want to essentially tell countries like China and India that "yeah we know we did it when we were a growing country...but you guys cant do it cause its bad"

11/21/2007 2:44:50 PM

What else do you suggest? Let everybody cut every tree down because our country did it in the past?

11/21/2007 3:48:30 PM

no you're right...lets tell a bunch of other sovereign nations what they can and cant do in their own country...that'll definitely work

11/21/2007 3:50:19 PM

^ Do you have the same stance on Iran or North Korea?

11/21/2007 4:12:47 PM

I've got a lot more problems with human rights issues than I do with pollution and I hope to hell everyone else would too, unless of course you put trees and bunnies over people

11/21/2007 4:59:43 PM

Quote :

"unless of course you put trees and bunnies over people"

11/21/2007 6:25:51 PM

But seriously, how does pollution not fall within the scope 'human rights' as a matter of health? Especially to you "people first" folks. And how do you plan on tackling human rights abuses in China (and to some degree India) since you don't care what they do with their environment which, by the way, effect the health of their population not just the trees and bunnies.

11/21/2007 6:30:41 PM

I don't think that there should be toxic gases spewing out all around the city or anything like that. But I also don't think we can tell them "yeah uh, i know most of your country is poor and you want to create an economy similar to the great United States but you can't do that...well yeah sure we did it, but it was wrong...even though we're fine, if you do it the planet will surely perish quickly"

All the "Save the Rainforest" type people who protest down in Brazil and other tropical areas are generally protesting clearcutting in 3rd world countries. They are cutting down the trees to burn for fuel for warmth and cooking. They are cutting down the trees to build themselves houses to shelter them from the elements. Who are we to tell them they can't do those basic SURVIVALIST things?

I think its the same principle when you look at other large countries like China and India. Sure the United States might have the highest per capita pollution but China and India combined have what, 2.3 or 2.4 billion people? If the US did ratify Kyoto (like that shit will ever happen) would it do any good? I'd be more worried about a couple BILLION people.

So that begs my original question. How can you stop countries like China and India from polluting themselves? You mentioned economic sanctions. Well what good are economic sanctions when the alternative tremendously slows down their economy?

11/21/2007 6:38:22 PM

Quote :

"I don't think that there should be toxic gases spewing out all around the city or anything like that."

Or for anywhere else for that matter. The idea of dumping your waste anywhere you want as long as it's not around people is extremely irresponsible and immoral.

Quote :

"but you can't do that...well yeah sure we did it, but it was wrong...even though we're fine, if you do it the planet will surely perish quickly""

Your exaggeration aside, this isn't the industrial revolution and even if you want to define it as such for the countries of China and India (since that is whom we seem to be referencing) it is no more right for them to pollute and plunder in the name of progress anymore than it was for us. This time, however, they have the advantage of having a wealthier and more experienced nation to help guide them. Instead of sitting on our hands we (the US) could take this opportunity to show how advanced we truly are by leading the way with green technology and then sell that to developing countries. Why not show that we are truly the leaders of the free world by being leaders of the green world?

Quote :

"They are cutting down the trees to burn for fuel for warmth and cooking. They are cutting down the trees to build themselves houses to shelter them from the elements."

No no no no no no. I can hardly believe you are are trying to pass this off on people. They are not clear cutting millions of pristine habitat for the sake of cooking fires. They are clearing the land for development. Development of malls, industrial complexes and urban sprawl. While I concede that a certain percentage of the lumber is going towards building homes the unbridled and reckless devastation of habitat deserves more attention.

Quote :

"If the US did ratify Kyoto (like that shit will ever happen) would it do any good? I'd be more worried about a couple BILLION people."

How or why are we talking about this again? But since you brought it up. Since Bush & Co. like to spew the careless idea of letting companies chose whether or not they give a damn about their pollution then I would like to see some concrete data on what goals they have set and if they have met them. Just simply saying "I think companies should voluntarily chose to cut their emissions" is not good enough if there is no one checking to see what, if any, progress is being made.

Quote :

"How can you stop countries like China and India from polluting themselves?"

Two-fold. First it comes down to mentality. As soon as we can see the earth not simply as some thing to loot and plunder but rather as our home which we share with not only other humans but the majority of creatures which we have a stewardship for. I am not saying that everyone needs to take it anywhere near the level of reverence that I do nor do I expect anyone to do so. Second, by the way that I have already mentioned of promoting green technology and renewable resources. Making it our modern day space race; our own national pride Great Pyramid project. Give huge incentives to the private sector to come up with this technology in conjunction with the government. Sadly, I know the oil and coal lobby is too heavily funded for this to be a reality, but you asked for solutions.

