When you present scientific theories you clearly need to present them as hypothesis or theory, and not as fact.
The theory of gravity keeps weighing me down as I plow through this discussion.
Warning - this forum contains material on Gravity. Gravity is a theory, not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered. :shades:
Whoa nellie! "If" ? I thought some folk had determined it definitely was manmade and we HAD to do something about it that was Gorian in nature--Al Gore, that is, to survive, or else; just buy all my carbon credit things...
There is evidence FOR global warming and there is evidence AGAINST global warming.
There is plenty of evidence that both global cooling and global warming have happened in the past. That's not the question. What's missing is ANY evidence that CO2 is a significant contributor to global warming let alone any support for mankind's contributions to it.
I didn't know you also had the power to lower Newton's Law of Gravity to a theory?
More than that! What you are seeing is Steve's Law of Levity! :shades:
But seriously, a physical law is a theory with the benefit of having so much supporting evidence to qualify it for special recognition. Even so, we do know Newton wasn't quite right and it took an Einstein to correct it.
tidester says, "What's missing is ANY evidence that CO2 is a significant contributor to global warming let alone any support for mankind's contributions to it."
My interpretation of that statement seems slightly out of line with what I feel have been intelligent (although very "in your face" ) arguments from you in the past.
Did you mean to say that mankind does not contribute to global CO2 levels? Is that really what you just said or am I missing something?
And you are saying that IF mankind is contributing to global warming that there is no evidence thereof?
Please clarify that statement so I can respond in the proper form. Since I'm not really sure what you meant to say so I don't want to mince words in my response.
Did you mean to say that mankind does not contribute to global CO2 levels?
I didn't say that and have no idea how you could misconstrue it that way. The antecedent was "contributor to global warming" and not "contributor to CO2."
Please clarify that statement so I can respond in the proper form.
It is amazing how those very same agencies do NOT publish how much unmitigated emissions are released into the atmosphere, and compare it to our mitigated automobiles. You know like one docking ship in Long Beach is like 50,000 cars running 24/7.
There is a steady cloud of gases out of the volcanoes on the Big Island. You never hear how that relates to vehicle emissions. I would say from all the people that have evacuated parts of the Big Island this year that it is a quite a bit worse than all the vehicles on the Island combined. When we were there in April there were warnings not to do physical exercise outside. It is spewing thousands of tons of SO2 daily. I don't hear how that might be affecting the GW. That is because there is no one to blame and no one to extract money from. They have let school out many days this last school year. Many days it is hard for people to breathe over there. Yet no one has threatened to sue Pele the volcano god. Blaming those with SUVs is so much easier to get across to the feeble minds of the masses.
My take is unmitigated volcanic emissions compared to mitigated vehicles per hour would literally- wildly exponentially drawf mitigated vehicle emissions. Of course the assumption is this (unmitigated volcanic emissions) have NO effect on the atmosphere. :lemon:
Interestingly enough, one study back in '00 said that volcanic eruptions can cool the lower troposphere and mask the actual warming of the troposhere. They may cause surface measurements to be cooler than they'd otherwise be, while the climate as a whole may be warming.
From your article: "Without ozone depletion and the recent eruptions of El Chichon and Pinatubo, it is highly likely that the lower troposphere would have warmed over the last two decades."
But since volcanic activity has been occurring for hundreds of millions of years, given it is erratic over any short period of time, why would the scientists not expect 2 eruptions (relatively minor) in a 20 year period? I really don't think the volcanic activity over the last 20 years was higher than normal.
This is the mentality of those who buy into the GW Cult.
During these turbulent economic times, Gordon Brown is keen for the country to stick by him.
However, this probably wasn't quite what he had in mind.
Dan Glass, of the climate change pressure group Plane Stupid, today tried to superglue himself to the Prime Minister at a Downing Street reception.
As Mr Glass, 24, was introduced to the Premier, he laid a glue-covered hand on his sleeve.
He also took the opportunity to urge Mr Brown to change his mind on the Heathrow airport expansion.
