Be very very worried about the real WMD - Global Warming

[Deegan]

The fact is this, what ever has been done, can certainly not be undone at this point, so it's not something I want to worry too much about. I could spend all my life worrying about the next disaster, or the end of us all, but I won't do that, and most humans will not do that either. This is why you will always get so much resistance to this problem, if there even is one, and why so many don't want to focus on the possibilities.:shock:

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

But it is OK to use fear and highlighting the worst case possible when it involves pushing for a preemptive war? (that ironically is based in the energy needs of the US, which contributes to global warming)

The neoconservatives have taken the concept of warning of the worst case and use it to push their agenda; so when I hear someone who supports their agenda (like you right?) say that global warming forecastors are fearmongering - well that is a level of hyprocracy that is shocking even neocon supporters.

I'm so ****ing sick of the wmd strawman there were 20 odd reasons given for the war in Iraq, don't get all of your news from Al Franken and Michael Moore please.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Seems to me the question of "What" has caused this is sorta pointless. Its happening, plain and simple, who gives a damn why. In my opinion, anyone who can deny the reality at this point, considering the overwhelming evidence accumulated over many decades, going back through the climate record of thisplanet.....needs to actually read a bit more.

"What," is the whole point, if man is causing it then the left claims that if we cripple the U.S. economy that man can stop it, but of course we wouldn't want to put there communist Chinese allies up to the same standards of the U.S., so while there economy grows stronger ours grows weaker, this is an agenda based ideology set to bring about the end of U.S. economic hegemony precisely what the left in this country wants. Why is it that you think the most vocal and violent eco-warriors are radical leftists?

 

[python416]

Note to all rational people:

Scientists have NOT quantified the relative addition of CO2 to global warming, therefore it is not known whether the draconian limits on industrial activity advocated by some would have any significant effect on global warming, but they would CERTAINLY put very many people out of work with all that that implies.

It is a FACT that the planet has experienced very wide swings in temperature in geologic history, long before there was any human contribution to CO2 content in the atmosphere.

So you think the US economy is so weak that it can't stand being moved towards lower emissions? Wow, that must be one patethic economy if it can't survive without trying to get close to a proporational consumption of resources and emissions. I guess there is no innovation leftover from the 20th century.

The increase in tempurature will become more obvious in the coming years. Even people like you will soon see that we have a problem. I have a feeling this hurricane season will open some more eyes.

The fact that people can not get their head around burning fuel in a closed environment will cause affect to that environment is laughable.

Here is an experiment that might shed some light on the situation:

Go to an indoor (golf) driving range, seal it up air tight, cover half of the surface with water, one one quarter with some greenery, and leave the rest turf. Now stock up on a lot of gasoline and drive your SUV around in circles on the turf for a few years straight and see what happens to you in your insolated biosphere.

Really, where do you think all of that carbon in the atmosphere goes? Out to space? Or do you think that the physical properties of carbon just change magically when it is done on a global scale?

 

[python416]

I'm so ****ing sick of the wmd strawman there were 20 odd reasons given for the war in Iraq, don't get all of your news from Al Franken and Michael Moore please.

You indicated that fear-mongering on global warming is bad (paraphrasing). I am saying fear-mongering for war is also bad. I don't care what you are sick of. It is the neocons that made fear-mongering a mainstream propaganda move, and they stole it from the environmentalist!

You should fear global warming more than Iraq, and even if you don't, then you should at least avoid saying that environmentalist are fear-mongering. But then again, only if you care about not being hypocritical - so maybe it is OK from your point of view.

Don't make assumptions about my sources of information - in that respect, you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

You indicated that fear-mongering on global warming is bad (paraphrasing). I am saying fear-mongering for war is also bad. I don't care what you are sick of. It is the neocons that made fear-mongering a mainstream propaganda move, and they stole it from the environmentalist!

You should fear global warming more than Iraq, and even if you don't, then you should at least avoid saying that environmentalist are fear-mongering. But then again, only if you care about not being hypocritical - so maybe it is OK from your point of view.

Don't make assumptions about my sources of information - in that respect, you have no idea what you are talking about.

It wasn't fear mongering there was a real threat called al-Qaeda to whom with Saddam Hussein was an ally which was well established by the 9-11 Commission report.

