Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Original Sensible Seeds Feminized Cannabis Seeds   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | Next > | Last >
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: Phred] * 1
    #7779675 - 12/19/07 09:39 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Who is to say the ideal temperature is what it was a century ago as opposed to today or three centuries ago or a millenium ago?

This is an important point most alarmists miss.

One consequence of a warmer Earth and more CO2 is more vegetation growing in the Earth's forests and other places. Since plants are more or less at the bottom of the food chain, more plants means more and better-fed animals.

So, while global warming might be bad for ONE species on Earth that likes to build cities near the ocean, many (most? all?) other species benefits from global warming.

It seems arrogant to presume that the best global temperature for humans is the best global temperature for the Earth.


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: Diploid]
    #7779946 - 12/19/07 11:17 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

It seems arrogant to presume that the best global temperature for humans is the best global temperature for the Earth.



The Earth can handle all kinds of temperatures that we can't, so the ideal temperature for humans is and should be the primary concern for us.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 1 month, 9 days
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: Silversoul]
    #7780360 - 12/20/07 03:25 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

I know a lot of the scientists in my area that are studying the loss of coral reefs. We have lost nearly 80% of our coral cover in the last two years in this part of the Caribbean. Although the masses blame the loss on global warming/warming oceans, the scientists studying the die off disagree. Much of the die off seems to be disease related, though they haven't isolated the organisms responsible. However, the big factor that I didn't know about, and that nobody talks about in the "global warming" dominated press, is that the pH of the ocean is dropping drastically. It seems to be related to rising levels of CO2 dissolved in the ocean. It has become such a problem that shell fish in this area are having trouble making shells (as acidic water literally dissolves the shells away).

> The Earth can handle all kinds of temperatures that we can't, so the ideal temperature for humans is and should be the primary concern for us.

Such ego. Why should humans have any more right to the planet than other creatures that live here with us? Screw nature, as long as I am comfortable?


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: Diploid]
    #7780365 - 12/20/07 03:30 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Diploid said:


For the record, I'm convinced the Earth is warming, but I'm not convinced it is anthropogenic because the Earth has been a lot warmer and the atmosphere has had a lot more CO2 in it many times in the past before human industry.




Thank you.

I'm so sick of people saying "global warming is a farce" or whatever. Its pretty difficult to say that without showing selective data.

If people think that humans aren't causing the rise in temps fine, if people think its not proven that humans aren't, even better.

But to say the earth isn't getting warmer is a pretty difficult thing to say.

I really wish the media and public would stop using "global warming" to refer to "human caused global warming" without defining these terms first, as they are not the same.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: Seuss]
    #7780379 - 12/20/07 03:38 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Seuss said:


Such ego. Why should humans have any more right to the planet than other creatures that live here with us? Screw nature, as long as I am comfortable?




why not?

I agree its selfish, but when you compare human life and convieniance to the life of other organisms, I think humans should win in many cases.

Of course its quite debatable as to whether this dichotomy exists, as I don't know that the activities most contributing to purported human-caused warming result in greater preservation of life or comfort for those that need it most.

Not saying we should screw the environment, but a little human selfishness is a good thing, in my opinion. I just don't know if the plight of africans or asians w/out enough food or basic health needs are related to environmental policies in general. However, in the case of things like DDT, it does seem that some wrongheaded decisions are made which place human life and comfort on a lower level than animal life.

Of course its difficult for me to make these judgments, and I'm somewhat glad I don't have to make or influence such policy, but as a theoretical concern, I'm less concerned with environmental damage if it is relativly certain that humans will benifit in a necessary way as compared to other entities.

Not to discount the value of a clean environment, which I certainly value.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleFecalDildo
Fat LadiesBingo.
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/25/04
Posts: 9,645
Loc: Ass Flavour Pie Factory.
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #7780400 - 12/20/07 04:19 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

luvdemshrooms said:
Year of global cooling

By David Deming
December 19, 2007

Australia experienced the coldest June ever.




