Parihaka

If this is confession time I've personally killed 15 trees in the last 2 years.

__________________
In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

sappersgt

Yes, but did you hunt them down in the forest, hack them out of the ground while they were still alive, put them in water so they'd die reeeeally slow, then see how long they could hold up steel balls while under the harsh glare of flashing lights all the while singing religious songs to keep them awake? Haaaahaaahaaa! Ooops, sorry I got all carried away thinking about Christmas trees.

__________________
Reddite igitur quae sunt Caesaris Caesari et quae sunt Dei Deo
(Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's and unto God the things which are God's)

mostlymad

that is ignorant and foolish, but Gore doesn't say that, and very few (I haven't read an account by one) say that it is all man-made. They say climate change occurs in cycles, naturally, but that this time, human actions are speeding up the process.

__________________
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over
and expecting a different result.
Albert Einstein.

mostlymad

I only glanced at your list, but this one immediately caught my eye and sure made me laugh:

Why Politicized Science is Dangerous
By Michael Crichton
(Excerpted from State of Fear)

have you read that piece of dung? If I wanted to be taken seriously, I wouldn't link anything I was trying to say to an extremely poorly written piece of fiction that holds together so badly it threatens to disintegrate the very glue that binds it. Normally I like Crichton, but this was...well, I think you figured out I hated it.

entropy

Gentlemen.
The entire debate about global warming (not here, on WAB people somehow manage to keep decency) reminds me of the debate on creationism. Instead of listening to each others arguments, people started to yell at each other, hoping that the noise one produces will block out the arguments of the other side, and so on. No rational overview was made whatsoever, people just sought holes in each other's argumentation and started yelling about it. The dogmatic ones were worse (as usually) but the secular ones weren't that better. Was I the only one that realized that evolution and the bible were perfectly compatible?

Same thing on this one. People keep yelling at each other, not even reading the arguments presented. Some of them do it to not lose their money to environment taxation, some out of ignorance and compassion, some to win elections, and some just to fit in.

IMHO, it's naive to say that there is no climate change. Here in Western Europe, we had heatwaves in the middle of the winter, raising the temperature so high that birds started nesting and flowers started blossoming. And it wasn't really a winter, more of a prolonged fall.
I remember hearing about snow in the winter in Belgium. Not just 3 jours of snow, but real snow. It no longer happens. Something is happening?

It is also naive to call it a global WARMING. The climate is everything but a linear system. We can't even make exact weather forecasts, let stand fathom all the mechanisms that control the climate. It is extremely naive to think like the Gore types do: more CO2=warm, less CO2=cold.

But the climate is changing, that's for sure. We have strange cold summers, warm winters, heatwaves when they're not supposed to happen, abnormal day/night differences in Moscow, blizzards in Jordan etc. Something is happening, but whether it is purely man-made, is unknown.
Earth's climate changes constantly, and changes drastically. Ever thought why they call Greenland like that. Once upon a time it was green. Read the history of Greenland and Iceland to understand more.
Once upon a time, lions inhabited Europe.
It is quite possible that the emission of greenhouse gases does something. But yelling about death in 2100 is naive. Nature will balance it, as it balanced an even larger emission millions of years ago (when the first life started growing on Earth, something caused enormous amounts of CO2 to come in the atmosphere. Nature reacted by growing more trees, and now that CO2 is stored under the ground as coal).
Instead we shoud think about the consequences of ocean rise, and stop cutting down rain forests. That IS a problem.

__________________
If memory serves...

gunnut

I agree with just about everything you said.

We don't argue that the planet's climate is warming or cooling or whatever the global warming cultists are saying now.

We argue that humans are NOT the main cause of whatever is going on with the weather system, be it warming or cooling or even staying the same.

The global warming cult likes to blame humans, primarily the west, as the culprit. They really have no solutions either. They think by cutting down CO2 emissions we can slow the process or warming or cooling. They want to put this plan in motion when there is no solid evidence that the warming is caused by humans or CO2 or CO2 produced by humans. In other words, we don't know if the solution will work.

This is a very common psychosis suffered by the liberal left. They feel guilty because they have everything handed to them while the rest of the world lives in poverty. So they want to punish themselves, us, by forcing a bunch of regulations and taxes and fees to stunt the west's economic growth. There's nothing wrong with that except for the fact that the liberal left consumes far more resources than the average folks. I guess that also figures into their self guilt.

John Travolta and Al Gore are perfect examples. They are liberal leftists who would want you and I to pay for the crimes we have committed against the 3rd world. Except we aren't the ones with 5 private jets parked in the backyard or a mansion using $30000 of energy in the year 2006 alone.

I drive a small car and make barely enough money to pay for Al Gore's energy consumption at his mansion in Tennessee, after taxes. He has 4 residences, by the way. So why should I pay some carbon fee or some green tax when I do far less harm to the world than those who champion the global warming theory?

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

Parihaka

Mars also affected by climate change - study

Two questions: Does Al Gore maintain a residence on Mars?
And could it be linked to Spirit and Discovery, the two SUV's Nasa has been recklessly joyriding over its surface?

gunnut

No. But I heard Elvis was spotted there.

Yes. Being the fastest vehicles currently on Mars, their dust trails have definitely made an impact. If water can evaporate by itself on Mars, think what kind of havoc this additional human activity could wreak?

brokensickle

Two questions: Does Al Gore maintain a residence on Mars?
And could it be linked to Spirit and Discovery, the two SUV's Nasa has been recklessly joyriding over its surface?[/quote]

But you must understand the importance of Al Gore being able to drive that suv to observe the rest of us common folk at work creating CO2. Or flying that big jet around the world with his god-like gaze ever upon the Earth contemplating gases and melting glaciers, floods and drowning polar bears. Said with much sarcasm.


