What global warming?

[Rebbasser]

Global warming? What global warming? It is SNOWING in San Antonio. It NEVER snows in San Antonio!

[everettvet]

You can ask Al Gore. He thinks he has all the answers on that subject.

[nofearengineer]

Oh come on, Everett....the debate is over.

[doc]

Originally Posted by Rebbasser

Global warming? What global warming? It is SNOWING in San Antonio. It NEVER snows in San Antonio!

It is hard to believe with record lows here in South Arkansas as well, and makes for a good laugh everytime you say global warming

[Bassboss]

Pift........

Global warming is improperly named. Global warming cause Extremes in weather, for example, in summer, it gets HOTer than usual, in Winter, it gets COLDer than usual. But from an uneducated standpoint I see where you're come from.

But what do I know, I'm only 16.

Originally Posted by everettvet

You can ask Al Gore. He thinks he has all the answers on that subject.

And yeah, so does Glenn Beck.

[doc]

The media should have tagged it "Climate Change" but those damn fuzzy polar bears are so cute

[Bassboss]

Originally Posted by doc

The media should have tagged it "Climate Change" but those damn fuzzy polar bears are so cute

Ya, something along the lines of Climate Change would have been more appropriate... I don't were poler bears come into play there but, OK!

And Reb, do try asking polar bears about global warming, ask them if it's real.... but do it within the next decade or so, 'cause it'll be hard to find them after that!

[screwballl]

There is 2 perspectives... global warming referring to the natural heating and cooling of the planet, and then the lies and deceit that is called "man made global warming".

Remember that scientists have flip flopped back and forth from global cooling to global warming every 40 or so years, which also happens to coincide with the earths normal short term heating and cooling trends.

http://www.philvalentine.com/Skeptic...balWarming.htm

One of my favorite talking points:

Something that the media almost never addresses are the holes in the theory that C02 has been the driving force in global warming. Alarmists fail to adequately explain why temperatures began warming at the end of the Little Ice Age in about 1850, long before man-made CO2 emissions could have impacted the climate. Then about 1940, just as man-made CO2 emissions rose sharply, the temperatures began a decline that lasted until the 1970's, prompting the media and many scientists to fear a coming ice age.

[twigass]

bass boss you're right what polar bears, but you're too young to remember anything cause 30 years ago here in MI i remember getting snow upon snow then ten years later very little 20 later almost none but bitter cold and here we are again in the snow cycle how does this happen, o I know the polar bears took too many craps up there and the gasses from that caused a climate changed cause the scientists are blaming the dinosaurs and cows for it now that they can't blame us anymore. its a joke that all the dumb tree huggers follow al gore around cause we would be a better place if they followed him to the very hot place under us

[nofearengineer]

All I know is that people simply refuse to listen to me when I start talking absorption spectra. Carbon Dioxide is simply unable, by the laws of physics, to cause such a change, provided the change is even happening.

I'm getting really tired of arguing it with people who lack a basic science education. Opinions really ought to have some sort of pre-requisite, like a basic logic test. I watched Bill Nye, the so-called "Science Guy" on TV last night again try the old "the science is settled" argument. He's right, the science is indeed settled...CO2 can not cause it.

If you don't believe me...start asking about how they measure global surface temps. With hi-tech satellites, right? There's a little problem. They have trouble measuring the surface temperature of the Earth by detecting infrared radiation. Why? Because the wavelengths they need to measure are all absorbed before they can reflect off the Earth back to the satellite! This is because the C02 in our atmosphere absorbs every last bit of infrared radiation it is going to absorb by the time it reaches 100 feet in altitude.

Because the absorption rate follows an exponential function, if you doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, you would only cut that distance in HALF, or 50 feet. Because of wind turbulence, and convection currents, all of this heat gets distributed quickly to much higher than this 100 ft altitude. The point here is, the Earth's atmosphere has been completely absorbing all of the reflected infrared radiation for a very long time, billions of years. CO2 never has, nor never will be, a cause of any climate change.

It occurred to me the other day, after I had someone call me a "flat-earther" (I laughed in his face), that he was the one who truly deserved the name. After all, the people who believed the Earth was flat were the ones who didn't want the world, or their understanding of it, to change.

Now, I ask you...who is it that thinks the world's natural state isn't supposed to change? Me? Or is it the greenies, who have this fantasy drilled into their head that the climate we had when they were born is the only one we should ever have, and that any measure, no matter how costly should be taken to try to ensure that it never changes?

[Bender]

Originally Posted by Bassboss

I don't were poler bears come into play there but, OK!

They are always a factor because I hear that they are delicious.

[WTL]

I might be one of the few people who just doesn't claim to know. Really. Dont know. Havent run any tests or crunched any data sets.

It could be warming, and it could not be. And then maybe its partially caused by pollution, and then again maybe not.

But one thing I do know is that people, especially government officials and scientists who receive public grants, do have a tendency to lean towards the possibility that the sky is falling.

