Discussion: Global Warming and Other Environmental Issues

[Tron5000]

Well, the oil companies (such as BP) invest heavy loads of money into discovering, refining and producing alternative sources of energy. These companies are in business to make a profit. If they can offer alternative sources of energy and profit off of it (as every company is in business to do), they will do so.

That is unless Hillary Clinton is elected. Because she wants to "take those profits" (first off: not yours to take; that money belongs to the shareholders [including many government employees who own these stocks as pieces of their retirement packages]) and re-invest them in alternative energy sources (secondly: the free market does this better than government ever will. When has government ever proven it can run business competently?)

 

[chaseter]

^You are right about the government and correct about business 100%. But the sad thing about it, men are greedy sons a b****es. I am sure there have been multitudes of alternative energy sources discovered but oil companies bought the patents so that they could stay lucrative..."Who Killed the Electric Car" is a great book that chronicles all the patents for alternative fuel sources and who bought them. But the sad thing is, this idea of business happens in drug companies and other aspects of public products as well. I am sure there are cures for many things that drug companies have kept secret to continue to make a profit...sad sad stuff.

 

[chaseter]

Also, I would recommend that you check out my previous posts regarding the thousands of scientist who met last week to dispel the theory of AGW. These scientists have, to slightly change your words, gone out in the field, gathered information and pieced it together. But I guess these guys are probably bigots, or right-wing wahoos. Hell, they may even have been paid off big Big Oil!

How can you not understand that man has and is altering the global carbon cycle

Here are some facts that we should both agree on...facts on both sides of the argument.
We are:
a)burning fossil fuels at an extremely high rate which puts carbon dioxide straight into the atmosphere.
b)destroying millions of acres of trees and plants that convert carbon dioxide
c)burning the wood we are getting from deforestation that also puts carbon into the air
d)since the Industrial Revolution, carbon in the atmosphere has increased from 0.32% to 0.38%
e)carbon dioxide is a green house gas

We, as man, are doing those things and it is altering the global carbon cycle...ie we are changing the amounts of carbon that should cycle through the plants after decomposition. Those are facts, scientific facts and rather quite obvious common sense.

Now what those things can cause is up for debate. But why just toss out the possibility that what we are doing will someday be detrimental Why say "Ahhhh it doesn't matter," when out kids or our grandkids may have to deal with it? Why not plan for the worse and hope for the best Sorry but if I am wrong...what would it have mattered? But what if you are wrong?

 

[Memphis Slim]

So you really have no capacity for debate. I've asked you more than twice to explain your thought on what the results would be if you were wrong. You've dodged it. The best thing you can come up with for your side is an overused chart, and childish remarks. You started this thread, people have come here and made some intelligent arguements against your theory and you respond by calling everyone "Chicken Littles", getting on them for the terminology they use, and admiring the smilies. At this point I feel I can safely assume that you are only doing what your doing to aggrivate the rest of us who are actualy discussing the issue.

Dude......I haven't dodged anything AND I've been debating the members of this Doomsday club since I started this thread! And look where we are....No Where.

So, I have the right to throw in a smilies joke if I wish.

So, what if I'm wrong??? The problem is that you guys are ALREADY wrong.....polar ice is thickening again and the past 12 months has seen a drop in temp. And all I see from you guys is double talk. Now Global Climate Warming Change (just put em all together) will freeze us to death.

So I'm not wrong and I won't be.

 

[Hotwire]

Dude......I haven't dodged anything AND I've been debating the members of this Doomsday club since I started this thread! And look where we are....No Where.

So, I have the right to throw in a smilies joke if I wish.

So, what if I'm wrong??? The problem is that you guys are ALREADY wrong.....polar ice is thickening again and the past 12 months has seen a drop in temp. And all I see from you guys is double talk. Now Global Climate Warming Change (just put em all together) will freeze us to death.

So I'm not wrong and I won't be.

