Ogre Forums

http://www.news.com/8301-11128_3-988416 ... ag=nl.e703

The quote that resonated with me (since I was thinking it this past weekend):

A: To play devil's advocate, even at the Cleantech Forum some people were saying, "Maybe global warming isn't happening." If it's not true, then what good is all of this new technology?

A: Why should we breathe the fumes of other people's cars? Why not clean the air? Even if there's not global warming, there's an inherent benefit that accrues in terms of health care costs. Taxpayers are all the beneficiaries.

Why wouldn't we do green buildings to reduce our energy costs?

I agree 100% -- global warming is complete BS. It's total folly to extrapolate, and base conclusions on, 100 years of data in the lifespan of the earth. Not to mention that a single innocent Vesuvius or Mt. St. Helens does more pollutive damage to the atmosphere in a single week than humans could possibly imagine they could effect in 1,000 years.

But I digress. As an argument (in the United States) for a reduction in pollution and energy consumption, "global warming" has fallen flat on its face. Unfortunately, it's only been until very recently that fuel prices have been tolerable enough that no one really is incentivized to change their habits. Now that the price at the pump is creeping up with no sign of retreat, suddenly we're all talking about energy policy again (having one would be a nice start).

It just burns me that the environmentalists have wasted so much effort on impossible-to-prove mythology when a simple economics lesson would have done the trick years (or decades) ago. (In fact, decades ago it almost did, without anyone having to resort to scare tactics -- but then the crisis passed, fuel prices dropped again and we went back to the status quo). It's a simple equation: you can't get through to people unless it hits their wallet. The environmental benefits actually are seen as secondary by the vast majority of the population: sure it's nice to have clean parks and water, but by God don't make me have to pay for it...

/rant=off

xavier wrote:I agree 100% -- global warming is complete BS.

Ouch...
All the science papers I read about this subject agree the phenomenon exist and is human induced *. Nearly all the newspapers and commercial BRAND NAME denies it. This is called propaganda btw.

An Australian journalist -Vanessa Morris- recently quit her job after 20 years as she realised how the media where (in her words) "presenting fabricated coverage". She is now secretary of the organisation: www.see-change.org.au.


Don't forget that most of the biggest companies in the USA have no interest -on the contrary- that any legislation regulating oil, fossil fuels, inefficient motors, etc be introduced BEFORE they are ready to make a benefit from it.

So, please, before insulting the scientists try first to prove your claim.
The data is available so try to prove mathematically that it is non existent.

sure it's nice to have clean parks and water, but by God don't make me have to pay for it...

Sure. It is so much cheaper to have dirty parks and water. (Sorry that was easy).
That said if the polluters should pay then the USA as primary source should indeed pay a lot.


* There is a review about all (that the authors could find) science articles on the subject and NONE denied the phenomenon. But I didn't -why should I- keep the reference

steven wrote: The data is available so try to prove mathematically that it is non existent.

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." -- Albert Einstein

Truer words were never spoken.

That said...if global warming were an indisputable fact, why is it that the latest report has the polar ice caps expanding instead of contracting? Perhaps it's inconvenient to the makers of "The Inconvenient Truth" that the Earth won't cooperate with *their* propaganda?

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008 ... c-ice.html

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007 ... c-ice.html

Which is it? Is it melting or it is freezing? You can't have it both ways.

Is it *just* possible that your Union of Concerned Scientists (very few of whom are actual climatologists, btw) maybe are blowing carbon-based smoke up your skirt?

steven wrote:

xavier wrote:I agree 100% -- global warming is complete BS.

Ouch...
All the science papers I read about this subject agree the phenomenon exist and is human induced *. Nearly all the newspapers and commercial BRAND NAME denies it. This is called propaganda btw.

And it is that inherent trust in "science" that bothers me just as much as xavier's buying in to the media bothers you. To use a phrase in regards to science, science "is not an exact science." Some scientists are more concerned with getting themselves published than performing actual science. It goes both ways my friend. I don't put a lot of stock in what scientists say, because they mainly give a "best guess" in just about every situation ever. Yes, they try and back it with as much "knowledge" as they can, but when that "knowledge" is built upon the same "knowledge" that said the world was flat and that the atom was the smallest thing in the universe, I tend to be a bit skeptical.

I agree that the grand 'ole USA-born capitalists are cashing in, and are smoke screening some things, but so are the scientists. I think global warming is a crock. I do believe we can destroy this planet, but not before it destroys us first. I am not advocating blatant stupidity, which is what all wastefullness falls under, nor am I advocating doing nothing. I am merely saying that to believe what some "financially motivated" scientists say now, which we all know will be proven wrong in a number of years, is naive. C'mon, they still can't even tell whether or not its going to actually rain tomorrow, or where a tornado is going to appear, or any number of other things much simpler than the overall climate; and you actually think they "know" that we are heating this massive planet up, when we cover about 1% of its surface with our polluted cities (and 1% is a generous estimation)? Please.