I mean the other day I saw a doctor from a prestigious university claim that parents should watch their kids eat hot dogs until they are 12 so that they dont choke. Yes I know young kids, it makes sense, but 12 years old? The kid will start thinking about getting laid soon, not worrying about choking on his food. There you have a very smart man who is crying wolf.

Whenever someone says any scientific debate is settled, run, dont walk. Even established theories that are hundreds of years old get updated from time to time.

[Rebbasser]

Oh, I think global warming is real. So is global cooling. It is all part of a natural cycle. The earth warms, the earth cools. Always has. 15,000 years ago we were in an ice age. The ice melted. Why? I'll hazard a guess: It got warmer?

Man-made global warming is a whole different ballgame. IMO it is nothing more than a political agenda. Pure and simple.

[TN_Bassin]

I don't buy into the who claim of global warming myself. For the sole reason that we just don't have enough information or the understanding as a society to know why the Earth does what it does. Maybe Global Warming is caused by intersolar drift. Maybe it's caused by a combination of gases in the atmosphere (the most popular theory, but also the one, which nofear pointed out, has the most bullet holes in it). Or maybe it has something to do with the way the earth turns on it's Axis. The point I'm trying to make I guess is that maybe it is just something we as human beings just cannot comprehend. It just happens(or doesn't happen). As for my opinion on the subject I buy into the theory that the Earth's orbit is not perfect and that imperfection creates what we call global warming or cooling or whatever else they call it these days.

[twigass]

Well in my opinion this is another way for the government to screw all of us tax paying people over again, lets introduce 2nd depression. We can't drill here we can't drill there so lets buy all of the resources needed to survive from another country at double the price and sell it to our own at triple, then we have all these scientists and AL of course telling all these tree humpers that we need to gather and join hands to stop it, so donate and contribute all u can to help, and of course they did so now they can't afford their 200,000 dollar homes that suck up resources, i mean look at Al he uses more fuel for his transportation than some small cities do a year. Its a bunch of bullsh-- this has been happening for billions of years and will continue nothing none of us can do to change it so i just live with it, can't wait to go outside it's a fun loving 10 degrees out and that's Fahrenheit not Celsius

[Bassboss]

All right, so lets say Global warming is not real. This is at least getting auto companies to make more fuel efficient engines (cars, trucks, boats). And that's something we can all benefit from. It leaves smaller of a hole in our pocket books, and does pollute less, giving us better air to breath, it makes scientists find more efficacy energy sources (e.g. wind power) And it keeps the tree huggers quite.

Now lets say it is real, and the causes are real. Everyone has everyone convinced that it's a false and nothing more than a political agenda. No one does anything about it, they don't bother to make better, more fuel efficient engines, and don't try to find better energy sources. What happens, everything is fu*ked because it is real.

All I'm saying, is i don't see why people are saying it's not real, if people do think it's real, than they will try to do this.

Gets auto companies to make more fuel efficient engines (cars, trucks, boats). And that's something we can all benefit from. It leaves smaller of a hole in our pocket books, and does pollute less, giving us better air to breath, it makes scientists find more efficacy energy sources (e.g. wind power) And it keeps the tree huggers quite.

[1/4 stick]

Originally Posted by twigass

Well in my opinion this is another way for the government to screw all of us tax paying people over again, lets introduce 2nd depression. We can't drill here we can't drill there so lets buy all of the resources needed to survive from another country at double the price and sell it to our own at triple, then we have all these scientists and AL of course telling all these tree humpers that we need to gather and join hands to stop it, so donate and contribute all u can to help, and of course they did so now they can't afford their 200,000 dollar homes that suck up resources, i mean look at Al he uses more fuel for his transportation than some small cities do a year. Its a bunch of bullsh-- this has been happening for billions of years and will continue nothing none of us can do to change it so i just live with it, can't wait to go outside it's a fun loving 10 degrees out and that's Fahrenheit not Celsius

Bingo! Global warming is/was a theory that turned into a marketing scam that make Amway and Bernie Madoff look like rank amatures.

[WTL]

Originally Posted by Bassboss

All right, so lets say Global warming is not real. This is at least getting auto companies to make more fuel efficient engines (cars, trucks, boats). And that's something we can all benefit from. It leaves smaller of a hole in our pocket books, and does pollute less, giving us better air to breath, it makes scientists find more efficacy energy sources (e.g. wind power) And it keeps the tree huggers quite.

Now lets say it is real, and the causes are real. Everyone has everyone convinced that it's a false and nothing more than a political agenda. No one does anything about it, they don't bother to make better, more fuel efficient engines, and don't try to find better energy sources. What happens, everything is fu*ked because it is real.

All I'm saying, is i don't see why people are saying it's not real, if people do think it's real, than they will try to do this.

Ok, lets have this debate in reasonable terms. To create more efficient automobiles, outboards, toasterovens all requires a large amount of research and development. There is no such thing as snapping ones fingers and suddenly a car design that gets 60 mpg appears. Such cars necessarily cost more to manufacture, they cost more to buy and sometimes they cost more to run. Remember electric cars have to have juice to run, if that electricity is created at a local coal plant you are not saving the environment.

