Global Warming... On the move.

[DevilsWin]

Breaking News! Lakes are drying up and glaciers are disappearing.
Click Here.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19586686/

[Beef]

Watch out. Mars is also having the same problem. I hope the people there realize that they are the cause like we are and it has nothing to do with the sun being hotter. I guess we are ruining that planet too. :rolleyes: Get the picture, humans really don't have control over this. Sorry.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

[Old School]

LATE BREAKING QUESTION !!! How can a lake just fade away when the Ice dam broke and the water flowed into the sea?

[DevilsWin]

More on the impact of "Global Warming"!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19680311/

[DevilsWin]

Watch out. Mars is also having the same problem. I hope the people there realize that they are the cause like we are and it has nothing to do with the sun being hotter. I guess we are ruining that planet too. :rolleyes: Get the picture, humans really don't have control over this. Sorry.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
Humans may not have control over this but shouldn't we try to do what we can?
And No, I don't get the picture.

[Coach_Owens87]

I don't see why people from the Oil loving "Right" side are saying humans have nothing to do with this. Our Idiot of a president and his staff even acknowledge that humans are to blame for Global warming.

From what I read and understood in the article, the glacier was acting as a dam, when the water level rose it caused the dam to break and the water flowed into the sea. All the water is not gone, some water melted off from the ice is still in the bottom of the lake. These things do happen naturally, but not at this rate.

[Old School]

Here's a interseting test that everyone needs to take it's only 10 questions and has some interesting information.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html

[More Cowbell]

Here's a interseting test that everyone needs to take it's only 10 questions and has some interesting information.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html

That was an interesting test. I got 9 out of 10 right! That's an A-, woo hoo!

[PoolePalace]

Funny shirt

[DevilsWin]

Funny shirt
That would be funny if it weren't for the fact that Polar Bears are dying because of the "lack of Ice" in the Arctic.

[Old Timer]

I see Greepeace, climate.org , Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" have arrived.

Some scientists call it "junk science".

[DevilsWin]

I see Greepeace, climate.org , Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" have arrived.

Some scientists call it "junk science".
^^^Those scientists are bought and paid for by the polluters to support their agenda.

In fact I would like to see, in a condensed statement; the source of this "science" that "your side" presents, and follow that up with who funded the research.

IMO the burden of proof is on "your side" since 98% of all science has reached a consensus about these matters. Your side is the fringe on this subject.

[FOX SPORTS]

^^^Those scientists are bought and paid for by the polluters to support their agenda.

In fact I would like to see, in a condensed statement; the source of this "science" that "your side" presents, and follow that up with who funded the research.

IMO the burden of proof is on "your side" since 98% of all science has reached a consensus about these matters. Your side is the fringe on this subject.
This forum does not have enough space for even a "condensed" fair argument for both "sides".

IMO, there is no burden of proof due any "side"...no one is going to change anyone elses mind on a high school sports site...true scientists, academians, and researchers have been debating this for a decade.


ALSO, I'd love to see where you got the "98% of all science has reached a concensus" statement...please, quote a source.

[DevilsWin]

ALSO, I'd love to see where you got the "98% of all science has reached a concensus" statement...please, quote a source.

When 30 academies of science and scientific societies were polled, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries . Only one , the American Association of Petroleum Geologists rejected the predominant opinion that global warming not only exists but that it is also due in part to human activity.

[FOX SPORTS]

When 30 academies of science and scientific societies were polled, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries . Only one , the American Association of Petroleum Geologists rejected the predominant opinion that global warming not only exists but that it is also due in part to human activity.
30,hand selected, Academies does not represent 98% of ALL science as you suggested in your previous post.

BTW...got a link to credit your source where you got that study???

[DevilsWin]

30,hand selected, Academies does not represent 98% of ALL science as you suggested in your previous post.

BTW...got a link to credit your source where you got that study???
It's all in Wikipedia.