Sorry, I'm with xavier on this one.

Jerky wrote:xavier's buying in to the media

Actually, my conclusions are my own, based on reason not propaganda. It never ceases to amaze me, the human arrogance that allows us to believe that we can have this significant an impact on the Earth, especially in the cosmically insignificant timespan of 100 years...

If you read Newsom's comments and thoughts on the matter, they are born more of pragmatic and sensible approaches, pandering not to fear, but to common sense. Here in the Bay Area, as he mentioned, we recycle more as a matter of routine, rather than "doing our part for the planet". Trust me, if a human were given the choice between throwing a plastic bottle in the garbage can next to them and crossing a street to put it in a recycling bin, into the garbage it goes. That's human nature. Fear inspires a fight-or-flight response, and you can't scare people into changing their habits. Ask the nearest Canadian goose or "wild" deer you see -- there's no real visible threat from you, therefore no behavior modification.

If however, you make it convenient for the human to change, or pander to their innate greed, change can happen, and usually painlessly and really without anyone noticing. If the environmental lobby had tried that the past 30 years, we might actually be farther along than we are, and "environmentalist" wouldn't be synonymous with "nutjob".

Totally agree. Human arrogance, ftw.

I guess I should have added "supposed" in front of that there. I wasn't implying that you were buying into the media, I was implying that he was implying that you were. Make sense?

Jerky wrote:Totally agree. Human arrogance, ftw.

I guess I should have added "supposed" in front of that there. I wasn't implying that you were buying into the media, I was implying that he was implying that you were. Make sense?

LOL NP -- just wanted to clear it up in case.

...the human arrogance that allows us to believe that we can have this significant an impact on the Earth,...

The atmosphere composition is live induced and if you believe that we are not destroying the eco-system then there is no point discussing.

... maybe are blowing carbon-based smoke up your skirt?

...but when that "knowledge" is built upon the same "knowledge" that said the world was flat...

Human arrogance, ftw.

OK I knew it was a mistake to respond.
I will not bother again with the Off-topic subjects.

I'll join in.

I am currently studying a BSc in Physical Science, I studied about Global Warming for almost a month as a part to learn all of the sciences (and how they all interact and interweave with each other) in the first year before focusing on Physics.

I have a good grasp on how each element of the climate from recycling dead bio-matter to how the ocean currents rely on salt to move warm and cold water across the planet.

From the evidence shown to me, I believe it exists - but not in the drastic way "We all gonna fry!!", it is portrayed in the media and (some) science communities. I'm sure I understand the global warming effect, but the information given to me or perhaps a lack of some comprehension to it, or even something I missed. But it seems to me, it is happening but at a slower rate than it is protrayed.

I should point out, with the same data given to me. Since recording the GMST (Global Mean Surface Temperature) over the last 400 years, which we have had the industrial revolution (and before that - not) the GMST has only risen by 0.5 degrees, and further more; the GMST has been measured to fall and rise many times in our Earth's history - and this change could be just normal behavior.

However, since I'm a lowly second year Physics student, some of you should take my post with pinch of salt.

betajaen wrote:the GMST has been measured to fall and rise many times in our Earth's history - and this change could be just normal behavior.

Well it is normal behavior if everything else remain the same ie pollution, CFC leve etc which is obviously not.

My verdict is this: the threat of global warming is not totally BS, it is there but maybe not as much as some people would want us to believe. Neglecting to care about environment by saying it is totally BS will just make things far worse. Maybe a little study on the huge ozone hole over Antartic will change our perspective on this issue.

And yes, I agree that some media has chosen to publish/exaggerate/emphasis news which are of interest to them. They *should* play their role by simply reporting, not judging and delivering only news which serve their interest.

Waste recycling does not really help in the real sense because there are far bigger causes which have not been dealt effectively. It is like you are trying your best to solve 5% of the problem but the rest 95% is neglected. Recycling contributes to good feeling among the concerned people - which in a way is good, but as I said, not really contributive in the bigger picture.

George Carlin - Saving The Planet
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtqSPahiMxw





I trust science for most stuff, but the one thing I think science really sucks at is predicting the future (although still better than the alternative methods of predicting the future). Measuring the present, analysing the past, fine, but predictions of the future aren't always accurate.

30 years ago we were apparently heading for an ice age, because average temperatures were dropping. Now it's global warming, because average temperatures are rising. In another 30 years...

