Delete
from 
GalCiv2 Forums
GalCiv2 Forums
Post deleted
Delete
111,216 views
107 replies
I actually encourage people to look at all sides of the issue, and not just the CO2 crowd. After looking at both sides, draw your own conclusions
Thinking as a politician, and assuming there is a political machine in place (especially wherever there is money flowing) I'd say it would be quite handy to control who gets research grants and other funds.
Then, if I were inclined to be a fat lazy stupid pig that didn't care about anything beyond hopping in bed with someone else's wife while I was supposed to be on guard duty, I could just say "write up something to counter what these ecologists and stupid tree-huggers are saying, I'll be back next week after vacation"
IF I was a small-a-tician, that is.
there is one thing that his movie(i haven't seen it) and most other doomsday scenerios forget and that is as the glaciers melt the continents rise becouse of the loss of wieght from the loss of the ice.
Sorry. No affence, but have you seen all the shows about global warming. Its gotta be true.
Right. It's been on TV, so it must be true.
Five years from now this "man is causing global warming" nonsense will be universally laughed at as the joke it is (like the Y2K bug that was going to bring civilization to a crashing halt). The problem is, the wackos that are promoting this will not learn any humility, but will move right on the the next "item." Oh well ...
Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Solar variation will cause an increase in the greenhouse effect. It will cause the heat feedback to increase. More heat causes more water vapor. A 3% increase in CO2 could cause a 10% increase in water vapor and those numbers are not fact but estimation based on SOME researchers. There are also other gases that mankind has put into the atmosphere as well. Not saying you guys aren't right I am just saying its not as irrelevant as the numbers might make it seem.
If you are talking about floating on water, continents don't, if you are talking about floating on magma then I would guess if you are right and gravity would not hold them relatively the same we would get more volcanic action and earthquakes at the boundaries of tectonic plates.
While I am a tree hugging hippie, sandals and tye dye included, I am not stupid enough to believe all the hype about the end is nigh and its all because of the combustion engine, but at the same time global warming is happening and we are contributing to it. I don't think it is something to be stopped, because we don't have that much influence on it and quite honestly I am not sure if anyone has exact facts on how much influence we have, its all guess work and best estimates so far. Climate change does happen naturally but at the same time I cannot see how its not in our best interest in preserving the race to try to minimize it for as long as we can. If we can minimize its impact in the next 150 years why shouldn't we, money seems to be the only answer I have heard. Too much media and left and right political BS has totally clouded what is in fact an interesting scientific study. But I guess if it wasn't sensationalized then none of us would have cared enough to talk about it.
there is one thing that his movie(i haven't seen it) and most other doomsday scenarios forget and that is as the glaciers melt the continents rise because of the loss of weight from the loss of the ice.
If you are talking about floating on water, continents don't, if you are talking about floating on magma then I would guess if you are right and gravity would not hold them relatively the same we would get more volcanic action and earthquakes at the boundaries of tectonic plates.
While I am a tree hugging hippie, sandals and tye dye included, I am not stupid enough to believe all the hype about the end is nigh and its all because of the combustion engine, but at the same time global warming is happening and we are contributing to it. I don't think it is something to be stopped, because we don't have that much influence on it and quite honestly I am not sure if anyone has exact facts on how much influence we have, its all guess work and best estimates so far. Climate change does happen naturally but at the same time I cannot see how its not in our best interest in preserving the race to try to minimize it for as long as we can. If we can minimize its impact in the next 150 years why shouldn't we, money seems to be the only answer I have heard. Too much media and left and right political BS has totally clouded what is in fact an interesting scientific study. But I guess if it wasn't sensationalized then none of us would have cared enough to talk about it.
those gases combine on the surface of the earth to make o-zone
yet in the atmosphere they destroy o-zone
something wrong with this
by the way o-zone is the biggest pollitent in our cities, we call it smog
yet in the atmosphere they destroy o-zone
something wrong with this
by the way o-zone is the biggest pollitent in our cities, we call it smog
I watched inconvienient truths, by al gore.
In there was a chart that showed the ice ages, and there were about ten ice ages, on and off. maybe its just a cycle, and doesn't have anything to do with us.
even if it isn't us, we could at least help to slow it down...
even if it isn't us, we could at least help to slow it down...
how put up a big sun block over the earth
My take is this, it doesn't matter whether or not you believe global warming is happening, and it doesn't matter whether or not we are causing it. The initiatives, propelled by the theory of global warming, to lower emmissions and generally clean up the planet, is still a good thing. Aren't you tired of polluted air, water, and land?
amen!