These global warming alarmist are pretty tricky judging by this article.

Since the facts came out that Mars is heating up similar to Earth and it is due to the same cause, INCREASED SOLAR RADIATION, the alarmist are attempting in this article to compel people to believe that the cause is the dust storms, not solar radiation. They really think we are, duh huh, dumb arses.

Well what if the ice is melting due to increased solar radiation, and the heat wave as heat waves do causes convection currents and high winds which cause.....you guessed it, DUST STORMS?!!! Their so insufferable it can make one laugh if it weren't so pathetic.

And did you notice the convenient mention that the martian atmosphere is composed mostly of carbon dioxide? Now where'd thet comb frum? Duh huh.

P.S. Pari can we get a dumb face added to smilies? It could come in handy.


Ivan

__________________
"Evil opposes freedom and uses those who pervert it as pawns to destroy it."

Parihaka

A dumb face might lead to unnecessary arguing/insulting. Personally, and I use it extremely rarely, I prefer this one.

brokensickle

That's a cyber 'tickle me elmo'. I shall employ it.

By the way. Did you read my response to the article? Did you get a similar impression as to the deceptive nuances contained in it?


Ivan

Parihaka

I was interested how they were able to point the finger at increased dust storms while avoiding why they may be occurring.
I remember Dalem mentioning the increasing temperature on Mars a year ago in a discussion about solar radiance, one of the reasons I decided to withhold any further support for the 'global warming/CO2 emissions' bandwagon.
That and a chat with a scientist who stayed with us when he returned from Antarctica after extracting more ice cores. He was going to withhold the results of the research he was undertaking 'for a few years' because his findings didn't suit the current 'hysteria' (his word).

P.S. I'm quite prepared to accept that the Mars' warming is caused by an increased frequency of dust storms, as this would be a natural consequence of increased solar radiance.

brokensickle

His data could be crucial to end 'Hysteria'.

Did you wonder what they figure causes the large amount of CO2 on Mars? Solar Radiation? Green Men in MUV's (Mars Utility Vehicles)? Olympus Mons passing gas? I duh know...


Ivan

Parihaka

His logic was it would
1) harm his research because it would be buried, whereas a few years from now it would recieve proper attention.
2) harm his medium term job prospects.
3) he wouldn't be upset if we used less fossil fuels.

Parihaka

The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame

By Michael Leidig and Roya Nikkhah
Last Updated: 11:15pm BST 17/07/2004

Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research.

A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes.

Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.
advertisement
Telegraph - Menswear/Shoes

"The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years."

Dr Solanki said that the brighter Sun and higher levels of "greenhouse gases", such as carbon dioxide, both contributed to the change in the Earth's temperature but it was impossible to say which had the greater impact.

Average global temperatures have increased by about 0.2 deg Celsius over the past 20 years and are widely believed to be responsible for new extremes in weather patterns. After pressure from environmentalists, politicians agreed the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, promising to limit greenhouse gas emissions between 2008 and 2012. Britain ratified the protocol in 2002 and said it would cut emissions by 12.5 per cent from 1990 levels.

Globally, 1997, 1998 and 2002 were the hottest years since worldwide weather records were first collated in 1860.

Most scientists agree that greenhouse gases from fossil fuels have contributed to the warming of the planet in the past few decades but have questioned whether a brighter Sun is also responsible for rising temperatures.

To determine the Sun's role in global warming, Dr Solanki's research team measured magnetic zones on the Sun's surface known as sunspots, which are believed to intensify the Sun's energy output.

The team studied sunspot data going back several hundred years. They found that a dearth of sunspots signalled a cold period - which could last up to 50 years - but that over the past century their numbers had increased as the Earth's climate grew steadily warmer. The scientists also compared data from ice samples collected during an expedition to Greenland in 1991. The most recent samples contained the lowest recorded levels of beryllium 10 for more than 1,000 years. Beryllium 10 is a particle created by cosmic rays that decreases in the Earth's atmosphere as the magnetic energy from the Sun increases. Scientists can currently trace beryllium 10 levels back 1,150 years.

Dr Solanki does not know what is causing the Sun to burn brighter now or how long this cycle would last.

He says that the increased solar brightness over the past 20 years has not been enough to cause the observed climate changes but believes that the impact of more intense sunshine on the ozone layer and on cloud cover could be affecting the climate more than the sunlight itself.

Dr Bill Burrows, a climatologist and a member of the Royal Meteorological Society, welcomed Dr Solanki's research. "While the established view remains that the sun cannot be responsible for all the climate changes we have seen in the past 50 years or so, this study is certainly significant," he said.

"It shows that there is enough happening on the solar front to merit further research. Perhaps we are devoting too many resources to correcting human effects on the climate without being sure that we are the major contributor."

Dr David Viner, the senior research scientist at the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit, said the research showed that the sun did have an effect on global warming.

He added, however, that the study also showed that over the past 20 years the number of sunspots had remained roughly constant, while the Earth's temperature had continued to increase.

This suggested that over the past 20 years, human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation had begun to dominate "the natural factors involved in climate change", he said.

Dr Gareth Jones, a climate researcher at the Met Office, said that Dr Solanki's findings were inconclusive because the study had not incorporated other potential climate change factors.

"The Sun's radiance may well have an impact on climate change but it needs to be looked at in conjunction with other factors such as greenhouse gases, sulphate aerosols and volcano activity," he said. The research adds weight to the views of David Bellamy, the conservationist. "Global warming - at least the modern nightmare version - is a myth," he said. "I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that the world's politicians and policy-makers are not.

"Instead, they have an unshakeable faith in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credos of the environmental movement: humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide - the principal so-called greenhouse gas - into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up. They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock."