|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,047
Top Banana
|
Top Banana
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,047 |
edit: Post Deleted because it was probably the wiser course. But damn hard!
CC- a Christian member of the National Council of Churches. I'm just sayin'...
You mean we're supposed to have lives?
Oh crap!
~Tank
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,569
Pulitzer
|
|
Pulitzer
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,569 |
Yeah, CC's probably got the right idea. I've managed to avoid this thread for a long time. Some attitudes, you just can't productively argue with. Which can get upsetting if you're in the wrong mood. Which makes it even harder to have a productive debate. But still...
Whatever happened to "God helps those who help themselves?"
Remember, we're also talking about the same god who, having seen that humanity was doing a poor job of following his directives, decided to flush the world and start over.
Just because it's in his power to fix things doesn't mean that he's going to fix things in a way that's beneficial to us. Especially if we're the problem in the first place.
If we were set on Earth to be its caretakers (and I think there's a further verse in Genesis about that), maybe we should look to doing a better job of it.
Many of those measures would actually save us money and trouble, in the long run. Reducing our consumption (heating, electricity, water, gasoline, etc.) lowers our bills while also reducing our wastefulness, emissions, etc. Cleaner burning factories require less maintenance.
Pollution makes messes that need to be cleaned up in one way or another. When it's not cleaned up, it impacts our health, raising costs both financial and humanitarian.
What we need is for people to look beyond their immediate wants and needs. Be a little less lazy now. Require a little less in the way of instant gratification. You can still be selfish, just be selfish in the long term.
If we all live cleaner, healthier, more responsible lifestyles, we'll all be better off. Why is that such a difficult thing to ask for? Why does it have to be politicized?
We're making a mess. We're burning through resources faster than they can be replaced. We're making ourselves sicker by making the world around us more toxic. I don't think anyone can reasonably argue against that. Those are facts. But it seems like any call to change any of those tendencies is met with scorn, politics, and complaint, and I can't see a good reason for it.
Paul
When in doubt, think about penguins. It probably won't help, but at least it'll be fun.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,569
Pulitzer
|
|
Pulitzer
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,569 |
... And seeing as how things have gotten not only politicized but into religion as well... Time for me to put on my Forum Moderator Hat. (It looks a lot like my regular hat, but less colorful and without the beanie copter.) Nothing too bad. Just an official reminder to keep things friendly and civil, to respect the beliefs of others, to refrain from giving insult, and to try, as best we can, to avoid taking offense. Remember that posting while angry or upset rarely results in anything productive, that opposing opinions can be valid ones, and all that jazz. In short: play nice.  Of course, we've waded through much pricklier subjects than this and managed to part on good terms, but a friendly reminder rarely hurts. Thanks for helping to keep our little playground a fun and safe place to hang around. Paul OT Forum Moderator
When in doubt, think about penguins. It probably won't help, but at least it'll be fun.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 9,362
Boards Chief Administrator Emeritus Nobel Peace Prize Winner
|
|
Boards Chief Administrator Emeritus Nobel Peace Prize Winner
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 9,362 |
I'm bringing this back up because of this interesting addendum which appeared on the BBC news website this morning: A controversial Channel 4 film on global warming broke Ofcom rules, the media regulator says.
The Great Global Warming Swindle attracted various complaints, including claims it misled contributors.
In a long-awaited judgement, Ofcom says Channel 4 did not fulfil obligations to be impartial and to reflect a range of views on controversial issues.
Channel 4 said it aired the documentary to demonstrate that "the debate" on climate change was not over.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the former UK government chief scientific adviser Sir David King were among those whose complaints were upheld.
The film's key contention was that the increase in atmospheric temperatures observed since the 1970s was not primarily caused by emissions of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels.
First aired by Channel 4 in March 2007, the documentary has since reportedly been sold to 21 countries and distributed on DVD.
Among discussion groups of "climate sceptics", it is sometimes cited as a counter to Al Gore's documentary An Inconvenient Truth and has been credited with influencing public opinion on the causes of modern-day climate change.
An Ipsos Mori survey in the UK last month concluded: "Many believe leading scientists remain undecided on the exact causes of climate change".
Distinguished climate scientists, including former IPCC chairman Sir John Houghton, Professor Peter Cox from the UK Met Office, and Professor Brian Hoskins from Reading University, signed a letter to production company WagTV alleging that the film "misrepresented both the scientific evidence and the interpretations of researchers that have been documented in the scientific literature".
The regulator backed Sir David's complaint of unfair treatment, judging that his views were misrepresented and that he was not given the right to reply.