Mr Glass told the assembled guests: 'Do not worry - this is a non-violent protest. We cannot shake away climate change like you can just shake away my arm.'
Mr Glass, who had smuggled pouches of glue into the event in his underwear, added later that Mr Brown laughed off the protest.
'He was just grinning about it,' he said. 'He didn't seem to take me seriously.'
Mr Glass, an invited guest, was allowed to stay at the reception for 40 minutes after the stunt. When he left, he tried to glue himself to the gates of Downing Street - but had his hand detached by a police officer.
'I didn't have much glue left by that point,' he said
>What's missing is ANY evidence that CO2 is a significant contributor to global warming let alone any support for mankind's contributions to it.
Unless we go back to some pre-human history, there is simply no comparable temperature shift (in value and in speed) as those measured in the 30 last years.
May I suggest you have a quick look through this more detailed Artic climate report http://amap.no/acia/
Showing that CO2 is a contributing factor is easy, as it is basic physics. As an example, when CO2 is injected in a greenhouse to boost vegetal growth, the GH temperature is increasing more in comparison with a non CO2 boosted GH. demonstrating that the man is responsible to the current CO2 peak is pretty straightforward. we are pumping and burning oil/coal at an unprecented pace. Maybe a fraction of it is not burnt actually (Road surfaces and plastics) But a big chunk is.
Very good post. I had forgotten about the experiments with CO2 and greenhouse temperatures.
But with some posters here, you are arguing against a brick wall. Their mind is made up. Evidence is only considered "Evidence" if the receiver BELIEVES the evidence.
In the case of people who do not believe that man is contributing to warming, all evidence to the contrary is discarded or at best considered non-essential, and at worst is ridiculed.
The jury is still out on how much man is contributing to the warming. Too many people believe "not at all" around here.
>Blaming those with SUVs is so much easier to get across to the feeble minds of the masses.
Volcanoes are definitely a contributor to CO2 and GHG gas. However, it will be difficult to blame them for the CO2 spike unless one proves that there has been considerably stronger activity those last 20 years
>Interestingly enough, one study back in '00 said that volcanic eruptions can cool the lower troposphere and mask the actual warming of the troposhere.
This is true, depending on the kind of eruption. some generate an incredible amount of smoke. Those particles in the atmosphere act like a cloud and shield some of the sun rays entering the atmosphere.
>You know like one docking ship in Long Beach is like 50,000 cars running 24/7.
The problem with Overseas Shipping is the same as with International Flights. No country is willing to include the emissions of those in their national stats, as it would make things look much uglier.
As we can't count on any international body to have emissions mandatorily reduced (especially if some ships are under convenience flag) then the only solution is expensive oil. With expensive oil, no need to tell those companies to burn less. They will willingly oblige.
Very good post. I had forgotten about the experiments with CO2 and greenhouse temperatures
Looks like you buddy gave you a mighty big piece of ammunition to use in support of your position. Sounds like it conflicts with the global warming precedes rise in global C02 levels theory. What came first... the chicken or the egg.
I don't have a "buddy" per se on this forum. Everyone to me is equal.
Secondly, he did not "give me" anything. As I stated in the post, he REMINDED me of something I had already seen on MythBusters.
And if you know anything about "global warming theory" you understand that CO2 is just one of the many factors involved - not the single only overriding factor.
( Thanks for the blast of sarcasm though - hadn't seen any of that for a while and I thought I was slipping !!!! LOL ))
But with some posters here, you are arguing against a brick wall. Their mind is made up. Evidence is only considered "Evidence" if the receiver BELIEVES the evidence.
On that we agree. Some here do not even believe the latest evidence that we are cooling off. That is because if you admit there is ANY cooling with increased manmade GHG it contradicts all the computer models presented by those that are in goose step with the GW/CC group. It makes GW a false prophesy if the globe cools at all while man's contribution of CO2 is still on the rise. And it is still on the rise.