If you are talking about floating on water, continents don't, if you are talking about floating on magma then I would guess if you are right and gravity would not hold them relatively the same we would get more volcanic action and earthquakes at the boundaries of tectonic plates.
liquids don't compress that much. whole continents don't really rise or fall, not in the way described. tectonic plates rise, and that's when other plates are being subsummed beneath them. the amount of liquid vs. solid water won't bear at all on the earth's diameter (except in locations where ice is at the highest altitude).
as for your point, i'm no geologist, but i can't see how the ice weight on a particular plate would bear on its behavior. when you think about how small a percentage that weight is (compared to the tons upon tons of solid rock and earth that comprise a plate, not to mention almost the entire earth's mass, in magma, pushing up against each plate). sure, it's possible shifts in glaciers would change such events, but i can't see it as likely: i'd need some emprical evidence. and considering that history of ice ages on Earth, i think a geologist would have by now found a correlations between ice movement and tectonic activity if there were one.
even if there were a relationship, 'sinking' or 'rising' in this sense wouldn't happen. IF less ice = easier tectonic movement causing some plates to 'rise', that'd mean other plates were sinking under them, and the net amount of dry land wouldn't really change.
if enough ice melts, sea levels will rise and coastlines will recede. that's all there is to it (for the debate at hand, anyway).
My take is this, it doesn't matter whether or not you believe global warming is happening, and it doesn't matter whether or not we are causing it. The initiatives, propelled by the theory of global warming, to lower emmissions and generally clean up the planet, is still a good thing. Aren't you tired of polluted air, water, and land?
amen!
Yes but do we have to make a new religion to fight it. I prefer this :
WWW Link
This makes more science sense to me.
What you say about conservatives being very environmentally unfriendly, and not caring about the consequences of our actions is very untrue. If you look around the United States you will see that the states that are considered the "most environmentally friendly" are California, Texas, Vermont, and Tennessee. Tennessee and Texas are both staunchly conservative. And California and Vermont both have Republican governors. These generalizations that people make about political parties only combat progress. If we start looking at people as individuals I think that will move forward. The problem exists on both sides of the aisle, not just on one. So lets start working together to solve it!
I am personally a conservative, but almost every other member of my family classifies themselves as a liberal, and understand where they come from. I don't doubt that global warming exists. But even if it does not exist I still think that it is important for us to find another source of energy so that we can lessen our economic dependency on the middle east, and stop invading other countries for oil!
I am personally a conservative, but almost every other member of my family classifies themselves as a liberal, and understand where they come from. I don't doubt that global warming exists. But even if it does not exist I still think that it is important for us to find another source of energy so that we can lessen our economic dependency on the middle east, and stop invading other countries for oil!
Yes but do we have to make a new religion to fight it. I prefer this :
WWW Link
This makes more science sense to me.
WWW Link
This makes more science sense to me.
that was meant as a joke. but your link was good. i liked this quote:
“We must wonder whether climate change should eclipse other environmental issues to the extent that it currently does,” said Dr. Steven Hayward, author of the Index, senior fellow at PRI, and F.K. Weyerhaeuser fellow at AEI. “The language of ‘skeptics versus alarmists’ has put the issue of climate change into a straightjacket, leaving little room for a reasonable middle ground, or for people who believe our reach exceeds our grasp, in science and especially policy.”
i certainly don't deny that global warming is real, and i do believe the current warming trend has been caused by human activity. but i don't think Waterworld is a realistic danger (AFAIK there isn't enough water on earth to submerge all the land).
i think the most accurate thing to say is, "we know not the forces with which we play." the dangers Gore outlines in his movie are possible. i think they might even happen. i'm more worried about the effects global warming might have on other aspects of life on earth.
think about how little life we've really studied on this planet. on our planet somewhere, there might be cures for cancer or enzymes that will double the life span, the key to regenerating limbs or any number of untold resources. a survey of human history shows that most of our greatest resources have not been technological, but biological. i worry that rapid enviornmental change will kill off some of the greatest resources we don't even know we have.
i also like my sunny days. i'm a sandiegan after all. hotter planet = more water evaporating = more clouds and tropical rain patterns = stormy, not sunny san diego. but millwake should be nice.
then there's famine. more rain = more soil erosion = less productive crops.
should we do something about global warming? well, educating ourselves on it is the only thing i can't disagree with. i think we should get off fossil fuels, but for reasons beyond global warming.
and no, i'm not interested in starting a new religion in the slightest.
Some facts to consider:
Mars and Venus are also undergoing global warming at a similar rate to ours. We aren't polluting there.
80% of temperature sensors in the US used to compute land-based temperature figures are in contaminated locations, such as next to a trash burning barrel or air conditioning unit where the temperature would be artificially higher than normal.