First, I've never once claimed that "Global Climate Warming Change" (your words) was true or false. I've just been stating that if it may be true, isn't it better to ere on the side of caution. But you have proven me right on one thing, you do continue to take the moral high ground of a 4-year-old, with your "I'm right, you're wrong, nah, nah, nah, nah-nah" attitude. And I'm not talking about short term here, I'm talking long term. Ok, so the ice is thickening again, good. But is this honestly your only leg to stand on when it comes to your arguement that humans are not damaging the environment? You really should get some more evidence, and I don't think the pictures of pristiene places count, especially for anyone who's been to Jersey. You want evidence we're effecting the environment, check this out. A map showing the highest concentrations of air pollution.

The green pixels are natural polutants (cows, etc.), the red pixels are human polutants, and the light brown is a mixture of both. The gray areas indicate a lack of usable data. Looks like we are causing something. What say you?

 

[Galactus]

Even with global warming we still have natural fluctuations in temperature caused by other phenomenons like El Nino and La Nina, and the later is said to be the reason some places on Earth experienced their coldest winter in 14 years or so. At the same time we have experienced the warmest winter in 100 years in Sweden where I live. I think the only conclusion you can make out of that is that the weather-systems on this planet are far to complex for anyone to say that one single event is proof of global warming (or that such a thing doesn't exist)

 

[Tron5000]

How can you not understand that man has and is altering the global carbon cycle

Here are some facts that we should both agree on...facts on both sides of the argument.
We are:
a)burning fossil fuels at an extremely high rate which puts carbon dioxide straight into the atmosphere.
b)destroying millions of acres of trees and plants that convert carbon dioxide
c)burning the wood we are getting from deforestation that also puts carbon into the air
d)since the Industrial Revolution, carbon in the atmosphere has increased from 0.32% to 0.38%
e)carbon dioxide is a green house gas

We, as man, are doing those things and it is altering the global carbon cycle...ie we are changing the amounts of carbon that should cycle through the plants after decomposition. Those are facts, scientific facts and rather quite obvious common sense.

Now what those things can cause is up for debate. But why just toss out the possibility that what we are doing will someday be detrimental Why say "Ahhhh it doesn't matter," when out kids or our grandkids may have to deal with it? Why not plan for the worse and hope for the best Sorry but if I am wrong...what would it have mattered? But what if you are wrong?

I've never said, "Ahhhh it doesn't matter." I've said that we are harming the environment and that there are things we could and should do to preserve, protect and restore it. And I've said that like 20 times in this thread alone.

Yes, we need alternative sources of energy. Yes, we need to attempt to lower emissions, as this would be better for the many different ecosystems of the earth. Do I believe that mankind is causing the "average temperature" of the earth to rise to such a level that it will create the Doomsday scenario being presented to us? Hell no I don't.

What I'm saying is: These people are scamming (exaggerating, embellishing, lying to) us in an attempt to consolidate power and money into the hands of a certain group of individuals, companies and governments. You don't have to agree with me. I really don't care, 'cause I'm still going to go play 18 holes today and watch Georgia Tech play Duke in the ACC tournament.

There are people on every side of every issue. But you guys seem to get upset and angry that I have opinions that differ from yours. Whereas, I really don't care that you disagree with me.

Call me a "right-wing wahoo" or a "bigot" or whatever. Fact is, I have and will continue to study the work of others on this subject, and my opinions are fluid and ever-changing. Obviously most people don't operate that way, where they see information, interpret it and think, "Hmm, maybe I should alter my beliefs a bit due to this information which is new to me." Most people don't work like that.

I'm glad I do.

 

[Tron5000]

http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=4940.3199.0.0

The real truth is that the theory of man-made global warming—despite being virtually canonized in the UN and the minds of a slew of politicians and celebrities, and naturally in the mainstream media—remains one of the most contentious issues in science.

That contention was on full display in New York City last week.