One of those science shows. I tried to locate info on the MythBusters show where they did that experiment and could not find it. It was one of the shows similar to that show, where they do experiments.
I DID, However, find this. This is THE MOST INFORMATIVE page on GHG and CO2 and the effects on climate that I have ever seen.
Gary says, "It makes GW a false prophesy if the globe cools at all while man's contribution of CO2 is still on the rise. And it is still on the rise."
Incorrect statement, mi amigo. Incorrect assumption.
IF CO2 were the ONLY factor in warming, then you could say that with finality and be correct. But it is not. There can and are dozens of other factors in global climate. Rising CO2 while temps are lowering overall does not eliminate CO2 as a factor in the warming.
The CO2 can be and is warming up the climate with it's own processes while OTHER processes, which are stronger in their influence, are taking place.
It's similar to putting a microwave into a freezer room. While the microwave is warming the food inside it, the outside air inside the freezer is cooling off everything.
Cooling trends and the rise of CO2 can both be happening at the same time.
Cooling trends and the rise of CO2 can both be happening at the same time.
UH...coming from you this makes perfect sense to me.
Several times you have asked for definitive proof that man does not significantly contribute to global warming/climate change. What exactly would you accept as proof? Please be specific.
There is no proof. There is no way to completely, definitively prove man's influence either way - at least RIGHT NOW.
That's why there is still discussion.
Both sides have ample evidence, which the other side refuses to acknowledge.
This debate will rage for a LONG LONG time.
But in the midst of this debate, we should err on the side of "What if the worst case scenarios are correct?" rather than erring on the side of "Big Whoop."
There are a lot more on the side of "Big Whoop" on this forum than in the other camp, which is fine.
Good thing I'm here to stir up the hornet nest every now and again or this would just be thousands of posts saying "AlGore is a charlatan!"
Debate is good. Destroying the World economy on the pretense that man is causing the globe to warm is bad. At least the leaders of China, India and the USA are not buying into the THEORY of man made GW.
The most significant thing is even the signators of the Kyoto have not done what they signed up to do. So those that did not sign at least are the honest ones.
there is simply no comparable temperature shift (in value and in speed) as those measured in the 30 last years.
You have no basis for that assertion. Also, the "global temperature" has been flat or even slightly decreasing for the past decade.so I don't see your point.
Showing that CO2 is a contributing factor is easy, as it is basic physics.
You missed the keyword "significant" in my comment and in the Evans' article.
But in the midst of this debate, we should err on the side of "What if the worst case scenarios are correct?" rather than erring on the side of "Big Whoop."
With you sitting in Phoenix, I think the heat has gotten to you. You think the "Big Whoop" is the Earth increasing a couple of degrees. Come to the great Northern U.S., or Canada and then you might consider the Big Whoop is not moving farther away from the Last Ice Age. We need to make the Earth warmer - its average temperature now is only 59F.
So if we are warming, and it is because I'm pumping CO2 into the air - great. But I don't see the warming, and I don't see the sea-levels rising (went to the same beach that I did 40 years ago).
Excuse me, but the burden of proof is on those who make the claim that mankind is a significant contributor to global warming. There simply is no evidence to support that position and to turn it around and imply that anyone questioning the proposition is not a "believer" is a bit silly. It's not a question of belief. It's a question of evidence and science neither of which support your view.
It concerns me that those that subscribe to the GW religious canons routinely over look/ignore or down right say there is NO effect from natural effects like sun spots, volcanos, above ground and under deep water. etc etc. They make NO effort to form a (level) comparison to my 300 gals of YEARLY diesel consumption, yet tell you with absolute certainty this causes global warming. Truly the GW movement has taken on an almost satanic religious mantle.
"...when CO2 is injected in a greenhouse to boost vegetal growth, the GH temperature is increasing more in comparison with a non CO2 boosted GH..."
I may be just a dumb old farmer but I don't think you can prove that statement.
