Human connection to global warming questioned--by Al Gore!

Quote :

"Sen. Craig Thomas, Wyoming Republican, asked Mr. Gore the pivotal question of whether atmospheric carbon dioxide increases have historically preceded or followed increases in global temperature. If temperature increases precede carbon dioxide increases, the notion that manmade greenhouse gas emissions are changing global temperatures would have the cause-and-effect relationship exactly backward. Mr. Gore responded by describing how, depending on the Earth's tilt and wobble as it revolves around the sun, sometimes carbon dioxide increases precede temperature increases and other times temperature increases precede carbon dioxide increases -- leading attentive listeners to wonder, then, well why worry about manmade global warming if it's the Earth's tilt and wobble that defines the carbon dioxide-temperature relationship. Apparently realizing his self-defeating statement, Mr. Gore tried to backtrack by saying that, currently, carbon dioxide increases are preceding temperature increases. It was a desperate and revealing effort to get back on message."

Senator Boxer's not worried--she wants to save the global warming issue for the 2008 campaign!

Quote :

"Based on how the Democrats managed the hearings, Mr. Gore's warning that we have about 10 years to address global warming before 'it's too late,' his call for an immediate freeze on greenhouse gas emissions and Speaker Nancy Pelosi's announced desire to have a bill by July 4, you might think a global warming bill is imminent. But Mr. Inhofe intimated to a group of bloggers this week that Mrs. Boxer doesn't want legislation this year, preferring instead to have global warming as a campaign issue in 2008. Mr. Gore has repeatedly said -- including at the hearings last week -- that global warming is a 'moral issue' not a political one. If so, he apparently has yet to convince Mrs. Boxer."

http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20070324-100654-3864r.htm

[Edited on March 25, 2007 at 3:55 AM. Reason : ]

3/25/2007 3:53:06 AM

double

[Edited on March 26, 2007 at 9:25 AM. Reason : post]

3/26/2007 9:23:13 AM

Quote :

"we have factual data that cannot be argued with that dates back 780,000 years. Out of all 100% of that 780k years of data, this the warmest, fastest warming, and most co2 there has been. EVER. Non Debatable. PERIOD"

good one Aristotle...try to convince people that theres no debate...that way you won't have to trip over yourself in another one of your many failed attempts to defend your bullshit claims

oh btw 780,000 years is 0.0000000000025% of the Earth's life so I don't know how that equates to "Never before in the cycle has the temperature and co2 levels changed with AS HIGH OF A RATE AS THE TEMPERATURE IS RISING RIGHT NOW"



[Edited on March 26, 2007 at 9:28 AM. Reason : (780,000 / 4,000,000,000) * 100 ]

3/26/2007 9:25:34 AM

Oh shit, another negative from Global Warming - SHRINKING BRAINS*

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/03/global_warming__1.html








* Disclaimer - I didn't read any of this article.

3/26/2007 9:57:58 AM

I LIKE TO POST ARTICLES WITHOUT READING THEM

3/26/2007 10:00:17 AM

Quote :

"780,000 years is 0.0000000000025%"

ummm more like 0.0195%. i mean you might as well do the division that you posted.

3/26/2007 10:06:18 AM

yeah i messed up that calculation...still doesnt seem like "the entire history of earth" like Aristotle said

i'm just glad you got offended by my gay joke in the UNC thread which prompted you to come post stalk me

[Edited on March 26, 2007 at 10:08 AM. Reason : .]

3/26/2007 10:07:41 AM

i actually read this thread and saw the number and knew it was wrong. oh yeah and i think gay jokes in a thread about someone who is in critical condition is seriously bad form.

3/26/2007 10:10:51 AM

well i just hope you can at least realize that i wasnt making fun of his injuries/coma/accident

anyway back to THIS topic...

3/26/2007 10:14:01 AM

using a sexuality as an insult is SO much better.

3/26/2007 10:15:07 AM

why do you care

3/26/2007 10:16:04 AM

intolerance bothers me.

3/26/2007 10:16:28 AM

you're pretty intolerant of people who dont think homosexuality is right

you're also pretty intolerant of republicans, Christians, etc

but just dont offend the gays!

