What happened to global warming?

[Drew Dowdell]

Congrats, it only took you guys 5 months to notice I re-enabled the filter.

[ocnblu]

Why you little mothaf@#ka!:AH-HA_wink:

Butt that still doesn't explain why Floyd can say it and I cannot.

Edited October 17, 2009 by ocnblu

[Croc]

The filter is pretty lame. Honestly, having the symbols makes it look like no one has the balls to actually say something. Television Without Pity (TWoP) actually has as one of its rules that if you are going to swear, do it proudly or you might get banned because the symbols are annoying.

Seriously, this is a message board, and no one under the age of 13 is legally allowed to post here. The language isn't new for anyone, and no matter how well-written, message board posts aren't of a "journalistic" quality that blogs and other formats are.

Hell, if we were trying to be "professional" we wouldn't have usernames, but use our real names. I think this site is becoming confused.

[Drew Dowdell]

Actually, I was just experimenting with it and left it running that's all. But here's a and for your trouble.

[Drew Dowdell]

Why you little mothaf@#ka! :AH-HA_wink:

Butt that still doesn't explain why Floyd can say it and I cannot.

Yeah, the settings are very rudimentary and inconsitent. I didn't even intend to leave it running.

[Camino LS6]

Quite the thread hijack.

On the original topic, here's my thought:

None of us has an F-ing clue what the truth is - including the scientists.

[Blake Noble]

$h!

damn

f@#k

ass

Cincinnati

hell

####

####=the c-bomb...well, the other c-bomb, since the big one is obviously not edited

Shit now wordfilters to peanutbutter.

[Croc]

Sorry, my apologies for my part of the hijack; I only look at the last couple replies before adding mine 90% of the time.

Edited October 18, 2009 by Croc

[Intrepidation]

I think we can all agree that whether you believe in climate change or not, what we do does have an impact on our surroundings, and at the very least we can do things about it, such as recycling, conserving, using energy efficient products and so on. On a larger scale we need to put an end to the hacking apart of the rain forests and finding ways to ring in the emissions of factories here and abroad, especially from countries like China.

[balthazar]

>>"I think we can all agree that whether you believe in climate change or not..."<<

Who disbelieves that the climate fluctuates over time ??

>>"...what we do does have an impact on our surroundings..."<<

If by 'surroundings' you mean general area geographically, then yes; of course.

>>"...and at the very least we can do things about it..."<<

This is just common sense. Be efficient, conserve, protect, nuture.

Just have to sift thru the BS mis-information out there.

[FloydHendershot]

^ And where's your proof of that ??

If it's accurate that >>"Carbon dioxide is less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present in the atmosphere"<< do you see cap & trade as a positive addressing of 'climate change', or a massive money grab?

I know which gets my vote.

If logical, critical thinking were even remotely involved, scientific proof would be demonstrated showing exactly (or even approximately) the contribution of industry & auto to the environment. Instead, we are asked to join what is functionally a New Religion: Climate, and We Must Believe Before It's Too Late.

There is this:

This global warming bunk is really amazing. In light of years of nothing

but assertions from Gore/Hansen and so much solid evidence in support

of your position, I often feel that I am somehow living in a pre-scientific

era dominated by the equivalent of flat-earth crusaders. Their ignorance

is as profound as their arrogance. - Rich Shanley

This is not 'evidence" by any means and hold the same level of healthy skepticism with this as I do other sources but in a search for expanding glaciers came upon this site.

http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm

Have not had the time to peel through the start page and imagine some of it borders on looney but given the argument we are presented I'm not sure where one would draw that line.

[Drew Dowdell]

>>"...what we do does have an impact on our surroundings..."<<

If by 'surroundings' you mean general area geographically, then yes; of course.

You know what pisses me off? Chicago! They pollute and I get to breath it! Pittsburgh sits at the western edge of the Allegheny Mountains. As winds come from the west, the pollutants that they carry build up behind the mountain range and hang in the air in Pittsburgh. It's actually so noticeable, if I drive 90 miles east, once I pass the first tunnel, my allergies start to clear up.

What we do locally can still have effects on a much larger scale.

Let's try some inductive reasoning.

1. We pump trillions of barrels of a trapped, carbon based liquid, known to be poisonous to plants and animals, to the surface of the earth.