I stopped reading at this point as that claim is simply not true.

Sydney NSW had its coldest june since 1982 link

The Northern Territory had its coldest june ever, that is true but it doesn't mention that came on the heels of the Territory's second hottest May on record.
link

That doesn't add up to the whole continent having its coldest june ever.
My senses tell me that the rest of Mr Demings article also relies on selective use of half truths and out right lies.

Nice try anyway.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 1 month, 9 days
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: johnm214]
    #7780402 - 12/20/07 04:19 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

> Not saying we should screw the environment, but a little human selfishness is a good thing, in my opinion.

Bah, why am I not surprised that you would figure out where I was going with this...


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: Seuss]
    #7780548 - 12/20/07 06:37 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Seuss said:
> Not saying we should screw the environment, but a little human selfishness is a good thing, in my opinion.

Bah, why am I not surprised that you would figure out where I was going with this...




?

Were you being rhetorical then? I didn't figure anything out.

Were you just baiting people then? It does seem a little out of charecter with what you usually say

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 1 month, 9 days
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: johnm214]
    #7780627 - 12/20/07 07:20 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

> Were you being rhetorical then? I didn't figure anything out.

Nope, but I was trying to provide an opening that would eventually lead to the statement you made... there are multiple "paths" leading to the same realization, be they from the environmentalist side or from the pollutist side.

> It does seem a little out of charecter with what you usually say

I don't always argue what I believe. Often, I debate to try and understand the various sides of an argument rather than debate to convince others that I am correct. In my mind, if one cannot debate both sides, then one doesn't understand the issue. I'm here to understand, not to force others to believe what I believe.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblezorbman
blarrr
Male


Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 5,952
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: Seuss]
    #7780666 - 12/20/07 07:41 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

I don't always argue what I believe. Often, I debate to try and understand the various sides of an argument rather than debate to convince others that I am correct. In my mind, if one cannot debate both sides, then one doesn't understand the issue.




I wish more people understood that. I do the same thing occasionly. The recent gold standard debate is one recent example. One way to learn is to adopt one position and pit that position against another to see which comes out on top.

Having the ability to hold two opposing thoughts in one's mind at the same time without shutting down is a useful skill. It can have its drawbacks if used incorrectly though. Anyhoo, back on topic..

Does anyone think it would be wise that even though we cannot be 100% sure man is at least partly responsible for this particular situation that we should act as if we were anyway?


--------------------
“The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.”  -- Rudiger Dornbusch

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleafoaf
CEO DBK?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #7781093 - 12/20/07 10:46 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

great thread....you really should come around more often.

:wink:


--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEntheogenicPeace
Scholar
Male


Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 3,926
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! *DELETED* [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #7781268 - 12/20/07 11:39 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Post deleted by EntheogenicPeace

Reason for deletion: ---


--------------------
--- nothing right now ---

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 1 month, 9 days
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: EntheogenicPeace]
    #7781325 - 12/20/07 11:56 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

> a very important topic that anyone interesting in leaving a healthy planet to their children & grandchildren would never mock or take lightly.

So I should suffer now so that your children and grandchildren can have a nice place to live?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: Seuss]
    #7781342 - 12/20/07 12:02 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Seuss said:
> The Earth can handle all kinds of temperatures that we can't, so the ideal temperature for humans is and should be the primary concern for us.

Such ego. Why should humans have any more right to the planet than other creatures that live here with us? Screw nature, as long as I am comfortable?



If you want to die, then fine by me. I prefer to survive. At the very least, we can curb our activities that make the planet less habitable for us. I'm not saying "screw nature." That's what we're doing already. Nature has shown itself to do fine in our presence prior to the Industrial Revolution. If we can reduce our ecological footprint, then we can still cope with nature just fine. Nature will survive one way or the other, so I don't see why you think I'm saying "screw nature." Nature doesn't have a preferred temperature, but the organisms currently living on Earth do, including us.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 1 month, 9 days
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: Silversoul]
    #7781358 - 12/20/07 12:09 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

> Nature will survive one way or the other

So the reduction of our ecological footprint is for mankind's benefit, and not for nature's benefit? (gah, I sound like Rush Limbaugh, apologies in advance)

> Nature doesn't have a preferred temperature, but the organisms currently living on Earth do, including us.