Ofcom also found in favour of Carl Wunsch, an oceanographer interviewed for the programme, who said he had been misled as to its intent.
Dr Wunsch, from the Massachussetts Institute of Technology, said he believed he was being asked to take part in a programme that would "discuss in a balanced way the complicated elements of understanding of climate change", but "what we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is not even a gesture toward balance".
The Broadcasting Code requires Channel 4 to show "due impartiality" on "matters of major political and industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy".
The last segment of the programme, dealing with the politics of climate change, broke this obligation, Ofcom judged, and did not reflect a range of views, as required under the code.
However, the regulator said it did not believe, given the nature of the programme, that this led to the audience being materially misled.
While some of the complaints received by Ofcom were short and straightforward, one group assembled a 188-page document alleging 137 breaches of the Broadcasting Code.
Channel 4 will have to broadcast a summary of the Ofcom findings. LabRat
Athos: If you'd told us what you were doing, we might have been able to plan this properly.
Aramis: Yes, sorry.
Athos: No, no, by all means, let's keep things suicidal.
The Musketeers
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 898
Features Writer
|
|
Features Writer
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 898 |
Penn and Teller's Bull@*%& is airing their show on "climate change" this Thursday on Showtime, 10 PM eastern/9 central. There is a language warning, Penn gets REALLY impatient with folks who make up stuff like this for money.
Jayne Cobb: Shepherd Book once said to me, "If you can't do something smart, do something RIGHT!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,644
Pulitzer
|
|
OP
Pulitzer
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,644 |
An update from the UK Independent on the complaints against "Swidle" -- Martin Durkin's documentary 'The Great Global Warming Swindle', aired on Channel 4 last year, enraged the green lobby by claiming human activity wasn't behind global warming. Ofcom, the TV regulator, received 265 complaints and last month ruled that its writer and director lacked impartiality. However, Ofcom ceded that, despite "certain reservations", it did not believe audiences had been "materially misled". This is a column by the director of the film, going into more detail about the complaints, rebuttals, and media reactions. PJ
"You told me you weren't like other men," she said, shaking her head at him when the storm of laughter had passed.
He grinned at her - a goofy, Clark Kent kind of a grin. "I have a gift for understatement."
"You can say that again," she told him.
"I have a...."
"Oh, shut up."
--Stardust, Caroline K
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,445
Kerth
|
|
Kerth
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,445 |
According to New Scientist the US Government's US Climate Change Science Program has just admitted that human actity was "responsible for the rapid warming of the 20th century."
Marcus L. Rowland
Forgotten Futures, The Scientific Romance Role Playing Game
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 273
Hack from Nowheresville
|
|
Hack from Nowheresville
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 273 |
As a geographer, whose feet have been planted in several aspects of the global warming/cooling studies (in particular glaciology and volcanology) as well as the whole carbon credits stuff, I can't help but laugh.
There will always be 2 sides to this debate, and as someone said earlier, more often than not the most politicised side of the debate is seen. Scientist base things on facts... politics do not... and having worked for a government... I can tell you that the science is often overlooked or "prettied up" for the political swing of a topic (much to the annoyance of those of us who come up with the real statistics and data).
Can we do our part to help by recycling and conserving... sure... why not...
It comes down to not the facts, but what you as an individual feel you have to do to believe you are making a difference (or not) in this world... global warming (manmade, godmade or otherwise) has little to do with it.
I recycle(d... they don't seem to have much of a concept of recycling in China...) because of the idea of less waste and the belief of re-use.. not because the ozone is burning off, or the planet is getting too warm, or we are heading for another ice age... or anything like that.
"He's my best friend, best of all best friends
Do you have a best friend too
It tickles in my tummy
He's so Yummy Yummy
Hey you should get a best friend too" - Toy Box
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,797
Nobel Peace Prize Winner
|
|
Nobel Peace Prize Winner
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,797 |
Huge shelves of ice break off near the North and South Pole, almost certainly due to global warming. I found this link where you can read about the latest ice shelf breaking off. According to the article, the ice loss in the Arctic region has increased sharply this summer. You can also see a number of videos of ice shelves breaking loose in the Arctic as well as the Antarctic regions. Ann
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 898
Features Writer
|
|
Features Writer
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 898 |
Originally posted by TOC:
Huge shelves of ice break off near the North and South Pole, almost certainly due to global warming. I found this link where you can read about the latest ice shelf breaking off. According to the article, the ice loss in the Arctic region has increased sharply this summer.
You can also see a number of videos of ice shelves breaking loose in the Arctic as well as the Antarctic regions.
