JBG wrote:aCe' wrote:JBG wrote:Er, there's irrefutable evidence that there is global warming, the vast majority of the scientific community agree that there will be a 2 degree mean temperature increase globally by the end of this century, the "only" debate is whether the increase will be greater than two degrees and whether or not it can be combatted.
Sorry man but what you’re saying is just BS to me...
The whole debate isn’t about whether temperatures are actually increasing or not... doesn’t take a scientist to figure out they are...
The debate is mainly about human activity leading to alarming increases in temperatures.... which is basically where the argument falls to pieces..
THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OR EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that suggests that human activity (co2 or the other gases- emissions) are causing the increases in temperature... in the contrary... some of the hottest years in the planets history came long before CO2 emissions were even significant...
Furthermore, the increases in temperature over the last decade or so haven’t been anywhere near as drastic as some seem to suggest... in fact if you look at the history of changes in the planet’s temperature you'll see that its merely a continuation of the trend.... if anything... going by that... we'll soon be noticing DECREASES in temperature and eventually have an ice age sometime soon because that’s the way things go...
You seem like an old fella.. Surely you were around some 20 or 30 years ago when all the talk was about global cooling ? guess what.. they were using the same arguments they are now... and guess what.. most of the people talking about global warming today were talking about global cooling not so long ago...
what’s the difference?... the potential of making more money ... politics ... rent seeking.... the rich get richer and the fools think they’re saving the planet
Er, you're not particulaly well informed here, are you?
There have been numerous "hot" and "cold" phases in the earth's past. Hot and cold phases in the past have been terminable for the majority of large mammal spieces: the science behind that is overwhelming and accepted for at least 50 years. Previous hot and cold periods in the earth's history have been caused by catasrophic global events such as enormous and multiple volcano eruptions emitting trillions of tons of dust and sulphur into the atmosphere and asteroid impacts.
A two degree mean increase this century is a 2 degree average across the planet, which means someplaces will get hotter than others. Even a two degree increase would place an extraordinary burden on ecosystems, agriculture and water supplies across the world and many areas, such as Australia, China, India, Pakistan and the Middle East which are at breaking point already, simply won't cope.
Two degrees increase is the UN's body on climate control's own forecast and this is based on the consensus of the majority of the world's climate ccontrol scientists. However, this figure has been lambasted by a large minority of distinguished global warming scientists - principle among them James Lovelock - who say that it is a gross underestimate and that we are now beyond the point of no return where we are paying for damage caused to the environment made in the 19th century and that it is now largely pointless trying to stop it as it is already happening.
I agree that we are "slaves" to the planet: in the long run the planet will survive but it will do so by changing to a warmer state which may last tens of thousands of years before reverting back to a cold period again: it has done so in the past and will do so again. Whether mankind will survive in its current form - 6 billion people on the planet - is whats really the issue of debate.
As for the ozone layer problems: it didn't go away. Conveniently for mankind the hole in the ozone made its way down to Antartica and is slowly shrinking due to a massive reduction in CFC use over the past 30 years.
As for acid rain, er, it hasn't gone away. Just ask people in India and China.
I agree wholeheartedly with your point on the nonsense of green politics, however. Recycling won't make any difference, nor will wind turbines and eco fuel, which is merely a short term way for some people to get rich. The real solution for the energy crisis this century will have to be nuclear fuel.
Sorry man but yet again... you seem to be missing the point!
I'm not arguing that the temperatures in the planet aren’t increasing... I’m not arguing that IF temperatures increase by X degrees we still wouldn’t be in serious
... all I’m saying is that the claim of manmade pollutants being responsible for the global warming nonsense is very hard to prove and indeed very easy to refute... empirical evidence suggests that there is NO correlation between increasing temperatures and increasing CO2 emissions... Basically, the same science that you are going to use to try to convince me that global warming is imminent, ill shamelessly use to prove to you that what you're saying is absolute nonsense... You go on about 2 degree increases in temperature... how did the scientists and environmentalists come up with that? Is it as widely agreed on as you seem to suggest ? the answer is simply no... Its guesswork using over simplistic models and simulations and if the history of climate change teaches us anything it has to be that such simulations and over simplistic models quite simply do not depict what happens in reality... The whole “catastrophic global events” thing doesn’t hold much water with me either... happened a few times and if anything disturbed the trend rather than set it... ill say it again nice and slow, the trend predicts increases in temperature (as we are seeing now), and it also predicts that if anything, the temperatures are going to start decreasing and if we are to be worried about anything we should be worried about getting another ice age not about the earth warming up a coupla degrees.. THIS IS WHAT JUDGE HAS BEEN GOING ON ABOUT I ASSUME...The ramifications of an ice age (sharp and sudden decreases in temperature) would far exceed anything being talked about now with regards of global warming...
Ill just go over the other things you mentioned... hopefully you’ll know a thing or two about what im saying here...
Acid rain ... ever heard of NAPAP... national acid precipitation assessment program ? anyways... ill sum it up for ya... 10year U.S government study to assess the impact of acid deposition and suggest strategies for control... 10 years and half a billion dollars later what did they come up with ? that the whole acid rain thing was simply BS... acid lakes were because of naturalistic effects and the effects of the actual acid deposition were minimal .. Politicians tried to shut Krug and the NAPAP people up to try and justify the massive spending with regards to acid rain in the clean air act... but still, it all faded away due to overwhelming evidence that led perceptions of acid rain down a different road...
Ill give you a couple more things to think about.. look up Stephen Schneider if you don’t know him... he’s one of the leaders when it comes to the whole global warming nonsense... Him and Ponte were talking about global cooling 30 years ago.. Ponte went on to say that :”the cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people in poor nations.. if it continues and no strong measures are taken to deal with it, the cooling will cause world famine, world chaos, and probably world war, and this could all come by the year 2000”.... sounds familiar ?
One more thing... forget about catastrophic events or manmade pollutants or the interglacial stuff... want real explanations that are hard to refute and argue against... look up “milankovitch cycles”on Wikipedia or somewhere....
)
by 72-1099179158 » Sun Oct 31, 2004 12:53 am