And as Earth's climate changes, some organisms will die while others will evolve to fill the new holes. Why should mankind be special or have more right to the planet than any other organism? If climate change leads to the end of mankind, be it caused by mankind or not, who are we to step in the way of nature righting herself?


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinegluke bastid
Stinky Bum
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/20/00
Posts: 3,322
Loc: Charm City
Last seen: 5 years, 5 months
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: Silversoul]
    #7781371 - 12/20/07 12:13 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Here is a fine example of the Federal Government trying to control the issue (from today's NYtimes):

Quote:

E.P.A. Says 17 States Can’t Set Emission Rules
comments (212)Sign In to E-Mail or Save This Print Reprints Share
Del.icio.usDiggFacebookNewsvinePermalink

By JOHN M. BRODER and FELICITY BARRINGER
Published: December 20, 2007
WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday denied California and 16 other states the right to set their own standards for carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles.

The E.P.A. administrator, Stephen L. Johnson, said the proposed California rules were pre-empted by federal authority and made moot by the energy bill signed into law by President Bush on Wednesday. Mr. Johnson said California had failed to make a compelling case that it needed authority to write its own standards for greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks to help curb global warming.

The decision immediately provoked a heated debate over its scientific basis and whether political pressure was applied by the automobile industry to help it escape the proposed California regulations. Officials from the states and numerous environmental groups vowed to sue to overturn the edict.

In an evening conference call with reporters, Mr. Johnson defended his agency’s decision.

“The Bush administration is moving forward with a clear national solution, not a confusing patchwork of state rules,” he said. “I believe this is a better approach than if individual states were to act alone.”

The 17 states — including New York, New Jersey and Connecticut — had waited two years for the Bush administration to issue a ruling on an application to set stricter air quality standards than those adopted by the federal government. The decision, technically known as a Clean Air Act waiver, was the first time California was refused permission to impose its own pollution rules; the federal government had previously granted the state more than 50 waivers.

The emissions standards California proposed in 2004 — but never approved by the federal government — would have forced automakers to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent in new cars and light trucks by 2016, with the cutbacks to begin in 2009 models.

That would have translated into roughly 43 miles per gallon for cars and some light trucks and about 27 miles per gallon for heavier trucks and sport utility vehicles.

The new federal law will require automakers to meet a 35-mile-per-gallon fleetwide standard for cars and trucks sold in the United States by 2020. It does not address carbon dioxide emissions, but such emissions would be reduced as cars were forced to become more fuel efficient.

California’s proposed rules had sought to address the impact of carbon dioxide and other pollutants from cars and trucks that scientists say contribute to the warming of the planet.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California said the states would go to federal court to reverse the E.P.A. decision.

“It is disappointing that the federal government is standing in our way and ignoring the will of tens of millions of people across the nation,” Mr. Schwarzenegger said. “We will continue to fight this battle.”

He added, “California sued to compel the agency to act on our waiver, and now we will sue to overturn today’s decision and allow Californians to protect our environment.”

Twelve other states — New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington — had proposed standards like California’s, and the governors of Arizona, Colorado, Florida and Utah said they would do the same.

If the waiver had been granted and the 16 other states had adopted the California standard, it would have covered at least half of all vehicles sold in the United States.

Automakers praised the decision. “We commend E.P.A. for protecting a national, 50-state program,” said David McCurdy, president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. “Enhancing energy security and improving fuel economy are priorities to all automakers, but a patchwork quilt of inconsistent and competing fuel economy programs at the state level would only have created confusion, inefficiency and uncertainty for automakers and consumers.”