Ann That's amazingly funny because this satellite photo of the arctic circle shows there is more ice there now than there was last year at the same time. ![[Linked Image]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ObDz2JQfhTE/SL9E3vXEA0I/AAAAAAAAAo4/1_Whxoy6Auc/s320/190808ice.jpg) You can read all about it HERE . It has this awesomely common sense little snippet... While the mass media, Al Gore and politicized bodies like the IPCC scaremonger about the perils of global warming and demand the poor and middle class pay CO2 taxes, both hard scientific data and circumstantial evidence points to a clear cooling trend. There is also an article HERE about how there's been no globals smarming...er I mean, warming since 1998. And then there's the ever trusty Farmer\'s Almanac , though I'm sure they're just saying this winter is going to be colder than ever to focus on the cost of gas...not like they have an agenda or anything  TEEEEEEJ PS: and here's a reply for those who would say the ice caps are GROWING because of climate change... How man-made global warming advocates will spin this one remains to be seen - maybe they will just continue to adopt their current tactic by claiming that any geological or weather event whatsoever, be it hurricanes, earthquakes, droughts or floods, temperature increase or decrease, and even a 30 per cent growth of the polar ice cap - is a result of that evil life-giving gas that we exhale - CO2. <snicker> I'm sure if we all just suicide ourselves the planet would be "saved", but I admonish the alarmists, if this is your twisted reasoning...YOU FIRST!
Jayne Cobb: Shepherd Book once said to me, "If you can't do something smart, do something RIGHT!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,797
Nobel Peace Prize Winner
|
|
Nobel Peace Prize Winner
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,797 |
That's very interesting. Clearly there has been a substantial growth of the Arctic ice since last year. However, when I looked up the article you referred to, TEEEJ, I came across a link which said this: The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado released an alarming graph on August 11, showing that Arctic ice was rapidly disappearing, back towards last year's record minimum. The article that discussed the ice coverage in the Arctic rejected the graph from NSIDC. However, the article didn't dispute the claim that last year's ice coverage represented a record low. In other words, it appears that last year's Arctic ice coverage was at a record minimum. Yes, the ice coverage has grown since last year, but from a very low level. Anyway, the ice coverage has clearly grown. Is it possible that we are actually seeing a bit of global cooling here? Yes, it is possible, and if so there is a probable reason for it, namely the current sunspot cycle. There seems to be a definite correlation between the number of sunspots on the Sun and the temperature on the Earth: the more sunspots there are, the more active is the Sun, the more energy it releases, and the warmer it gets on the Earth. During the 17th century there appears to have been extremely few sunspots, and during that time it was particularly cold in at least parts of the world. And right now the Sun seems to be almost completely devoid of sunspots. So it is possible that the Sun is entering a quieter, less active phase, which could indeed result in some degree of global cooling. On the other hand, that global cooling could well be offset by an ever-increasing release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. And the next time the Sun becomes really active again, the combination of a more active Sun and record amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere could result in even faster global warming. The Sun does what it does, and what it does has nothing to do with humanity. But the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has so much to do with us. Both the changing of the Earth's atmosphere and humanity's responsibility for it are facts. The site that TEEEJ referred us to, Alex Jones Prison Planet, called carbon dioxide an 'evil life-giving gas that we exhale'. Thereby this site implied that human breathing is the main source of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It is certainly true that oxygen-breathing organisms exhale carbon dioxide, and green plants use that carbon dioxide along with water and sunlight to make nutrients for themselves and more oxygen for us. But the increase of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is mostly due to humanity's burning of fossil fuels. Add to that that trees are being cut down in record number globally, which could potentially lead to lower oxygen levels in the Earth's atmosphere. If we run out of oxygen I can only hope that Prison Planet is right, and that carbon dioxide will prove just as life-giving and good to breathe as oxygen. ![[Linked Image]](http://www.alltomvetenskap.se/uploaded/image/2007/8/20/VenusExpressBild5.jpg) Planet Venus. Its thick swirling atmosphere is chock full of carbon dioxide. Venus ought to be teeming with life, no? Ann
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 898
Features Writer
|
|
Features Writer
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 898 |
*sigh* <shakes head> Both the changing of the Earth's atmosphere and humanity's responsibility for it are facts. FACTS BASED ON WHAT??? Seriously, I see this generalization you've made here, but you have nothing, absolutely nothing substantial, nothing any unagenda-ed, nonbiased, consensus of "scientists" has suggested that proves people have anything to do with the freaking weather. Lemme 'splain in simple how it works. The earth spins in orbit, the wind blows, clouds form and make rain, and the sun stays out in the center of the galaxy heating things up and all of it does those things as they were designed to do and THAT'S IT. If the earth is as old as evolutionists believe then the 150+ years of technology we've had going on won't make a firking blip on this rock's radar, and that being the case, it'll be around LOOOOONG after you and I are gone. Just think about it like that; it'll save on all the self blame and paranoid hand wringing.