Those who depend solely on the mainstream newsmedia to keep them informed might have missed the headlines about the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, sponsored by the Heartland Institute and featuring nearly 100 speakers and 500 attendees skeptical of man-made global warming. The highly successful three-day conference occurred in the wake of recent reports of global cooling and the release of a blockbuster U.S. Senate minority report featuring over 400 prominent scientists disputing the theory of man-made global warming.

Last week’s conference testified to one towering truth in the world of science: Debate within the scientific community over global warming is far from dead and buried.

The high-water mark of the conference was the presentation of a report produced by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (nipcc) claiming nature, not human activity, was the cause of climate change. The nipcc is comprised of international scientists and was formed as a counterforce to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

International scientists, climate experts and policymakers at the event listened to lectures and panel discussions exposing the fraud of the global warming “truth,” perused studies and reports showing stark division in the scientific community over global warming, and swapped stories about how they’d been “denied tenure, shut out of scientific conferences and rejected by academic journals because no matter how scrupulous their research,” their conclusions contradicted the truth espoused by the climate change pharisees (National Post, March 10). Many attendees spoke of colleagues too afraid to attend the conference for fear of losing their jobs.

Many of the details at the conference can be found in this piece from the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Those who take the time to investigate the links therein will experience an eye-opening exposé of the staggering scale of the global warming scam. Take funding for global warming research, for example. Over the past decade, research intended to prove the veracity of man-made global warming has been funded to the tune of $50 billion, while global warming skeptic research has received a comparatively measly $19 million.

The article is too long to post here in its entirety, but if interested (which I'm sure most are not), follow the above link for an abundance of good information on the subject, including links to several sources with excellent data.

 

[HUMAN]

Weather Channel Founder Wants To Sue Al Gore For Global Warming Fraud

Coleman says man-made climate change advocates would lose landmark court case

A landmark court case that would destroy the so-called "consensus" behind man-made global warming could be in the works after Weather Channel founder John Coleman expressed his intention to sue Al Gore for fraud.

Companies that sell "carbon credits" on the basis that they offset carbon emissions could also be in the firing line as Coleman stated his conviction that man-made advocates would lose the case if a fair debate, something that the establishment is loathe to allow, was allowed to take place.

"Since we can't get a debate, I thought perhaps if we had a legal challenge and went into a court of law, where it was our scientists and their scientists, and all the legal proceedings with the discovery and all their documents from both sides and scientific testimony from both sides, we could finally get a good solid debate on the issue," Coleman said. "I'm confident that the advocates of 'no significant effect from carbon dioxide' would win the case."

Coleman said that any degree of warming that has taken place over the last 25 years is beginning to be offset by a recent cooling trend. China, the largest emitter of carbon dioxide, has just experienced its coldest winter for 100 years.

"I think if we continue the cooling trend a couple of more years, the general public will at last begin to realize that they've been scammed on this global-warming thing," said Coleman.

Coleman questioned whether carbon dioxide caused temperature increase, a point borne out by ice core samples that show increases in carbon dioxide in the environment are a result and not a cause of higher temperatures, lagging behind by as much as 800 years.

"Does carbon dioxide cause a warming of the atmosphere? The proponents of global warming pin their whole piece on that," he said.

"The compound carbon dioxide makes up only 38 out of every 100,000 particles in the atmosphere."

"That's about twice as what there were in the atmosphere in the time we started burning fossil fuels, so it's gone up, but it's still a tiny compound," Coleman said. "So how can that tiny trace compound have such a significant effect on temperature?

"My position is it can't," he continued. "It doesn't, and the whole case for global warming is based on a fallacy."