Industry analysts and environmental groups said the E.P.A. decision had the appearance of a reward to the industry, in return for dropping its opposition to the energy legislation. Auto industry leaders issued statements supporting the new energy law, which gives them more time to improve fuel economy than California would have.

The California attorney general, Edmund G. Brown Jr., called the decision “absurd.” He said the decision ignored a long history of waivers granted California to deal with its special topographical, climate and transportation circumstances, which require tougher air quality standards than those set nationally.

Mr. Brown noted that federal courts in California and Vermont upheld the California standards this year against challenges by the auto industry.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat, said: “I find this disgraceful. The passage of the energy bill does not give the E.P.A a green light to shirk its responsibility to protect the health and safety of the American people from air pollution.”

Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California and chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said the E.P.A. decision defied law, science and common sense. He said his committee would investigate how the decision had been made and would seek to reverse it.

Richard Blumenthal, the attorney general of Connecticut, called the ruling a “mockery of law and sound public policy.”

Andrew M. Cuomo, the New York attorney general, said the state would challenge the decision.

Mr. Johnson, the E.P.A. administrator, cited federal law, not science, as the underpinning of his decision. “Climate change affects everyone regardless of where greenhouse gases occur, so California is not exclusive,” he said.

Mary Nichols, the head of the California Air Resources Board, which had geared up to enforce the proposed emissions rules on 2009-model cars, said the reasoning was flawed. “Thirty-five miles per gallon is not the same thing as a comprehensive program for reducing greenhouse gases,” Ms. Nichols said.

David Doniger, a lawyer for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said that since 1984, the agency has not distinguished between local, national and international air pollution.

“All the smog problems that California has are shared with other states, just like the global warming problems they have are shared with other states,” he said.


Danny Hakim and Micheline Maynard contributed reporting.




--------------------
:hst:
Society in every form is a blessing,
but government at its best is but a necessary evil
 
- Thomas Paine

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: Seuss]
    #7781381 - 12/20/07 12:15 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Seuss said:
> Nature will survive one way or the other

So the reduction of our ecological footprint is for mankind's benefit, and not for nature's benefit? (gah, I sound like Rush Limbaugh, apologies in advance)



Well, we are a part of nature, but yes, ultimately it is to our benefit that we preserve the ecosystem. Enlightened egoism is at the root of any ethical system.

Quote:

> Nature doesn't have a preferred temperature, but the organisms currently living on Earth do, including us.

And as Earth's climate changes, some organisms will die while others will evolve to fill the new holes. Why should mankind be special or have more right to the planet than any other organism? If climate change leads to the end of mankind, be it caused by mankind or not, who are we to step in the way of nature righting herself?



Well, if we're the ones causing it, then it wouldn't be stepping in the way of nature to reverse the trend. We'd be helping nature along. One thing that's not brought up as much in the global warming debates is that in addition to the greenhouse gases humans emit, we've also damaged natures ability to take in those greenhouse gases as a result of deforestation and terraforming. Nature may end up getting rid of us in the end, but I think in the meantime, it's in our best interest to clean up the mess we've made for ourselves.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinegluke bastid
Stinky Bum
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/20/00
Posts: 3,322
Loc: Charm City
Last seen: 5 years, 5 months
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: Seuss]
    #7781390 - 12/20/07 12:18 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Seuss said:
> Nature will survive one way or the other

So the reduction of our ecological footprint is for mankind's benefit, and not for nature's benefit? (gah, I sound like Rush Limbaugh, apologies in advance)




I always thought so. Isn't that the whole idea?

Quote:

> Nature doesn't have a preferred temperature, but the organisms currently living on Earth do, including us.

And as Earth's climate changes, some organisms will die while others will evolve to fill the new holes. Why should mankind be special or have more right to the planet than any other organism? If climate change leads to the end of mankind, be it caused by mankind or not, who are we to step in the way of nature righting herself?