When sun shines on a greenhouse most of the wavelengths of sun are able to penetrate the plastic or glass. They are then re-radiated from the surfaces within the greenhouse in the infrared wavelength which can not penetrate the GH covering. The result is an increase in temperature, a true Greenhouse Effect.
Among the reasons that the infrared can't penetrate is the thin coating of water vapor that forms on the GH covering. CO2 has very little to do with it. You could pump enough CO2 into a GH to kill all the plants and people and I doubt you could measure the difference in heat retention. The water vapor has more to do with heat retention by a huge magnitude.
This doesn't negate your points about CO2 and global warming, but the GH is a bad example to use to prove it. Even if the addition of CO2 had some slight effect, the extrapolation from such a small closed system to a planet wide conclusion is just too big of a leap for me.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
This is an issue that will affect the future of mankind.
"will"? I thought it wasn't proven - so shouldn't you say "might"? Or did you mean "will" as in the sense that people will be doing things whether it matters or not?
Taking sides and acting too much like lawyers and creating an "us versus them" environment is just wasting time.
So you advocate just following someone's lead whether they have proof or not? How do you know who to follow when someone proposes the opposite with similar levels of (non) proof?
In the meantime, cut your carbon footprint.
That doesn't make any sense, since there are many billions of people who will gladly burn the small amount of fuel you or I cutback on. No one is going to willingly cut their standard of living much, and renewable energies are not available in quantity and reliability.
Most recoverable carbon-fuels will be burned in a couple hundred years. You are dealing with people around the world who are willing to hack a pipeline open to get fuel. They certainly are not concerned with GW. They are concerned with eating and cooking today.
kernick says, ""will"? I thought it wasn't proven - so shouldn't you say "might"? Or did you mean "will" as in the sense that people will be doing things whether it matters or not? "
Yes, global climate will affect the future of mankind. ( Don't go all apey on me and accuse me of saying "global warming will affect the future of mankind" because I never said that. )
kernick says, "Taking sides and acting too much like lawyers and creating an "us versus them" environment is just wasting time."
I was referring to the legal term used by tidester "burden of proof." The climate and the Earf belong to all of us, so yes, it's not US versus THEM. Both the THEM and the US are the same group - humans.
kernick says, "That doesn't make any sense"
You are not serious, are you? That is a fallacy - that conserving does no good because someone else will burn it anyway. That's a good talking point used by people against conservation, but it holds no water in the real world.
The gas I did not burn by buying two hybrids did not get burned by someone else - that someone else would have been the "ME" who in another reality did not buy a hybrid car: but since I did, that gas never got burned. All the millions of gallons saved by hybrid cars has never been burned and never will be.
Clean air programs are a waste, huh? How about the way California has cleaned up it's air in the last 40 years?
How about all the recycling we have done? That is millions of pounds of waste that did not get into landfills, so the valuable land can be used for other purposes like sustaining life. That's a lot of re-manufacturing from scratch that did not have to get done.
How about the millions of tons of pollution that has not been produced by drivers who chose a hybrid or a PZEV over another type of vehicle which would have polluted more? That pollution never left that person's tailpipe. Other people did not pollute less because that person bought a hybrid - but THAT PERSON did.
All of those issues are a part of reducing a carbon footprint.
Is that clear enough? Let's not hear any more of that silliness about conservation being a waste of time, OK? We could start a whole new forum on just that issue alone, except that it's not directly vehicle-related.
Well, I say the concept of "burden of proof" does not apply at all.
That's kinda scary.
I love how many times you say "there is no evidence." Kinda cute..........
Translation: "Evidence? We don't need no stinkin' evidence."
Taking sides and acting too much like lawyers and creating an "us versus them" environment is just wasting time.
I am sorry to inconvenience you by insisting that statements supposedly based on science should be held to the standards of science. If there is no evidence to support a theory then the theory is meaningless and insisting that people act on such baseless theories is arrogance.
This is not a law case. I have proof enough to know that there is a warming problem. The cause? Not known. The potential cause? Mankind's influence. More study needed.
There is plenty of evidence. I could post five hundred links and you'd still not believe it. Your lack of belief is not my problem, it's your own.
