|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: It's NOT Global Warming! - 9/2/2008 10:10:33 PM
|
|
|
Sophie11
Posts: 777
Joined: 1/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iluvatar
Keep being manipulated by Rush Limbaugh and the YEC movement and wonder why the rest of the world doesn't see things your way.
-Dan.
But you are being manipulated by Al Gore and a great majority of the media, so you wonder why we don't see things your way. As far as "the rest of the world", that is a stretch.
Al Gore is in this for money. What is Limbaugh in it for? How much is he going to be paid for the number of folks he convinces to disbelieve Gore?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: It's NOT Global Warming! - 9/2/2008 10:15:19 PM
|
|
|
Sophie11
Posts: 777
Joined: 1/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iluvatar
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sophie11
quote:
ORIGINAL: Pamsy
Soooo, then if freon affects the ozone too and we can use something better, should we just continue to use freon anyhow? 
Ummm...no, I don't believe I've ever said anything like that.
But since the ozone was the huge concern a few years back, why is it that we are now being bombarded with all of this global warming propoganda after the ozone layer is on the mend?
The science on global warming wasn't as conclusive back then. Also, the anthropogenic greenhouse effect was mitigated to some degree by the sun blocking/cooling effect of soot and other atmospheric particulate pollutants. We've come a lot farther with cleaning up particulates than we have with taking care of greenhouse gasses. By cleaning up one problem, we've allowed another one to get worse.
So you are then saying soot and smog in the air is a good thing? This is the issue, it seems there are some that are going to scream about the ruination of the environment no matter what we do.
And how exactly do we clean up the greenhouse gases then? As far as I understand, the healing of the ozone is a large part of the issue with the increase in greenhouse gases. Should we attempt to deplete the ozone? There doesn't seem to me to be an answer to any of this that isn't going to cause another problem in another area.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: It's NOT Global Warming! - 9/2/2008 10:17:25 PM
|
|
|
Sophie11
Posts: 777
Joined: 1/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iluvatar
quote:
ORIGINAL: colliefan
To those who have bought into the global warming lie I ask these questions. Thirtysome years ago these same climate experts were saying we were entering a new ice age and we were all going to freeze to death.
Global cooling - never had much scientific support and was more of a media sensation than anything.
Sounds pretty similar to the global warming sensation of today. Not much evidence to prove the cause but the grasping at straws remains ever frantic.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: It's NOT Global Warming! - 9/2/2008 10:32:38 PM
|
|
|
wing2000
Posts: 1035
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
The global warming theory is a money-making scheme to get us to panic about eroding conditions on earth.
And who is benefiting from this scheme?
Who ever it is, they have a ways to go before they catch up with Exxon/Mobil :p
|
|
|
|
|
RE: It's NOT Global Warming! - 9/2/2008 10:35:13 PM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 1934
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sophie11
quote:
ORIGINAL: iluvatar
Keep being manipulated by Rush Limbaugh and the YEC movement and wonder why the rest of the world doesn't see things your way.
-Dan.
But you are being manipulated by Al Gore and a great majority of the media, so you wonder why we don't see things your way.
I started as least as far right as you, probably moreso. It wasn't until after I started examining what I believed that I began to doubt many of the things I'd been told by the right-wing media outlets. I don't think I've ever read a speech of Al Gore's, nor have I seen his movie, nor have I read his books. I'm generally annoyed by the media's oversimplification of the science and its tendency to blame any errant cloud on global warming. That doesn't, however, mean that there isn't legitimate science behind the claims that we're having an impact.
quote:
Al Gore is in this for money. What is Limbaugh in it for? How much is he going to be paid for the number of folks he convinces to disbelieve Gore?
About $50 million a year. You don't think he gets paid that much for bringing a reasoned, balanced approach to the news, do you?
-Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: It's NOT Global Warming! - 9/2/2008 10:39:07 PM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 1934
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sophie11
quote:
ORIGINAL: iluvatar
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sophie11
quote:
ORIGINAL: Pamsy
Soooo, then if freon affects the ozone too and we can use something better, should we just continue to use freon anyhow?
Ummm...no, I don't believe I've ever said anything like that.
But since the ozone was the huge concern a few years back, why is it that we are now being bombarded with all of this global warming propoganda after the ozone layer is on the mend?
