Global Warming: The New Religion

[Danielmellbin]

Erm... The ice is not the thickest is has ever been measured - it is back at levels slightly higher than feb. 2007. This is still very much below average.

"Global warming" is sometimes a misleading term. The effects of global climate change aren't just warming. Some places will grow colder - but in most cases temperatures will increase. Most importantly the weather on our planet will become more extreme in its fluctuations - the ice you mention being a prime example. Last summer the arctic ice melted away to the smallest it has ever been - however the winter has been so extremely cold that there has been a record "freezeover".

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by renrich

It has been reported that the Antarctic ice cap is the thickest that has ever been measured. Please explain that in the light of "global warming." Climate change is not an opinion, it is a fact, whether it is caused by the actions of man is an opinion.

Explain this then please
Recent studies have added to a growing body of evidence that key glaciers flowing from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet are thinning at rates not seen since the last ice age. For instance, for the past 4,700 years, the Pine Island Glacier has thinned at a rate of about 1-1/2 inches a year, according to a team of scientists from Britain and Germany. That rate is similar to those of other major glaciers in the region. But between 1992 and 1996, Pine Island Glacier thinned at an average rate of 63 inches a year.
And whether the fault of man or the natural cycle it behooves those that have the ability to change the course of society to act simply in the interest of mankind . The ones that have the power are you and I but since most of us won't act unless forced it falls under the domain of the governments .

[trackend]

Agreed PB well said

[FLYBOYJ]

PB well said, but at the same time let's also segregate those who call for outlandish means for combating this - I'm talking about the "Carbon-Credit @sshole" flying around in the Gulfstream...

[renrich]

PB, I looked online for the info about the Southern ice cap and it was said that it was growing thicker and that was evidence of global warming! Go figure. It is also said that the last decade global temperatures are cooling, not warming. Go figure again. I don't know which set of figures to believe or how to decipher all the info. There are many well placed "experts" on both sides of the issue. Looking at it from the long term point of view, global climate change has been occurring for ever or the geological record at least indicates that. CO2 is necessary for photosynthesis. My intuition along with some expert's arguments tells me that CO2 is not responsible for climate change. On top of that who am I or you to decide that one set of climate figures is "ideal" for all the world. During times past, if the "world" knew that the climate was warming, they would all have given thanks. The "experts" such as Al Gore and all the scientists who are on his side have a vested interest in "global warming is caused by humans" That is more than enough to make me disbelieve them. When I was in school, getting a degree in geology there was a "proven theory" about what caused the Cordilleran and Appalachain Geosynclines and we were taught it as a "fact,". 50 years later that theory is no longer valid. My position is that this Gore theory will all be BS in ten or twenty years.

[Danielmellbin]

Originally Posted by renrich

this Gore theory

Oh come on... Gore is a politician who made a "hollywood" documentary... The "theory" - which is viewed as fact by most of the world - was there more than 20 years before his film.

As for the southern icecap growing thicker and temperatures falling in some places - i can only say again "global warming" is a misleading term - Global climate change is much more "correct". For instance - the warming caused by CO2 is melting more ice causing the oceanflows to divert from their natural directions - this is among many other things weakening the gulfstream - this stream is the huge factor when it comes to the warmth along much of the European coastline. This change will make the temperatures colder in this region.

I dont see the relevance of the theory you mentioned that you had learned?... I mean you can just as well turn it around and say: It was already discovered that cigarettes caused cancer in the 1930's/40's... But nobody acted on that (thank god for that - chainsmoker here ) - cost millions of lives. And that doesn't have any relevance here either.

How does 90%+ of all scientists in the world have a vested interest in global warming? Lets face it - oil is where the real money interests are that could act "persuasively" on science...

CO2 and photosythensis - yea but i assume you know that there is a limit for how much CO2 a plant can consume - where does the excess ammount go?

[renrich]

I assume you are saying that 90% of all scientists support the notion that global climate change is caused in large part by humans. How do you know that? How do you know that the "warming" is caused by CO2? If CO2 is responsible for global climate change, what caused the previous global climate changes in pre history? Many scientists who support the theory of GCC are given research grants by various sources to study this "crisis." If there is no crisis, no research grants. The mindset of the left is that they alone are capable of making the proper decisions to relieve mankind of all problems. Their attitude is that the free enterprise system is too chaotic to be allowed to make these decisions and government(run by them) should step in and take over. Additionally much environmentalism is actually a euphemism for low or no growth.