The temperature has constantly changed throughout history. Who is to say what temperature is "normal." In fact we're coming out of a mini-ice age now, so the temperature should be rising to some extent.
A majority of meteorologists do not believe that global warming is man made. Even a few scientists listed on that UN report protested that they do not agree with the report with their name on it.
Now there's no doubt that pollution is bad and ought to be cut down, but he end is not near. I also get tired of environmentalists who don't live the way they expect everyone else to. Some, by the way, do live this way, but certain prominent ones don't.
Mars and Venus are also undergoing global warming at a similar rate to ours. We aren't polluting there.
80% of temperature sensors in the US used to compute land-based temperature figures are in contaminated locations, such as next to a trash burning barrel or air conditioning unit where the temperature would be artificially higher than normal.
The temperature has constantly changed throughout history. Who is to say what temperature is "normal." In fact we're coming out of a mini-ice age now, so the temperature should be rising to some extent.
A majority of meteorologists do not believe that global warming is man made. Even a few scientists listed on that UN report protested that they do not agree with the report with their name on it.
Now there's no doubt that pollution is bad and ought to be cut down, but he end is not near. I also get tired of environmentalists who don't live the way they expect everyone else to. Some, by the way, do live this way, but certain prominent ones don't.
that was meant as a joke. but your link was good.
and no, i'm not interested in starting a new religion in the slightest.
and no, i'm not interested in starting a new religion in the slightest.
Yeah I know YOU were joking.
if enough ice melts, sea levels will rise and coastlines will recede. that's all there is to it (for the debate at hand, anyway).
That is pretty much what I thought but I wasn't sure enough to totally discount the idea of some tectonic effect without really knowing more than I learned in 8th grade
Some facts to consider:
Mars and Venus are also undergoing global warming at a similar rate to ours. We aren't polluting there.
80% of temperature sensors in the US used to compute land-based temperature figures are in contaminated locations, such as next to a trash burning barrel or air conditioning unit where the temperature would be artificially higher than normal.
The temperature has constantly changed throughout history. Who is to say what temperature is "normal." In fact we're coming out of a mini-ice age now, so the temperature should be rising to some extent.
A majority of meteorologists do not believe that global warming is man made. Even a few scientists listed on that UN report protested that they do not agree with the report with their name on it.
Now there's no doubt that pollution is bad and ought to be cut down, but he end is not near. I also get tired of environmentalists who don't live the way they expect everyone else to. Some, by the way, do live this way, but certain prominent ones don't.
Mars and Venus are also undergoing global warming at a similar rate to ours. We aren't polluting there.
80% of temperature sensors in the US used to compute land-based temperature figures are in contaminated locations, such as next to a trash burning barrel or air conditioning unit where the temperature would be artificially higher than normal.
The temperature has constantly changed throughout history. Who is to say what temperature is "normal." In fact we're coming out of a mini-ice age now, so the temperature should be rising to some extent.
A majority of meteorologists do not believe that global warming is man made. Even a few scientists listed on that UN report protested that they do not agree with the report with their name on it.
Now there's no doubt that pollution is bad and ought to be cut down, but he end is not near. I also get tired of environmentalists who don't live the way they expect everyone else to. Some, by the way, do live this way, but certain prominent ones don't.
I agree with you for the most part. Solar activity has increased and it affects all the closer planets. I do believe that the climate where I live has changed substantially in the last twenty years though and I would also say that changes in oceanic life reflect that the earth is getting hotter. The solar activity is supposed to recede in the next 30 years or so if NASA is right so maybe it will get back to what I remember before I die. I was under the impression though that global warming was a term that meant human influenced climate change. Anything else is just climate change. I wish these terms were better defined because I do think the temperature of the planet is rising due to natural causes and I also think that we add to that and even if it is a fractional impact we need to be aware of it and study it to lessen our negative impact on our big blue home. I also think its sick how Gore flies around in his jet and gets paid to talk about the environment too. I really only consider myself a conservationist not an enviromentalist though. It gets kind of blurry these days but to me it basically means we preserve as much as we can for the sake of the whole system so that we can have it for as many people as long as we can but if a species is really not needed and is an nusance I say we pave over it. The trick is how you can be sure if its needed or not?
A majority of meteorologists do not believe that global warming is man made. Even a few scientists listed on that UN report protested that they do not agree with the report with their name on it.
i want citation for that before i let it by without saying something: it directly opposes what i understand to be the case (that the majority of scientists believe global warming is being caused or at least worsened by humans).
Danielost...
how put up a big sun block over the earth
That would be an easy solution, but it don't work that way.