The science on global warming wasn't as conclusive back then. Also, the anthropogenic greenhouse effect was mitigated to some degree by the sun blocking/cooling effect of soot and other atmospheric particulate pollutants. We've come a lot farther with cleaning up particulates than we have with taking care of greenhouse gasses. By cleaning up one problem, we've allowed another one to get worse.
So you are then saying soot and smog in the air is a good thing? This is the issue, it seems there are some that are going to scream about the ruination of the environment no matter what we do.
No, soot is not a good thing. But it did have a counteractive the greenhouse effect of carbonaceous gasses. The proper response would be to correct both problems (or all problems, to address your later question), not just one.
quote:
And how exactly do we clean up the greenhouse gases then?
How to clean them - I don't know. But a good start would be to stop producing so much of them.
-Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: It's NOT Global Warming! - 9/2/2008 10:51:44 PM
|
|
|
solo_soprano22
Posts: 2473
Joined: 4/27/2005
From: I'm a Southern girl
Status: offline
|
quote:
Keep being manipulated by Rush Limbaugh and the YEC movement and wonder why the rest of the world doesn't see things your way.
(I see some things addressed to me that I want to answer later; I just wanted to reply to this now.)
Rush Limbaugh no me gusta.
_____________________________
For God, For Learning, Forever.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: It's NOT Global Warming! - 9/2/2008 11:17:59 PM
|
|
|
Sophie11
Posts: 777
Joined: 1/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iluvatar
That doesn't, however, mean that there isn't legitimate science behind the claims that we're having an impact.
I don't doubt that the earth has been experiencing some warming, but the reasoning for it is my contention.
quote:
quote:
Al Gore is in this for money. What is Limbaugh in it for? How much is he going to be paid for the number of folks he convinces to disbelieve Gore?
About $50 million a year. You don't think he gets paid that much for bringing a reasoned, balanced approach to the news, do you?
Limbaugh signs contracts. He would get paid just as much to talk about nothing more than Obama or Pelosi. Gore, on the other hand, stands to make a fortune if he can convince the governments and the populations to go along with his scheme. It's apples and oranges.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: It's NOT Global Warming! - 9/2/2008 11:30:31 PM
|
|
|
Sophie11
Posts: 777
Joined: 1/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iluvatar
How to clean them - I don't know. But a good start would be to stop producing so much of them.
Ok, well since the scientific concensus seems to be pointing toward the methane produced from cows as the major leading factor in the increase in greenhouse gases, ought we to banish all the cows to mars then? I heard they found water there....
|
|
|
|
|
RE: It's NOT Global Warming! - 9/2/2008 11:46:57 PM
|
|
|
mapachito13
Posts: 2498
Joined: 10/1/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: solo_soprano22
Rush Limbaugh no me gusta.
Good thing my wife is not your Spanish teacher! 
A mi no me gusta Rush tambien! (I don't like Rush also!)
Pero no creo en el calentamiento global! (But I don't believe in global warming!)
I think the science is too flawed for them to make such a dire prediction. Last year the polar ice cap recovered but the CO2 level still increased. If there was such a direct corelation between the two as they say there is then it should consistently be getting worse. The weather depends more on the incident angle of the sun than on CO2 levels and water vapor and methane are better at trapping heat than CO2.
But why deal with scientific fact when fear can create such an economic opportunity. Look what it did for the security industry!
BTW, Here in the desert which is also known as So Cal we've had one of the mildest summers in the last 10 years!
_____________________________
Peace Sells....But Who's Buying!
"I would argue that the most serious threat to the United States is not someone hiding in a cave in Pakistan or Afghanistan, but our own fiscal irresponsibility."-David Walker, fmr comptroller general of the US
|
|
|
|
|
RE: It's NOT Global Warming! - 9/3/2008 1:39:54 AM
|
|
|
Thessa
Posts: 811
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: colliefan
Clearly God calls for us to be good stewards of the Earth and not polute the planet.
Where in the bible does it say that?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: It's NOT Global Warming! - 9/3/2008 7:32:37 AM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 1934
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sophie11
quote:
ORIGINAL: iluvatar
That doesn't, however, mean that there isn't legitimate science behind the claims that we're having an impact.
I don't doubt that the earth has been experiencing some warming, but the reasoning for it is my contention.
There are likely many factors. I don't know of any legitimate scientist who claims that such obvious things like the sun and orbital variations have zero effect. What's claimed is that once all these factors are accounted for, there is still an increase that can be correlated to the injection of extra greenhouse gasses by industrialization.
quote:
quote:
quote:
Al Gore is in this for money. What is Limbaugh in it for? How much is he going to be paid for the number of folks he convinces to disbelieve Gore?
