Is Gobal Cooling a Continuing Threat?

[SmilinBob]

Well, on the bright side...

No one has brought up 9/11, UFO's, NWO, chemtrails, specific political parties, racist rants, sexism, or much personal attack at all.

Obviously we can attribute global warming to alien visits. Leaving holes in our atmosphere; allowing the suns energy in at an increased rate. The women and democrats are obviously behind it all, and don't even get me started about blacks...

--
Sorry

 

[HempKat]

The problem is that this preoccupation with government and big corporations isn't a rational, level-headed calculation of the interests behind certain programs and their possible effect. Its irrational fear, at least as presented in these threads usually. People rarely take a moderate position as you do. The popular positions are usually apathy or fear, because they're easier than accepting reality which almost always puts some burden of responsibility on us. I still contend that a general lack of critical thinking skills is the root of the problem. And I'm concerned for a society where people actually vote and make decisions in the same way they deal with this issue, politicizing it and relying on the fear of monsters and conspiracies to defeat the opponent.

On another note, I regret my hyperbolic comment about weather which seems to be causing confusion. It was meant to be nothing more than a restatement of the idea in my first post here.

I understand on the weather thing and I probably shouldn't have said anything knowing you didn't really mean it the way I was talking about, it was just a knee jerk reaction from having heard others talk about it the way I was referencing.

As for the other comment about the anti-science thing, I see now by your comments here that you were talking more in relation to just this site. I thought you meant more just in general. When talking in terms of this site and the usual suspects I agree completely with your assessment. Now naturally there are a number of folks outside of this site that think the same way but I think the number of them out in the real world doesn't match up propotionately with the number of them here. I think if we could ever get good honest candidates whose only agenda is to serve their constituency you would see the public isn't as bad as they seem. For a great number of Americans the problem with elections is the lack of a decent choice and so it usually ends up being the lesser of two evils. I think many would be surprised at what would happen if the independent party ever came up with a really decent candidate.

 

[sac beh]

At the risk of alienating people by mentioning NASA, modeling, and global warming in one study:

'Greener' Climate Prediction Shows Plants Slow Warming
ScienceDaily (Dec. 8, 2010) — A new NASA computer modeling effort has found that additional growth of plants and trees in a world with doubled atmospheric carbon dioxide levels would create a new negative feedback -- a cooling effect -- in the Earth's climate system that could work to reduce future global warming.

The cooling effect would be -0.3 degrees Celsius (C) (-0.5 Fahrenheit (F)) globally and -0.6 degrees C (-1.1 F) over land, compared to simulations where the feedback was not included, said Lahouari Bounoua, of Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. Bounoua is lead author on a paper detailing the results published Dec. 7 in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

Without the negative feedback included, the model found a warming of 1.94 degrees C globally when carbon dioxide was doubled.

Bounoua stressed that while the model's results showed a negative feedback, it is not a strong enough response to alter the global warming trend that is expected. In fact, the present work is an example of how, over time, scientists will create more sophisticated models that will chip away at the uncertainty range of climate change and allow more accurate projections of future climate.

 

[mriko]

is it not more about climate change than warming. I mean, the warming is due to be global and will be felt in different ways, in different places. Just look at 2010, it's all about floods ! everywhere in the world there has been floods, even in Sahel countries, right now in Portugal or Andalucia and more are to come in Europe with all the melting snow from rising temps. Actually so-called global warming is probably going to make Europe colder, while other areas will get warmer. But for sure we're bound for more & more extreme climatic phenomenons

Irie !

 

[ibjamming]

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court said Monday it would consider a key global warming case over the right of states to regulate carbon emissions as a "public nuisance."

In a move that could significantly affect the U.S. approach to fighting climate change, the top court in the coming months will consider a lower ruling that allows states and environmental groups to sue utility companies under federal public nuisance law to make them reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

Do you HONESTLY think the SCOTUS will be neutral? Look how they voted in the takings case...for the money! ALWAYS follow the money be it politics, science, "the rule of law", the whales always win. I don't know how they'll vote...but you can be assured that they too have masters.

 

[sac beh]

Do you HONESTLY think the SCOTUS will be neutral? Look how they voted in the takings case...for the money! ALWAYS follow the money be it politics, science, "the rule of law", the whales always win. I don't know how they'll vote...but you can be assured that they too have masters.

I don't think much of anything about that, except that lawsuits aren't going to be the answer in the long run...

As for always following the money, yeah it helps sometimes to see the influences involved and better judge the motivations. But other times a myopic concentration on politics and money can be a red herring.

