"Weather Channel" foundercalls glogal warming hoax

[CJFusco]

Originally Posted by Scooter

How many of you realize that the vast majority of CO2 emissions is not from cars burning gas, but from coal burning for electricity? Cars do contribute quite a bit, but if we just cleaned up our electricity source, C02 levels would be way down. Too much focus is on cars in my opinion. Below is a study done in 1999 that you may find interesting. The coal numbers are worse today than they were in 1999.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2_report/co2report.html#electric

I did know that coal burning was a huge problem, but didn't realize that it overshadowed vehicle emissions. Kind of makes me feel a bit less hypocrite for driving a Porsche that gets about 20mpg.

Yes, obviously there are Dems who exploit the public's fear about climate change in order to gain office, but this is what politicians do. The same thing has been happening on the other side of the equation with the War on Terror; just because Guliani (sp?) is using it as his main talking point doesn't mean it's not a threat, and just because Al Gore or whoever uses global warming as their platform doesn't mean that global warming isn't a problem.

Distrust of politicians and a belief in their agendas don't have to be mutually exclusive. Just because I tend to disagree with neoconservatives doesn't mean that I immediately assume they are lying about Islamic fundamentalists. Likewise, I don't think those on the Right should assume global warming isn't a problem just because they don't like the liberals.

[lendaddy]

All human activity contributes less than 1.5% of the CO2 released annually. Other factors are fluctuating in their production such that we make no impact.

[beepbeep]

[BGCarrera32]

I find it amusing that average mean temperature has only been accurately recorded and charted for about 110-120 years and the same people that claim the earth is 10 billion years old or some assinine number all of the sudden have their undies in a bundle because we're up 1 1/2 degrees...

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by lendaddy

I've never met anyone that claimed climate change is not occurring. The only argument is over the man made component and perhaps some manipulated data showing abnormal spikes in indicators.

+ a zillion.
If the climate is warming up (and what data I have seen says it is likely but not a proven fact) we cannot say that man has anything to do with it at all.
I suggest that we can't make that link. To do so is poor science.
It is a theory, an idea that can't be proven just as if I say that the sun will never go down because it's been getting brighter all morning.

You suggest that anyone who says it's a hoax has an interest in fossil fuel, I suggest the opposite. Scientists have a vested interest in perpetrating the hoax.
There has already been an incredble increase in the amount of grants and funding for these 'experts". they have created an entirely new industry. They stand to get rich off of global warming.

Those that go along with the hoax but do not stand to profit from it are influenced by peer pressure. Why would any scientist go against the grain and risk being called a crack pot? Wouldn't it be safer to go along with the mob right or wrong than to stand up against it and take the slings and arrows from those who stand to lose funding if you are right?
How about the uniformed alarmist sheep who for whatever reason need to live a soap opera existance. they live for this crap. Their lives are too boring so they run around saying the sky is falling just to make it and themselves more interesting.
How about politicians who try to get elected based on this voodoo science, or decide to make a fortune from a movie and talk show circuit?
How about companies who stand to get rich by selling "green" products. it's all over the place now and will continue to grow. Priced a fluorescent light bulb lately?
The price for the ones at my local home depot that replace standard incadescent bulbs has more than doubled in less than a year.
These companies are already lobbying politicians to mandate their products. Lots O'money will be generated, and lots O'people will be there to capitalize on it. They are and will be reluctant to let the truth come out.

[Superman]

Climate change is an interesting controversy, but also convenient. It has become easy to tell thinking people apart from idiots. The folks who claim to have the answers fall into one of those categories, and the folks who are waiting for more information before reaching their conclusions.....fall into the other category. Apparently, Beck is in the same group that we knew Mule was in.

[Dan in Pasadena]

Originally Posted by CJFusco

............Distrust of politicians and a belief in their agendas don't have to be mutually exclusive. Just because I tend to disagree with neoconservatives doesn't mean that I immediately assume they are lying about Islamic fundamentalists. Likewise, I don't think those on the Right should assume global warming isn't a problem just because they don't like the liberals.