[thecavemaster]

See Jack drive. See Jack drive his car. See Jack
hate anyone who makes him think his car might contribute
to an effect that threatens the planet. See Jack think
a group of people are trying to take his freedom. See
Jack define freedom as being able to do whatever he wants
and screw everybody else. See Jack think he is strong.
See Jack think he needs only himself. *******...

[FOX SPORTS]

It's all in Wikipedia.
lol
So.
Wikipedia is not a reliable source, by any means as you or I can submit information to an Wikipedia article.
Try using Wikipedia as a reliable source anywhere and see how hard folks laugh.

Like I said, got a link backing up your statement that 98% of ALL science study from your previous post or would you like to credit a reliable accepted source.???

[DevilsWin]

lol
So.
Wikipedia is not a reliable source, by any means as you or I can submit information to an Wikipedia article.
Try using Wikipedia as a reliable source anywhere and see how hard folks laugh.

Like I said, got a link backing up your statement that 98% of ALL science study from your previous post or would you like to credit a reliable accepted source.???
Wikipedia isn't where I get my information. I have over years developed an opinion on these matters, I read the newspaper. I studied hard and learned things in college. Environmental publications such as National Geographic, Nature etc. I just did a google on the science for and against and Wikipedia was the first offering and it had the information I already knew to be true. I don't have the time nor care to convice you because it's pointless to argue with someone who confuses Science with Opinion.

[DevilsWin]

lol
So.
Wikipedia is not a reliable source, by any means as you or I can submit information to an Wikipedia article.
Try using Wikipedia as a reliable source anywhere and see how hard folks laugh.

Like I said, got a link backing up your statement that 98% of ALL science study from your previous post or would you like to credit a reliable accepted source.???
I'll admit I came up with the 98% just the same was Rush comes up with his statistics. LOL If it supports my arguement, it must be true. I appologize for misrepresenting the facts.

[Coach_Owens87]

Don't worry devils win, most people on here wouldn't understand the science to prove our point anyways.

I too googled the topic and wikipedia was the first link, but for people who discredit wikipedia because it is an open source page, you just simply have to check the bottom of the page, all info that is used has a link provided.

I could type for hours and prove my point just from info obtained in college, but thats not good enough for people, so I have a link for all those who doubt that statistics that almost all sceintist are in agreement on global warming.

Here is a small sampling from that page.

"Using their strongest language to date, the world's leading climate scientists are reporting today that they are basically certain that burning gasoline, coal and other fossil fuels has unnaturally heated the atmosphere -- and the effects are likely to last for centuries.

Their conclusions: Evidence of climate warming is unequivocal.

As report co-author Philip Mote, the Washington state climatologist, said in translating his fellow scientists' language about responsibility: "We did it."

"Scientists are pretty well done arguing about whether the warming in the last 50 years is related to burning fossil fuels," Mote said.

Researchers said they are more than 90 percent certain that global warming is caused by humans -- their most powerful assertion to date. And that conclusion was even stronger until last-minute maneuvering by China, whose exploding energy use stands to exacerbate the problem."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/302204_warming02.html

[FOX SPORTS]

I'll admit I came up with the 98% just the same was Rush comes up with his statistics. LOL If it supports my arguement, it must be true. I appologize for misrepresenting the facts.
lol
I don't listen to Rush.
No problem, you stated Wikipedia...I was just stating that Wikipedia cannot be used as a reliable source.

I think folks on both sides will fight this one until the next Ice Age or until the Sun burns us all into oblivian...most all of us have long formed opinions coming from teachings and research from various sources...and I agree with Coach Owens also,Many people with very strong feelings one way or the other do not understand the science either way.