Not the first time I have incorrectly been accused of being arrogant. To know me in person you would know the truth. Just because I argue against your beliefs in a confident manner does not make me arrogant.
>Destroying the World economy on the pretense that man is causing the globe to warm is bad
I rather think that increasing oil dependancy is destroying the economy. Polluting creates huges costs that are generally shouldered by the following generation.
it is not good putting all our eggs in the same basket.
I rather think that increasing oil dependancy is destroying the economy.
That is a factor for sure. As you probably know there is a long standing battle against more fuel efficient vehicles in the USA. I would have bought a small diesel PU truck 10 years ago if they were available in the USA. Maybe you have some idea which countries should cut back on growth. We know China and India has said NO WAY to going back at all. I believe China's carbon footprint has now passed the USA. Going deeper in debt with a bunch of screwy eco plans makes very little sense.
is that the US should change their use and their carbon output, but countries with high pollution and high growth shouldn't, e.g., China and India. That's the first thing to change.
Also the US has 5% of the world's population and uses 25% of energy (or some metric like that). But they forget the US puts out 25% of the world's product. Looks like a wash to me.
Let me know when China applies Olympics style traffic control to their pollution problem on a day-to-day basis and puts out their underground coal mine fires!!!! :P
Comments
The theory of gravity keeps weighing me down as I plow through this discussion.
Warning - this forum contains material on Gravity. Gravity is a theory, not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered. :shades:
Meanwhile, the potshots keep falling to earth.
like chunks of glacier naturally falling into the ocean?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
http://physics.about.com/od/classicalmechanics/a/gravity.htm
very Noble of you
Do I get a prize?
I have never said it was "proof" of anything other than warming.
It's just another part of the puzzle we need to include in deciding if man IS having any effect.
Whoa nellie! "If" ? I thought some folk had determined it definitely was manmade and we HAD to do something about it that was Gorian in nature--Al Gore, that is, to survive, or else; just buy all my carbon credit things...
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
But I ain't one of them folk.
I understand.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
There is plenty of evidence that both global cooling and global warming have happened in the past. That's not the question. What's missing is ANY evidence that CO2 is a significant contributor to global warming let alone any support for mankind's contributions to it.
More than that! What you are seeing is Steve's Law of Levity! :shades:
But seriously, a physical law is a theory with the benefit of having so much supporting evidence to qualify it for special recognition. Even so, we do know Newton wasn't quite right and it took an Einstein to correct it.
My interpretation of that statement seems slightly out of line with what I feel have been intelligent (although very "in your face" ) arguments from you in the past.
Did you mean to say that mankind does not contribute to global CO2 levels? Is that really what you just said or am I missing something?
And you are saying that IF mankind is contributing to global warming that there is no evidence thereof?
Please clarify that statement so I can respond in the proper form. Since I'm not really sure what you meant to say so I don't want to mince words in my response.
And the jury is still out on Einstein. :shades:
Pardon me while I go slow down the speed of light a whisper more.
I didn't say that and have no idea how you could misconstrue it that way. The antecedent was "contributor to global warming" and not "contributor to CO2."
Please clarify that statement so I can respond in the proper form.
I am agreeing with David Evans.
Thanks
Tue Jul 22, 7:34 PM ET
link title
It is amazing how those very same agencies do NOT publish how much unmitigated emissions are released into the atmosphere, and compare it to our mitigated automobiles. You know like one docking ship in Long Beach is like 50,000 cars running 24/7.
http://volcano.wr.usgs.gov/kilaueastatus.php
At least I think that's what the study says....
Researchers Discover That Volcanic Eruptions Masked Global Warming During The Past 20 Years (Science Daily)
Trying to find an updated story on that site led to this tidbit:
Shells Form Unique Climate Archive On The Ocean Floor
But since volcanic activity has been occurring for hundreds of millions of years, given it is erratic over any short period of time, why would the scientists not expect 2 eruptions (relatively minor) in a 20 year period? I really don't think the volcanic activity over the last 20 years was higher than normal.