About $50 million a year. You don't think he gets paid that much for bringing a reasoned, balanced approach to the news, do you?
Limbaugh signs contracts. He would get paid just as much to talk about nothing more than Obama or Pelosi. Gore, on the other hand, stands to make a fortune if he can convince the governments and the populations to go along with his scheme. It's apples and oranges.
Limbaugh gets paid to fire up a segment of people with whatever subject it takes: it could be environmentalism; it could be attacking politicians; it could be abortion; it could be taxes; it could be football. I don't listen to Limbaugh anymore, so I don't know how much time he devotes to any one topic these days. But Gore used to be VP and was well within Limbaugh's sights for a long time and I distinctly remember reading Limbaugh's arguments against global warming in his first book, which came out in 1992.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sophie11
quote:
ORIGINAL: iluvatar
How to clean them - I don't know. But a good start would be to stop producing so much of them.
Ok, well since the scientific concensus seems to be pointing toward the methane produced from cows as the major leading factor in the increase in greenhouse gases, ought we to banish all the cows to mars then? I heard they found water there....
Where have you read that it's a "leading" factor? From everything I read, it's A factor - methane is a more effective greenhouse gas, but because of its lower concentrations, it doesn't contribute to the global greenhouse effect as much as CO2.
quote:
ORIGINAL: mapachito13
Last year the polar ice cap recovered but the CO2 level still increased. If there was such a direct corelation between the two as they say there is then it should consistently be getting worse. The weather depends more on the incident angle of the sun than on CO2 levels and water vapor and methane are better at trapping heat than CO2.
The northern polar ice cap only partially "recovered." Surface area is not the only metric used to gauge the "health" of the ice cap; one important element often ignored by GW-deniers is the age & thickness of the ice. The ace cap may have regained most of its surface area, but much of that ice is new and thin, not old and thick like what was lost.
Arctic Sea Ice age (img)
Artic Shrinkage
< Message edited by iluvatar -- 9/3/2008 8:33:40 AM >
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: It's NOT Global Warming! - 9/3/2008 8:19:34 AM
|
|
|
SonInMe1
Posts: 3424
Joined: 4/16/2005
From: my mom by God
Status: offline
|
quote:
I do not believe that we are practicing good stewardship and thinking about the future.
This is not true. I remember 30 years ago when the rivers were truly polluted and the skies were really bad.
Believe me, it is much, much, much better today.
_____________________________
You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.
James 4:4
|
|
|
|
|
RE: It's NOT Global Warming! - 9/3/2008 8:47:18 AM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 1934
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SonInMe1
quote:
I do not believe that we are practicing good stewardship and thinking about the future.
This is not true. I remember 30 years ago when the rivers were truly polluted and the skies were really bad.
Believe me, it is much, much, much better today.
Yeah, it is much better. But it's not as good as it could be. We've addressed some issues, but have yet to deal with others. It's a lot easier for us normal folk to see when a river is polluted or the sky is filled with smog, so it's easy for us to believe it when scientists and politicians tell us that dumping in the river is a bad thing. But it's a lot harder to see and feel global warming, particularly when its effects can also occur individually as the result of other, naturally occurring forces. But just because it's hard to see doesn't mean it's not there.
And then there's the issue of what's happening in our country vs what's happening in the rest of the world. Our computers are still dumped in landfills in Africa, poisoning the people there. Texaco did a number on Ecuador before it pulled out in '92 and ChevronTexaco is still trying to avoid responsibility. India and particularly China are causing all sorts of pollution that can affect everybody, not just their own citizens.
Given our position as the only superpower and our oft-claimed moral high ground, isn't it our responsibility to not just clean up our own act, but to be a leader and provide guidance and direction to the rest of the world. If you can justify invading Iraq by saying that Saddam was a tyrant and that his people are better off now, doesn't that same logic suggest that we should use our economic power and technological prowess to clean up our own industries and to lead the rest of the world's nations towards a situation where they aren't poisoning their own people and their neighbors? Instead, we lollygag behind Europe, dragging our feet complaining about how industry will be impacted by tighter environmental controls, but ignoring the impact that loose controls have on the health and well being of people.
-Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: It's NOT Global Warming! - 9/3/2008 9:08:57 AM
|
|
|
WesP
Posts: 2451
Joined: 11/28/2005
From: Where God needs me to be
Status: offline
|
quote:
Given our position as the only superpower and our oft-claimed moral high ground, isn't it our responsibility to not just clean up our own act, but to be a leader and provide guidance and direction to the rest of the world. If you can justify invading Iraq by saying that Saddam was a tyrant and that his people are better off now, doesn't that same logic suggest that we should use our economic power and technological prowess to clean up our own industries and to lead the rest of the world's nations towards a situation where they aren't poisoning their own people and their neighbors? Instead, we lollygag behind Europe, dragging our feet complaining about how industry will be impacted by tighter environmental controls, but ignoring the impact that loose controls have on the health and well being of people.
It is as much the "greenies" fault as anyone else's. They will not allow non-fossil fuels to be used unless it consumes our food supply. They will not allow us to rely on our own resources and quit throwing our dollars at the Middle East. Etc., etc.....
_____________________________
Peace,
Wes
___________________________________
<--- BTW, this is the true function of corn! It is to help the oil industry and its functionaries, not detract from them!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: It's NOT Global Warming! - 9/3/2008 9:10:18 AM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 1934
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: WesP
quote:
Given our position as the only superpower and our oft-claimed moral high ground, isn't it our responsibility to not just clean up our own act, but to be a leader and provide guidance and direction to the rest of the world. If you can justify invading Iraq by saying that Saddam was a tyrant and that his people are better off now, doesn't that same logic suggest that we should use our economic power and technological prowess to clean up our own industries and to lead the rest of the world's nations towards a situation where they aren't poisoning their own people and their neighbors? Instead, we lollygag behind Europe, dragging our feet complaining about how industry will be impacted by tighter environmental controls, but ignoring the impact that loose controls have on the health and well being of people.
It is as much the "greenies" fault as anyone else's. They will not allow non-fossil fuels to be used unless it consumes our food supply. They will not allow us to rely on our own resources and quit throwing our dollars at the Middle East. Etc., etc.....
There are some NIMBY's here and there, but other than that, what are you referring to?
-Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: It's NOT Global Warming! - 9/3/2008 9:22:21 AM
|
|
|
Sophie11
Posts: 777
Joined: 1/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iluvatar
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sophie11
quote:
ORIGINAL: iluvatar
How to clean them - I don't know. But a good start would be to stop producing so much of them.
Ok, well since the scientific concensus seems to be pointing toward the methane produced from cows as the major leading factor in the increase in greenhouse gases, ought we to banish all the cows to mars then? I heard they found water there....
Where have you read that it's a "leading" factor? From everything I read, it's A factor - methane is a more effective greenhouse gas, but because of its lower concentrations, it doesn't contribute to the global greenhouse effect as much as CO2.
Alright, let's focus on CO2. What about volcanos? What about the exhalation of breath? CO2 is a naturally occuring gas, not some crazy chemical pollutant.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: It's NOT Global Warming! - 9/3/2008 9:45:02 AM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 1934
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: WesP
Dan,
The "Green" movement is totally disregarding other options. It is across the board. Granted, there are extremists such as Gore, but they disallow available resources primarily through ignorance. Do we need to rely on OPEC for fuel? No. Do we need to develop other sources than our own oil? Yes, but we need to use what we have in the mean time until that development takes place.
As far as domestic oil goes - we don't have nearly enough conventional oil to get us off our dependency on OPEC. For unconventional sources - they're unconventional for a reason - they're difficult to get to and/or process, which means that overall, they're inefficient fuel sources (in much the same way that ethanol is inefficient, because it takes so much energy to create in the first place).
quote:
Greenies lobby against nuclear power just as they do petroleum products.
There are some pretty legitimate concerns about nuclear power. I think the operational safety factors have been blown out of proportion, but I am concerned with waste processing and storage. I haven't kept up on it enough to know whether or not anybody's developed a solution to this. Assuming it hasn't been addressed, this is a real concern with real consequences.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sophie11
Alright, let's focus on CO2. What about volcanos? What about the exhalation of breath? CO2 is a naturally occuring gas, not some crazy chemical pollutant.