3/26/2007 10:20:11 AM

Quote :

"you're pretty intolerant of people who dont think homosexuality is right"

i'm intolerant of what they say, sure.

Quote :

"you're also pretty intolerant of republicans, Christians, etc"

nope.

[Edited on March 26, 2007 at 10:21 AM. Reason : you must have me confused with someone else.]

3/26/2007 10:21:10 AM

why are you so intolerant of people who dont think two dicks rubbing together is right?

you're also fairly intolerant of people who are skeptics of the human contribution to climate change, which by the way, is a lot more along the lines of what this thread is about

[Edited on March 26, 2007 at 10:22 AM. Reason : .]

3/26/2007 10:22:05 AM

i like to judge people based on who they actually are, not choices which have no bearing on me (eg sexual orientation)

sure i might disagree with people about things. that doesn't mean i'm going to think they're bad people because of it (up to reasonable limits)

and where was i intolerant of someone because of their beliefs about climate change?

3/26/2007 10:24:39 AM

you've been plenty intolerant of people skeptical of human caused climate change

you've become a bit more openminded lately but it was only a few months ago where i was one of the only people in TSB who didnt think manmade catastrophic global warming was not 100% fact

3/26/2007 10:26:19 AM

its kinda obvious that humans put a lot of shit into the air which would cause temps to raise faster than they otherwise would but for the first time i heard a good consequence of global warming

if our winters dont get cold we aint gonna have to turn up the heat which therefore would save us money

i'm kinda all for global warming now

3/26/2007 10:26:44 AM

its kinda obvious that humans put a lot of shit in the air, yes

its far from obvious the direct impact, if any, compared to natural solar and terrestrial cycles

3/26/2007 10:32:15 AM

wouldnt natural be the opposite of "humans putting it into the air"

3/26/2007 10:41:28 AM

sure but how do you know if the changes are natural or manmade?

3/26/2007 10:54:39 AM

because automobiles are not naturally found on earth

3/26/2007 10:57:57 AM

i'm asking how do we know its the automobile exhaust (for example) thats responsible for the temperature changes? how do we know its not something more related to the sun or to water vapor or to something else thats natural?

we dont

3/26/2007 11:01:26 AM

I thought cars emit a lot of CO2 which is a greenhouse gas that made the temps raise faster, isnt that right?

[Edited on March 26, 2007 at 11:06 AM. Reason : reworded so it made better sense ]

3/26/2007 11:02:56 AM

Quote :

"you've become a bit more openminded lately but it was only a few months ago where i was one of the only people in TSB who didnt think manmade catastrophic global warming was not 100% fact"

you don't have a very good memory

3/26/2007 11:12:42 AM

^the double negative in that quote is throwing me off bigtime

3/26/2007 11:21:23 AM

1: Correlation /= Causality

2: Computer models cannot account for the multitude of other factors that impact global climate on a regular basis.

Am I the only person who isn't 100% sold on the current theory on global warming, who still thinks we should do our personal part to minimize our impact on the environment if for no other reason than because we live in it?

3/26/2007 11:25:04 AM

Quote :

"Am I the only person who isn't 100% sold on the current theory on global warming, who still thinks we should do our personal part to minimize our impact on the environment if for no other reason than because we live in it?"

i think most people have said shades of this.

3/26/2007 11:27:05 AM

Quote :

"Am I the only person who isn't 100% sold on the current theory on global warming, who still thinks we should do our personal part to minimize our impact on the environment if for no other reason than because we live in it?"

Thank you. It seems that even normal stewardship has been painted as some sort of radical activity. It makes me wonder what our core values are nowadays.

3/26/2007 11:34:26 AM

would it occur to you that some people would react better if their initial introduction to climate change wasnt something to the effect of "IF YOU DONT CHANGE YOUR LIFESTYLE, YOU AND EARTH WILL DEFINITELY DIE ALONG WITH BILLIONS OF OTHER PEOPLE"

especially since thats all speculation?

3/26/2007 11:47:38 AM

Quote :

"Thank you. It seems that even normal stewardship has been painted as some sort of radical activity. It makes me wonder what our core values are nowadays. "

It usually boils down to dollars. I'd carve up a big part of my yard for veggies, install solar, add water barrells, buy a super efficient car, and a host of other green friendly things if it was economically feasible for me to do so.