Coleman's call for a court case to take on the global warming orthodox comes in the same week that the Carnegie Institute urged the need to reduce carbon emissions to zero within decades, a move that would devastate the third world and likely end human civilization as we know it, returning man back to the stone age.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2008/031408_warming_fraud.htm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337710,00.html

http://uk.reuters.com/article/homepageCrisis/idUKPEK161570._CH_.242020080204

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/2006_articles/IceCoreSprg97.pdf

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2008/031008_new_proposals.htm

 

[SuBe]

I've never said, "Ahhhh it doesn't matter." I've said that we are harming the environment and that there are things we could and should do to preserve, protect and restore it. And I've said that like 20 times in this thread alone.

Yes, we need alternative sources of energy. Yes, we need to attempt to lower emissions, as this would be better for the many different ecosystems of the earth. Do I believe that mankind is causing the "average temperature" of the earth to rise to such a level that it will create the Doomsday scenario being presented to us? Hell no I don't.

What I'm saying is: These people are scamming (exaggerating, embellishing, lying to) us in an attempt to consolidate power and money into the hands of a certain group of individuals, companies and governments. You don't have to agree with me. I really don't care, 'cause I'm still going to go play 18 holes today and watch Georgia Tech play Duke in the ACC tournament.

There are people on every side of every issue. But you guys seem to get upset and angry that I have opinions that differ from yours. Whereas, I really don't care that you disagree with me.

Call me a "right-wing wahoo" or a "bigot" or whatever. Fact is, I have and will continue to study the work of others on this subject, and my opinions are fluid and ever-changing. Obviously most people don't operate that way, where they see information, interpret it and think, "Hmm, maybe I should alter my beliefs a bit due to this information which is new to me." Most people don't work like that.

I'm glad I do.

I agree with you about the Scamming Part. I believe that IF there was a warming trend (which would have ended in 1997, the year that had the Global Tempature on record, and have dropped considerably since), it was due to the Sun. The Scammers are not different, if not exactly the same type of people in the 50-80's that wanted to spread communism by enticing people with Communistic "Utopia". Those people lost the battle of Political Ideology in the early 90's when the Soveit Union failed, now they have a new tactic in enacting the destruction of Capitalism. By making Corporations "Evil" and trying to give Government more power over you. Like a few weeks ago there was a bill introduced to Congress that would have allowed Local and State Governments to Monitor and Set your Thermostats in your home. It is but one of many ways they are getting into your life. How about this Ethanol Crap Bill that was approved a few months ago. That is the Very reason Food Prices are incredibly High. Corn is used in Ethanol, now Corn has more value than for food. Corn is used for Feed for Cattle, now Dairy products nearly doubled since last years prices. So you can "save" the enviroment, but destroy freedom, good one guys.

 

[HUMAN]

We can greatly slow climate change from our carbon dioxide emissions

Stop breathing.

 

[Odin's Lapdog]

The global warming backlash could be severe.

although those who back it will then change their platform and go on the 'well, they are still going to run out so we must now start having a sustainable source of energy and limiting all forms of pollutants'

Since the earth has been warmer before humans even got here, I find it hard to see our effects. The earth just seems to be going through a cycle and there are coincidents based on people seeing what they want to see when they form models.

 

[HUMAN]

All global warming will do is create a new Carbon Tax to benefit the elite by taxing the air you breathe out, and the air that plants breathe in.

Not to mention the UN plan of 80% population reduction.

 

[Tron5000]

The global warming backlash could be severe.

although those who back it will then change their platform and go on the 'well, they are still going to run out so we must now start having a sustainable source of energy and limiting all forms of pollutants'

Since the earth has been warmer before humans even got here, I find it hard to see our effects. The earth just seems to be going through a cycle and there are coincidents based on people seeing what they want to see when they form models.

It's amazing that when I present people with arguments that rebut their so deeply-held beliefs that evil human beings will cause the end of this planet with our carbon emissions, the response with which I am usually met is, "Well, so you don't think we should care about the environment? So we just need to keep using up all the oil in the world? So we should just keep destroying the environment as much as we like?"

Classic bait-and-switch argument.