During these turbulent economic times, Gordon Brown is keen for the country to stick by him.
However, this probably wasn't quite what he had in mind.
Dan Glass, of the climate change pressure group Plane Stupid, today tried to superglue himself to the Prime Minister at a Downing Street reception.
As Mr Glass, 24, was introduced to the Premier, he laid a glue-covered hand on his sleeve.
He also took the opportunity to urge Mr Brown to change his mind on the Heathrow airport expansion.
Mr Glass told the assembled guests: 'Do not worry - this is a non-violent protest. We cannot shake away climate change like you can just shake away my arm.'
Mr Glass, who had smuggled pouches of glue into the event in his underwear, added later that Mr Brown laughed off the protest.
'He was just grinning about it,' he said. 'He didn't seem to take me seriously.'
Mr Glass, an invited guest, was allowed to stay at the reception for 40 minutes after the stunt. When he left, he tried to glue himself to the gates of Downing Street - but had his hand detached by a police officer.
'I didn't have much glue left by that point,' he said
Unless we go back to some pre-human history, there is simply no comparable temperature shift (in value and in speed) as those measured in the 30 last years.
You were saying in an earlier post that Greenland Ice sheet is getting thicker, suggesting that there is no Artic Climate issue. I would welcome links or reference for that as the ones I find all direct to accelerated melting.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060810-greenland.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3922579.stm
May I suggest you have a quick look through this more detailed Artic climate report
http://amap.no/acia/
Showing that CO2 is a contributing factor is easy, as it is basic physics.
As an example, when CO2 is injected in a greenhouse to boost vegetal growth, the GH temperature is increasing more in comparison with a non CO2 boosted GH.
demonstrating that the man is responsible to the current CO2 peak is pretty straightforward. we are pumping and burning oil/coal at an unprecented pace. Maybe a fraction of it is not burnt actually (Road surfaces and plastics) But a big chunk is.
But with some posters here, you are arguing against a brick wall. Their mind is made up. Evidence is only considered "Evidence" if the receiver BELIEVES the evidence.
In the case of people who do not believe that man is contributing to warming, all evidence to the contrary is discarded or at best considered non-essential, and at worst is ridiculed.
The jury is still out on how much man is contributing to the warming. Too many people believe "not at all" around here.
Volcanoes are definitely a contributor to CO2 and GHG gas. However, it will be difficult to blame them for the CO2 spike unless one proves that there has been considerably stronger activity those last 20 years
This is true, depending on the kind of eruption. some generate an incredible amount of smoke. Those particles in the atmosphere act like a cloud and shield some of the sun rays entering the atmosphere.
The problem with Overseas Shipping is the same as with International Flights. No country is willing to include the emissions of those in their national stats, as it would make things look much uglier.
As we can't count on any international body to have emissions mandatorily reduced (especially if some ships are under convenience flag) then the only solution is expensive oil. With expensive oil, no need to tell those companies to burn less. They will willingly oblige.
Looks like you buddy gave you a mighty big piece of ammunition to use in support of your position. Sounds like it conflicts with the global warming precedes rise in global C02 levels theory. What came first... the chicken or the egg.
I don't have a "buddy" per se on this forum. Everyone to me is equal.
Secondly, he did not "give me" anything. As I stated in the post, he REMINDED me of something I had already seen on MythBusters.
And if you know anything about "global warming theory" you understand that CO2 is just one of the many factors involved - not the single only overriding factor.
( Thanks for the blast of sarcasm though - hadn't seen any of that for a while and I thought I was slipping !!!! LOL ))
On that we agree. Some here do not even believe the latest evidence that we are cooling off. That is because if you admit there is ANY cooling with increased manmade GHG it contradicts all the computer models presented by those that are in goose step with the GW/CC group. It makes GW a false prophesy if the globe cools at all while man's contribution of CO2 is still on the rise. And it is still on the rise.