[thecavemaster]

Isn't it a rather self-glorifying assumption that
most people wouldn't understand the science? On
a day like today, heat index 100+, leave car in sun
with windows up...heat gets "in" but cannot get "out."
Temperature in car exceeds temperature outside by 15 to
20 degrees (at least). Windshield and windows "trap"
the heat, much as greenhouse gases buffer the earth's
atmosphere, trapping the "heat," warming the planet.
Only flaw in analogy: windshield and windows also serve
as "atmosphere" allowing sunlight (heat) to come "in."

[FOX SPORTS]

Isn't it a rather self-glorifying assumption that
most people wouldn't understand the science? On
a day like today, heat index 100+, leave car in sun
with windows up...heat gets "in" but cannot get "out."
Temperature in car exceeds temperature outside by 15 to
20 degrees (at least). Windshield and windows "trap"
the heat, much as greenhouse gases buffer the earth's
atmosphere, trapping the "heat," warming the planet.
Only flaw in analogy: windshield and windows also serve
as "atmosphere" allowing sunlight (heat) to come "in."
Cave master,
You seem to have a great knowledge of the "global warming" theory.
What percentage of the earth's buffering atmosphere are greenhouse gases, etc???
I guess my question is what does the atmosphere consist of and what percentage of each?

[thecavemaster]

I do not know the percentages, have not researched in depth the
exact causal connections; however, I have no outside agenda
and can read the science in Scientific American. What benefit
do researchers gain by finding that tar build up in the lungs
causes cancer? Similarly, what benefit accrues to researchers
who find disturbing trends in climate change?

[More Cowbell]

I think what FoxSports was trying to say is that people on both sides of this argument, as with many other hot-button topics, can find statistics to support their cause. I just wish people on both sides would quit acting like those on the other side are stupid because they don't agree with their point of view.

[thecavemaster]

I think what FoxSports was trying to say is that people on both sides of this argument, as with many other hot-button topics, can find statistics to support their cause. I just wish people on both sides would quit acting like those on the other side are stupid because they don't agree with their point of view.

I agree...I do think that when CNN and Fox news do the
"X" is for but "Y" is against kind of "debates" that
it misrepresents the level and degree of agreement
among leading researchers of climate change, making
it appear that the issue if "up for grabs" and full
of a multitude of disparate views as to the subject.

[More Cowbell]

I agree...I do think that when CNN and Fox news do the
"X" is for but "Y" is against kind of "debates" that
it misrepresents the level and degree of agreement
among leading researchers of climate change, making
it appear that the issue if "up for grabs" and full
of a multitude of disparate views as to the subject.

Huh? What does X and Y mean? I don't really watch either of these channels for my news.

[thecavemaster]

The "X' and "Y" are two researchers on the subject: one
believes one thing; one believes another: what comes
across is that the issue has an equal amount of
supporters and detracters in the scientific community,
which is not the case.

[More Cowbell]

OK, I see what you were saying in the other post now. I had thought you were using them to represent political analysts on some show, who were always arguing.

[Old School]

Global climate cycles of warming and cooling have been a natural phenomena for hundreds of thousands of years, and it is unlikely that these that these cycles will stop in the near future.

As Jane Francis a British Scientist said "What we should do is be more aware of the the fact that the climate is changing and we should be ready to adapt to the change.

The case for a "greenhouse problem" is made by environmentalist, news anchors and special interest groups who make inaccurate and misleading statements about global warming and climate change. Even though people may be skeptical of such rhetoric initially, after awhile people start believing it must be true because we hear it so often.

Here's a few quotes:
Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public....and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are."
Petr Cnycel (Proffessor of Physics and Atmospheric Science Halifax, Nova Scotia)

"We have to offer up scary scenarios make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." Stephen Schneider (Leading Advocate of the Global Warming Theory) (in a interview for DiscoverMAgazine, Oct. 1989)

Here is a interesting site concerning Global Warming with references.
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html#anchor2150539

[thecavemaster]

Global climate cycles of warming and cooling have been a natural phenomena for hundreds of thousands of years, and it is unlikely that these that these cycles will stop in the near future.