3/26/2007 12:23:33 PM

My mom has a garden at home, I would have one myself if I didn't live in an apartment. I have a Saturn SL-1 that I drive that gets 29 city/40 hwy and bought used for $2500. Rain barrels cost about $80 a piece. Its not that expensive to do.

3/26/2007 2:20:13 PM

is warming occuring? - yes

what's causing it? - undetermined (one side yells fat americans, the other side yells nothing but a cycle)

3/26/2007 2:24:56 PM

^thats a very concise but somewhat accurate analysis of the situation

3/26/2007 2:25:54 PM

yep

seeing as we have no really accurate way of determining human impact on global temps (can't have a 'control' planet and a 'experiment' planet), no way of completely accurately determining the temperatures of the past (it's rate of change, and frequency of change), and the impact of solar cycles on the global climate.

those are the main points that really need to be determined before anything else can be "claimed" really...

some proponents of the "natural" theory claim that the effect of humanity on the planet (gas wise) is negligible at best...

some proponents of the "human caused" theory claim that merely having more cows could some how alter the global climate...

imho, it's probably slightly human related effect of a natural cycle. there are things we should and could do to greatly reduce our "effect" (green housing (is actually pretty cool), fuel cell cars (more of a cost thing), new energy sources (more nuclear (with fuel recycling we don't even need to mine anymore for a few hundred years) fusion eventually?), generally cleaner agriculture (no till actually vastly improves farmland in most regions), better/improved waste management in general, and better recycling - paper, metals, plastics are all very important. (glass least so)

biggest issue of global warming is the eventual flooding of coastal habitation... (some huge percentage of humanity lives really close to the ocean)

3/26/2007 2:40:05 PM

Quote :

"I would have one myself if I didn't live in an apartment"

i know this is gonna sound gay, and i know you cant do this on any large scale...but i live in an apartment and currently have 10 broccoli, like 20 peppers, and like 8 tomatoe plants, along with beans, peas, a rose bush and like 5 perinials(sp?)- it may not be enough to feed me for a year, but all you need is some dirt, seeds, and flower pots to have a garden at your apartment

but i agree with state409c about being economically feaseable...people are run by the almighty dollar- they aint gonna pay more money(at least the majority of people) wont if its not in their interests

i also agree with this:

Quote :

"Am I the only person who isn't 100% sold on the current theory on global warming, who still thinks we should do our personal part to minimize our impact on the environment if for no other reason than because we live in it?"

3/26/2007 3:13:35 PM

Quote :

"I have a Saturn SL-1 that I drive that gets 29 city/40 hwy and bought used for $2500."

Unfortunately, I can't fit 3 of my other friends and all our biking/camping equipment into a Saturn.

Quote :

"Rain barrels cost about $80 a piece. Its not that expensive to do."

Plus what it cost to me to get them to my house (maybe 1 fits in my Jeep?), plus the cost of my time to install them. Do I have all the tools at the moment to do the job? That might cost me more money. Will it reduce the value of my home...means cost to remove them and reinstall the existing drainage when I am ready to move, and so on and so forth.



[Edited on March 26, 2007 at 3:19 PM. Reason : a]

3/26/2007 3:15:02 PM

^^THANKS FOR KEEPING US UP TO DATE WITH WHAT YOU AGREE WITH

[Edited on March 26, 2007 at 3:15 PM. Reason : /]

3/26/2007 3:15:34 PM

haha dont be a fag guth...

3/26/2007 3:19:48 PM

youre right, that was mean
i should have said, "thanks for agreeing with people, now they will feel better about their position"

3/26/2007 3:23:16 PM

apology accepted...maybe i should have said "THANKS FOR POSTING THAT VERY UNRELATED COMMENT IN THIS THREAD, DIRECTED SPECIFICALLY AT ME, INSTEAD OF WHAT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT"

3/26/2007 3:25:29 PM

Quote :

""we have factual data that cannot be argued with that dates back 780,000 years. Out of all 100% of that 780k years of data, this the warmest, fastest warming, and most co2 there has been. EVER. Non Debatable. PERIOD""

i never said "never before in the history of the earth" but our samples of the actual atmosphere only date back 780 thousand years so thats the only raw data we have to work with. Anything further back is just speculation. All the data we have points one direction so if you want to still think its a cycle then fine thats your thick opinion but I'm going to use the undisputable data to help form my opinion.

