Global Warming Debunked!!! - Finally!

[Wisha Haddan H3]

Very interesting. I don't know if I would call it "debunked", but the paper sheds a lot of light on the process of global warming and really puts greenhouse emissions into perspective with other sources of climate change. Still, that's no reason to make cars less fuel efficient or more polluting overall. After all, if global warming occurs naturally, why add to the problem?

Besides, global warming is far from the only reason to make vehicles and factories more fuel efficient and less polluting. Poisons like carbon monoxide are still poisonous. The particulates in diesel and gas exhaust are known to cause or aggravate asthma and other respiratory diseases. There are good political arguments for fuel efficiency, like reducing dependence on foreign oil. Plus there are economic reasons like the high price of fuel, supply and demand fluctuations due to weather, terrorism and natural disasters.

etc, etc, etc

[PARAGON]

Originally Posted by Wisha Haddan H3

Very interesting. I don't know if I would call it "debunked", but the paper sheds a lot of light on the process of global warming and really puts greenhouse emissions into perspective with other sources of climate change. Still, that's no reason to make cars less fuel efficient or more polluting overall. After all, if global warming occurs naturally, why add to the problem?

Besides, global warming is far from the only reason to make vehicles and factories more fuel efficient and less polluting. Poisons like carbon monoxide are still poisonous. The particulates in diesel and gas exhaust are known to cause or aggravate asthma and other respiratory diseases. There are good political arguments for fuel efficiency, like reducing dependence on foreign oil. Plus there are economic reasons like the high price of fuel, supply and demand fluctuations due to weather, terrorism and natural disasters.

etc, etc, etc

About the only person that might care if you call it "anything" is Alec.

[HummBebe]

Originally Posted by Wisha Haddan H3

Very interesting. I don't know if I would call it "debunked", but the paper sheds a lot of light on the process of global warming and really puts greenhouse emissions into perspective with other sources of climate change. Still, that's no reason to make cars less fuel efficient or more polluting overall. After all, if global warming occurs naturally, why add to the problem?

Besides, global warming is far from the only reason to make vehicles and factories more fuel efficient and less polluting. Poisons like carbon monoxide are still poisonous. The particulates in diesel and gas exhaust are known to cause or aggravate asthma and other respiratory diseases. There are good political arguments for fuel efficiency, like reducing dependence on foreign oil. Plus there are economic reasons like the high price of fuel, supply and demand fluctuations due to weather, terrorism and natural disasters.

etc, etc, etc

Fuel efficiency and air pollution issues I agree are real. It would be socially irresponsible to deny it. However, Al Gores version of Global Warming is another way to create chaos in the world which is equally socially irresponsible.

It just pisses me off that so many people believe that sh1t.

Fuel efficiency - because there is a finite amount, we need alternatives.

Air Pollution - in metro areas where large cities lie in basins, ie L.A., Portland etc., is real.

BAD SCIENCE BRINGS THE SUCK

BUT FOR PEOPLE TO BELIEVE THAT OUR EMISSIONS ARE GOING TO CAUSE MORE HURRICANES MAKES ME ILL.

rant off.

[PARAGON]

Originally Posted by HummBebe

BUT FOR PEOPLE TO BELIEVE THAT OUR EMISSIONS ARE GOING TO CAUSE MORE HURRICANES MAKES ME ILL.

rant off.

It did this year, right?

[HummBebe]

Ex - fuggin - actly....

[PARAGON]

No, wait. Since gas prices were higher there was less travel so less emissions, therefore less Hurricanes.

[HummBebe]

Sh1t

[DDWH]

Unfortunately............The weenwangs will still contune to follow the almighty Mr.knowitall algore and his nutjobieness in their lemming like blindness!

[DennisAJC]

Sweet find Bebes. More ammo for us.

[Wisha Haddan H3]

Originally Posted by HummBebe

Fuel efficiency and air pollution issues I agree are real. It would be socially irresponsible to deny it. However, Al Gores version of Global Warming is another way to create chaos in the world which is equally socially irresponsible.