 

[Ben Tokin]

Court cases require solid evidence (most of the time). If the Supreme Court (don't ya just love that name, Supreme?) hears a case, you should really have something to convince the judges. There is nothing that exists today to prove Global anything.

 

[SilverSurfer_OG]

I could prove a global conspiracy to demonise and destroy a plant called marijuana. Indeed many esteemed leaders in the field of science, law and politics have come together to warn us of this dire threat to humanity... but then i am a nutter and a pot head.



Edit: Still waiting for the c02 fear mongers (greatest threat to humanity yadda blah blah) to tackle my top 10 or my take on the oil companies profiting the most from cap and trade/carbon tax...

 

[sac beh]

I could prove a global conspiracy to demonise and destroy a plant called marijuana. Indeed many esteemed leaders in the field of science, law and politics have come together to warn us of this dire threat to humanity... but then i am a nutter and a pot head.

Look SilverSurfer, I have nothing personal against you or your views, but you're terribly mistaken in your representation of this issue.

1) This is the great stoner argument to justify all other conspiracy theories. Well what about marijuana prohibition? Governments and corporations have certainly conspired to maintain that injustice!

Yes, indeed. And how can we be so confident in our position of defending cannabis and exposing the injustice of prohibiting it, but that there is a wide consensus (separate from the politics) in the scientific and medical records that cannabis does not represent the threat to society nor to health that prohibition makes it.

This analogy does not transfer the way you would like to the current topic, because here also there is a wide consensus (separate from the politics) that a real climate problem does exist.

Edit: Still waiting for the c02 fear mongers (greatest threat to humanity yadda blah blah) to tackle my top 10 or my take on the oil companies profiting the most from cap and trade/carbon tax...

2) No one here is fear mongering. Both H3ad and I have stated repeatedly the flaw in your priority list and your political obsession with the carbon tax issue: the political/ethical question of how to prioritize problems and their solutions is independent of the question of the existence of any of these problems.

We know the atom exists because we discovered it and confirmed the data proving its existence. We did not, during the moments of its discovery, take a minute to ponder whether or not we should believe in its existence based on what people might do with this discovery in the future.

 

[SilverSurfer_OG]

Thats right i am just a stoner

I have lots of experience in life with liars and cheats as i am sure do most people.

The 'stoner' conspiracy is one we all take for granted.

Human nature is conspiratorial from the playground to the ceo's office and beyond.

Reality vs propaganda is a constant struggle.

I have picked my side because i see flaws all over the IPCC's.

This is nothing personal.

 

[grapeman]

Typical progressive dribble. When I pointed out in my previous post the fallacy of using tree rings as a proxy for actual weather data, or the wiki leaks showing all of the climate change leaders discussing how they will split their booty, or how Hal Lewis, one of the most respected Physicists in the USA details how the M. Mann's and the IPCC's of the world are in in for the money and not the science, I get no fucking answer except the pet response that I'm stupid and they are smart.

LOL
Fucking childish sheep being led to nowhere.

 

[sac beh]

Thats right i am just a stoner

Didn't mean this as an insult by the way. I smoke also. My point was only that while we agree about a prohibition conspiracy the analogy doesn't transfer to climate change science.

 

[Nor'Easter]

I love these right winger wingnuts, they don't want to believe something and so they pass off the opposite as truth. Or keep insisting every cold day or snowstorm is proof that there is no global warming. Who needs science when you can just make something up, and if you yell loud enough someone might actually believe you! Go on, believe in global cooling, along with the tooth fairy and easter bunny and Santa Claus. I bet you are eagerly awaiting a fat man coming down your 1 foot diameter chimney to bring you toys, gas guzzling ones no doubt.

 

[Ben Tokin]

A lot of us agree on both the cannabis conspiracy and the global whateveritis conspiracy. It just depends on who your puppet master is.

 

[SilverSurfer_OG]

I love these right winger wingnuts, they don't want to believe something and so they pass off the opposite as truth. Or keep insisting every cold day or snowstorm is proof that there is no global warming. Who needs science when you can just make something up, and if you yell loud enough someone might actually believe you! Go on, believe in global cooling, along with the tooth fairy and easter bunny and Santa Claus. I bet you are eagerly awaiting a fat man coming down your 1 foot diameter chimney to bring you toys, gas guzzling ones no doubt.

You are stuck in the false right/left paradigm.

There is freedom or tyranny.

That is your choice and there lies the path.

Is a FEMA camp or HAARP a creation of the left or right?

Do you see the point i am making?

No-one has adressed my top 10 or take on the oil industry. It was conveniently ignored.