11/21/2007 8:18:56 PM

who's to say that global warming won't be a net positive for the earth as a whole?

11/21/2007 9:45:30 PM

.

[Edited on November 21, 2007 at 10:04 PM. Reason : nvm]

11/21/2007 10:03:10 PM

^^ I guess if humans get wiped off the earth, that could be a positive thing for it.

11/22/2007 12:02:43 AM

That reminds me. I need to get that book that just came out about what would happen if humans were suddenly gone.

11/22/2007 12:22:55 AM

Quote :

"without decrying the methods that have been used to silence any meaningful discussion."

you mean such methods as claiming there is "no debate?"

11/22/2007 5:14:34 PM

Quote :

"VIEIRA: You know, you share the prize with scientists from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And one of those scientists, John Christy, wrote an op-ed last Thursday in the Wall Street Journal in which he criticized your dire predictions about the impact of global warming. He wrote, I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. So what do you make of his assessment? GORE: Well, he’s an outlier. He no longer belongs to the IPCC, and he is way outside the scientific consensus. But, Meredith, part of the challenge the news media has had in covering this story is the old habit of taking the on the one hand, on the other hand approach. There are still people who believe that the Earth is flat, but when you’re reporting on a story like the one you’re covering today, where you have people all around the world, you don’t take — you don’t search out for someone who still believes the Earth is flat and give them equal time."

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/05/gore-media/

Gore's comparison of global warming skeptics to flat-earthers is ridiculous. If the position that global warming is not an imminent catastrophe were comparable to the position that the Earth is flat, there would be no real debate. Yet, debate about global warming continues.

And if those of us that think global warming alarmism is a crock are so wrong, why does Gore not want us to have "equal time"? What's he afraid of?

11/23/2007 8:33:30 PM

haha. "He no longer belongs to the IPCC." tell the truth, get kicked out of the club. makes sense to me. I guess this is another example of scientific skepticism and how scientists let the facts speak for themselves, isn't it?

oh, that and the fact that a "flat-Earther" is, in fact, a flat-Earther...

11/23/2007 9:33:46 PM

Quote :

"why does Gore not want us to have "equal time""

Perhaps unequal evidence does not demand equal time

If you were to argue against the world being round.... and I argue for it being round.... why would we give equal time to such an irrational position, particularly when the overwhelming evidence clearly points otherwise?

Its evident economic interests have paid significant amounts to suppress the issue for the last two decades. The lobbyists on K Street have done everything they can to stymie meaningful discussion in the committees and the agencies. Where was our equal time? Oh thats right, we never got ANY.

Gore is circumventing the corrupt and stalemated congress and is appealing directly to the American people to make it a priority issue. We're all aware of what the position and interests are of those who are against climate change policy. We're tired of playing under your rules. You'll play under ours or be buried.

[Edited on November 23, 2007 at 10:05 PM. Reason : beap beap]

11/23/2007 9:58:23 PM

Quote :

"Its evident economic interests have paid significant amounts to suppress the issue for the last two decades."

nevermind the fact that just a decade earlier, the fearmongers were harping on something that was the exact opposite of their current harping... And we saw how that played out. I'd say that those fools got EXACTLY the amount of time they deserved: NONE.

If there were ACTUALLY overwhelming evidence, then there would be no debate. unfortunately, there ISN'T overwhelming evidence. There's just a bunch of people yelling THE DEBATE IS OVER, trying to make people think it is over.

It's funny. You fail to comment on the guy that used to be on the IPCC coming out and saying "it's bullshit." Instead, you just say "THE OIL GUYS DID IT!!!" And then you ignore how much money Gore stands to make if we buy in to his bullshit. Seriously. Open your fucking eyes.

Or, at least start including THE FUCKING SUN in your "overwhelming evidence." You know, since it is more highly correlated with what we are experiencing than anything else. But, of course, that's not relevant. Cause the oil execs have paid me off or something.

11/23/2007 11:23:28 PM

Ok, let's use an example that hits a little closer to home. 12 years ago when I first moved to North Carolina, I used to have to rake leaves at my house when they fell down. I distinctly remember doing this pretty much the entire month of October. Nowadays, they don't start falling until November and don't finish until December. That's pretty fucked up to me.