[Danielmellbin]

Originally Posted by renrich

I assume you are saying that 90% of all scientists support the notion that global climate change is caused in large part by humans. How do you know that? How do you know that the "warming" is caused by CO2? If CO2 is responsible for global climate change, what caused the previous global climate changes in pre history? Many scientists who support the theory of GCC are given research grants by various sources to study this "crisis." If there is no crisis, no research grants. The mindset of the left is that they alone are capable of making the proper decisions to relieve mankind of all problems. Their attitude is that the free enterprise system is too chaotic to be allowed to make these decisions and government(run by them) should step in and take over. Additionally much environmentalism is actually a euphemism for low or no growth.

Tell you what - you find me any number of respected scientists saying that Global climate change is a hoax and I'll return with ten times that number.

As for the changes that have taken place in prehistory here is a short explanation: as you already mentioned the global climate has shifted and varied for billions of year. The oldest palaeoclimatic records have allowed us to reconstruct climate fairly reliably during the last 500 million years. Over this time, the global climate has moved from extensive periods of global warmth to periods of global cold several times, each lasting 100 million years or more. Although today we are concerned about global warming, we do in fact lie in the middle of global ice-house climate, which began 40 million years ago, when the first permanent ice sheets formed on Antarctica. The change from the much warmer global climate which existed during the age of the dinosaurs, when global average temperature was perhaps 10°C higher than at present, is thought to have been caused by changes in the distribution of landmasses and the associated changes to energy redistribution throughout the climate system.

Within the long-term global icehouse climate, much shorter-term fluctuations in global climate have occurred. Relatively cold periods known as Ice Ages or glacials, each lasting roughly 100,000 years, are interspersed with much shorter warmer episodes or interglacials, lasting only 10,000 years. We now have a relatively clear record of such climatic fluctuations over the last 2 million years. Currently, the global climate lies within an interglacial. Global average temperature 20,000 years ago towards the end of the last Ice Age was some 5°C lower than today, when the north polar ice sheets were expanded to cover a considerably greater area of the continental Northern Hemisphere than is the case today. These glacial-interglacial fluctuations are driven by changes in the position of the Earth in its orbit around the Sun, and enhanced by climatic feedback processes which involve changes in ocean circulation and the greenhouse gas composition of the atmosphere.

Gah - boooring - but hey you asked...

Originally Posted by renrich

The mindset of the left

Didn't know that the issue of trying to prevent GCC had become party politics in the US... thats really sad. As for the government/international control over corporations to kickstart the conversion away from oil and the likes - yes it is neccesary. Corporations exist to make money - government exists to see to it that they do so in a proper and safe way.

Oh - btw - whats wrong with the so called left believing their views are right and wanting to run the government - isn't that true (and the goal) of all political parties?

How do i know that global climate change is caused by C02? Well it's not only Co2 causing it - many other gasses that we emit do the same trick - its pretty simple chemistry.

Originally Posted by renrich

Additionally much environmentalism is actually a euphemism for low or no growth.

I bet the people on the easter isles thought that way Furthermore it isn't even true: Many of the most successfull economies have environmentalism as a top priority. Im witnessing one of them at the moment. Financial growth wont dissapear with the smog - quite the opposit as I see it. We will no longer be importing our energy and pouring money into the middleeast - this means more money going into our own societies towards the production of energy. (growth in a nutshell).

As for the scientists grants - if money alone was their goal there would be more money for them to make if they sold themselves to the energy sector

[Njaco]

As for the scientists grants - if money alone was their goal there would be more money for them to make if they sold themselves to the energy sector

Its not their only goal but you don't bite the hand that feeds you. The grant money that scientists get to fund their research is a very major part of their decisions IMHO.

Massachusetts to spend $1 billion on biotechnology: Scientific American
"Patrick's plan includes $250 million in tax incentives to encourage companies to expand, $250 million in grants for research, fellowships or workforce training, and $500 million for infrastructure, including a stem cell bank at the University of Massachusetts Medical School."

American Competitiveness Initiative
"The American Competitiveness Initiative commits $5.9 billion in FY 2007 to increase investments in research and development, strengthen education, and encourage entrepreneurship. Over 10 years, the Initiative commits $50 billion to increase funding for research and $86 billion for research and development tax incentives. Federal investment in research and development has proved critical to keeping America’s economy strong by generating knowledge and tools upon which new technologies are developed. My 2007 Budget requests $137 billion for Federal research and development, an increase of more than 50 percent over 2001 levels."