 

[sac beh]

Hey grapeman, thanks for bringing political insults into a thread that's not about politics

No-one has adressed my top 10 or take on the oil industry. It was conveniently ignored.

See:

So... we already know that the oil companies have a mutli-trillion dollar vested interest in the status quo... Exactly who do you imagine stands to make money off of AGW? Small business alt energy startups?

follow the money, indeed... If you were doing that you'd see the huge investment Energy CO.s are making in denial propaganda.

I'm in no way advocating a Carbon Tax, first off... dunno how you managed to remain ignorant of that fact.
Recognizing the reality of AGW ≠ advocating carbon taxes or cap'n'trade.

You guys should really stop pushing your politics... we're trying to discuss verifiable evidence... politics is a red herring distraction, and intentional TOU violation.

The policy/political/moral question of priorities is interesting, but doesn't address the scientific verifiability of changes in climate and their causes. Different topic.

Why are you unable to separate "acknowledging the situation exists", and advocating political solutions.

There are many options short of taking away people's freedoms or taxing them extra.

A free market, educated about the reality of the situation, for example... Many people would be willing to voluntarily punish polluters and reward problem solvers with their spending choices, If they weren't being fooled into thinking the situation was a hoax.

There are companies working on extracting greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere and converting them into gasoline and diesel... Companies developing paint on solar film... Companies working on utilizing biological mechanisms to exponentially increase the efficiency of solar cells...

But nobody is going to bother, if they get lied to and tricked into ignoring the situation or relying on the government... Either extreme is usually where the asshats gravitate.

What's wrong with being reasonable, analyzing all the available info, recognizing which parts of the science are valid and important, and looking to ourselves and the ingenuity of our inventors and entrepreneurs?

Beats the hell out of looking to the government to save us, or ignoring the situation until the oil runs out, Brazil dries up, and the Canadian winters are rainy?

Both H3ad and I have stated repeatedly the flaw in your priority list and your political obsession with the carbon tax issue: the political/ethical question of how to prioritize problems and their solutions is independent of the question of the existence of any of these problems.

We know the atom exists because we discovered it and confirmed the data proving its existence. We did not, during the moments of its discovery, take a minute to ponder whether or not we should believe in its existence based on what people might do with this discovery in the future.

Also, looks like I spoke too soon earlier. You did bring up chemtrails!

Every day at 3pm EST fairies fly across major cities and drop fairy dust. Prove me wrong. Well, lol, there's no evidence of it. Its like your scientific cell receptors were reversed, believing things there is no evidence for and not believing things there is evidence for. Your scientific receptor agonists have mutated into antagonists!

 

[SilverSurfer_OG]

Yes i brought them up which proves you didnt look at my list... o well.

Enjoy your radioactive isotopes for breakfast. Dont worry they arent important

I enjoy pure science that isnt backed by trillions of $ and an agenda.

Its you sir whose receptors are a bit fogged up. Its no surprise with all the toxins in our environment.

 

[SilverSurfer_OG]

I must say i am very glad H3ad and others have seen through the carbon tax bull. That is encouraging indeed.

Our masters still want to foist this on us but its been heavily opposed in the communtiy. Thanks in part the the stink that us 'crazies' kicked up about the c02 issue. Thats a large reason for Copenhagen being so limp.

As i stated earlier. The oil companies profit from increases in fuel price. I believe its called artificial scarcity.

Peak oil = more $ = more power

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

I must say i am very glad H3ad and others have seen through the carbon tax bull. That is encouraging indeed.

Our masters still want to foist this on us but its been heavily opposed in the communtiy. Thanks in part the the stink that us 'crazies' kicked up about the c02 issue. Thats a large reason for Copenhagen being so limp.

As i stated earlier. The oil companies profit from increases in fuel price. I believe its called artificial scarcity.

Peak oil = more $ = more power

I have always advocated a free market tech solution and decried additional taxation.

Global warming due to CO2 emission was calculated long before there was any powerful oil industry. It is as pure a science and as pre-agenda as it gets. Corporations and Governments may seek to make nefarious use of the very real situation, but we can prevent them by beating them to the punch. An educated public, and innovators who see the potential of the inevitable energy paradigm shift can fill the gap and rob the plotters of their spoils.

The solution is not to deny the problem... it is to 'out science' them, and solve it without them.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Court cases require solid evidence (most of the time). If the Supreme Court (don't ya just love that name, Supreme?) hears a case, you should really have something to convince the judges. There is nothing that exists today to prove Global anything.

unless of course one bothers looking at the multiple independent converging lines of verifiable evidence which clearly demonstrate the reality of AGW.