Your assessment that I should fear an imaginary threat that isn't even going to do jack even if it is real more than psychos who fly planes into buildings and the nations who support them?

 

[mpg]

Umm no. That's not exactly true. Humans are responsible for the exponential growth in CO2, which is a greenhouse gas. The scientific community is certain (cept for a few nutballs) that humans have an impact on global warming.

Please show us the evidence that says:
1.)what % of the total greenhouse gasses is CO2
2.)what % of the CO2 increase is caused by humans

 

[mpg]

When most of the people (probably almost all) on this message board aren't scientists, and scientists have determined that there is such a thing as global warming, which group of people will I accord more probative value to their opinions? LOL

What % of scientists believe that humans have a significant impact on global warming?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Please show us the evidence that says:
1.)what % of the total greenhouse gasses is CO2.
2.)what % of the CO2 increase is caused by humans

For that matter show us the % of the heat increased being caused by the CO2, and the % of the heat increase being created through ALL natural means.

The earth changes temperatures for alot of reasons you may have a situation in which 5% of global warmth is being created by global warming while 95% is being caused by a whole array of other sh!t that you can't control and you can't stop which changes the envioronment much more drastically than that of the CO2 increase is or will in the forseable future; appx. 2-300 years by which time the oil will have run out anyways.

Scientists should put more effort into asteroid prevention than climate change, humans can control their environment through high tech gizmos like tanktops, shorts, and air conditioning, climate change is what we're made to defeat we've survived ice ages I'm sure we can tolerate some tropical sun in fact crop growth will probably increase . . . yay us.

 

[Gill]

But it is OK to use fear and highlighting the worst case possible when it involves pushing for a preemptive war? (that ironically is based in the energy needs of the US, which contributes to global warming)

The neoconservatives have taken the concept of warning of the worst case and use it to push their agenda; so when I hear someone who supports their agenda (like you right?) say that global warming forecastors are fearmongering - well that is a level of hyprocracy that is shocking even neocon supporters.

t
You guys use any excuse to bring up the war don't you??

 

[python416]

It wasn't fear mongering there was a real threat called al-Qaeda to whom with Saddam Hussein was an ally which was well established by the 9-11 Commission report.

Your assessment that I should fear an imaginary threat that isn't even going to do jack even if it is real more than psychos who fly planes into buildings and the nations who support them?

Those guys on 911 were Saddam's allys? I think you are confusing Iraq with Saudi Arabia, or maybe Pakistan. It is best to get the facts straight in these complicated matters.

BTW, the 911 commission was a joke, but even still it did not connect Saddam to 911:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

or if the WP is to lefty, how about MSNBC:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/

 

[python416]

t
You guys use any excuse to bring up the war don't you??

The point is that calling (paraphrasing) global warming concerned people alarmists is kinda hypocritical for neocon supporters, when the neocon message of doom style propaganda was ripped of environmentalist. That is not off topic, it is a point on the topic of global warming.

I think hypocracy is always relevent; but that is just me.

PS) The war is realted to energy resources, and global warming is about consuming energy resources. They are related you know.

 

[mpg]

To those of you who are soooo sure that humans are causing global warming:
Did you trade in your car for a bicycle?

Secondly, even if it is true, there's a very good reason for the skepticism. Liberals have been making this claim for a long time, long before there was much of any evidence. Don't you know the story about the boy who cried wolf? If you're frustrated about conservatives being skeptical, blame yourselves (liberals).

 

[mpg]

The point is that calling (paraphrasing) global warming concerned people alarmists is kinda hypocritical for neocon supporters, when the neocon message of doom style propaganda was ripped of environmentalist. That is not off topic, it is a point on the topic of global warming.

I think hypocracy is always relevent; but that is just me.

PS) The war is realted to energy resources, and global warming is about consuming energy resources. They are related you know.

It's waaay off topic.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Those guys on 911 were Saddam's allys? I think you are confusing Iraq with Saudi Arabia, or maybe Pakistan. It is best to get the facts straight in these complicated matters.