Jayne Cobb: Shepherd Book once said to me, "If you can't do something smart, do something RIGHT!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,380 Likes: 1
Kerth
|
|
Kerth
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,380 Likes: 1 |
Actually, there is approximately 13% more Arctic ice this year than at the same time last year, and since we have now passed the part of the year when the ice melts, and are progressing back toward the winter months, there is no chance that the ice at the North Pole is going to disappear this year. The average temperature of the Earth increased approximately half a degree C during the '90s but the warming curve went flat in 1998. Two years ago it began to drop, and in the last year there has been a sharper drop than there has been in a century -- enough to wipe out all the warming of the last decade. Earth's climate goes through cycles, as anyone can see who bothers to look it up -- which I made a point of doing some time ago. A great many reputable scientists are now raising a lot of doubt about AGW, and many are flat-out stating that it is a massive hoax, and citing evidence. That certainly should be enough to at least raise some questions and inspire a lot more research before we start legislating measures that can and will cause a great deal of harm to our way of life. Nan PS: During the Maunder and Dalton minimums, sunspots virtually disappeared. In the last year, sunspots have become more and more infrequent, and when they have appeared they were more sun specks than sunspots. This last August was the first completely spotless month since 1913 -- and 4 days into September there are still no sunspots. A tiny near-spot appeared in August, but it didn't really form a spot -- more of a protospot, and it was gone so fast that it wasn't even assigned a number. If the activity level of the sun causes warming and cooling of the Earth, which it must, at least to some extent, it will be interesting to see what the temperature does in the next few years. Most likely this is just a long solar minimum. A drastic period of cooling wouldn't do us any more good than a long period of heating, and I'm not much for disaster scenarios, in any case. To get a look at a picture of today's sun, go here: http://www.spaceweather.com/
Earth is the insane asylum for the universe.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 898
Features Writer
|
|
Features Writer
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 898 |
Actually I have been redirected to some almost substantial proof that humans, at least one in particular, has had a substantial effect on the weather. It seems that everplace al gore visits immediately goes into a cooling trend (heh, God and His sense of humor), so here's a proposal.... Let's take algore and put him in a giant catapult, Wile E Coyote size catapult, and SHOOT him into the atmosphere. What I'm thinking will happen is that when he gets up there, he can talk about light bulbs and trees and stuff, ask for more money, and the atmosphere will FREEZE SOLID. With a thick coating of ice around it, the earth will be instantly cooler. Now we're gonna need money to get this plan to action, so anyone who's interested in shooting al gore into space, PM me and I'll get you an address where you can send donations. TEEEEEJ
Jayne Cobb: Shepherd Book once said to me, "If you can't do something smart, do something RIGHT!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,380 Likes: 1
Kerth
|
|
Kerth
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,380 Likes: 1 |
Lol, Teeej; that sounds like a good idea to me. At the very least it would eliminate a huge source of greenhouse gases.
Nan
Earth is the insane asylum for the universe.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,797
Nobel Peace Prize Winner
|
|
Nobel Peace Prize Winner
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,797 |
quote:
Both the changing of the Earth's atmosphere and humanity's responsibility for it are facts.
----------------------------------------------------------
FACTS BASED ON WHAT??? Seriously, I see this generalization you've made here, but you have nothing, absolutely nothing substantial, nothing any unagenda-ed, nonbiased, consensus of "scientists" has suggested that proves people have anything to do with the freaking weather. Let me show you some facts: ![[Linked Image]](http://www.worldofstock.com/slides/BEN1615.jpg) ![[Linked Image]](http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/2007/07/070726090009-large.jpg) ![[Linked Image]](http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/images/epa-9.jpg) [img] http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2361/2501927384_2dfe6277fe.jpg?v=0[/img] ![[Linked Image]](http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/190851main_launchinsmoke-web.jpg) chimney smoke Is humanity changing the composition of the atmosphere? Yes, we are. Ann
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,380 Likes: 1
Kerth
|
|
Kerth
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,380 Likes: 1 |
I'm sorry, Ann, but think of this analogy. If the atmosphere were a 100 story building, the amount of CO2 that humanity contributes to it would be about the level of the linoleum on the first floor.