 

[jaguarr]

How many global warming threads do we need?

jag

 

[The Lizard]

old_news_is_so_exciting.jpg


http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=297350

 

[SuBe]

How many global warming threads do we need?

jag

5 MORE, OH PLEASE 5 MORE!!!!!

 

[jaguarr]

5 MORE, OH PLEASE 5 MORE!!!!!

Global Warming is totally real and nobody can prove me wrong!

(There, that oughta do it. Five more threads coming right up.)

jag

 

[Tron5000]

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warming

Whole forum dedicated to Global Warming. Fun stuff.

 

[Tron5000]

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warming

Entire forum dedicated to Global Warming. Fun stuff, and there is some really good information there.

 

[redmarvel]

Some other "very good reasons" food prices are very high:
- Gas prices have gone up, so it costs more to ship the food.
- A bad year can ruin a farmer, so most people give up farming for something more "stable".
- Farm land in Ontario is being turned into houses (and I assume the same is happening elsewhere).

Don't blame dairy prices on the cost of corn, most cattle are fed hay, which has very little to do with corn.

 

[bell110]

Does this mean I can sue the Chruch for fraud as well?

 

[Tron5000]

Some other "very good reasons" food prices are very high:
- Gas prices have gone up, so it costs more to ship the food.
- A bad year can ruin a farmer, so most people give up farming for something more "stable".
- Farm land in Ontario is being turned into houses (and I assume the same is happening elsewhere).

Don't blame dairy prices on the cost of corn, most cattle are fed hay, which has very little to do with corn.

http://www.thepoultrysite.com/poultrynews/14358/ethanol-the-fuel-of-meat-and-poultry-prices

US - The soaring meat and poultry prices are being fueled by the US ethanol policy drive, says the preliminary results of a recent analysis.

Economist Tom Elam, Ph.D., president of Farm Econ, says “You cannot use the combined grain crops of Australia and Indonesia for U.S. fuel and not have an impact on corn, soybean and food prices”. He expects food price inflation to rise five or six percent in 2009.

Elam said that he estimates the cumulative costs to the food industry of the renewable fuel program will be about $100 billion from 2005-2010. The program mandates minimum ethanol production and provides tax incentives for ethanol use.

As part of his analysis, Elam compared what would have happened without the federal biofuels program with what has happened. According to his findings, farm level corn prices in 2008 would have averaged about $2.77 per bushel without the program. Ethanol tax credits have added $1.33 per bushel, and may drive corn more than $5 a bushel in 2009.

Without the biofuels program, Elam estimates that 2008 ethanol production would have been 4.5 billion gallons, but the program has added at least 4.2 billion gallons. Ethanol would have been $1.69 a gallon, but increased demand for corn and higher corn prices are driving ethanol prices up and they now are 51 cents a gallon higher than they would have been without the program.

Approximately 76 million acres of corn would have been harvested in 2007, but the program added 10.5 million acres.

Elam noted that as a result of the program this year’s costs to the broiler industry are up $3.4 billion; turkey input costs are up $646 million; swine input costs are up $2.9 billion; cattle input costs are up $2.24 billion; and dairy producer input costs are up $2.7 billion. Translated into a cost per animal, Elam estimated the costs at 53 cents per chicken; $3.40 per turkey; $38 per hog and $117.50 per fed beef animal.

Elam offered the preview of his soon-to-be-released study at the Annual Meat Conference, March 9-11, 2008, in Nashville, Tenn.

Notice the part about the 10.5 million extra acres of corn. That is land that could be used to harvest other crops, or to raise livestock. Since that land is now being used for corn for ethanol production, there is less land to devote to other products. This means the supply of these products is down, while the demand has not decreased. Demand stays stable (or increases) + supply decreases = rise in prices.

 

[Tron5000]

Does this mean I can sue the Chruch for fraud as well?

What in the world does one thing have to do with another?

 

[Hush]

I have no idea what a Chruch is so yeah go ahead and sue it. Personally I would like to see this go to court.