As Jane Francis a British Scientist said "What we should do is be more aware of the the fact that the climate is changing and we should be ready to adapt to the change.

The case for a "greenhouse problem" is made by environmentalist, news anchors and special interest groups who make inaccurate and misleading statements about global warming and climate change. Even though people may be skeptical of such rhetoric initially, after awhile people start believing it must be true because we hear it so often.

Here's a few quotes:
Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public....and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are."
Petr Cnycel (Proffessor of Physics and Atmospheric Science Halifax, Nova Scotia)

"We have to offer up scary scenarios make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." Stephen Schneider (Leading Advocate of the Global Warming Theory) (in a interview for DiscoverMAgazine, Oct. 1989)

Here is a interesting site concerning Global Warming with references.
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html#anchor2150539

For quite some time, researchers and cognitive dissonants
alike said that linking smoking to cancer was nothing more
than scare tactics, scary scenarios, etc. I don't know
a lot about scenarios, but I know this: crowded bars trap
smoke...I've got to believe that millions of cars spewing
smoke into the atmosphere is not some benign, "of no real
effect" matter...the industrial revolution has not been
kind to the environment...ever fished in an acidified lake?
Nope...ain't no life there...believe as you will (and that's
what we do)...but common sense tells us this fossil fuel
party does NOT come without a cost...

[FOX SPORTS]

For quite some time, researchers and cognitive dissonants
alike said that linking smoking to cancer was nothing more
than scare tactics, scary scenarios, etc. I don't know
a lot about scenarios, but I know this: crowded bars trap
smoke...I've got to believe that millions of cars spewing
smoke into the atmosphere is not some benign, "of no real
effect" matter...the industrial revolution has not been
kind to the environment...ever fished in an acidified lake?
Nope...ain't no life there...believe as you will (and that's
what we do)...but common sense tells us this fossil fuel
party does NOT come without a cost...
I read somewhere that the "fossil fuel party" causes less damage and CO2 production than naturally occurring volcanic activity.

[thecavemaster]

I read somewhere that the "fossil fuel party" causes less damage and CO2 production than naturally occurring volcanic activity.

Yes, yes volcanic activity...that's the cause of acidified lakes
killing all life, that's what causes slurry ponds that
spill into streams, that's what causes clear cutting the rain
forests, that's the reason there's a hole in the ozone
layer...it's a vast conspiracy cooked up by enviromental
wackos and feminazis to keep Rush Limbaugh from using immigrants
to clean his house and buy his pills, a vast network of lies
to keep people from buying the Ford ExpoMonster and the Hummer... yes, yes volcanic activity...ah, all our worries
are solved...those **** volcanoes...

[FOX SPORTS]

...it's a vast conspiracy cooked up by enviromental
wackos and feminazis to keep Rush Limbaugh from using immigrants
to clean his house and buy his pills,...
Why does everyone( on the left) bring up Rush Limbaugh whenever they want to make a statement???
I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh and he certainly does not speak for me.

BTW...What does cause the majority of "acidified lakes"??? annd "slurry" ponds or in other words, waste water resevoirs??

Cavemaster, love the sarcasm.
You seem to be very good at it when someone asks a question or tries to have a mature discussion.

[thecavemaster]

Why does everyone( on the left) bring up Rush Limbaugh whenever they want to make a statement???
I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh and he certainly does not speak for me.

BTW...What does cause the majority of "acidified lakes"??? annd "slurry" ponds or in other words, waste water resevoirs??

Cavemaster, love the sarcasm.
You seem to be very good at it when someone asks a question or tries to have a mature discussion.

Of course, no one admits to loving money or being a ditto
head... I do not think acidified lakes are caused
by waste water resevoirs ("acid rain")...also, slurry ponds
are created by coal companies, which mine coal, which
is a fossil, which is burned to make fuel... Also,
in Oxford style debate, sarcasm is a valuable tool...and
often used by mature debaters. At any rate, we can
agree to disagree on the volcanic activity thing. Throw
me a lifeline when the glaciers melt...

