Global Warming - The Liberal Conspiracy

[unifreak7]

Well look at it this way. We should fix our problem no matter what the hell it is.

Man made Global Warming - Fix it: Back to normal, heathier, we wouldn't melt the poles killing many people. Don't fix it: Well, stuff will go down, not pretty.

Regular Cycle - Fix assumed global warming: Cleaner air. Don't fix assumed global warming: More pollution. Either way we aren't screwed, however I want cleaner air.

General Warming of the Sun - Fix assumed global warmer: Cleaner air. Don't fix assumer global warmer: More pollution. We are screwed in this case either way. Since if the sun gets hotter, we get hotter, and that's not good either way we look at it.

So let me get this right. It seems to those that don't believe in global warming, believe that we are screwed anyway, because of the general warming of the sun. (It is pretty easily shown that everything is getting warmer, yes 1900 was hot, but we've had years over and over and over that are getting hotter and hotter, if it is a cycle, this is a big ass cycle that will damage the earth a lot worse than any other cycle, which in turn says we are screwed anyway. This isn't a controdiction to what I said above, this is just what I think here, and up top, the basics of it.) I'd rather believe in global warming in this sense, so I know there is atleast something I can do to save myself as well as others. Come on people, even if this isn't real, there is nothing but good to come out of trying to save the planet (unless you are a penny pincher, then you'll hate to spend alittle money).

[Gilby]

Originally Posted by unifreak7

Regular Cycle - Fix assumed global warming: Cleaner air. Don't fix assumed global warming: More pollution. Either way we aren't screwed, however I want cleaner air.

Yes, cleaner air. But the global warming crowd are making a stink about CO2, which has nothing to do about cleaning the air. CO2 is not directly harmful to us or other animals. I would love for all the particles put into the air from energy production to be prevented. CO2 is something that is regulated quite a bit by nature as plants will thrive on it assuming everything else is right for the plants (like letting the government destroy the land).

[Dr. Science]

Originally Posted by Gilby

Exactly, until they had their new solution and their patent ran out in 1992. And I misstated above, it was their refrigerant freon, not an aerosol. In any case, they got their new refrigerant a monopoly to be used in every automobile AC, refrigerators, etc. The ozone issue, like global climate change, was a highly political issue, and that makes it where so called scientists can't be counted on because it is possible to fudge the numbers to support whatever side they happened to have been lured to.

Freons were used as propellants in aerosol cans prior to the ban in the mid 1970s. The Chemical Manufacturers Association fought that ban. They eventually caved in and actually started supporting research on CFCs. I have no great love of Corporations or Corporatism (the economic arm of Fascism according to Mussolini), but I take exception to the way you have portrayed this issue. The end of freons has actually thrown open the whole industry and many companies have developed replacement compounds. Because of the openess of the process, researchers have been able to get samples of compounds in the development stage and at least in two cases have been able to tell the CMA that a particular compound was bad and should not be pursued.

Originally Posted by Gilby

Really? The hole hasn't gotten smaller since the 80s. Unless I'm reading the data wrong, 2006 ties for the biggest hole since 1979 when this data starts according to this from nasa:

Thanks for showing the data, always a good thing. You don't have to be Leibniz to see that the time rate of change has slowed and is now pretty much flat. This is comfirmed by detailed measurements of Chlorine compounds, which have a fairly long lifetime (decades) in the Stratosphere. This has led people to conclude that the problem is getting better.

[johnfoss]

Originally Posted by unipsychler

I agree with you that the earth's climate is a chaotic system completely out of our control. This statement screams LOUD AND CLEAR that man is incapable of causing a global temperature increase and henceforth incapable of any change that would cause a decrease in global temperature.

Your statement above doesn't prove anything, other than your *belief* that we are incapable of making a large impact on our environment. I believe we can. Neither is loud and clear, though as our population increases my argument will only get stronger. Do you believe there's a hole in the ozone layer, for instance, and that it's man-caused? Or that this is just "cooked" data?

You also believe there was no Y2K problem, which indicates to me you never knew what the problem was. Was there fraud in some of the Y2K repairs? I'm sure there was. Probably huge amounts, especially for government and larger corporations. The existence of fraud does not disprove the existence of a problem that needed fixing. It needed fixing. In a nutshell: Tons of old but very important software had been created using two digits to indicate the year. At the time, this was not considered a problem because most programmers assumed newer and better stuff would come along in the 80s or 90s. But instead, lots of this old code was incorporated into even bigger, more sophisticated systems that were the foundations of banking and other huge software systems in the late 90s. When your bank suddenly thought it was 1900 instead of 2000 do you think this may have been a problem? Should your bank have waited to find out, and maybe saved tons of money? You say yes, but I'm glad my bank said no.

Fortunately this was a problem very easy to understand, though not so easy to fix. Legions of retired programmers were brought back, sometimes at very high dollar amounts, to reprogram systems that were created in programming languages that are no longer used, such as FORTRAN. Real problem, real solution.

Gilby talks about how large issues, like ozone and freon, become political. They do. Any time there's going to be tons of money involved, especially if it's going to be public money, stuff becomes political and it gets harder to separate truth from special interest. There are scientists on bot sides of most political issues. But when you follow the money, it often becomes a little more clear as to why one group of scientists is acting one way and another group is saying something else.