2. We refine that liquid so it is actually even more poisonous.

3. We then put that liquid into a machine so that it combines with oxygen to form CO₂ and a variety of gaseous poisons.

4. We pump that CO₂ and those poisons into the atmosphere even though we know that CO₂ is a greenhouse gas. (that CO₂ is a greenhouse gas really isn't in dispute here)

5. Repeat for 100 years.

If this were anything other than oil/gasoline, wouldn't this sound incredibly stupid of us?

[Satty]

Has anyone else seen the Lion King? Things were running smoothly under Mufasa, then Mufasa died and Simba ran off, Scar took over and let the hyenas use up all the resources, to the point where there was no food or water for anyone.

What does this have to do with climate change? Its a metaphor because I love metaphors, with Scar representing the modern age and the hyenas gluttony representing mankind's burning of fossil fuels. The hyenas didn't do anything that wasn't already occurring, they just rapidly increased the scale at which it was done.

So yes, there was "natural" pollution for billions of years but I cannot see how man's addition to what was already going on hasn't had any effect.

[loki]

olds. just going to say this, i'm not disagreeing with you, but we find "animals" living around floor vents that were poisonous to plants and animals, untill we found those. "extremophiles" exist. one scientist even thinks that organisms could live and create oil and therefor oil is quite possibly "infinite"

until science/technology becomes unrestricted by political means, and manipulated for political gain, this discussion will only be a marry-go-round. whether we are going to cause a vast Armageddon and know it, or it was going to happen anyway but maybe just at a slower pace...F' it. hahah just kiddin

[FloydHendershot]

Has anyone else seen the Lion King? Things were running smoothly under Mufasa, then Mufasa died and Simba ran off, Scar took over and let the hyenas use up all the resources, to the point where there was no food or water for anyone.

What does this have to do with climate change? Its a metaphor because I love metaphors, with Scar representing the modern age and the hyenas gluttony representing mankind's burning of fossil fuels. The hyenas didn't do anything that wasn't already occurring, they just rapidly increased the scale at which it was done.

So yes, there was "natural" pollution for billions of years but I cannot see how man's addition to what was already going on hasn't had any effect.

As I do believe a need to be efficient and responsible--whatever that means exists I think it's too bad that it is those hunches along with pictures of cuddly looking Polar bears are what drive the cause. And of course let us not forget if that polar bear got the chance he would kill you and everyone you care about.

How about if Winston-Salem was allowed to advertise the 98 year old who smokes 3 packs a day for 58 years and says something quizzically like "these things are bad for you?

[balthazar]

>>"We pump trillions of barrels of a trapped, carbon based liquid, known to be poisonous to plants and animals, to the surface of the earth."<<

Yeah... but it's natural... and it's creation couldn't be more green !

>>"If this were anything other than oil/gasoline, wouldn't this sound incredibly stupid of us?"<<

Question remains; where is the scientific evidence documenting HOW MUCH this effects climate change ?? Will we ever see it ?

To echo your analogy :

> We spend $X-ga-zillion to locate, pump, refine, distribute and stockpile this liquid.... for 100 years....THEN we find out if it works in this thing called an 'internal combustion engine'.

Would not proof it works first be sensible before all that money / time was spent ?

There are those, very vocal, very influential, trying to create a monetary-generating system based on controlling a gas humans exhale, with zero proof it will accomplish anything.

I have no room for the new belief system called Our Cause of Perpetual Climate Doom.

Edited October 19, 2009 by balthazar

[Croc]

Balthazar, what are you saying? That you don't believe that pollution and ozone holes are bad? That they aren't really a problem?

Or are you saying that until someone definitively calculates to the last decimal place what exponent or multiplier our pollution has on the environment that you don't want to do anything about it?

Because I don't understand you at all if you don't believe pollution is bad and causes health problems, but I am really confused if your logic is "yes I know it's bad but I don't think anything should be done about it until we know with 100% certainty the exact amount of harm we are causing the planet."

Because I don't understand why it even matters what exact level of harm we are doing, if it's harm we should minimize it. But if you're disputing or are just "not convinced" that pollution is real and a problem, then we have even bigger issues to deal with here.

[loki]

Balthazar, what are you saying? That you don't believe that pollution and ozone holes are bad? That they aren't really a problem?

i think what you're calling pollution is maybe what Balth is thinking of CO2....

?

[SAmadei]

> We spend $X-ga-zillion to locate, pump, refine, distribute and stockpile this liquid.... for 100 years....THEN we find out if it works in this thing called an 'internal combustion engine'.

Actually, gasoline was a byproduct without a use for decades... considered waste, it was dumped into rivers for years before a use for it was found.

I'd rather we burn it as energy, then use it to poison rivers.