Just some facts:
- Very infrequent phenomena like Richter 9 earthquakes or level 5 hurricanes have happened repeatedly in the last five years.
- My town, which is probably the coldest in Spain, saw snow yesterday for the first time. Two days ago we were getting 20C outside.
- While the tend is to refill our water reserves along the winter, this year we've had shortages in certain communities, so we'll probably have water rationing everywhere this summer.

Just take a look to the news. Things 100 years ago were taken as something exceptional are seen nowadays every week. Is this normal? I know we aren't gonna fry, but the global climate is certainly changing. I recently read that the sea population decreased by 90% during the 20th century. Not related to global warming, but a fact that demonstrates how we humans don't care about earth. The true arrogance isn't to think we can have such an impact on climate; the arrogance is to think the entire planet is here to serve us as we please, and not having to take care of it. Believing we can't do such damage to the planet is self-convincing IMHO.

It has turned into a joke, everything these days is one of 'co2 neutral', 'green', now Microsoft is even claiming Vista to be a 'green OS' to sell it

The extrapolation of the current rate of co2 emission to the future is useless, as the oil and other fossil fuels will become rarer. Because of this, even IF at this moment, we're influencing the global climate by burning too much old organic material, this won't continue indefinitely.

a chemist speaking:

betajean is right, you have to consider it has a cycle, up and down.
We humans are responsible for it's peaks.

But, let me say it frankly, have you ever been at a rural place? how was the air? and in city?
Before thinking about global warming, why not about your lives? the "city" hair is filled with certified carcinogens substances, verified (it's in every third year chemistry course). Wouldn't be good if it is more "clean" ?
Do you know how an auto's catalytic exhaust works? it has inside a thin layer of Pt that, when hot, "destroys" the benzene from the combustion chamber (and some other things like this). And when your car is just started? benzene -> carcinogenic!

xavier wrote: Not to mention that a single innocent Vesuvius or Mt. St. Helens does more pollutive damage to the atmosphere in a single week than humans could possibly imagine they could effect in 1,000 years.

This couldn't be futher from the truth. Man made carbon dioxide emissions are 150 times greater than those caused by volcanos. You can also proof this yourself by looking at some of the CO2 detection station graphs. If your clame would be true, they should contain a huge spike when ever volcano has errupted, which they don't.

Gerlach (1991) estimated a total global release of 3-4 x 10E12 mol/yr from volcanoes. This is a conservative estimate. Man-made (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions overwhelm this estimate by at least 150 times. http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html

Kojack wrote:30 years ago we were apparently heading for an ice age, because average temperatures were dropping. Now it's global warming, because average temperatures are rising. In another 30 years...

To get this into scope with the current studying of global warming, there is a nice page, which contains all the articles about the "imminent Ice Age" published at 1970's. http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

In the 1970's, there was a book in the popular press, a few articles in popular magazines, and a small amount of scientific speculation based on the recently discovered glacial cycles and the recent slight cooling trend from air pollution blocking the sunlight. No daily headlines. No avalanche of scientific articles. No United Nations treaties and commissions. No G8 summits on the dangers.

There quite simply is no comparison, I'm sure you could find better evidence of a "consensus" of a coming alien invasion.

betajaen wrote:I should point out, with the same data given to me. Since recording the GMST (Global Mean Surface Temperature) over the last 400 years, which we have had the industrial revolution (and before that - not) the GMST has only risen by 0.5 degrees, and further more; the GMST has been measured to fall and rise many times in our Earth's history - and this change could be just normal behavior.

The reliable instrument data goes back to 145 years and 2005 was the warmest year ever recorded since the measurement has being taken. But there is also another way to get direct measurement information of the temperature for the last 500 years, and that is borehole measurements.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwa ... kgraph.gif
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/borehole/index.html

Using this record we can extend our timeframe and reasonably conclude that it is warmer now than any time in the last 500 years.

It's also possible to reconstruct the temperature information with so called proxy data, by studying tree rings, ocean sediments, coral growth etc.

"they all show some similar patterns of temperature change over the last several centuries. Most striking is the fact that each record reveals that the 20th century is the warmest of the entire record, and that warming was most dramatic after 1920"
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwa ... olast.html

Thus we can reasonably say it is warmer now than any other time in the last one thousand years.

The only other candidate for a higher temperature period going back through the entire Holocene (~12000bp to now) is called the Holocene Climatic Optimum some 6000 years ago. But it has been determined that the anamolous warmth of that time was actually only in the northern hemisphere and only in the winter months.

Wikipedia has a nice graph of many reconstructions of Holocene temperature all super-imposed with an average of all of them combined: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Holo ... ations.png

Thus one can reasonably believe that it is warmer now than at any other time in the last 12,000 years.

