Discussion: Global Warming, Emission Standards, and Other Environmental Issues

[Carcharodon]

The most recent article I read said that even though the Coast Guard reported that oil slick, later crews found no evidence of it.

EDIT: Here it is.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gulf_rig_explosion

The Coast Guard initially reported that an oil sheen a mile long and 100 feet wide had begun to spread from the site of the blast, about 200 miles west of the source of BP's massive spill. But hours later, Coast Guard Cmdr. Cheri Ben-Iesau said crews were unable to find any spill.

 

[Marx]

How can you see oil...and then not see oil? Something doesn't feel right about that. At least the fire has been put out before another major disaster happens.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

They probably thought they saw oil.

The platform is still intact and it was just a small portion of the platform that appears to be burned," he said.

Mariner officials said there were seven active production wells on the platform, and they were shut down shortly before the fire broke out.

This would have been nothing more than a paragraph if the BP spill hadn't happened. Even if there is something, it's only 300ft deep, not 5,000ft deep, so it will be easier to fix.

 

[Marx]

They probably thought they saw oil.



This would have been nothing more than a paragraph if the BP spill hadn't happened. Even if there is something, it's only 300ft deep, not 5,000ft deep, so it will be easier to fix.

That's all? I would have thought it would be deeper that far off the coast.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

Well, 340ft.

he platform is in about 340 feet of water and about 100 miles south of Louisiana's Vermilion Bay. Its location is considered shallow water, much less than the approximately 5,000 feet where BP's well spewed oil and gas for three months after the April rig explosion that killed 11 workers.

 

[Marx]

I still would have thought that area would be deeper.

 

[imdaly]

I still would have thought that area would be deeper.

"That's what he said."

 

[Marx]

 

[Alex The Great]

BREAKING NEWS! ANOTHER OIL RIG EXPLODES IN THE GULF
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/0...ter-oil-rig-accident-in-gulf/?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

Here we go again?

"Jesus H. Christ"

 

[Carcharodon]

I still would have thought that area would be deeper.

Continental shelves vary in their dimensions from area to area.

 

[Carcharodon]

Not all that new, but fairly interesting:

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/june/climate-change-doubters-062510.html

The small number of scientists who are unconvinced that human beings have contributed significantly to climate change have far less expertise and prominence in climate research compared with scientists who are convinced, according to a study led by Stanford researchers.

 

[Heretic]

These top, most respected scientists called it "global warming" for years...until the evidence became clear that the earth is actually going through a cooling trend, and that the trends show that the earth has always gone through warming and cooling periods...so they changed the term to "climate change" which can describe the changing seasons, the morning dew, a cooling trend, a warming trend, or anything else.

 

[Timstuff]

It honestly blows my mind to see some people still think global warming is a hoax...

It honestly blows my mind to see some people still think global warming was man-made.

 

[Marx]

It honestly blows my mind to see some people still think global warming was man-made.

I don't believe I've ever said that global warming is man-made. What I have always said is that I believe man's actions are greatly influencing climate change.

 

[Timstuff]

Well then are our actions making the world colder, or warmer? 5 years ago everyone was claiming the world was going to get hotter, but now it's getting colder. So did the scientific community accidentally print up their graphs upside down?

 

[TimBisley]

Science is stupid. Science people dont know nuthin.

 

[chaseter]

Well then are our actions making the world colder, or warmer? 5 years ago everyone was claiming the world was going to get hotter, but now it's getting colder. So did the scientific community accidentally print up their graphs upside down?

Think of the planet like a mathematical equation. If one side becomes unbalanced, then the equation has to offset the change to become equal.

Lets look at the facts:

- Here is the industrial revolution. Man builds machines that spew carbon in the atmosphere.
- Man cuts down millions upon millions of acres of trees that converted carbon dioxide into oxygen.
- Carbon dioxide is a gas that rises to the upper atmosphere in which it traps sun rays, increasing the temperature of the planet. This already naturally occurs to keep our planet warmer than it would be without it. However, putting more in for over 200 years is going to have an effect.

The Earth tries to stay in balance. Hence why we go through cooling periods after warming periods. To say man has had little to no effect on this planet is preposterous imo.

 

[StorminNorman]

Those facts, however, don't necessarily pack the punch you think it does when you consider that more drastic jumps in global warming/cooling occurred before the industrial revolution.

We aren't dealing with a mathematical equation because in math we understand how numbers act, we understand how addition and subtraction work. The workings of the climate and the planet are much less understood.

If it was as simple as you, or the majority of Climate Change proponents make it out to be, there would be no division.