....Hey! HEY!!! Reasoned discourse and an erudite (sic?) statement without name calling is NOT tolerated here! Cheap-shot it up a bit will 'ya?

[Superman]

Originally Posted by lendaddy

All human activity contributes less than 1.5% of the CO2 released annually. Other factors are fluctuating in their production such that we make no impact.

Perhaps CO2 is not a problem but climate change is. Perhaps chorofluorocarbons and other pollutants, not CO2, have depleted the ozone layer and caused the Sun's rays to be hotter at the planet surface.

Dismissing CO2 is not the same as dismissing the possibility that humans have impacted climate change.

[lendaddy]

Originally Posted by beepbeep

This is full of flaws, like the assumption that we could stop it even if we were a contributor. He assumes results of actions are effective. In reality "Column A" still has world wide catastrophes in it though he removed it and in similar fashion box "A Yes" should still contain global economic depression though again he removed it..

[beepbeep]

Originally Posted by lendaddy

This is full of flaws, like the assumption that we could stop it even if we were a contributor. He assumes results of actions are effective. In reality "Column A" still has world wide catastrophes in it though he removed it and in similar fashion box "A Yes" should still contain global economic depression though again he removed it..

I don't get it?

Do you mean that global warming is unstoppable regardless what we do and that trying to do something about it will cause global economic repression?

Also, it would be interesting to know how you see on future development. Do you believe we should carry on like nothing is happening? Should we keep on with fossile fuels and, in such case, for how long?

[lendaddy]

Originally Posted by beepbeep

I don't get it?

Do you mean that global warming is unstoppable regardless what we do and that trying to do something about it will cause global economic repression?

It is very likely that the earth will continue in it's climate cycles regardless of our actions, yes.

Regarding your second point it was the "host" that stated global economic depression is a possibility of acting without need...I simply stated that the same economic catastrophes are a possibility of action with need as well(though he removed it).

[beepbeep]

Originally Posted by lendaddy

It is very likely that the earth will continue in it's climate cycles regardless of our actions, yes.

I don't agree on this part. The data I was able to "review" indicates that latest changes are a bit too speedy and seem to happend in sync with raise of our fossile fuel consumption. But that's my opinion.

Originally Posted by lendaddy

Regarding your second point it was the "host" that stated global economic depression is a possibility of acting without need...I simply stated that the same economic catastrophes are a possibility of action with need as well(though he removed it).

Well, I would rather choose economic depression alone than a econ depression + row of other unpleasentaries which follow a significant change of climate.
But if I understand you correctly, it all boils down to the fact that you don't believe we can actively do something about climate change and that our consumption patterns actually don't really matter?

[stevepaa]

beep beep, that is precisely the view of those critical of the "global warming issue", it is a natural event and we can't do anything to prevent it. Unfortunately, that is as far as they go. They do not proceed to then say, yes maybe we have natural catastrophes ahead and we need to plan now for them. That is way too long term thinking for them. It would mean sacrificing now for the future. This is something they will not do.

In the end it's all about "me versus everyone else" thinking. You can see it in the discussions on social security, welfare, the size of government, etc. Their plan is buy land that won't be affected and settle their families there. Like that will isolate them from the global problems. They are just like one of the see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil monkeys.
In the end they believe natural selection will weed out the weak, and foolish and they will be among the survivors-those that are self reliant.

[lendaddy]

Originally Posted by stevepaa

beep beep, that is precisely the view of those critical of the "global warming issue", it is a natural event and we can't do anything to prevent it. Unfortunately, that is as far as they go. They do not proceed to then say, yes maybe we have natural catastrophes ahead and we need to plan now for them. That is way too long term thinking for them. It would mean sacrificing now for the future. This is something they will not do.

In the end it's all about "me versus everyone else" thinking. You can see it in the discussions on social security, welfare, the size of government, etc. Their plan is buy land that won't be affected and settle their families there. Like that will isolate them from the global problems. They are just like one of the see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil monkeys.
In the end they believe natural selection will weed out the weak, and foolish and they will be among the survivors-those that are self reliant.