The general idea behind being "carbon neutral" is not that a process (be it industrial operation or human respiration) doesn't release CO2 into the air - it's that it doesn't increase the average amount of CO2 in the air. Burning wood products is considered "carbon neutral" because when that tree grew, it took CO2 from the air and used it to make more wood. Now we're burning the wood and putting the CO2 back into the air. Then another tree grows and the cycle repeats. The carbon from fossil fuels, however, has been sequestered in the ground for a couple hundred million years so when it's burned and released into the atmosphere, the average goes up. You could argue that the average over several hundred million years would be the same since those fossil fuels were original created by organisms pulling carbon out of the air - but at that long time scale, it's kind of a moot point. The damage will be done long before the fossil fuel supply replenishes itself.
Regarding volcanoes, from what I can find, mankind releases something like 100x as much CO2 per year as volcanoes and given the other chemicals and aerosols they eject, volcanoes actually have a cooling effect.
-Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: It's NOT Global Warming! - 9/3/2008 9:56:20 AM
|
|
|
Sophie11
Posts: 777
Joined: 1/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iluvatar
The general idea behind being "carbon neutral" is not that a process (be it industrial operation or human respiration) doesn't release CO2 into the air - it's that it doesn't increase the average amount of CO2 in the air. Burning wood products is considered "carbon neutral" because when that tree grew, it took CO2 from the air and used it to make more wood. Now we're burning the wood and putting the CO2 back into the air. Then another tree grows and the cycle repeats. The carbon from fossil fuels, however, has been sequestered in the ground for a couple hundred million years so when it's burned and released into the atmosphere, the average goes up. You could argue that the average over several hundred million years would be the same since those fossil fuels were original created by organisms pulling carbon out of the air - but at that long time scale, it's kind of a moot point. The damage will be done long before the fossil fuel supply replenishes itself.
Regarding volcanoes, from what I can find, mankind releases something like 100x as much CO2 per year as volcanoes and given the other chemicals and aerosols they eject, volcanoes actually have a cooling effect.
-Dan.
I'm going to take my time and study a few more things before I answer you on this one, iluvatar. I just want to be sure of what I am saying!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: It's NOT Global Warming! - 9/3/2008 10:15:23 AM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 1934
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sophie11
I'm going to take my time and study a few more things before I answer you on this one, iluvatar. I just want to be sure of what I am saying!
Cool. It's pretty interesting science (most science is), and if you can filter out the racket from the nutjobs on both sides, it's not hard to see that there are plenty of reasonable points being made amongst the din.
One other thing to check out (I'll try later - no time now) is that I recall the claim being made that volcanoes released more ozone-depleting chemicals than man, not greenhouse gasses. That in itself may be true, but I also remember reading something about the differences between these naturally occurring gasses and man-made variants. It had to do with natural gasses having shorter molecular chains and breaking down in the atmosphere (and thus dissipating) more easily than man-made gasses which had longer chains. It's been a while since I've read that, so I don't remember the details.
-Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: It's NOT Global Warming! - 9/3/2008 10:26:17 AM
|
|
|
SwedishCovenant
Posts: 606
Joined: 8/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sophie11
quote:
ORIGINAL: SwedishCovenant
The ozone layer is healing because we stopped the behavior that was damaging it.
http://news.cnet.com/2300-11395_3-6111282-1.html
"Holmes! How can I escape this terrible headache?"
"Elementary, my dear Watson - stop hitting yourself with that hammer."
Yes, thank you.
So then the fear-mongering over global warming is based on what exactly?
A hundred and eighty years of increasing average temparatures, corrolated to a parellel increase in the release of artificial greenhouse gases, almost perfectly conicident to the Industrial Revolution.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: It's NOT Global Warming! - 9/3/2008 12:35:53 PM
|
|
|
colliefan
Posts: 2742
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Raleigh, NC
Status: offline
|
quote:
almost perfectly conicident to the Industrial Revolution.
yep, just what the greenie want everyone but themselves to do; go back to the horse and buggy days. With horse manure along side the road. But we can't burn wood or coal because it polutes the environment. We can't use the medicines that come from oil. Can't have cell phones or computers because they use compartments that come from oil.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: It's NOT Global Warming! - 9/3/2008 1:35:32 PM
|
|
|
SwedishCovenant
Posts: 606
Joined: 8/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: colliefan
quote:
almost perfectly conicident to the Industrial Revolution.
yep, just what the greenie want everyone but themselves to do; go back to the horse and buggy days. With horse manure along side the road. But we can't burn wood or coal because it polutes the environment. We can't use the medicines that come from oil. Can't have cell phones or computers because they use compartments that come from oil.
Straw man / false dilemma / slippery slope much? Or did you not even realize that that is what your 'rebuttal' amounted to?
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