During coldest glaciations, CO2 levels approx. 180 ppmv
During warm interglacials, CO2 levels approx. 270 ppmv
Pre-industrial present, CO2 levels approx. 270 ppmv
Today, CO2 levels 380 ppmv (and rising fast)
By 2050, if no controls CO2 levels 500 - 900 ppmv ( no modern precedent)

So it's like we were on the warm end of the natural cycle and all of a sudden we're on pace to soon double the general heigh of the previous "warm" waves. This has never happeded from what we know and I (like God) don't play with dice and don't believe in chance so the fact that amazing rise of levels started after the industrial revolution has something to do with that.

O and cows fart small amounts of methane measurable in grams per year. We release co2 measured in MEGA TONS per company.

It is also known that the average tree absorbs 60 tons of co2 per year. When a tree is cut down by a logger they take the trunk only and leave most of the tree (think branches and leaves). Guess what happens when that material is left on the ground? It decomposes and gives off co2. So by mass deforestation particularly in tropical areas and rain forests (where once trees are cut they will never grow back)*the rain forests have been on earth pretty much untouched unaffected by ice ages FOREVER btw. we are working double duty to increase co2 because the trees are not only giving off co2 but they are not absorbing the 60 tons each per year.

And don't twist cycles into the earth losing co2. The earth isn't going to lose co2 unless we fill cans up and take it into space ourselves. The carbon cycle is simply exchange between the ground/oceans and atmosphere. We are creating extra c02 that would have never been co2 without humans and adding it to the atmosphere.

Quote :

""IF YOU DONT CHANGE YOUR LIFESTYLE, YOU AND EARTH WILL DEFINITELY DIE ALONG WITH BILLIONS OF OTHER PEOPLE" "

Nobodys saying this. We are only going to change the planet forever as we know it (by a small amount on a planetary scale but we are so sensitive to small changes). The united states will deal with it because we are rich and will protect our people like i was saying on page one but what bothers me is whats going to happen when people start to starve to death. From all of the history of human civilization I've learned one thing to expect....

People aren't going to sit around and starve to death or thirst to death. People are going to take action when faced with no home no food or no water and thats when things could get really scary really fast.

3/26/2007 6:50:55 PM

Quote :

"Am I the only person who isn't 100% sold on the current theory on global warming, who still thinks we should do our personal part to minimize our impact on the environment if for no other reason than because we live in it?"

I don't buy all this global warming stuff for various reasons, one includes the fact that the biggest critic of global warming (Al "manbearpig" Gore) and the lifestyle which he claims causes it happens to also be the partial owner of the company that he buys his "carbon offsets" from. Shady, greedy, doom and gloom politicians...

I've discussed it in this thread or another one, but I do plenty to help the enviroment not because I am doing what some political tool told me to do, but because I want my kids to be able to enjoy this place like I have over the years.

[Edited on March 26, 2007 at 7:31 PM. Reason : ...]

3/26/2007 7:30:31 PM

Quote :

"All the data we have points one direction so if you want to still think its a cycle then fine thats your thick opinion but I'm going to use the undisputable data to help form my opinion."

And if I take the weather reports from august to november, all the data I have will point in one direction (massive cooling of disasterous proportions. That doesn't mean the conclusion being drawn is correct.

Quote :

"During coldest glaciations, CO2 levels approx. 180 ppmv During warm interglacials, CO2 levels approx. 270 ppmv Pre-industrial present, CO2 levels approx. 270 ppmv Today, CO2 levels 380 ppmv (and rising fast) By 2050, if no controls CO2 levels 500 - 900 ppmv ( no modern precedent) "

Don't you think this is intelectualy dishonest? Comparing the "coldest" to "warm"? How about "coldest" to "warmest"? What's the earth average over the same periods? Lies, damn lies and statstics right?

Quote :

"This has never happeded from what we know "

and we know very little.