Wrong, the planet has been cycling in climate ranges for millions and millions of years. It has self correcting mechanisms on scales we cannot fathom.

What if the idiot is the guy in the mirror?

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by lendaddy

Wrong, the planet has been cycling in climate ranges for millions and millions of years. It has self correcting mechanisms on scales we cannot fathom.

What if the idiot is the guy in the mirror?

The biggest self-correcting mechanism we have going for us are super volcanos and especially the one under Yellowstone. WHEN, not if, that one goes again, it will probably wipe out most of mankind from the ash cloud that envelopes the Earth and kills our crops. Even the smaller ones will cool the Earth a few degrees. This is a 100% guarantee. May happen tomorrow, may happen in 100k years, but it will happen. Oh, and those gamma ray bursts, completely unpredictable, if they hit the Earth will fry half the surface like an ant under a magnifying glass. Nothing we can do about it at all.

[Seric]

The motto shouldn't be "Save the Planet", it should be "Save the Humans".

Cockroaches will someday be flying spaceships and abducting some other intelligent lifeform from some Earth-like planet in a far off galaxy. Nothing we can about it, cept become friends with the Cockroaches and adopt their skill for resilliance.

Now give me my Nobel Peace Prize.

[stevepaa]

so there it is beep, beep. We have a natural disaster coming and there is absolutely nothing we can do. So the global warming issue is an insiginificant issue, nothing to worry about because the other volcanic event will surely kill us all. So don't prepare for anything as surely the preparations you do will have no effect.

[beepbeep]

Originally Posted by stevepaa

beep beep, that is precisely the view of those critical of the "global warming issue", it is a natural event and we can't do anything to prevent it. Unfortunately, that is as far as they go. They do not proceed to then say, yes maybe we have natural catastrophes ahead and we need to plan now for them. That is way too long term thinking for them. It would mean sacrificing now for the future. This is something they will not do.

In the end it's all about "me versus everyone else" thinking. You can see it in the discussions on social security, welfare, the size of government, etc. Their plan is buy land that won't be affected and settle their families there. Like that will isolate them from the global problems. They are just like one of the see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil monkeys.
In the end they believe natural selection will weed out the weak, and foolish and they will be among the survivors-those that are self reliant.

Well it won't affect me either. At least not in direct sense. Our Swedish winters might get less chilly and summers will get warmer.
Main problem is how it will affect me indirectly. If food production gets busted, food prices will spike. Also, global economic downturn would affect my private economy as well, albeit in less obvious way.

But as I said before, it all boils down to your belief: you either believe it's "just nature acting" and that whatever we do cannot change it or you don't. There are guys that don't believe and are paid to research this kind of stuff. And me being a ex. natural-sciences guy, leans toward believing them. Their data holds and I'm convinced we actually caused it, if not all then a big chunk of it. We maybe cannot do much but I feel it's worth a try.

We'll be forced to do it one day anyway, so why not start sooner. Fossile fuel supplys are dwindling and getting more expensive. Yes, you can convert tar fields to crude oil and bore more holes in the ocean but it's getting ever more expensive ...

I would like to see some of that money being diverted into fussion reactor research. Also, railway infrastructure is a good thing Air France almost dropped their Paris-Brusell lines once TGV brough the trip times on-par.

[onlycafe]

if the vegetarians would do their part and start to eat steak and burgers, there would be a lot less cows farting , the ozone layer would be less holey= less global warming.
then we could stop the lightning strikes that cause forest fires. ok? anything else?
now that global warming has been solved, let's get back to the business at hand.

[Seric]

Originally Posted by beepbeep

I would like to see some of that money being diverted into fussion reactor research. Also, railway infrastructure is a good thing Air France almost dropped their Paris-Brusell lines once TGV brough the trip times on-par.

"Mr. Fusion"

We all saw one on the back of a De Lorean back in the 80s. Get Doc Brown on this situation!