|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
 Posted - 09/05/2001 : 15:33:15 [Permalink]
|
We all know plants grow greener with more CO2 and a little bit more temperature. I think there's more to it than that however. From what I remember plants do especially well on land rather than underwater. Could be wrong. Someone correct me on this if I am. I also have a strong hunch that after temperatures rise above a certain point the increase is no longer beneficial and in fact would be disasterous.
 @tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
 |
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2001 : 17:22:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Is this a good thing, bad thing, or does it matter either way?
I have no idea. Note that they didn't mention the wide swath of the hemisphere between the equator and 40 Deg latitude. That way, they didn't have to mention the encroachment of the Sahara desert onto formerly fertile land or the deforestation taking place in South America. Would have really messed up the good news.
Greg.
|
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2001 : 16:35:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
All I'm going to say, is that Greg, your 'facts' above are at the heart of this whole discussion, and that is to say that whether they are 'facts' is what we're debating.
I implore anyone here that hasn't already done so to read this one page. I know it's full of facts and figures, graphs and data, but if you can just get through it, it's not that long, maybe it can put some of these media soundbyte 'facts' into perspective:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
I am risking looking like a jerk by beating an apparently dead horse here but I really need to show the OISM for what it really is since there are some people who want to believe their bullshit. I finally got around to digging up some info and here's the link.
http://prwatch.org/improp/oism.html
Greg.
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2001 : 17:46:12 [Permalink]
|
Thanks, I was trying to find that to post myself. I think there's a world of difference between propaganda and science. It's not always easy to distinguish the two but somehow every environmental scientist I have listened to has not questioned global warming or the causes.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2001 : 20:10:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I really need to show the OISM for what it really is since there are some people who want to believe their bullshit. I finally got around to digging up some info and here's the link.
*sigh*
So there's no way to even reach common ground. Anyone and everyone who doubts your side of the issue has some hidden agenda, and their data and arguments are totally ignored. All the graphs and data that cast doubt (to some of us) that calamity is just around the corner because of human activity is irrelavent because you don't like the people displaying it. (That's "doubt", not denial! Something a few here don't seem to want to recognize.)
Fine, you win, I give up. Believe what you want.
------------
Hope springs eternal but there's no conviction
Actions mistaken for lip service paid
All this concern is the true contradiction
The world is insane... |
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2001 : 21:50:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So there's no way to even reach common ground. Anyone and everyone who doubts your side of the issue has some hidden agenda, and their data and arguments are totally ignored. All the graphs and data that cast doubt (to some of us) that calamity is just around the corner because of human activity is irrelavent because you don't like the people displaying it. (That's "doubt", not denial! Something a few here don't seem to want to recognize.)
I kind of knew that you were going to view me as an asshole for posting that link and to be honest, I almost didn't post it. Whether or not I like the author is irrelevant. I don't even know him and far be it from me to tell people how to live their lives. This is a scientific debate. If you want to read the concensus opinion of climate researchers, go to the National Academies website and search for global warming. I believe that I posted the link on this thread a while ago. A good first read, is a document called 'Climate Change Science; An Analysis of Some Key Questions'. This is the document that the Academy forwarded to the President last May at his request. It's a good overview of what's known. If you have access to a scientific library, look up recent issues of 'Science' and 'Nature' for some lively debate about the subject. For example, Fred Singer argues that current models predict the upper atmosphere to warm rapidly and since it is not (according to satelite data), global warming is not occouring. The problem with his argument is however that surface average temperatures are in fact increasing rapidly. There is also the preponderence of secondary data (for example, the satelite data in your post) that is highly suggestive of the trend. So much for models.
If you read what climate scientists are saying, you will realize that "calamity" is not "just around the corner" (nor have I said that). The concensus is that we have a window of opportunity to study the problem and at the same time act more responsibly about the issue than we currently are. I recently read an article where the author argued that with a 25 billion dollar investment, we can have an answer to what is actually happening by 2050. If I'm still alive, I'll be 89 in 2050. Global warming is not going to be that much of a problem for me but for my (as yet unborn) grandchildren, it will be significant if nothing is done.
quote:
Fine, you win, I give up. Believe what you want.
I am not looking to 'win' anything. If tomorrow global warming was proved beyond all doubt (something I don't claim has happened yet), I sure wouldn't gloat. What I want is open discussion, but not discussion using pseudoscience or discredited sources. If we were discussing energy sources and I kept bringing up Pons' and Fleischman's cold fusion results, wouldn't you call me on it? Don't give up. Find real peer-reviewed data from a real climate scientist that illustrates your point and hit me with it.
Greg.
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2001 : 10:16:15 [Permalink]
|
Well, that's actually a much more reasonable response than most here!
Followed by a post where you call our ideas (indirectly at least) "bullshit", kinda confuses me though. Up until now, it has seemed to me to be more of a pissing contest from people who don't like conservatives.
Regarding my mention of calamity; have you looked at the results of the poll that began this discussion lately? 22 people believe some cities will be flooded in the near future, quite a majority of the handful that have voted.
I certainly won't give up looking for the truth. But I do give up trying to rationally discuss the issue with people who continually misrepresent anyone with some doubts (based on science, not idealogy), as "anti-environmentalists", and treat us with such arrogant condescension.
(Sorry, I don't mean to imply that I'm referring to you exclusively. I am viewing this in light of the entire multiple threads that we have on this subject.)
I give you and anyone else who wishes it the last word.