It just pisses me off that so many people believe that sh1t.

Fuel efficiency - because there is a finite amount, we need alternatives.

Air Pollution - in metro areas where large cities lie in basins, ie L.A., Portland etc., is real.

BAD SCIENCE BRINGS THE SUCK

BUT FOR PEOPLE TO BELIEVE THAT OUR EMISSIONS ARE GOING TO CAUSE MORE HURRICANES MAKES ME ILL.

rant off.

I hate bad source data. Thanks for posting the article.

[BlueHUMMERH2]

Originally Posted by Wisha Haddan H3

Very interesting. I don't know if I would call it "debunked", but the paper sheds a lot of light on the process of global warming and really puts greenhouse emissions into perspective with other sources of climate change. Still, that's no reason to make cars less fuel efficient or more polluting overall. After all, if global warming occurs naturally, why add to the problem?

Besides, global warming is far from the only reason to make vehicles and factories more fuel efficient and less polluting. Poisons like carbon monoxide are still poisonous. The particulates in diesel and gas exhaust are known to cause or aggravate asthma and other respiratory diseases. There are good political arguments for fuel efficiency, like reducing dependence on foreign oil. Plus there are economic reasons like the high price of fuel, supply and demand fluctuations due to weather, terrorism and natural disasters.

etc, etc, etc

I agree pollution is probably a much larger problem right now than worrying about our creation of greenhouse gasses. I've always been for cleaning up pollution, ecological preservation, etc... I am definately not sold on the whole "we're causing the warming" thingy. As a geo guy, I know there have been wild fluctuations in the past, and they're nothing new.

And, now that I'm reading some of the article (), yes, there are some logical folks in academia that don't believe the hype. Dr. William Grey in Colorado is also a good example.

[westhillsat]

Glacier National Park might soon need a new name.

The Montana park has 26 named glaciers today, down from 150 in 1850. Those that remain are typically mere remnants of their former frozen selves, a new gallery of before and after images reveals.

All arguments about global warming aside, now is a time of clear retreat by age-old ice packs in many locations around the world. Some retreat just a few inches or feet per year, but others are melting faster than a snow cone in Texas.


http://www.livescience.com/environme...cier_melt.html

[HummBebe]

It's important that we make sure the scientific "evidence" we are provided is good science.

Simple things I have found, pictures of Glaciers melting from one year to the next is not really evidence, being that the Earth fluctuates in temperature on cycles that span more than a single human lifetime.

Sometimes they will throw in a summer photo and compare it to a winter photo from years past. Not good as scientific evidence, but good for dramatic effect.

Photography has not been around long enough to prove anything.

Wasn't the Sahara Desert an Ocean at one time? They have found whole whale carcasses in the desert.

Smog has been around before autos. Forest and grass fires pollute too.

We truly have no idea what Mother Earth has in store for us. To blame humanity and industrialism as the cause is just plain crazy.

Maybe even arrogant.

[BlueHUMMERH2]

This is like an extention of my hurried previous comment:

The planet changes, plain and simple. It's a dynamic system. Humans have trouble seeing that. We're ego-centric for one, and our lifespans are too short to really comprehend the magnitude of things.

I think what is hardest to get around is that we are releasing CO2 that has been pent up for millions of years, stored out of the system. Now it's back in the system. The question is: does that mean anything? I'm not saying that we should assume that means we're affecting the climate. But that's the question that needs to (and hasn't been in my mind) definatively answered. I think the general opinion is, "It certainly seems like it would have some effect." But no one knows. This whole issue is being discussed A LOT in academia, but it's already been decided in the media.

Gaia is always a very interesting theory about the planet, and I've met some professors who actually believe this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_theory_%28science%29

[KenP]

Originally Posted by westhillsat

Glacier National Park might soon need a new name.

The Montana park has 26 named glaciers today, down from 150 in 1850. Those that remain are typically mere remnants of their former frozen selves, a new gallery of before and after images reveals.