BTW, the 911 commission was a joke, but even still it did not connect Saddam to 911:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

or if the WP is to lefty, how about MSNBC:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/

I know it didn't directly connect him to 9-11 no one ever said it did but it did connect him to Al-Qaeda he had a terrorist training camp in Salmon Pak, it is well established just because he didn't have his fingerprints directly on the 9-11 cell doesn't mean that Saddam was not allied with Al-Qaeda because they have many cells in many different countries.

Furthermore; the Saudi Government is officially at war with Al-Qaeda, due to the fact that Al-Qaeda's main goal and the reason why it was created is to overthrow the House of Saud.

Pakistan is, also, now officially at war with Al-Qaeda because another of Al-Qaeda's goals is to overthrow the current government of Pakistan, because he President Pervez Musharraf formed an alliance with the United States just like the Saudi's.

Saddam Hussein instead of declaring war on Al-Qaeda like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia made an alliance with them . . . do you see the diffence at all here?

You really have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

For that matter show us the % of the heat increased being caused by the CO2, and the % of the heat increase being created through ALL natural means.

The earth changes temperatures for alot of reasons you may have a situation in which 5% of global warmth is being created by global warming while 95% is being caused by a whole array of other sh!t that you can't control and you can't stop which changes the envioronment much more drastically than that of the CO2 increase is or will in the forseable future; appx. 2-300 years by which time the oil will have run out anyways.

Scientists should put more effort into asteroid prevention than climate change, humans can control their environment through high tech gizmos like tanktops, shorts, and air conditioning, climate change is what we're made to defeat we've survived ice ages I'm sure we can tolerate some tropical sun in fact crop growth will probably increase . . . yay us.

 

[aquapub]

Jfuh, do you ever stop plagiarizing high school and college dropouts? This time it's Bill Maher.

Try thinking for yourself. :roll:

 

[Kelzie]

For that matter show us the % of the heat increased being caused by the CO2, and the % of the heat increase being created through ALL natural means.

The earth changes temperatures for alot of reasons you may have a situation in which 5% of global warmth is being created by global warming while 95% is being caused by a whole array of other sh!t that you can't control and you can't stop which changes the envioronment much more drastically than that of the CO2 increase is or will in the forseable future; appx. 2-300 years by which time the oil will have run out anyways.

Scientists should put more effort into asteroid prevention than climate change, humans can control their environment through high tech gizmos like tanktops, shorts, and air conditioning, climate change is what we're made to defeat we've survived ice ages I'm sure we can tolerate some tropical sun in fact crop growth will probably increase . . . yay us.

You're actually correct. 95% of global warming is cause by water vapor; something humans have very little control over. However, the feedback loop nature of the atmosphere means that a slight shift in the remaining 5% can lead to large changes in weather down the line.

And crop growth might increase in some places. And be impossible in others. For instance, in all likelihood the melting icecaps will shift the NADW current. Last time this happened, Europe's average temperatures dropped 41-50 degrees. It would be rather difficult to grow food in that temperature.

 

[python416]

It's waaay off topic.

Then don't reply to it! Or feel free to file a complaint. I think it is on topic.

 

[python416]

I know it didn't directly connect him to 9-11 no one ever said it did but it did connect him to Al-Qaeda he had a terrorist training camp in Salmon Pak, it is well established just because he didn't have his fingerprints directly on the 9-11 cell doesn't mean that Saddam was not allied with Al-Qaeda because they have many cells in many different countries.

You said the 911 commis said there was a connection, and there was not (as said by the 911 commission). But nice back tracking.

Furthermore; the Saudi Government is officially at war with Al-Qaeda, due to the fact that Al-Qaeda's main goal and the reason why it was created is to overthrow the House of Saud.

Yes. That is even a good part of the Al-Qaeda beef with the US - it props up corrupt dictators in the name of freedom.

Pakistan is, also, now officially at war with Al-Qaeda because another of Al-Qaeda's goals is to overthrow the current government of Pakistan, because he President Pervez Musharraf formed an alliance with the United States just like the Saudi's.

Yes, that is right - but doesn't have much to do with your Iraq point earlier.

Saddam Hussein instead of declaring war on Al-Qaeda like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia made an alliance with them . . . do you see the diffence at all here?

You really have no idea what you're talking about.