Global warming is real and it's happening. It has certainly happened before as the world's climate has fluctuated a lot over history, but it's warming much more rapidly than ever before and it's going to be going into dangerous levels before too long. If you don't realize this, then you must have no been outside in the past 5 years or you're an idiot.

11/23/2007 11:40:55 PM

wow. anecdotal evidence for the fucking win I'll bet that in 10 years when you are back to raking leaves in October, you will be going apeshit about the next ice age, won;t you?

11/24/2007 9:09:40 PM

I have more credibility than you... haha.

11/24/2007 10:25:30 PM

ummm. yeah... anyone whose screenname refers to them being high... yeah... no credibility in general

11/25/2007 2:11:43 PM

Yeah... and I still have more than you. That's the sad part. Go away now.

11/25/2007 3:54:27 PM

that's exactly what you should do

11/25/2007 4:09:44 PM

Wow. I just read the entire presentation of "the Canadians" and their testimony before Congress last year. All I can say is "wow." They absolutely beat Mann's hockey stick into the ground. And then proceeded to tell us WHY that was important. Wow. Just wow.

For a good read, it's here:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/NAS.M&M.pdf

It's fucking long, but I challenge ANYONE to look at that and come back and defend anything based on the hockey stick or anything related to the hockey stick.

And, for anyone who comes in here and says "but they've been blown out of the water. All of the Canadians' claims have been refuted.", I have this link for you:
http://www.climate2003.com/blog/050202.scorecard.htm

A scorecard of their claims, and how they HAVEN'T been refuted at all.

Wow. Just wow.

11/26/2007 10:49:13 PM

Quote :

"Ok, let's use an example that hits a little closer to home. 12 years ago when I first moved to North Carolina, I used to have to rake leaves at my house when they fell down. I distinctly remember doing this pretty much the entire month of October. Nowadays, they don't start falling until November and don't finish until December. That's pretty fucked up to me. Global warming is real and it's happening. It has certainly happened before as the world's climate has fluctuated a lot over history, but it's warming much more rapidly than ever before and it's going to be going into dangerous levels before too long. If you don't realize this, then you must have no been outside in the past 5 years or you're an idiot."

For the thousandth time you idiot, nobody in this thread is refuting that global warming is happening. The argument is what effect humans are having. And your example doesn't address that at all.

Hundreds of years ago wine was able to be produced in England due to a more temperate climate. Thousands of years ago Vikings were able to colonize Greenland due to a more temperate climate. After the last warming period ended and up until the late 1800s the Thames river in London would freeze solid, so solid that they'd have a big winter festival every year held ON the river.

Why don't you explain to me how these temperature fluctuations have been caused by humans, b/c holy crap look how drastic things have changed!

[Edited on November 27, 2007 at 1:57 PM. Reason : k]

11/27/2007 1:57:25 PM

Quote :

"Ok, let's use an example that hits a little closer to home. 12 years ago when I first moved to North Carolina, I used to have to rake leaves at my house when they fell down. I distinctly remember doing this pretty much the entire month of October. Nowadays, they don't start falling until November and don't finish until December. That's pretty fucked up to me"

No you didn't.

Normal "peak" season in NC is early Nov. Some species of trees lose their leaves earlier then other which in the only explanation I can think of for your October raking; that is unless you live in the mountain. Even then this would be the END of October. It has seemed like peak color change season occured maybe a week later then normal this year but this is likely due to a warmer then average October and a lack of major precipitation during the transitional period.

While scientists are not 100% of exactly what initiates the fall foliage transition their are more then factor besides mean ambient temperature. Some factors include....

- overall temperature
- arrival of actual freezing temperature
- levels of precipitation (dryness encourages leaves dying quicker, while storms will assist trees in losing their already weakening leaves)
- Angle of sunlight (which correlates w/ temperature and effects the amount of energy leaves can take from the sun. )

but bullshit to raking leaves in the beginning of october



[Edited on November 27, 2007 at 3:08 PM. Reason : a]

11/27/2007 3:05:56 PM

And I said that I know global warming has been happening over the past millions of years, as has cooling. The rapidity of the warming now though is faster than any human has ever seen. It's pretty easy to look and see that if we keep having heat waves every summer where it's in the 100s for a week it won't be long til it's in the 110s when it's really bad. But if yall are content to listen to what the oil companies tell you about a phenomenon that is caused by the way they do business, then go right ahead. When the world is in the shitter in the next 40 years because people like you refused to listen to science, then we'll see who's right. This is pretty much like how the cigarette companies said there was no danger in smoking and 20-30 years later they're getting sued for billions of dollars. Personally, I'd rather listen to someone who has a vested interest in the planet as a whole and not a profit margin.

11/27/2007 4:56:50 PM

Quote :

"Personally, I'd rather listen to someone who has a vested interest in the planet as a whole and not a profit margin."

what about people who have vested financial interests in the planet as a whole, ie selling carbon credits

or do you think the only people with any financial stake in this are the oil companies

11/27/2007 4:57:45 PM

Quote :

"what about people who have vested financial interests in the planet as a whole, ie selling carbon credits"

Oh, you mean like scientists? I'm sure that the majority of them would compromise their research in order to receive the huge financial profit that they would no doubt get from a carbon tax...

Quote :

"or do you think the only people with any financial stake in this are the oil companies"

No, but they do stand to lose the most.

11/27/2007 5:11:42 PM

^ You're an idiot.

Go read through this graph and see if you can find a warming trend anywhere on there:

http://cirrus.dnr.state.sc.us/cgi-bin/sercc/cliMONtavt.pl?nc7069

Hint: you won't find one because unlike most of the rest of the world, the east coast of the US has not seen a rise in temperatures over the past decade. The reasons for this are complex and would likely just go over your head, but suffice it to say, your anecdotal "evidence" is a crock of bullshit.

[Edited on November 27, 2007 at 5:13 PM. Reason : 2]

11/27/2007 5:13:05 PM

Quote :

"Oh, you mean like scientists? "

No, I mean like people who have large financial stakes in carbon credit companies, like I said

11/27/2007 5:15:48 PM

Quote :

"No, I mean like people who have large financial stakes in carbon credit companies, like I said"

Well, I listen to the scientists who are telling me. They were telling me before the concept of carbon credit companies were even around.

^^ Ok... 7 of the 12 highest averages for each individual month have come since 1980. 8 of the 12 lowest averages came before 1980. The lowest average temperature for a year was 1969 and the highest was 1990. That's not counting 2006, which may have been the hottest year on record (I say this because I remember walking around at freshman orientation and it was about 110 the entire time and the averages were already high for that year).

Since 1990... 63.3% of the 199 months were above the averages (that means that the 40 years prior to that pulled the average down even more). 11/16 years (not including 2006 because of incomplete data) since 1990 were warmer than average.

Is this data absolutely conclusive? No. Does it point to a warming trend over the past 20 years or so? Well, if you look at the data it would seem that way as the majority or years are higher than average and the highest highs fall into that time frame while the lowest lows do not. I understand that you thought I wouldn't look through any of those numbers, but I did and I found a warming trend. So please refrain from calling me an idiot in the future until you actually make me look like an idiot.

11/27/2007 5:57:43 PM

Quote :

"I listen to the scientists who are telling me. They were telling me before the concept of carbon credit companies were even around."

and right before that they were warning us of the inevitable perils of global cooling, which in the 1970s was definitely affecting the earth negatively, according to the consensus of scientists at the time

i realize you posted about other stuff too which i might address later, but i wanted to go ahead and touch on your response to my previous post

11/27/2007 5:59:14 PM

^^There is a gradual warming trend across the country over the last 30 years or so. Prior to that, there was a cooling period during the 60's and 70's. That is reflected pretty clearly in the data I posted.

However, the data does not reflect the accelerating warming trend across the world over the last 10 years that most global warming alarmists have pointed to as evidence of gloom and doom, and it definitely does not support your claim that the leaves are falling off the trees later in the year than they were 12 years ago.

[Edited on November 27, 2007 at 6:04 PM. Reason : 2]

11/27/2007 6:04:29 PM

I wouldn't say there was a cooling period. There might have been, but I've never heard that before and there's no data readily available to back that claim up. You told me to find a warming trend and I did.

The thing about the acceleration of the warming is that it's going to be gradual no matter what. It's going to have to be measured over years and that's why people have such a hard time believing it. But the thing that really gets to me is, the same things that are supposedly the cause of global warming are things that everyone knows are bad. Everyone knows that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and isn't good for the environment. So why not put effort into minimizing or getting rid of it anyway? Would that not benefit everyone? It's like the people that don't believe global warming is happening are arguing for that side just for the sake of arguing. How could cleaning up the planet possibly be a bad thing? And yet, that's basically what you are arguing for. Continuing to pollute the Earth. Personally, I believe global warming is happening. But the end result I would find ideal is one that is a universally agreed upon positive outcome.