(don't think I'm retarded, I knew that was sarcasm)
We are helping it along with CO2 emissions. Cars aren't the biggest polluters (I think), its the factories.
(I was going to write something here but I forgot what it was)
Now I remember...
The CO2 and other gunk that factories and cars and whatnot emit actually shortens the average persons life span, thats another reason we should support clean air and all that jazz.
The CO2 and other gunk that factories and cars and whatnot emit actually shortens the average persons life span, thats another reason we should support clean air and all that jazz.
yes, but just think about how much we're helping speed up evolution by creating so many mutations!
i want citation for that before i let it by without saying something: it directly opposes what i understand to be the case (that the majority of scientists believe global warming is being caused or at least worsened by humans).
And I want proof of that as well. I hear people say that the vast majority of scientist agree, and then I read many very prominent ones denying it. Some of the really big names, including state meteorologists.
I'll try to devote some time to finding some evidence for you, on the condition that you do the same.
I'll try to devote some time to finding some evidence for you, on the condition that you do the same.
this is from wikipedia
Outside the scientific community there are questions regarding the proportion of scientists who agree or disagree on the existence of human-caused warming. Environmental groups, many governmental reports, and the non-U.S. media often claim virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community in support of human-caused warming. Opponents either maintain that most scientists consider global warming "unproved," dismiss it altogether, or decry the dangers of consensus science. Still, others maintain that opponents have been stifled or driven underground. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists is the only scientific society that rejects the predominant opinion.
A 2004 essay by Naomi Oreskes in the journal Science reported a survey of abstracts of peer-reviewed papers related to global climate change in the ISI database. Oreskes said:
Oreskes stated that of the 928 abstracts analyzed, "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position". Benny Peiser claimed to have found flaws in her work, writing,
In order to include only "hard science" papers rather than opinion pieces or editorials, Oreskes excluded the Social Sciences Citation Index and the Arts & Humanities Citation Index and set the search to include only Articles, while Peiser searched for all document types in all indices, and the interpretation of the remaining parts of his attempted refutation is further disputed. In a later op-ed piece in Canada's National Post, Peiser makes no further reference to his review.
Peiser also stated:
Timothy Ball asserts that those who oppose the "consensus" have gone underground: "No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent."
A 2006 op-ed by Richard Lindzen in The Wall Street Journal challenged the claim that scientific consensus had been reached on the issue, and listed the Science journal study as well as other sources, including the IPCC and NAS reports, as part of "a persistent effort to suggest... that the theoretically expected contribution from additional carbon dioxide has actually been detected."[28] Lindzen wrote in The Wall Street Journal on April 12, 2006,
In February 2007, environmental consultant Madhav L Khandekar, in reaction to the Oreskes survey, issued an annotated bibliography of 68 recent peer-reviewed papers which he claims question aspects of the current state of global warming science.
A 2004 essay by Naomi Oreskes in the journal Science reported a survey of abstracts of peer-reviewed papers related to global climate change in the ISI database. Oreskes said:
Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science. Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case. The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Oreskes stated that of the 928 abstracts analyzed, "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position". Benny Peiser claimed to have found flaws in her work, writing,
Oreskes, a professor of history, claims to have analyzed 928 abstracts on global climate change, of which 75% either explicitly or implicitly accept the view that most of the recent warming trend is man-made. When I checked the same set of abstracts [plus an additional two hundred found in the same ISI data bank], I discovered that just over a dozen explicitly endorse the "consensus," while the vast majority of abstracts does not mention anthropogenic global warming.
In order to include only "hard science" papers rather than opinion pieces or editorials, Oreskes excluded the Social Sciences Citation Index and the Arts & Humanities Citation Index and set the search to include only Articles, while Peiser searched for all document types in all indices, and the interpretation of the remaining parts of his attempted refutation is further disputed. In a later op-ed piece in Canada's National Post, Peiser makes no further reference to his review.
Peiser also stated:
...the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous.
Timothy Ball asserts that those who oppose the "consensus" have gone underground: "No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent."
A 2006 op-ed by Richard Lindzen in The Wall Street Journal challenged the claim that scientific consensus had been reached on the issue, and listed the Science journal study as well as other sources, including the IPCC and NAS reports, as part of "a persistent effort to suggest... that the theoretically expected contribution from additional carbon dioxide has actually been detected."[28] Lindzen wrote in The Wall Street Journal on April 12, 2006,
But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.