He did not create an alliance with them, as stated in the cited articles in DIRECT CONFLICT with your previous claims. Are you saying that because Saddam didn't declare war on Al-Qaeda, they are allys? Pakistan and Saudi declared war on the base because they are trying to preserve dictatorships.

The difference between Saddam and the House of Saud is although they are both brutal dictatorships, but the US sells F-15s to Saud and therefore has to be good guys.

Yes, I don't know what I am talking about. You have made it clear that I need to study much more to attain your level of clarity.

Tonight I am going to have some friends tie me down, put toothpicks in my eyes and mainline caffine while forcing me to listen to fox news until I can see things as good as you.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

And be impossible in others. For instance, in all likelihood the melting icecaps will shift the NADW current. Last time this happened, Europe's average temperatures dropped 41-50 degrees. It would be rather difficult to grow food in that temperature.

Come on now man that's today after tomorrow bullshit. How far have the ice caps receded since the begining of the industrial revolution?

 

[Kelzie]

Come on now man that's today after tomorrow bullshit. How far have the ice caps receded since the begining of the industrial revolution?

Actually it's not. It's happened a number of times even in human terms. It's pretty interesting stuff to study. Europe's great advances came when the NADW is closer and hardships/regressions when it was further away.

Here's some info on glaciers. Sorry it's from greenpeace, I couldn't find anything else. It's hard numbers, so it should be okay.

Region
Observations

Circum-Arctic
Glaciers have generally lost mass over the last 30 years. In East and West Greenland glaciers are retreating rapidly while in North Greenland the situation is unclear. Svalbard glaciers are losing mass


Central Asia

From the 1950s to the 1980s, 73% of glaciers were retreating, 15% were advancing and 12% were stable.

Tropical mountains
The retreat of glaciers has been documented in the Ecuadorian Andes, New Guinea, East Africa (Mount Kenya's glacier has receded markedly since the late 1800s and since the 1960s its mass has decreased by 40%), Venezuela and Peru.

New Zealand
Most glaciers have retreated during the 20th century. The Tasman Glacier has thinned by more than 100m. Since 1983, the recession of western glaciers has reversed and these glaciers are growing (e.g. the Franz Josef glacier).

Southern and central South America
The Upsala glacier has retreating about 60m per year over the last 60 years and this rate appears to be accelerating. In the last 40 years, the area of the South Patagonian Ice Field has diminished by about 500km2. The Soler and Tyndall Glaciers also appear to have lost mass, while the Pio XI glacier in Patagonia is larger now than at any time in the last 6,000 years.

Europe
For the Alps as a whole, the glacial area since about 1850 has been reduced by 30-40 percent, with about a 50 percent reduction in ice volume. However, this has been counterbalanced by the recent growth of some larger glaciers in the Alps such as the Grosse Aletsch in Switzerland and many Scandinavian glaciers, resulting in a small net increase in glacial ice over the last 30 years.

Antarctica and sub-Antarctic Islands
The alpine glaciers of the Dry Valleys in Antarctic have fluctuated with no apparent trends. Numerous glaciers along the Antarctic Peninsula are in retreat. Glaciers in many sub-Antarctic islands are also in retreat, for example, some small glaciers in Heard Island have decreased by up to 65%

.


http://archive.greenpeace.org/climate/arctic99/html/content/factsheets/oldreports/glaciers2.html

 

[jimmyjack]

The issue of global warming is no longer a myth. The science in support of it is overwhelming, though there are still minor debates about human contribution, it is undeniable that carbon dioxide contributes to global warming and the main exhaust of fossil fuel useage is carbon dioxide.

According to James Hansen, the world's leading expert on climatology, him and other American scientists are being censored by the Bush administration for their stance on the global warming issue.

The chief-of-staff of the Council on Environmental Quality at the white house edited out major portions of the Climate change reports that are then sent to congress. Who is the chief-of-staff of the Council on Environmental Quality at the white house? Phil Cooney, he's not a scientist, he's a lawyer. He was a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, before going into the White House to work under the Bush administration.
So it seems clear that Phil Cooney has simply changed desks but still works for the same boss, being the petroleum industry.