If you want to look at large amounts of CO2 dumped into the atmosphere, look at natural sources, such as volcanoes. Even that CO2 amounts to a tiny fraction of our atmosphere. One of the most significant greenhouse gases, one that really does make an actual difference in temperature, is water vapor, and I doubt that you would want to get rid of that, since without water Earth really would be more like Venus.
One of the glaring variations from the computer projections of AGW is the absence of the "hot spot" that was predicted. A marker of AGW was supposed to be a large mass of hot air above the tropic regions -- one which meteorologists who are looking for such signs are completely unable to find. I have a copy of a graph that was in a recent report on the heating curve of the Earth. It had three possible heating projections from the IPCC report, all rising, one projection of committed warming that would take place if the CO2 in the atmosphere remained constant (which remained more or less level) and two showing actual readings -- one from ground based meteorological instruments, and the other from satellite based instruments, both of which were taken since the original IPCC computer projections. Both the graph lines showing the actual readings revealed a drop in temperatures.
Clearly there is something going on that we don't completely understand, and that is enough to tell us that we had better learn more than we know right now before we do more harm than good.
Nan
Earth is the insane asylum for the universe.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,797
Nobel Peace Prize Winner
|
|
Nobel Peace Prize Winner
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,797 |
When I was a child, this painting by George Seurat, Bathing at Asnières, fascinated me. It looked idyllic. But I wondered at the chimneys spewing dark smoke in the background. Seurat's painting is from 1883-84. It may serve as a reminder that humanity has been releasing industrial smoke and other noxious fumes into the atmosphere for a very long time. However, now we are doing it at an ever-increasing rate, and there are just more and more of us humans doing the polluting. Frankly, I find it totally baffling that some people can say that we are not affecting the atmosphere, when the evidence that we are doing so is right before our eyes. Ann
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,380 Likes: 1
Kerth
|
|
Kerth
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,380 Likes: 1 |
The thing is that the "evidence" isn't. There is circumstantial evidence, but there are plenty of other possible explanations for that as well. I prefer to weigh the evidence, rather than panic, and just because a number of scientists, many of whom have no credentials in climate science, and many of whom are looking at large financial grants to study the problem, say it is so doesn't mean it is. There are a lot of climate scientists who disagree -- they just aren't given as much publicity as the others, because disasters generate more excitement in the media. There's the old saying, "If it bleeds, it leads."
There are plenty of experts with opposing views and a lot of evidence that AGW is at best a misreading of evidence, and at worst a hoax for people with incentives of financial and/or political gain. (Just take a look at Al Gore, for instance. He's become a multi-millionaire because of his crusade, and he doesn't even try to follow the tenets that he lays down for the rest of us.)
With the temperature of the Earth currently dropping, there is enough doubt in my mind that I'm not ready to surrender my freedom to a bunch of bureaucrats in the name of combating Global Warming.
In any case, this argument is fruitless. No one is going to be convinced, and what finally happens some years down the line will tell us who was right. I don't believe we are in any immediate danger from the greenhouse effect, and I suspect that, with more evidence coming out daily, we will soon know for sure, and then we can take action -- if any is really needed.
Nan
PS: By the way, the solar trend continues. There are no sunspots on the sun today.
Earth is the insane asylum for the universe.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,797
Nobel Peace Prize Winner
|
|
Nobel Peace Prize Winner
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,797 |
Do you seriously call it "circumstantial evidence" that we are affecting the atmosphere when we know that millions of man-made contraptions are releasing smoke inte the atmosphere every day? And when we know, to boot, that there are just more and more cars, more and more factories, and very many airplanes releasing various gases into the atmosphere every day?
Is that circumstantial evidence?
Nan, I can't believe that you are saying that. Or at least, I can't believe that you truly think that all this smoke and gas that man-made things release simply disappear from the atmosphere without a trace. And to be very, very frank, I can't take you seriously if you really tell me that you believe that.
As for global warming, I don't know enough about it to say anything definite about it one way or another, although, yes, I believe that humanity and the way we are affecting the atmosphere has something to do with the general increase in temperature that we have seen worldwide for the last decades. I believe it, but I don't know it.
I know, however, that humanity is affecting the Earth's atmosphere. That isn't hard to know. We can discuss how much we are affecting it. However, we don't know how much we can affect it before we create a runaway effect.
Saying that we aren't affecting the Earth's atmosphere is like being caught on camera stealing things in a store and denying that you have stolen anything at all when the police confront you with the evidence. And saying that it doesn't matter that we release things into the atmosphere because our contribution is so small anyway is like saying that shoplifting shouldn't be regarded as a crime at all, since the value of what the shoplifters usually steal is so ridiculously low compared with the net worth of what those stores often make anyway.
Ann
|
|
|
|