There is also a controversial method of using antarctic ice core samples to determine the amount of methane and carbon dioxide from the air trapped inside of the ice. These measurements go back to 450 000 years and shows that atleast for 100 000 years the climate temperature levels were way below the current average.

So if our reading of the Holocene is correct, it is warmer now than at any other time in over the last 100,000 years.

Wow, so much attention.

Apologies Tenttu, I thought it was 400 years.

I was going to mention the measuring of ice cores to find out the air content of those years, but for more recent years; tree pollen count (from fossilsed tree's in swamps in France - I believe) can give out what trees and planets grew back then, from that you can work out the climate of that time based on similar trees and plants now.

I believe Syedhs made a good point about the media attention to all of this; which they do exaggerate things - Just look at the British tabloids. The general census in the area I live is; If you don't recycle we will have increased global warming and Britain will be flooded.

Which isn't the case. I don't recycle because it doesn't work (just watching Penn and Tellers' Bullsh*t on Recycling convinced me), and most packaging for products come from recycled sources anyway, and materials that are cheaper to recycle (aluminum) already are.

What is really needed is moderation; Moderation of energy usage, packaging, transportation, and change in public attitudes about the planet and environment - None of the "hippie stuff", just plain facts.

None of the "hippie stuff", just plain facts.

Exactly. Not sure what upsets me most though - the opportunists that spread these "tabloid news" or the otherwise intelligent people that reject the whole resoning because of those opportunists.

btw, xavier, is this an attempt to sabotage the lounge forum or is it some kind of test?

beaugard wrote: btw, xavier, is this an attempt to sabotage the lounge forum or is it some kind of test?

Erm, neither -- why do you ask?

Hey Xavier, what is your experience, is it not getting hotter in CA?

Global Warming - Fact or fiction?

Fact.

@xavier
Because it is a perfect subject to start a flame war, of course. If there is no war, we passed the test and we deserve an offtopic forum.

Hey Xavier, what is your experience, is it not getting hotter in CA?

hehe, hasn't this winter been one of the coldest ever there? Judging these things by personal experience is useless, anyway.

FrameFever wrote:Hey Xavier, what is your experience, is it not getting hotter in CA?

It's actually colder -- I could use some of that 'global warming' right about now.

hehe, hasn't this winter been one of the coldest ever there? Judging these things by personal experience is useless, anyway.

^^

what do you mean with coldest?
30 Degree?

strange, I've read last week an article about california, that it's getting hotter and hotter. And people were adviced to save water, bcause of the water austerity. Even Arnolds Kids only stay 5min under the shower.

And in Arizona the administration wants to floods the grand canyon

Brainshack wrote:

Global Warming - Fact or fiction?

Fact.

Most likely.

One thing that is definitely not a fact is what is causing it.

Nobody has a slightest clue ... and that's precisely why personally I don't give a damn about changing my lifestyle.
I will definitely not change my lifestyle to satisfy some religious dogma ... I don't see how this is any different.

We have a new church - a church of ecology and mother Earth and in some parts of the world has completely replaced the old religion.
In the end , it is as ridiculous as every other church out there.

I think there's a hell of a lot of evidence to suggest we are frigging with the planet more than we probably should. It might not be as bad as some people are making out, but I happen to think that when you add everything up, it's better to be on the cautious side and be wrong than on the cavalier side and be wrong. Beyond the risks of being wrong in each direction, there are lots of other benefits to diversifying our energy sources and being more environmentally friendly, other than just avoiding global warming.

The obsession with the financials is more a USA take than elsewhere, IMO. The US is much more ruthlessly capitalist than Europe, that's why there's a right-wing party that keeps getting in Softer politics always go down better this side of the pond, it's really not always about the money, in my experience. The USA is also a big-ass country with lends itself to big-ass motor vehicles to get around it - Europe is smaller, more compact, and more feasible to travel around by more environmentally-friendly means, outside of rural areas.

Even discounting global warming, I personally find my living environment is much more polluted than it used to be (car fumes, rubbish etc), and I'm happy to try to do something about it by making less car journeys, not using so many disposable plastic bags, recycling etc. I think we've gone nuts for the consumer throwaway / convenience culture and the balance needs adjusting - in a lot of cases it's not a big change, sometimes it costs you money, sometimes it saves you money, but overall it's a net positive. I don't need someone to justify it to me in terms of money, although it never hurts - being neutral (as most things are) or even a little more expensive is ok by me so long as I can see the other benefits. I think if money is all that motivates a person, then it's a rather sad state of affairs. There are a lot of selfish people in the world though, so they'll always find a reason not to do anything other than exactly what they personally want to do and what's best for themselves, and screw everyone else. That's their choice, but I actually feel sorry for them - in the long run not caring about anything but yourself seems quite an empty existence.