Another example - it is actually more efficient to me to continue to make my 1986 28 horse Johnson run. It costs less than $100 a year to operate. If I were to buy a new 4 stroke, despite it getting better gas mileage, I would have to spend several thousand dollars. I could run the new 4 stroke 100 years and I would not save enough gas money to make up that initial investment. That is not an efficient allocation of my capital.

But lets disregard my financial situation for a second. Say I did replace the old Johnson with a 4 stroke. What happens to my old motor (assuming someone else doesn't buy it and run it)? Either it goes to the landfill, where it along with all the other thrown away garbage causes enviromental damage, or it gets melted down. So the value of that outboard is destroyed. Then, in a factory producing new 4 strokes, they have to use a good bit of energy, materials, and manpower to manufacture a new 4 stroke that does the same thing the old one did, which is essentially a duplication of the production costs for a measly benefit in efficiency in the longterm.

So why, in the name of efficiency, would I ever consider getting rid of my 2 stroke until it dies a natural death?

I think if anything, we should be subsidized to stretch out the working years of our old automobiles to be less wasteful.

[1/4 stick]

Originally Posted by WTL

Ok, lets have this debate in reasonable terms. To create more efficient automobiles, outboards, toasterovens all requires a large amount of research and development. There is no such thing as snapping ones fingers and suddenly a car design that gets 60 mpg appears. Such cars necessarily cost more to manufacture, they cost more to buy and sometimes they cost more to run. Remember electric cars have to have juice to run, if that electricity is created at a local coal plant you are not saving the environment.

Another example - it is actually more efficient to me to continue to make my 1986 28 horse Johnson run. It costs less than $100 a year to operate. If I were to buy a new 4 stroke, despite it getting better gas mileage, I would have to spend several thousand dollars. I could run the new 4 stroke 100 years and I would not save enough gas money to make up that initial investment. That is not an efficient allocation of my capital.

But lets disregard my financial situation for a second. Say I did replace the old Johnson with a 4 stroke. What happens to my old motor (assuming someone else doesn't buy it and run it)? Either it goes to the landfill, where it along with all the other thrown away garbage causes enviromental damage, or it gets melted down. So the value of that outboard is destroyed. Then, in a factory producing new 4 strokes, they have to use a good bit of energy, materials, and manpower to manufacture a new 4 stroke that does the same thing the old one did, which is essentially a duplication of the production costs for a measly benefit in efficiency in the longterm.

So why, in the name of efficiency, would I ever consider getting rid of my 2 stroke until it dies a natural death?

I think if anything, we should be subsidized to stretch out the working years of our old automobiles to be less wasteful.

You forgot to mention the toxic fumes and CO2 given off when it's melted down and that fire aint gonna get hot enough to melt it without fuel.

I often wonder, as stupid as it may sound, what would happen or might already have happened if we didn't use the oil. Would it keep building up until one day something has to give? What kind of gasses or methane would be released into the atmosphire if it did? What if something cracked and magma or lava came into contact with all that raw oil? Would it be a big boom or more like a woosh?

[BassinNC]

I think its a lot of crap. The earth has been changing since the beginning of time. I think its all about money but that my opinion.

[screwballl]

Another point that so many people miss:

The earth can adapt on its own... so even IF man is causing an impact, the increased CO2 causes plants to grow faster, reproduce faster and suck up more CO2 offsetting any increase we may be giving off. Look at any studies of plants and trees in NYC and downwind from NYC, they grow faster and healthier and release more oxygen then the same types found 100 miles from any pollution source.

This "deforestation problem" so many whine about reduces the number of available plants and trees which causes an increase in CO2 which would send us into an ice age IF the earth did not adapt. Since it does adapt, we cut down 20 million acres of trees in Brazil, the increased CO2 causes plants to grow faster, reproduce faster and suck up more CO2. So we see the Black Hills of SD with thousands of acres of faster growing and more trees along with every other forest around the world expand and grow just slightly faster to compensate. We cut down 2 million acres and the planet compensates by causing 2 million acres to grow faster elsewhere until there is a balance.

[MississippiBoy]

[nofearengineer]

Just remember a very important Latin expression once taught to me. It doesn't really matter that it's in Latin....that just makes it sound more profound.

Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus.

This means "false in one, false in all."

Or in other words, don't take the word of someone who has been caught lying other times. These guys like Michael Mann and Phil Jones have been caught red-handed trying to cherry pick data and mislead you with their "end justifies the means" rationalization for lying. Don't take their word on another single thing.

[Rebbasser]

Mississippi, what is funny about that picture is what the environmentalist wackos DON'T tell you: That picture was taken in August, when the ice is SUPPOSED to melt, just like it did in that picture.

[3dkicker]

nofear - you want to explain the computer models that are used? Especially for those that have never taken a 500-600 level Statistical Analysis class before. You know the ones they use to predict the path of hurricanes or presidential elections in florida......also the same ones that have been used to predict the world climate for the next 10-50 years.