Global warming would cause massive increases in large tropical storms at a frequency of which no nation would ever be able to handle. Also drought caused by global warming would also cause massive dieing of vegetation that initself would feed back into contributing further increases of the global warming effect.

Right now, the world is at a tipping point. Once we pass this tipping point there would be no going back. However there is still time now to plateu the effects of global warming and hopefully reverse the trend. Immediate action must be taken to significantly decrease the pumping of green house gases in particular carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This can be accomplished only by simultaneously going in both directions of renewable fuels and conservation of energy.

I know there are those of you who think that this is crying the sky is falling rhetoric of the liberal left, however I strongly suggest you wake up and look at the overwhelming science. Global warming is very real, and it's not something that far off in the future. It's happening now.

Source 1: Global Warming: Be Worried. Be Very Worried
Source 2: Rewriting the Science

Source 1 is merely a picture of summer and winter comparisons.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

You said the 911 commis said there was a connection, and there was not (as said by the 911 commission). But nice back tracking.

No the 9-11 Commission stated very clearly that there was a connection between Al-Qaeda and Iraq just not between Iraq and 9-11 two different things A and B skippy. I can tell that by posting articles instead of passages from the actual 9-11 Commisssion report that you have not read the report have you? I've got my own copy and I found a searchable one on the net so bring it skippy. I also no about Salmon Pak, do you know what that is? No you don't because you get your news and information from Al-Franken and Michael Moore.

Yes. That is even a good part of the Al-Qaeda beef with the US - it props up corrupt dictators in the name of freedom.

LMFAO what do you think Al-Qaeda wants to create? They want an even more radical Islamic dictatorship if you think they want freedom then you're nuts. They want a pan-Islamic empire based on the tennants of Sayyid Qutb, the Islamic Brotherhood, and Jahiliyya. Do you know who that is? No I didn't think that you did.

He did not create an alliance with them, as stated in the cited articles in DIRECT CONFLICT with your previous claims. Are you saying that because Saddam didn't declare war on Al-Qaeda, they are allys? Pakistan and Saudi declared war on the base because they are trying to preserve dictatorships.

No because he fermented an alliance with Al-Qaeda which is well documented.

The difference between Saddam and the House of Saud is although they are both brutal dictatorships, but the US sells F-15s to Saud and therefore has to be good guys.

No the difference is that Saddam is an ally of Al-Qaeda while Saudi Arabia is Al-Qaeda's sworn enemy, does the line: "if you're not with us you're against us," not get through to you? How about: "if you harbor terrorists you will be considered a terrorist." Saddam Hussein was actively training thousands of Islamic Radicals at Salmon-Pak.

Yes, I don't know what I am talking about. You have made it clear that I need to study much more to attain your level of clarity.

Yes I suggest you start by studying Islam and the region it would save us all alot of time. I suggest the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict for starters, also, the history of modern Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, and work your way into the House of Saud and Wahhabism and then you will just begin to have an inkling of what I know about the region.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Actually it's not. It's happened a number of times even in human terms. It's pretty interesting stuff to study. Europe's great advances came when the NADW is closer and hardships/regressions when it was further away.

Here's some info on glaciers. Sorry it's from greenpeace, I couldn't find anything else. It's hard numbers, so it should be okay.

.


http://archive.greenpeace.org/climate/arctic99/html/content/factsheets/oldreports/glaciers2.html

By your own words is why I call it bullshit, I know it's happened before loooonnnng before the industrial revolution, like I said we can't stop it no matter what we do so why do some people want to cripple the U.S. economy for something that may or may not happen which we can't prevent even if it does happen?

Well I'll tell you why, because leftists have an agenda to destroy U.S. economic hegemony while bolstering the economies of third world leftist nations like China. It is not a coincedence that the most vocal proponents of the global warming scare tactics are fringe left kooks.

Why do you think that China (the second largest consumer of fossil fuels soon to surpass the U.S.) is exempt from the regulatory stipulations of the Kyoto accord?

Moderate mainstream scientists do not run around saying that the sky is falling, but the leftists misinterpret and misrepresent their scientific studies for a political agenda. Every scientist who I've heard actually speak about global warming has stated quite clearly that it is not a doomsday scenario that we're looking at here.