------------
Hope springs eternal but there's no conviction
Actions mistaken for lip service paid
All this concern is the true contradiction
The world is insane... |
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2001 : 20:09:53 [Permalink]
|
Okay, my last words on this subject.
quote:
Followed by a post where you call our ideas (indirectly at least) "bullshit", kinda confuses me though. Up until now, it has seemed to me to be more of a pissing contest from people who don't like conservatives.
Regarding my mention of calamity; have you looked at the results of the poll that began this discussion lately? 22 people believe some cities will be flooded in the near future, quite a majority of the handful that have voted.
I certainly won't give up looking for the truth. But I do give up trying to rationally discuss the issue with people who continually misrepresent anyone with some doubts (based on science, not idealogy), as "anti-environmentalists", and treat us with such arrogant condescension.
I did not mean to suggest that the idea that anthropogenic sources are not a significant cause of global warming was bullshit. It's just not the concensus of scientists on the front line of the research, nor does the preponderence of the data suggest it. What is bullshit is a non peer-reviewd paper (with data from who knows where) attached to a petition all put out by a phony "institute" who refuses to discuss who funded the project (project funding sources are ALWAYS stated in peer-reviewed journals). This is just not the way science is done and the only logical view of the matter is that the paper and petition are meant to confuse and mislead rather than inform.
You can go back through this discussion in the various threads and - I believe - can see that I have always tried to argue based on the scientific evidence. The only time I can recall not arguing based on global warming data is when I questioned the validity of economic arguments against CO2 reduction in a couple of posts. If I came off as condecending, that was not my intent and I apologise.
I don't dislike people because of their political views (unless they're fascists). In fact, I like a good political debate - you can't debate very well with people who you agree totally with. I dislike corporate whores muddying the waters of knowlege with questionable data. And corporations spending millions of dollars trying to control what we think rather than inform. Before you start back with the "corporations are not out to screw us just to make more profits" argument, just think about the reprehensible behavior of the tobacco comapnies and their scientists. I don't think that tobacco companies are any worse ethically than oil companies or automobile manufacturers.
As for the results of this poll, I have the same attitude as for petitions - useless information. I did not vote.
Greg.
|
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2001 : 02:07:54 [Permalink]
|
TD: Could it have something to do with all those who think global warming is wrong really do have a hidden agenda?
Radioactive GM Crops.
Slightly above background.
Safe to eat.
But no activist would dare rip it out.
As they think it gives them cancer. |
|
|
|
Badger
Skeptic Friend
Canada
257 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2002 : 15:03:23 [Permalink]
|
A couple of points:
First, microturbine use for distributed power generation. Uses fossil fuels, but can also run on pretty much anything that is combustable from chicken shit (I'm not kidding) to french fry grease. Not real good for individual home use at this time, but is starting to make inroads into apartment/office/mall/industrial uses. Technology is such that it is relatively greenhouse gas free.
Second, So what if there's global warming going on and we're causing it? Fossil fuels came from dinosaurs and plants which lived millions of years ago and sucked all this stuff out of the environment where it was warm and leafy across the world. So we warm it up again, and the cycle repeats. As a side note, the most fertile parts of the planet are in the seas. Kelp forests off the west coast produce more plant life per acre than anything we could do on land. And yes, you can eat kelp and it's tasty. AND animals can eat kelp, AND you can make alcohol from it to use as a fuel. Kelp is just the example I choose to use right now to illustrate that if you have shallow seas, you'll have more fertile use of resources than anything on dry land.
With regard to smog, it sure can be a bitch. Those inversions suck. The only way around it is to run cleaner. So there are the electric vehicles, or the hybrids. I'm not altruistic enough to think many people are going to give up their vehicles so they can ride bikes or walk wherever they go.
But the market demand has to be there. If you get the government involved you're just begging for it to be totally fucked up. Hasn't this been proven enough? I think private development of more efficient hybrid vehicles and electric vehicles will happen soon, as it's good PR and will make the industrialists a few dollars.
And finally my OPINION on global warming is that we are just experiencing a normal fluctuation in the climatic cycles of this planet.
Just because we're hypnotized, that don't mean we can't dance. - Tonio K. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2002 : 15:03:48 [Permalink]
|
Some time back before the 2000 political spasm, I got into an argument on another forum on global warming. As a result, I had to do some research. One paper I found was a 30 year, if I remember it right, study of marine organisms. It seems that species that prefer cooler water have been gradually moving off shore and being replaced by species that tolorate warmer conditions. I found it interesting.
f
The more I learn about people, the better I like rattlesnakes. |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2002 : 22:01:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
And finally my OPINION on global warming is that we are just experiencing a normal fluctuation in the climatic cycles of this planet.
It's normal, you can check back over history. That's what I heard too, from what I believe to be realiable sorces.
******SAVE THE RAIN FORESTS!*****
Rap Crap is to music what Paint by Numbers is to art!
Yes, I am NormaL!!
Carabao forever!!! |
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2002 : 07:07:23 [Permalink]
|
The climate fluctuates, certainly. In fact, the last few thousand years have been unusually stable, climate-wise, which may have helped a certain primate species along the path to "civilization".
However, there is a difference between the current situation and earlier times. That is the fact that human activity is modifying the global environment on a vast scale. Destruction of rain forests is just one example of a major change in the land/ocean/atmosphere system we've made, and continue to make. The megatons of greenhouse gasses we release is another impact.
There is no question that human activity has changed the composition of the atmosphere and many other parts of the environment. The only question is whether those changes are responsible for the current warming trend. That's still an open issue, but there are fewer and fewer doubters among the scientific community.
The real issue now is how big the impact will become, and what we can do to mitigate it. I'm no seer, but I'd be willing to bet that we'll see tremendous social effects from this in future generations.
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