 

[Hobgoblin]

Those facts, however, don't necessarily pack the punch you think it does when you consider that more drastic jumps in global warming/cooling occurred before the industrial revolution.

We aren't dealing with a mathematical equation because in math we understand how numbers act, we understand how addition and subtraction work. The workings of the climate and the planet are much less understood.

If it was as simple as you, or the majority of Climate Change proponents make it out to be, there would be no division.

Simple? No. Is the "division" something to be taken seriously? No.
http://www.sage-life.org/?p=481

 

[chaseter]

Those facts, however, don't necessarily pack the punch you think it does when you consider that more drastic jumps in global warming/cooling occurred before the industrial revolution.

We aren't dealing with a mathematical equation because in math we understand how numbers act, we understand how addition and subtraction work. The workings of the climate and the planet are much less understood.

If it was as simple as you, or the majority of Climate Change proponents make it out to be, there would be no division.

It packs enough punch to prove that homosapien has an effect on the environment because A + B = C. I am sure that there are more contributing factors as we aren't the single cause, no one is claiming that. There are more drastic jumps that have occurred but those have been due to volcanic activity, continental shifts, and sea currents. To think we have zero or a negligible impact on our own environment is such a blasé attitude to have.

The Earth balances itself out, just like a mathematical equation. If not, this planet would have been void of life many, many years ago. The workings of this planet are not very well understood but to once again think that we aren't part of a contributing factor is asinine. If we chopped down all the trees on this planet, nothing would happen? If every single city on this planet was like Bejing or Mexico City, nothing would happen? We don't understand the Earth enough to know if we impact it right?

 

[Anita18]

The Earth balances itself out, just like a mathematical equation. If not, this planet would have been void of life many, many years ago. The workings of this planet are not very well understood but to once again think that we aren't part of a contributing factor is asinine. If we chopped down all the trees on this planet, nothing would happen? If every single city on this planet was like Bejing or Mexico City, nothing would happen? We don't understand the Earth enough to know if we impact it right?

 

[StorminNorman]

Simple? No. Is the "division" something to be taken seriously? No.
http://www.sage-life.org/?p=481

You should pick your rebuttal material a bit better.

The proof that Climate Change doubters are less qualified than other scientists is based on the fact their works have been quoted less frequently than other Climate Change supporters.

Lets think about that.

The point trying to be made is that we can't take for serious the opinion of the minority of the scientists based upon the fact that the disagreeing majority were quoted more often in scientific journals. Awesome.

 

[Anita18]

You should pick your rebuttal material a bit better.

The proof that Climate Change doubters are less qualified than other scientists is based on the fact their works have been quoted less frequently than other Climate Change supporters.

Lets think about that.

The point trying to be made is that we can't take for serious the opinion of the minority of the scientists based upon the fact that the disagreeing majority were quoted more often in scientific journals. Awesome.

Um, unfortunately that's how prominence in science works. The more your paper is quoted by other scientists, the more important your work is deemed. After all, they're using your work as background information for their own paper, so it's additional proof that your stuff is standing up to scrutiny.

I mean, how else are they supposed to determine this stuff?

 

[Alex The Great]

Think of the planet like a mathematical equation. If one side becomes unbalanced, then the equation has to offset the change to become equal.

Lets look at the facts:

- Here is the industrial revolution. Man builds machines that spew carbon in the atmosphere.
- Man cuts down millions upon millions of acres of trees that converted carbon dioxide into oxygen.
- Carbon dioxide is a gas that rises to the upper atmosphere in which it traps sun rays, increasing the temperature of the planet. This already naturally occurs to keep our planet warmer than it would be without it. However, putting more in for over 200 years is going to have an effect.

The Earth tries to stay in balance. Hence why we go through cooling periods after warming periods. To say man has had little to no effect on this planet is preposterous imo.

A little too simplified...but yeah. I see the melting arctic and I say "well there ya go"

Yes, the Earth does go through cycles. Some due to the Earth doing what it does, and some due to large disasters like the asteroid killing off the Dinosaurs. Humans have had some sort of impact on the Earth's climate, perhaps we've accelerated the cycle, we just don't know yet

 

[StorminNorman]

Um, unfortunately that's how prominence in science works. The more your paper is quoted by other scientists, the more important your work is deemed. After all, they're using your work as background information for their own paper, so it's additional proof that your stuff is standing up to scrutiny.

I understand that's how prominence works, but you have to understand that that is the reason why you can't really use prominence to make your case here.

Scientists have been wrong before, the consensus of scientists have been wrong before. That's why I completely rejected social controls and economic controls - even the most brilliant and expert people can be wrong.