Mythbusters? !!!! :P
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I DID, However, find this. This is THE MOST INFORMATIVE page on GHG and CO2 and the effects on climate that I have ever seen.
Everything you want to know about CO2 and the climate
Incorrect statement, mi amigo. Incorrect assumption.
IF CO2 were the ONLY factor in warming, then you could say that with finality and be correct. But it is not. There can and are dozens of other factors in global climate. Rising CO2 while temps are lowering overall does not eliminate CO2 as a factor in the warming.
The CO2 can be and is warming up the climate with it's own processes while OTHER processes, which are stronger in their influence, are taking place.
It's similar to putting a microwave into a freezer room. While the microwave is warming the food inside it, the outside air inside the freezer is cooling off everything.
Cooling trends and the rise of CO2 can both be happening at the same time.
UH...coming from you this makes perfect sense to me.
Several times you have asked for definitive proof that man does not significantly contribute to global warming/climate change. What exactly would you accept as proof? Please be specific.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
That's why there is still discussion.
Both sides have ample evidence, which the other side refuses to acknowledge.
This debate will rage for a LONG LONG time.
But in the midst of this debate, we should err on the side of "What if the worst case scenarios are correct?" rather than erring on the side of "Big Whoop."
There are a lot more on the side of "Big Whoop" on this forum than in the other camp, which is fine.
Good thing I'm here to stir up the hornet nest every now and again or this would just be thousands of posts saying "AlGore is a charlatan!"
Couldn't agree more. I'll be quoting you on that one.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Debate is good. Destroying the World economy on the pretense that man is causing the globe to warm is bad. At least the leaders of China, India and the USA are not buying into the THEORY of man made GW.
The most significant thing is even the signators of the Kyoto have not done what they signed up to do. So those that did not sign at least are the honest ones.
PS
AL GORE IS A FLIM FLAM MAN, how's that?
You have no basis for that assertion. Also, the "global temperature" has been flat or even slightly decreasing for the past decade.so I don't see your point.
Showing that CO2 is a contributing factor is easy, as it is basic physics.
You missed the keyword "significant" in my comment and in the Evans' article.
With you sitting in Phoenix, I think the heat has gotten to you. You think the "Big Whoop" is the Earth increasing a couple of degrees. Come to the great Northern U.S., or Canada and then you might consider the Big Whoop is not moving farther away from the Last Ice Age. We need to make the Earth warmer - its average temperature now is only 59F.
So if we are warming, and it is because I'm pumping CO2 into the air - great. But I don't see the warming, and I don't see the sea-levels rising (went to the same beach that I did 40 years ago).
Excuse me, but the burden of proof is on those who make the claim that mankind is a significant contributor to global warming. There simply is no evidence to support that position and to turn it around and imply that anyone questioning the proposition is not a "believer" is a bit silly. It's not a question of belief. It's a question of evidence and science neither of which support your view.
Taking sides and acting too much like lawyers and creating an "us versus them" environment is just wasting time.
Let's just concentrate our efforts on finding the answers and the solutions.
In the meantime, cut your carbon footprint. Better safe than sorry.
I love how many times you say "there is no evidence." Kinda cute..........
I may be just a dumb old farmer but I don't think you can prove that statement.
When sun shines on a greenhouse most of the wavelengths of sun are able to penetrate the plastic or glass. They are then re-radiated from the surfaces within the greenhouse in the infrared wavelength which can not penetrate the GH covering. The result is an increase in temperature, a true Greenhouse Effect.
Among the reasons that the infrared can't penetrate is the thin coating of water vapor that forms on the GH covering. CO2 has very little to do with it. You could pump enough CO2 into a GH to kill all the plants and people and I doubt you could measure the difference in heat retention. The water vapor has more to do with heat retention by a huge magnitude.
This doesn't negate your points about CO2 and global warming, but the GH is a bad example to use to prove it. Even if the addition of CO2 had some slight effect, the extrapolation from such a small closed system to a planet wide conclusion is just too big of a leap for me.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
"will"? I thought it wasn't proven - so shouldn't you say "might"? Or did you mean "will" as in the sense that people will be doing things whether it matters or not?