Today, the scientific community at large agrees that global warming is real, and that it's on an upward curve. What they don't agree on is how fast, and why. But you want us to ignore it. Maybe it'll go away? I for one think that using less fossil fuels is a good idea in general, aside from the global warming/pollution aspect. The less we can use, the sooner it will be before we have viable alternatives for transportation. I can't wait to have a car that doesn't need anything from oil companies to get around, especially after paying $62.25 to fill up yesterday! There are a lot of things we can do, just becuase they're a good idea, without necessarily going crazy with solutions that don't have a clear benefit.

[podzol]

Originally Posted by Gilby

Yes, cleaner air. But the global warming crowd are making a stink about CO2, which has nothing to do about cleaning the air. CO2 is not directly harmful to us or other animals. I would love for all the particles put into the air from energy production to be prevented. CO2 is something that is regulated quite a bit by nature as plants will thrive on it assuming everything else is right for the plants (like letting the government destroy the land).

Methane is as big or bigger deal. Do you like methane?

[Gilby]

Originally Posted by podzol

Methane is as big or bigger deal. Do you like methane?

Oh yeah, bottle that stuff up so we can use it instead of natural gas. Get the anaerobic digesters to work to produce more from organic waste...

[Gilby]

Originally Posted by johnfoss

But when you follow the money, it often becomes a little more clear as to why one group of scientists is acting one way and another group is saying something else.

There is very big money on both sides of the global warming issue.

[skate4flip]

I found this pretty interesting (documentary by CBC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA (part 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD6VB...elated&search= (part 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZS2e...elated&search= (part 3)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIbTJ...elated&search= (part 4)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2XAL...elated&search= (part 5)

[podzol]

Originally Posted by Gilby

Oh yeah, bottle that stuff up so we can use it instead of natural gas. Get the anaerobic digesters to work to produce more from organic waste...

But do you like it in the atmosphere to breathe? It's kind of hard to tell a cow or a pig to bottle it.

My only point was that there are other greenhouse gasses that are not an innocuous as CO2, and scientists are well aware of these.

Yes indeed, methane is a good fuel.

[johnfoss]

Originally Posted by Gilby

There is very big money on both sides of the global warming issue.

That's what I meant. An issue being politicized is more about money than about its level of importance otherwise. Why are our armies all over the Middle East while Africa is traditionally left to rot?

So the oil/energy/pollution companies have their scientists, and the green energy/anti-pollution/anti-growth/etc. industries have their scientists. When the best scientists on both sides or, even better, scientists that can be shown to *not* be on a side all start agreeing, then you have a real consensus...

As for methane? I'm not in favor of it at all. P.U.!

[Gilby]

Originally Posted by podzol

But do you like it in the atmosphere to breathe?

I'm not aware of any negative health effects other than asphyxiation. That would not occur with the small amount of methane in the atmosphere.

Originally Posted by podzol

It's kind of hard to tell a cow or a pig to bottle it.

Some farms put the manure in anaerobic digesters, which processes the manure more and outputs useable biogas. In a sense, bottling it up.

[podzol]

Originally Posted by Gilby

Some farms put the manure in anaerobic digesters, which processes the manure more and outputs useable biogas. In a sense, bottling it up.

It's the farts that make the methane, not the manure, so they would need bottles or balloons. Unless they raise them in a wetland, the carbon in the manure will go to CO2 because its degradation is an aerobic environ. That's why anaerobic digesters are req'd to make poop into biofuel. It's a great idea and I wish more places would do that.

[Gilby]

Originally Posted by johnfoss

So the oil/energy/pollution companies have their scientists, and the green energy/anti-pollution/anti-growth/etc. industries have their scientists.

You think those are the sides? If global warming is purely a political thing, I think it goes down like this: Government gets bigger to be able to tax everyone for their CO2 footprint and regulate us on everything (as pretty much everything involves energy). All the industries race for the patents of new technologies, giving them monopolies. Governments ban older technologies (like incandescent bulbs), to strengthen the monopolies profits. Oil companies love it, because it takes more energy to produce this stuff than the output gain currently is, and they also will own much of the new technologies. War in the middle east increases oil costs today while the new technologies are being made. It's all about extracting more money from the working class and bringing more power to the politicians and money masters. Yeah for corporatism!

[timbob1907]

Originally Posted by unipsychler

Everyone? So far there's you, Cool-Bananas, Al Gore, and...oh yeah, Sheryl (One Square of TP) Crow.

Every one who knows what they are talking about. And even if it isnt a big threat I dont see why we shouldnt go for cleaner air. Whats wrong with not wanting to get lung cancer.

[timbob1907]

Originally Posted by Gilby

Yes, cleaner air. But the global warming crowd are making a stink about CO2, which has nothing to do about cleaning the air. CO2 is not directly harmful to us or other animals. I would love for all the particles put into the air from energy production to be prevented. CO2 is something that is regulated quite a bit by nature as plants will thrive on it assuming everything else is right for the plants (like letting the government destroy the land).

Yeah but too much CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere changing the temperature. After a while as we can see in the south pole and greenland major glaciers will melt. Once they are gone they will no longer reflect the sunlight and will absorb more heat. After all the ice is gone many people along the coast will be homeless and the earth will be getting much hotter. This has been proven by the basic laws of physics. You cant argue physics cause it has been proven. If you deny these basic facts then you obviously have not taken physics and are uneducated and not really worth arguing with.