^^ TreeTwista10, the global cooling campaign (shit, I've never even heard of it) was not nearly as large as the current campaign of global warming and should not even be referred to as a legitimate example. Which is probably why you used it...

[Edited on November 27, 2007 at 6:23 PM. Reason : ^^]

11/27/2007 6:20:10 PM

Quote :

"It's pretty easy to look and see that if we keep having heat waves every summer where it's in the 100s for a week it won't be long til it's in the 110s when it's really bad."

Man, pleeeeeeease just stop. Just stop. Local hot streaks don't mean shit. Guess what it was BELOW average for for temperatures up here in NY this past summer. So what does that mean champ?

Quote :

"I wouldn't say there was a cooling period. There might have been, but I've never heard that before and there's no data readily available to back that claim up."

Actually there is. And you can find all that data within this thread. Granted its 37 pages and I wouldn't blame you for not looking, but it is.

Quote :

"Everyone knows that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and isn't good for the environment"

Actually, no not really. So are you really telling me that the mere existance of every animal on this planet is bad for the environment? Hmmm.

And if you actually followed along you'd discover that most of us that are arguing that humans aren't a big factor are in no way arguing for destroying our environment. Additionally I doubt very much that a single person in this thread enjoys that fact that we have a major dependence on a resource that is mainly found in unstable regions of the world.

11/27/2007 7:16:49 PM

Quote :

"Guess what it was BELOW average for for temperatures up here in NY this past summer. So what does that mean champ?"

Well, here's some more anecdotal evidence since yall love that shit so much. Last winter when I went up to see my family in NY the lake that we go to wasn't frozen over. This is in late December, early January. (Lake Luzerne near Lake George if you don't believe me.) My 80 year old grandmother, said that this was first time in seeing that lake for 60-some years that it wasn't frozen over by that time. What does that mean champ?

Quote :

"Actually there is. And you can find all that data within this thread. Granted its 37 pages and I wouldn't blame you for not looking, but it is."

Thank you for not caring. Seriously. I wouldn't have done it anyway.

Quote :

"Actually, no not really. So are you really telling me that the mere existance of every animal on this planet is bad for the environment? Hmmm."

Of course not, but are you arguing that millions of car and thousands of power plants, factories aren't bad for the environment. Pollutant is a relative term. Ozone is a good thing in the atmosphere. But if it's down where we can actually breathe it then it's a pollutant. With the amount of carbon dioxide we're pumping out, it's definitely a pollutant.

11/27/2007 7:30:18 PM

Quote :

"the global cooling campaign (shit, I've never even heard of it) was not nearly as large as the current campaign of global warming and should not even be referred to as a legitimate example. Which is probably why you used it..."

go back through the thread, every single bit of this has already been discussed, please keep up

11/28/2007 12:33:19 AM

This thread is over a year old and 37 pages long. There is no way I'm going to go back and read all that shit.

11/28/2007 12:43:52 AM

Then maybe you shouldn't participate. Everyone else pretty much knows whats up, hence your posts aren't getting a lot of response.

11/28/2007 1:17:19 PM

I believe that humans do contribute to the many variables that effect the Earth's climate. While the result of our CO2 (as well as many other gasses) output probably does contribute to an increase in net avg global temperature; I think it is impossible to measure to which extent given the many other factors that play a role as part of the natural cycle. The human factor may just be 0.1 *F but it is ignorant for the nay-sayers to argue that a human effect on the environment is implausible.

I do hate the hell and brimstone tree hugging hippies that try to put forth phony science about a +4*F increase; the oceans flooding coastal cities; and category 5 hurricanes becoming the norm. Both camps including the oil nay-sayers and the Green global-warming doomsday people have something to gain financially by trying to get their concepts to be the socially accepted norm.

[Edited on November 28, 2007 at 1:33 PM. Reason : a]

11/28/2007 1:31:23 PM

Thank God...and here I'd thought you'd gone to the dark side

11/28/2007 1:36:10 PM

Quote :

"Then maybe you shouldn't participate. Everyone else pretty much knows whats up, hence your posts aren't getting a lot of response."

Ha-ha.

11/28/2007 1:40:54 PM