Well by that rationale, we shouldn't bother curing diseases. Bacteria and even viruses, arguably, are forms of life. Who are we to inoculate our children against all those forms of life? Who are we to not drop nuclear bombs all over the globe, thereby opening up the gates for the golden age of cockroaches. Environmentalism, as well as almost every other political theory, is based on the assumption that humanity is worth protecting.


--------------------
:hst:
Society in every form is a blessing,
but government at its best is but a necessary evil
 
- Thomas Paine

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinexFrockx
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 10,457
Loc: Northeast
Last seen: 2 days, 18 hours
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: gluke bastid]
    #7781439 - 12/20/07 12:28 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Who are we stop stop nature from righting itself?

We are the fucking rulers of this planet. Our species evolved beyond the capacity of every other animal on this planet, so in my eyes, we won. It is fully within our bounds of power to make this earth as human-friendly as possible, and to do anything different would just be asinine, every intelligent species has some self-preservation instinct.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: EntheogenicPeace]
    #7781446 - 12/20/07 12:30 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Way to mock a serious issue




If it was a serious issue, I wouldn't mock it.

I mocked Alar.

I mocked hair dye.

I mocked global cooling (or freezing)

I especially mock those that think that doom is just around the corner.
-------------------------

The Global Warming Scam

by Nima Sanandaji and Fred Goldberg

The media portrays a dramatic image of how the ice is melting in the polar regions as a consequence of global warming. We are warned that the North Pole might become icefree during the summer months at the end of this century and that the polar bears might become extinct due to this development.

But is this really a realistic image? Sure, there is research that indicates that the ice sheets are being reduced, but there are also studies that show the complete opposite. An example of this is a study in the scientific journal Geophysical Research Letter where the Swedish researcher Peter Winsor compares data collected by submarines below the Arctic ice. His conclusions are that the thickness of the ice has been almost constant between 1986 and 1997.

If you look at the South Pole there are studies that show an increase in the mass of the ice. In a study published in the journal Nature a number of polar researchers showed that they had observed a net cooling of 0.7 degrees in the region between 1986 and 2000. Another study published in Science showed that the East-Antarctic ice sheet had grown with 45 million metric tones between 1992 and 2003.

Are the ices growing or melting? The simple answer is that there exist studies that point to both directions, perhaps indicating that scientists know relatively little about global climate. But what counts to most ordinary people is what media is reporting, and media is often highlighting the most alarming studies and seldom report of studies that go against the notion that human activity leads to global warming. To put it simply, the news is filtered through an environmentalist view of the world.

An interesting example of how media sometimes gets it wrong is how journalists reported that there had never been so little ice in the Arctic than in 2005. This claim was based on satellite images by NASA which showed that the geographic extent of the ice sheet had never been so small since measurement began in 1979. One must however keep in fact that about half of the ice in the Arctic melts each summer and that two months before this measurment the extent of the ice sheet was the same as the previous year. The problem is that satellite images show the surface of the ice but not the thickness.

Capten Årnell at the summer expedition with the polar-ship Oden could tell that he had never seen so much ice in the Arctic than in 2005. It was with great difficulty that he had passed through the region. What had happened in 2005 seems to be that the ice had packed densely against the Canadian part of the Arctic. The geographical extent had been reduced but the ice was thicker.

As for polar bears, much points to that their numbers are increasing rather than diminishing. Mitch Taylor, a Canadian expert on animal populations, estimates that the number of polar bears in Canada has increased from 12 000 to 15 000 the past decade. Steven C Amstrup and his college have studied a population of polar bears in Alaska and reported that the number of females had increased from 600 to 900 between 1976 and 1992. Even a report from the WWF which is entitled "Polar bears at risk" and warns that the populations of the polar bears might become extinct due to global warming, supports that the number of polar bears is increasing. In the report the polar bears in the world are divided into 20 populations. It shows out that only 2 of these populations are decreasing, while 10 are stable, 5 are growing and 3 are not possible to comment about.