Quote :

"he rain forests have been on earth pretty much untouched unaffected by ice ages FOREVER btw."

Actualy, they've changed quite a bit over the years:

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc.html

Quote :

"The carbon cycle is simply exchange between the ground/oceans and atmosphere. We are creating extra c02 that would have never been co2 without humans and adding it to the atmosphere."

So you are suggesting then that trees never die? That forests have never burned and that C02 levels on this planet have never fluctuated outside the 100ppmv range that it has been fluctuating in over the last .01% of history?

Quote :

"We are only going to change the planet forever as we know it"

Forever is quite a long time.

3/26/2007 8:59:30 PM

Quote :

"Quote:I have a Saturn SL-1 that I drive that gets 29 city/40 hwy and bought used for $2500." Unfortunately, I can't fit 3 of my other friends and all our biking/camping equipment into a Saturn. Quote : "Rain barrels cost about $80 a piece. Its not that expensive to do." Plus what it cost to me to get them to my house (maybe 1 fits in my Jeep?), plus the cost of my time to install them. Do I have all the tools at the moment to do the job? That might cost me more money. Will it reduce the value of my home...means cost to remove them and reinstall the existing drainage when I am ready to move, and so on and so forth."

These are the lamest arguments I have ever heard, especially the rain barrel one. The cost of your time, what are you a contractor? Can't go out on a date either because you bill $50 an hour and its not cost effective?

3/26/2007 9:12:12 PM

So Aristotle, how would you explain these graphs?





Oh, look at that second graph. Interesting how the Holocene Maximum was 7500 to 4000 years ago, and despite no industrial revolution to pollute the atmosphere, was the warmest period in human history. Hmm...




Interesting how things are constantly fluctuating. That would infer that the planet is never at equilibrium. Oh thats right, its not.

3/26/2007 10:12:48 PM

Quote :

"And if I take the weather reports from august to november, all the data I have will point in one direction (massive cooling of disasterous proportions. That doesn't mean the conclusion being drawn is correct."

Well thats just dumb anyway because the southern hemisphere would be warming up.

The period of osciillation was pretty much the same since theres been a set ammount in cycle before we started burning fossil fuels.

Quote :

"Don't you think this is intelectualy dishonest? Comparing the "coldest" to "warm"? How about "coldest" to "warmest"? What's the earth average over the same periods? Lies, damn lies and statstics right?"

well previous warmest was implied by the warm since now is the "warmest". the cycle was 180->270->180->270 then all of a sudden ->380 and soon 500.

Quote :

"and we know very little."

If your kid is sick and you take him to the doctor and he says "from todays examination everything points to a peanut allergy but i'm going to have to run some further tests to have proof and get back to you in a few days" are you going to say " o well, its not for sure peanuts are causing so i'll keep feeding my son peanuts"?

any good parent would keep their kid away from peanuts until the doctor told them he was sure that wasn't the problem.

Quote :

"Actualy, they've changed quite a bit over the years: http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc.html"

no. there have been more that have gone away but the current tropical rain forests have always been around.

Quote :

"So you are suggesting then that trees never die? That forests have never burned and that C02 levels on this planet have never fluctuated outside the 100ppmv range that it has been fluctuating in over the last .01% of history?"

Yes trees burned and grew back. From what we know its never ventured much above 280.

3/26/2007 10:23:45 PM

Quote :

"tomatoe"

3/26/2007 10:55:38 PM

wait. co2 is never lost. but we humans are creating "extra" co2? riiiiiiiight........

3/26/2007 11:33:35 PM

Quote :

"Interesting how things are constantly fluctuating. That would infer that the planet is never at equilibrium. Oh thats right, its not"

Nobody has ever argued that the earth was always at a constant temperature but there was a wave pattern of up and down until recently it just kept going up and is approaching double the previous peak.

Quote :

".com"

Your silly sources cannot harm me. Today is the warmest its been AT LEAST for over 3 quarters of a million years.

^yes because fossil fuels were going to be stored for a long time (until which new fossil fuels were around) but by bringing fossil fuels out early (for the first time ever) we are bringing more carbon into the playing field if you will

[Edited on March 27, 2007 at 12:26 AM. Reason : meh]

3/27/2007 12:24:09 AM