The global climate has it's highs and lows. We're about to peak on the high side, if we haven't already.

[h2co-pilot]

It could probably get a lot hotter.

The hype caused by some on our effect of global warming is extreme. But there is no denying that all of our C02 emmissions must do something.

Climate CO2 is natural, but not to the extent that we have been emitting it. If the world cycles (which would only make logical sense), a glacier being one extreme and a volcano being the other. Volcanic activity produces mass amounts of CO2 by outgassing and the combustion of organic matter. I would think that volcanic activity would be the natural accelerant for a "global warming". So it could only be fair to say that we are contributing unnaturally to greenhouse gases and there effects by emmiting more carbon and the destruction of oxygen emmiting organisms.

But then the question arises, at least in my mind "Is it unnatural?" or "Are our emmisions already in the natural plan?" or "Mobile organisms produce CO2 by respiration. Is the world conditioned to make adjustments in temperature, via the carbon emmisions (Carbon being the sixth most abundant element in the known universe) as an instincual self preservation?


buckminsterfullerenes..........

[Mrs.ssippi]

Originally Posted by h2co-pilot

It could probably get a lot hotter.

The hype caused by some on our effect of global warming is extreme. But there is no denying that all of our C02 emmissions must do something.

Climate CO2 is natural, but not to the extent that we have been emitting it. If the world cycles (which would only make logical sense), a glacier being one extreme and a volcano being the other. Volcanic activity produces mass amounts of CO2 by outgassing and the combustion of organic matter. I would think that volcanic activity would be the natural accelerant for a "global warming". So it could only be fair to say that we are contributing unnaturally to greenhouse gases and there effects by emmiting more carbon and the destruction of oxygen emmiting organisms.

But then the question arises, at least in my mind "Is it unnatural?" or "was our emmisions already in the natural plan?" or "All organisms produce CO2 by respiration. Is the world conditioned to make adjustments in temperature, via the carbon emmisions (Carbon being the sixth most abundant element in the known universe) as an instincual self preservation?


buckminsterfullerenes..........

After visiting your house I know the reason for Global Warming.............Ken. Man, his emmisions are a bad deal!

[KenP]

Originally Posted by Mrs.ssippi

After visiting your house I know the reason for Global Warming.............Ken. Man, his emmisions are a bad deal!

HEY!!!! I told you not to follow me!!!!

[PARAGON]

Originally Posted by h2co-pilot

It could probably get a lot hotter.

The hype caused by some on our effect of global warming is extreme. But there is no denying that all of our C02 emmissions must do something.

Climate CO2 is natural, but not to the extent that we have been emitting it. If the world cycles (which would only make logical sense), a glacier being one extreme and a volcano being the other. Volcanic activity produces mass amounts of CO2 by outgassing and the combustion of organic matter. I would think that volcanic activity would be the natural accelerant for a "global warming". So it could only be fair to say that we are contributing unnaturally to greenhouse gases and there effects by emmiting more carbon and the destruction of oxygen emmiting organisms.

But then the question arises, at least in my mind "Is it unnatural?" or "Are our emmisions already in the natural plan?" or "Mobile organisms produce CO2 by respiration. Is the world conditioned to make adjustments in temperature, via the carbon emmisions (Carbon being the sixth most abundant element in the known universe) as an instincual self preservation?


buckminsterfullerenes..........

As in life, Moderation is the Key.

The earth is always seeking balance. Whether 20 Volcanos go up or 1, there is a tipping point at which the Earth begins to "clean" itself.

Obviously, becoming warmer as a whole, produces more surface area for plants to grow which are the natural scrubbers.

Arguments could be made that we, as humans, have slowed this recent warming trend, rather than contributed to it, because we have continually disrupted the natural removal of plant life through large uncontained wildfires.

[SnakeH2]

Originally Posted by PARAGON

Arguments could be made that we, as humans, have slowed this recent warming trend, rather than contributed to it, because we have continually disrupted the natural removal of plant life through large uncontained wildfires.

True...But humans have also been known to start some of these fires.