[PurdueGuy]

You know what pisses me off? Chicago! They pollute and I get to breath it! Pittsburgh sits at the western edge of the Allegheny Mountains. As winds come from the west, the pollutants that they carry build up behind the mountain range and hang in the air in Pittsburgh. It's actually so noticeable, if I drive 90 miles east, once I pass the first tunnel, my allergies start to clear up.

What we do locally can still have effects on a much larger scale.

Let's try some inductive reasoning.

1. We pump trillions of barrels of a trapped, carbon based liquid, known to be poisonous to plants and animals, to the surface of the earth.

2. We refine that liquid so it is actually even more poisonous.

3. We then put that liquid into a machine so that it combines with oxygen to form CO₂ and a variety of gaseous poisons.

4. We pump that CO₂ and those poisons into the atmosphere even though we know that CO₂ is a greenhouse gas. (that CO₂ is a greenhouse gas really isn't in dispute here)

5. Repeat for 100 years.

If this were anything other than oil/gasoline, wouldn't this sound incredibly stupid of us?

The problem with this is that it's very easy to construct a set of individually true statements like that, which linked together can be made to support ANY argument. What it does not address is how much or little importance the issue has, because we don't know to what measure we have an effect. WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE SYSTEM. Without understanding the system, we cannot make good decisions about cause, effect, or proper response. It's not that we should do nothing, but we need to focus on things that are economically viable, and will have measurable effect.

[balthazar]

Croc - >>"Balthazar, what are you saying? That you don't believe that pollution and ozone holes are bad? That they aren't really a problem? Or are you saying that until someone definitively calculates to the last decimal place what exponent or multiplier our pollution has on the environment that you don't want to do anything about it?"<<

Read my earlier posts. 'll save you the time, Mr 'I only read the last 3 posts in a thread' :

-- -- -- -- --

>>"...and at the very least we can do things about it..."<<

balthazar : This is just common sense. Be efficient, conserve, protect, nuture.

-- -- -- -- --

>>"Because I don't understand why it even matters what exact level of harm we are doing, if it's harm we should minimize it. But if you're disputing or are just "not convinced" that pollution is real and a problem, then we have even bigger issues to deal with here."<<

I'm all for it on an individual level. Like I said- it's common sense; anyone with any knows you don't pollute. I've NEVER throw anything out a car window that wasn't an apple core, ie; 100% biodegradable & natural... and that; only into the woods, not on a lawn or the road. My 4-person household puts out less than half the garbage that the cross-street neighbor does with 2 people. I recycle everything, including scrap metals. All my car fluids go to a sanctioned county recycling program. My electric usage is less yr over yr (tho it costs more), and I suppliment my nat gas furnace with air-tight wood power. My clothes fall to pieces on my back, my daily drivers last me as long as possible (14 on the last one). I abhor most electronics partially due to their burden on the power grid. I run no exterior house lighting, nor interior once everyone's to bed. For the most part, I'm right there.

My 'opposition' here is NOT on the individual level (and I DO think that's VERY important). My challenge is to the theory that man is effecting the earth's climate in a measurable way. Because that theory HAS NEVER BEEN MEASURED. You'd think with $36,000,000,000 spent on direct science WRT climate change so far, we'd have something demonstratable to show for it.

Where is it ? Where is the science.... ANY science ? Please; point me to empiracal proof of global warming effected by MAN.

Because there are MASSIVE government programs & restrictions & taxations being proposed and planned and back-doored, none of which has come with a simple 2-color fold-out brochure siting the scientific evidence collected to prove what happened... OR what's proposed has been tested & proven to work at 'fixing' it, either.

When the biggest 'remedy' of cap & trade is no more than a money shuffle, when those hammering how bad everything is, yet they'll "allow" some to pollute as long as they pay, you tend to squint up one eye toward the Gov. Sorry; call me an anarchist (not true), or just a libertarian... but I do not trust those in government, from whom the best they can offer is 'trust me: man is killing the planet'.

Edited October 19, 2009 by balthazar

[ocnblu]

*applause*

[SAmadei]

Very well put Balthy... I wish you were running for office, you'd have my vote in a heartbeat.

As far as "green littering", I am even more restrictive... the only thing I chuck out the car window is water and ice. I'm still annoyed at myself because in the mid-'90s I was a passenger and went to toss some ice out of a cup and the condensation caused the cup to slip out of my hands... and the driver refused to go back.

Of course, I do this with the car stopped... I'd hate to be charged with a deadly burrito.