[FOX SPORTS]

Of course, no one admits to loving money or being a ditto
head... I do not think acidified lakes are caused
by waste water resevoirs ("acid rain")...also, slurry ponds
are created by coal companies, which mine coal, which
is a fossil, which is burned to make fuel... Also,
in Oxford style debate, sarcasm is a valuable tool...and
often used by mature debaters. At any rate, we can
agree to disagree on the volcanic activity thing. Throw
me a lifeline when the glaciers melt...
There are acidified lakes all over the world which are NOT near coal mines.
How do those lakes become "acidified"?

Aren't "slurry" ponds also created as a by-product of many different types of manufacturing plants???

Throw you a lifeline when the glaciers melt??? lol

How about throw you a blanket in the winter or a candle in the dark when there are no coal companies to provide coal to burn to provide power generation for your electric company?


BTW, I read somewhere that volcanic activity(worldwide) emits more CO2 into the atmosphere than ALL of the worlds vehicle exhausts combined.

[thecavemaster]

There are acidified lakes all over the world which are NOT near coal mines.
How do those lakes become "acidified"?

Aren't "slurry" ponds also created as a by-product of many different types of manufacturing plants???

Throw you a lifeline when the glaciers melt??? lol

How about throw you a blanket in the winter or a candle in the dark when there are no coal companies to provide coal to burn to provide power generation for your electric company?


BTW, I read somewhere that volcanic activity(worldwide) emits more CO2 into the atmosphere than ALL of the worlds vehicle exhausts combined.

Acid rain has nothing to do with proximity to a coal mine.
With the advent of the industrial revolution came smoke
from burning stuff to make fuel. That smoke does not
simply disappear...it becomes part of the water cycle
and falls in acidified precipitation...smoke from the former
steel belt (now rust belt) caused lakes hundreds of miles
away in upper New York to become lifeless. I have
lived part of my life "off the grid," just as my ancestors
did less than two hundred years ago. It is only
cultural conditioning and thinking so that makes electricity
necessary to happiness...

[FOX SPORTS]

It is only
cultural conditioning and thinking so that makes electricity
necessary to happiness...
Electricity does not make make happiness, Electricity makes comfort and quality of life that I happen to enjoy.
I appreciate the hard working coal miners that have over the course of our nation's history that have provided coal need for electricity production and my families comfort.

[thecavemaster]

Electricity does not make make happiness, Electricity makes comfort and quality of life that I happen to enjoy.
I appreciate the hard working coal miners that have over the course of our nation's history that have provided coal need for electricity production and my families comfort.

Of course, you answer an argument that I did not make:
coal miners work very hard in dangerous conditions to
put food on the table for their families. I have no
desire to pass laws, lobby for legislation that threatens
your comfort. However, "comfort" and "quality of life"
come with price in the industrial age. Your strategy
seems to be to shop at Walmart and either deny that
working conditions in China and Thailand's sweat shops
are inhumane or to not care as long as you and yours
save money and find comfort. Here is the "screw the
rest of the world I got to watch out for me and mine"
mindset that renders this nation problematic in the
overall global scheme.

[Old School]

For quite some time, researchers and cognitive dissonants
alike said that linking smoking to cancer was nothing more
than scare tactics, scary scenarios, etc. I don't know
a lot about scenarios, but I know this: crowded bars trap
smoke...I've got to believe that millions of cars spewing
smoke into the atmosphere is not some benign, "of no real
effect" matter...the industrial revolution has not been
kind to the environment...ever fished in an acidified lake?
Nope...ain't no life there...believe as you will (and that's
what we do)...but common sense tells us this fossil fuel
party does NOT come without a cost...

Water Vapor which is responsible for 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect is 99.999% Natural. Even if we wanted to we there's nothing we can do to change this.

Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth's greenhouse effect, (factoring in water vapor). Adding up all the man-made greenhouse sources the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is around 0.28% (factoring in water vapor),

The Kyoto Protocol calls for mandatory carbon dioxide reductions of 30% from developed countries. Reducing man-made CO2 emissions this much would have a undetectable effect on our climate, while having a devasting effect on our economy. Can everyone reduce their driving by 30%? Can everyone reduce their winter heating by 30%? Prices on every day products would raise by about 40%. Even if we were to reduce the CO2 emissions by 30% it would only change the greenhouse contributions by 0.035%.

The CO2 in our atmosphere has been increasing steadily for the last 18,000 years...long before humans invented the automobile

[thecavemaster]

You are suggesting that the industrial revolution...introduction of pollutants
in thousands upon thousands of manufacturing facilities, and millions upon
millions of cars sending smoke into the air has little or no impact on the
environment? I'm not saying that global warming proponents don't do
some doomsday scenario projections that perhaps overstate, but it seems
to me that when lakes start dying, mercury levels start rising in fish, glaciers
start melting...and all these things, more or less, coincide...that there's
a lot of ostrich-like head-in-the-sand reaction.

[Old School]

You are suggesting that the industrial revolution...introduction of pollutants
in thousands upon thousands of manufacturing facilities, and millions upon
millions of cars sending smoke into the air has little or no impact on the
environment? I'm not saying that global warming proponents don't do
some doomsday scenario projections that perhaps overstate, but it seems
to me that when lakes start dying, mercury levels start rising in fish, glaciers
start melting...and all these things, more or less, coincide...that there's
a lot of ostrich-like head-in-the-sand reaction.

As I stated before warming and cooling cycles have been occurring for hundreds of thousands of years....long before the industrial era began. If global warming and the greenhouse effect was the fault of the industrial era, then how do you explain the warming and cooling cycles prior to the industrial era? The hottest period in human history is know as the Holocene Maximum, and the interesting fact is that this period occurred approximately 4,000 to 7,500 years ago...again long before humans invented industrial pollutions.

[thecavemaster]

As I stated before warming and cooling cycles have been occurring for hundreds of thousands of years....long before the industrial era began. If global warming and the greenhouse effect was the fault of the industrial era, then how do you explain the warming and cooling cycles prior to the industrial era? The hottest period in human history is know as the Holocene Maximum, and the interesting fact is that this period occurred approximately 4,000 to 7,500 years ago...again long before humans invented industrial pollutions.

Yes, there are cycles of temperature variation, but when
a concurrence of phenomenon take place, and the natural
cycle seems to be speeded up, amped up, then the thought is
to begin to research why... again, global climate change
is not the only piece of evidence that the rampant burning
of fossil fuels is taking its toll on the environment, nor
is it (GW) the only cause of concern. I take you last
statement to mean that you do find that "humans invented
industrial pollutions"?

[FOX SPORTS]

Of course, you answer an argument that I did not make:
coal miners work very hard in dangerous conditions to
put food on the table for their families. I have no
desire to pass laws, lobby for legislation that threatens
your comfort. However, "comfort" and "quality of life"
come with price in the industrial age. Your strategy
seems to be to shop at Walmart and either deny that
working conditions in China and Thailand's sweat shops
are inhumane or to not care as long as you and yours
save money and find comfort. Here is the "screw the
rest of the world I got to watch out for me and mine"
mindset that renders this nation problematic in the
overall global scheme.
No I didn't...I answered and Quoted your response.

Then, you bring shopping at WalMart and Chinese sweatshops into the discussion.:confused:
You have tried to change the topic or just lost focus...Please don't try to bring Chinese working conditions into a global warming argument, that's just silly

I believe this thread has served it's purpose...it has shown that we have good members on this site who have different perspectives on global warming and neither side is going to change the others minds.

Closed...