In February 2007, environmental consultant Madhav L Khandekar, in reaction to the Oreskes survey, issued an annotated bibliography of 68 recent peer-reviewed papers which he claims question aspects of the current state of global warming science.
okay... now, i didn't say there was a consensus; i've long heard that there's a consensus agreeing that it's man-made, but recently i've learned that that's untrue. but i disagreed with your assertion that "a majority of meteorologists do not believe that global warming is man made." i should take a step back for a moment; i wasn't thinking specifically about meteorologists as opposed to environmental scientists in general. but i'm not so sure there's a huge difference between disciplines.
the quote above shows one thing clearly: there's still debate about how much debate there still is.
incidentally, i work with Naomi Oreskes. she's an historian, yes, but a science historian. that article almost makes it sound like she's got no buisness talking about these issues. she's got a B.S. in geology and her PhD is in geological research and science history - from Stanford. her expertise certainly isn't worthless. she's also a very gracious person and a dedicated teacher. i just wanted to say that because i didn't like the representation of her in that article.
i don't think her article proves that there is a consensus, only that there aren't many scientists actively arguing against the view that global warming is being caused by humans. the concluding point, that perhaps researchers have "gone underground" for fear of job security, is a lot more valid. but that still means such researchers perceive themselves in the minority, and if they're that fearful they probably are in a the minority.
of course, without actually surveying pertient experts on their opinions, it's impossible to know how close or far from consensus they are. i haven't been able to find any such survey (probably because researchers are usually more interested in their own reseach than in anyone else's).
i don't think her article proves that there is a consensus, only that there aren't many scientists actively arguing against the view that global warming is being caused by humans. the concluding point, that perhaps researchers have "gone underground" for fear of job security, is a lot more valid. but that still means such researchers perceive themselves in the minority, and if they're that fearful they probably are in a the minority.
of course, without actually surveying pertient experts on their opinions, it's impossible to know how close or far from consensus they are. i haven't been able to find any such survey (probably because researchers are usually more interested in their own reseach than in anyone else's).
of course, without actually surveying pertient experts on their opinions, it's impossible to know how close or far from consensus they are. i haven't been able to find any such survey (probably because researchers are usually more interested in their own reseach than in anyone else's).
A few thoughts on what history shows:
1. Minorities can control Majorites and even make themselves appear to be the majority.
2. In science: just cause the majority of Scientist BELIEVE one thing doesnt mean the
the minority is wrong.
i don't think her article proves that there is a consensus, only that there aren't many scientists actively arguing against the view that global warming is being caused by humans. the concluding point, that perhaps researchers have "gone underground" for fear of job security, is a lot more valid. but that still means such researchers perceive themselves in the minority, and if they're that fearful they probably are in a the minority.
of course, without actually surveying pertient experts on their opinions, it's impossible to know how close or far from consensus they are. i haven't been able to find any such survey (probably because researchers are usually more interested in their own reseach than in anyone else's).
of course, without actually surveying pertient experts on their opinions, it's impossible to know how close or far from consensus they are. i haven't been able to find any such survey (probably because researchers are usually more interested in their own reseach than in anyone else's).
A few thoughts on what history shows:
1. Minorities can control Majorites and even make themselves appear to be the majority.
2. In science: just cause the majority of Scientist BELIEVE one thing doesnt mean the
the minority is wrong.
3. If Scientists can t even debate a subject it means that more is at work than science.
In fact, the majority has often been proven to be wrong, usually in cases when they insists that there is no debate and the matter is settled. As a matter of fact, it is in the nature of science that no matter is EVER settled, and there is always a debate. Anytime scientists say otherwise, it is a bad thing, whether they are right or wrong.
In fact, only a couple of decades ago, a young doctor was kicked out of the medical profession for insisting that stress does not cause ulcers--bacteria do. The other doctors told him he was a quack and that there was no debate over the issue--they already knew what the answer is. The man is hailed as a pioneer today and his research is universally accepted. Few like him are lucky enough to be vindicated while still alive, though.
But in the case of global warming, there is a debate, and scientists do disagree.
In fact, only a couple of decades ago, a young doctor was kicked out of the medical profession for insisting that stress does not cause ulcers--bacteria do. The other doctors told him he was a quack and that there was no debate over the issue--they already knew what the answer is. The man is hailed as a pioneer today and his research is universally accepted. Few like him are lucky enough to be vindicated while still alive, though.
But in the case of global warming, there is a debate, and scientists do disagree.
We are helping it along with CO2 emissions. Cars aren't the biggest polluters (I think), its the factories
a single volcano in a single day puts more CO2 than all of mankind in one year or at least in a month vs the year. so tell me how much are we affecting the CO2 lvls
Do you mean an inactive volcano just sitting there, or a volcano that just blew its top?
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting and posting on the forums.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!