Global climate is an important issue to debate, but it is sad that what is communicated often has a clear shifting towards the worst-case scenarios and the doomsday theories. There is no reason to scare people by giving them only one side of the argument.

Link


--------------------------------------------



SciTech
Has global warming stopped?

David Whitehouse

Published 19 December 2007

'The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 and every year since 2001'

Global warming stopped? Surely not. What heresy is this? Haven’t we been told that the science of global warming is settled beyond doubt and that all that’s left to the so-called sceptics is the odd errant glacier that refuses to melt?

Aren’t we told that if we don’t act now rising temperatures will render most of the surface of the Earth uninhabitable within our lifetimes? But as we digest these apocalyptic comments, read the recent IPCC’s Synthesis report that says climate change could become irreversible. Witness the drama at Bali as news emerges that something is not quite right in the global warming camp.

With only few days remaining in 2007, the indications are the global temperature for this year is the same as that for 2006 – there has been no warming over the 12 months.

But is this just a blip in the ever upward trend you may ask? No.

The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 as well as every year since 2001. Global warming has, temporarily or permanently, ceased. Temperatures across the world are not increasing as they should according to the fundamental theory behind global warming – the greenhouse effect. Something else is happening and it is vital that we find out what or else we may spend hundreds of billions of pounds needlessly.

In principle the greenhouse effect is simple. Gases like carbon dioxide present in the atmosphere absorb outgoing infrared radiation from the earth’s surface causing some heat to be retained.

Consequently an increase in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases from human activities such as burning fossil fuels leads to an enhanced greenhouse effect. Thus the world warms, the climate changes and we are in trouble.

The evidence for this hypothesis is the well established physics of the greenhouse effect itself and the correlation of increasing global carbon dioxide concentration with rising global temperature. Carbon dioxide is clearly increasing in the Earth’s atmosphere. It’s a straight line upward. It is currently about 390 parts per million. Pre-industrial levels were about 285 ppm. Since 1960 when accurate annual measurements became more reliable it has increased steadily from about 315 ppm. If the greenhouse effect is working as we think then the Earth’s temperature will rise as the carbon dioxide levels increase.

But here it starts getting messy and, perhaps, a little inconvenient for some. Looking at the global temperatures as used by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the UK’s Met Office and the IPCC (and indeed Al Gore) it’s apparent that there has been a sharp rise since about 1980.

The period 1980-98 was one of rapid warming – a temperature increase of about 0.5 degrees C (CO2 rose from 340ppm to 370ppm). But since then the global temperature has been flat (whilst the CO2 has relentlessly risen from 370ppm to 380ppm). This means that the global temperature today is about 0.3 deg less than it would have been had the rapid increase continued.

For the past decade the world has not warmed. Global warming has stopped. It’s not a viewpoint or a sceptic’s inaccuracy. It’s an observational fact. Clearly the world of the past 30 years is warmer than the previous decades and there is abundant evidence (in the northern hemisphere at least) that the world is responding to those elevated temperatures. But the evidence shows that global warming as such has ceased.

The explanation for the standstill has been attributed to aerosols in the atmosphere produced as a by-product of greenhouse gas emission and volcanic activity. They would have the effect of reflecting some of the incidental sunlight into space thereby reducing the greenhouse effect. Such an explanation was proposed to account for the global cooling observed between 1940 and 1978.

But things cannot be that simple. The fact that the global temperature has remained unchanged for a decade requires that the quantity of reflecting aerosols dumped put in our atmosphere must be increasing year on year at precisely the exact rate needed to offset the accumulating carbon dioxide that wants to drive the temperature higher. This precise balance seems highly unlikely. Other explanations have been proposed such as the ocean cooling effect of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation or the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.