Sure looks like a hellava motive for me.

I don't think that any of that money is going to the James Randi Foundation for its research.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Danielmellbin

Oh come on... Gore is a politician

Nuff said - is there another messenger we could hear please?

[Danielmellbin]

Yup - theres money in research - however even if man caused GCC was some sort of "evil gready scientist" conspiracy - highly unlikely as the majority of scientists are known for their flair to find geaky truths nomatter how little it gets 'em laid - it wouldn't alter the fact that their research is neccesary for a whole bunch of other reasons. I mean - the pollution caused, price and shortage of the combustable energy sources we use today are cause enough alone to be rethinking how we power our lives and industry. So even without the threat of a man made catastrophic climate change the grants would keep comming. Perhaps at a reduced pace but not enough to make all but a small minority of scientists in the world conspire to say: "Lets lie to the world to make some more money". This is possible in small groups of scientists and in some obscure projects - but something on the scale of GCC cannot - IMO - be faked. Too much conspiracy theory for my mind to consider it seriously.

[javlin]

[quote=pbfoot;367082]Explain this then please
Recent studies have added to a growing body of evidence that key glaciers flowing from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet are thinning at rates not seen since the last ice age. For instance, for the past 4,700 years, the Pine Island Glacier has thinned at a rate of about 1-1/2 inches a year, according to a team of scientists from Britain and Germany. That rate is similar to those of other major glaciers in the region. But between 1992 and 1996, Pine Island Glacier thinned at an average rate of 63 inches a year.
Wow seems like alot of melting compared to other glaciers?could there be another reason maybe?Yea maybe....

Volcanic heat could still be melting ice to water and contributing to thinning and speeding up of the Pine Island glacier, which passes nearby, but Vaughan said he doubted that it could be affecting other glaciers in western Antarctica, which have also thinned in recent years. Most glaciologists, including Vaughan, say that warmer ocean water is the primary cause of thinning

Antarctic volcanoes identified as a possible culprit in glacier melting - International Herald Tribune

[renrich]

I see we have another left winger on the forum. Killing socialism-communism is an almost an impossible task even though it has been proven many times that it is a bad system. Oh well, ignorance is bliss. By the way, railing against the oil companies is like hitting oneself over the head.

[Danielmellbin]

Originally Posted by renrich

I see we have another left winger on the forum. Killing socialism-communism is an almost an impossible task even though it has been proven many times that it is a bad system. Oh well, ignorance is bliss. By the way, railing against the oil companies is like hitting oneself over the head.

Ok - I've played this game before

Now I say that socialism and Communism are two different things and that social liberal coutries are the most well functioning countries in the world. (Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Holland, Germany, Switzerland).

Then you bring up France and Italy as proof of this systems failure. (Dont see how this takes away the success of the others)

Then I explain the hopelessness of France's legislature and the inherrant corruption in Italy - both of which have nothing to do with socialism.

Then Iraq will somehow enter the discussion - I will point out what a blunder it was and is. You will then defend by god knows what reasons. Then you will bring up WW2 as if to say - we saved your behind - you owe us everything!

Then I try to point out that it was Germany that declared war on you and not the other way around - and that the Soviet Union made a larger sacrifice than we did in the west to defeat Germany. Furthermore if its about who owes who then you owe France for the war of independance... but really thats getting old - true friends/allies dont keep tabs.

Then we get back on track to politics and I say that the oil companies are not bad as such - but i dislike the fact that modern international politics are driven by that black gooey stuff - instead of consciousness and common sense.

Then you say that it isn't or that its not a bad thing - and we discuss some economics about taxation, corporatism and the so called elite - oh and added inbetween all this there will be alot of miscellaneous mudthrowing... The most interesting thing is that during this debate i would bet my arse that most of my arguments would never be countered - just hammered at as "leftist"...

Anyway - lets just save the trip and agree to disagree

[renrich]

You don't owe us anything. Go your way and we will go our's. Time will tell the story. I could not care less about your country or it's politics. Give us the same courtesy! It is too bad that international politics is ( and always has) to a great extent been driven by economic realities. Of course, it takes common sense to understand that, a quality in somewhat short supply.