Taking sides and acting too much like lawyers and creating an "us versus them" environment is just wasting time.
So you advocate just following someone's lead whether they have proof or not? How do you know who to follow when someone proposes the opposite with similar levels of (non) proof?
In the meantime, cut your carbon footprint.
That doesn't make any sense, since there are many billions of people who will gladly burn the small amount of fuel you or I cutback on. No one is going to willingly cut their standard of living much, and renewable energies are not available in quantity and reliability.
Most recoverable carbon-fuels will be burned in a couple hundred years. You are dealing with people around the world who are willing to hack a pipeline open to get fuel. They certainly are not concerned with GW. They are concerned with eating and cooking today.
Yes, global climate will affect the future of mankind. ( Don't go all apey on me and accuse me of saying "global warming will affect the future of mankind" because I never said that. )
kernick says, "Taking sides and acting too much like lawyers and creating an "us versus them" environment is just wasting time."
I was referring to the legal term used by tidester "burden of proof." The climate and the Earf belong to all of us, so yes, it's not US versus THEM. Both the THEM and the US are the same group - humans.
kernick says, "That doesn't make any sense"
You are not serious, are you? That is a fallacy - that conserving does no good because someone else will burn it anyway. That's a good talking point used by people against conservation, but it holds no water in the real world.
The gas I did not burn by buying two hybrids did not get burned by someone else - that someone else would have been the "ME" who in another reality did not buy a hybrid car: but since I did, that gas never got burned. All the millions of gallons saved by hybrid cars has never been burned and never will be.
Clean air programs are a waste, huh? How about the way California has cleaned up it's air in the last 40 years?
How about all the recycling we have done? That is millions of pounds of waste that did not get into landfills, so the valuable land can be used for other purposes like sustaining life. That's a lot of re-manufacturing from scratch that did not have to get done.
How about the millions of tons of pollution that has not been produced by drivers who chose a hybrid or a PZEV over another type of vehicle which would have polluted more? That pollution never left that person's tailpipe. Other people did not pollute less because that person bought a hybrid - but THAT PERSON did.
All of those issues are a part of reducing a carbon footprint.
Is that clear enough? Let's not hear any more of that silliness about conservation being a waste of time, OK? We could start a whole new forum on just that issue alone, except that it's not directly vehicle-related.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
That's kinda scary.
I love how many times you say "there is no evidence." Kinda cute..........
Translation: "Evidence? We don't need no stinkin' evidence."
Taking sides and acting too much like lawyers and creating an "us versus them" environment is just wasting time.
I am sorry to inconvenience you by insisting that statements supposedly based on science should be held to the standards of science. If there is no evidence to support a theory then the theory is meaningless and insisting that people act on such baseless theories is arrogance.
There is plenty of evidence. I could post five hundred links and you'd still not believe it. Your lack of belief is not my problem, it's your own.
Not the first time I have incorrectly been accused of being arrogant. To know me in person you would know the truth. Just because I argue against your beliefs in a confident manner does not make me arrogant.
I rather think that increasing oil dependancy is destroying the economy. Polluting creates huges costs that are generally shouldered by the following generation.
it is not good putting all our eggs in the same basket.
That is a factor for sure. As you probably know there is a long standing battle against more fuel efficient vehicles in the USA. I would have bought a small diesel PU truck 10 years ago if they were available in the USA. Maybe you have some idea which countries should cut back on growth. We know China and India has said NO WAY to going back at all. I believe China's carbon footprint has now passed the USA. Going deeper in debt with a bunch of screwy eco plans makes very little sense.
Also the US has 5% of the world's population and uses 25% of energy (or some metric like that). But they forget the US puts out 25% of the world's product. Looks like a wash to me.
Let me know when China applies Olympics style traffic control to their pollution problem on a day-to-day basis and puts out their underground coal mine fires!!!! :P
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,