But they are also difficult to adjust so that they exactly compensate for the increasing upward temperature drag of rising CO2. So we are led to the conclusion that either the hypothesis of carbon dioxide induced global warming holds but its effects are being modified in what seems to be an improbable though not impossible way, or, and this really is heresy according to some, the working hypothesis does not stand the test of data.

It was a pity that the delegates at Bali didn’t discuss this or that the recent IPCC Synthesis report did not look in more detail at this recent warming standstill. Had it not occurred, or if the flatlining of temperature had occurred just five years earlier we would have no talk of global warming and perhaps, as happened in the 1970’s, we would fear a new Ice Age! Scientists and politicians talk of future projected temperature increases. But if the world has stopped warming what use these projections then?

Some media commentators say that the science of global warming is now beyond doubt and those who advocate alternative approaches or indeed modifications to the carbon dioxide greenhouse warming effect had lost the scientific argument. Not so.

Certainly the working hypothesis of CO2 induced global warming is a good one that stands on good physical principles but let us not pretend our understanding extends too far or that the working hypothesis is a sufficient explanation for what is going on.

I have heard it said, by scientists, journalists and politicians, that the time for argument is over and that further scientific debate only causes delay in action. But the wish to know exactly what is going on is independent of politics and scientists must never bend their desire for knowledge to any political cause, however noble.

The science is fascinating, the ramifications profound, but we are fools if we think we have a sufficient understanding of such a complicated system as the Earth’s atmosphere’s interaction with sunlight to decide. We know far less than many think we do or would like you to think we do. We must explain why global warming has stopped.

David Whitehosue was BBC Science Correspondent 1988–1998, Science Editor BBC News Online 1998–2006 and the 2004 European Internet Journalist of the Year. He has a doctorate in astrophysics and is the author of The Sun: A Biography (John Wiley, 2005).] His website is www.davidwhitehouse.com

Link

--------------------------------------

The planet warms. The planet cools. It is a natural progression that has been going on since long before there were SUV's and a George Bush to blame.

Mock? What I am truly mocking is chowderheads who scream the sky is falling every time there is a new "scare de jour".

I take it lightly because I have been around for long enough (50 years) to see scares come and go. I take it lightly because there is NO consensus as to whether or not there is a problem, if it is caused by mankind, if it is natural or even if there is anything that can be done about it. I take it lightly because of the hypocritical assholes that tell us we must change our lifestyle while jetting around in their private planes and living in mansions that burn more electricity in a month that most homes do in a year. I take it lightly because of the dumbfucks who say the debate is over when their models are consistently wrong.

To be blunt..... I take it lightly because of people like you who are so convinced we are doomed that any other point of view is immediately discarded and laughed at.

(Oh yes, I take it lightly because I hate penguins and hope they all drown when the ice finishes melting)


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Edited by luvdemshrooms (12/20/07 01:00 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | Next > | Last >

Shop: Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Original Sensible Seeds Feminized Cannabis Seeds   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Good article on global warming.
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
luvdemshrooms 4,997 86 06/10/03 04:56 AM
by Innvertigo
* A look at global warming.
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
luvdemshrooms 13,994 119 02/27/04 01:07 AM
by EchoVortex
* Global Warming, Facts Challenge Hysteria
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Evolving 5,182 75 05/04/03 08:07 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* Global warming nothing but pretend communist conspiracy
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
question_for_joo 10,915 112 08/31/04 07:48 PM
by Gijith
* Global Warming?
( 1 2 all )
luvdemshrooms 2,409 37 07/18/03 06:49 PM
by Innvertigo
* More fantasies about global warming carbonhoots 997 17 11/01/03 02:44 PM
by d33p
* Blair must tackle global warming Xlea321 463 1 05/28/04 10:30 AM
by phi1618
* "The Threat of Global Terrorism" - Tony Blair
( 1 2 all )
Phred 2,887 20 03/14/04 12:45 PM
by silversoul7

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
39,564 topic views. 0 members, 9 guests and 11 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.034 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 15 queries.