BBC: What Happened to Global Warming?

[BVS]

Here's a small list of deniers. Some of them are open to the idea but they don't feel there's enough evidence and others just plain don't like most of the science.

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BTW you can't call U.N. "reviewers" climatologists either.

Small list indeed, and yes I'm aware it's not only climatologists but I would think you would still get my point.

Well since it's well known that people who support green ideas tend to vote for socialist parties I don't see what's so controversial.

It's these generalities that take away so much from your posts.

I see this as a problem why don't you?

And it's comments like this that make it even harder to take anything you write seriously.

I never said it wasn't a "problem" it's just not an argument against global warming. Should I use Rush's hypocricy as an argument against all conservatism? That would be stupid right?

 

[purpleoscar]

Small list indeed, and yes I'm aware it's not only climatologists but I would think you would still get my point.

I do get your point. The science in my side is hard to find but that doesn't mean it isn't there. So go look for it. The argument scientists can't agree on is the effect of water vapour (the largest greenhouse gas) on temperature. Is there positive or negative feedback?

This is the site the probably gets the most updates on that argument:

Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

This is because of the satellites he's using. But again we are not scientists so we have to judge the problem based on competing scientists views and having a skepticism on MANY past wrong predictions by scientists I've learned not to respond to their constant alarmism of "JUMP!" with "How high?"

It's these generalities that take away so much from your posts.

The political divide is clear to me. No not all in conservative parties are against the idea of man-made global warming but the generality is quite accurate in most instances. Even Al Gore is talking about "global governance". To me it's the usual suspects again and again.

Even if conservatives adopted the idea and supported fully cap and trade you would have to wonder how that would contradict conservative pro-economic growth stances they've taken in the past few decades. McCain wanted to support cap and trade but also "drill baby drill" and increase nuclear power plants to do the heavy lifting of reducing C02 emissions so the impact on growth would be minimal. Many conservatives would like to see a replacement for gas because energy independence would create more security for the west without having the cartel interfere in the economy because of our stances on middle eastern politics. Yet no other technology is close to nuclear and nuclear is pursued more in Europe than in N. America.

And it's comments like this that make it even harder to take anything you write seriously.

I never said it wasn't a "problem" it's just not an argument against global warming. Should I use Rush's hypocricy as an argument against all conservatism? That would be stupid right?

I think my post is very clear. If there is impending doom coming most humans react quickly. The reason humans don't react (including the "green" rich) is because they don't intend on living this lifestyle, but they want YOU to.

It is also an argument against drastic action towards man-made global warming because if it's less costly to adapt to warm weather than to destroy our standard of living then that is another option that we should be looking at instead of forcing ourselves on an energy diet we don't intend to keep (especially those who implement the plan).

 

[RedRocksU2]

i bought a big laser so i could blast holes in the ozone layer myself

(the laser runs on kittens and produces 500 tons of methane every second.)

een, is this true???

 

[The_Pac_Mule]

House #1
A 20 room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house, all heated by gas. In one month this residence consumes more energy than the average American household does in a year. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2400 per month. In natural gas alone, this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not situated in a Northern or Midwestern ’snow belt’ area. It’s in the South.



House #2
Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university.
This house incorporates every ‘green’ feature current home construction can provide. The house is 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on a high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat-pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground.

The water (usually 67 degrees F) heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas and it consumes one-quarter electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Surrounding flowers and shrubs native to the area enable the property to blend into the surrounding rural landscape.


HOUSE #1 is outside of Nashville , Tennessee ;
It is the abode of the ‘Environmentalist’ Al Gore.

HOUSE #2 is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas;
It is the residence of the Ex-President of the United States, George W.
Bush.

 

[BVS]

House #1
A 20 room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house, all heated by gas. In one month this residence consumes more energy than the average American household does in a year. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2400 per month. In natural gas alone, this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not situated in a Northern or Midwestern ’snow belt’ area. It’s in the South.



House #2
Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university.
This house incorporates every ‘green’ feature current home construction can provide. The house is 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on a high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat-pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground.

The water (usually 67 degrees F) heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas and it consumes one-quarter electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Surrounding flowers and shrubs native to the area enable the property to blend into the surrounding rural landscape.


HOUSE #1 is outside of Nashville , Tennessee ;
It is the abode of the ‘Environmentalist’ Al Gore.

HOUSE #2 is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas;
It is the residence of the Ex-President of the United States, George W.
Bush.

This is an email forward that isn't exactly factual.

First of all Gore runs a business out of his house so it's not just him and his wife, so technically it needs to be a mixed used category. Plus Gore has been remodeling this home for quite awhile to "green it up".

But valid attempt.

That being said, I give props to Bush for such a cool house.

 

[The_Pac_Mule]

Plus Gore has been remodeling this home for quite awhile to "green it up".

Was this before or after the email chain? But at any rate, for him.

 

[BVS]

Was this before or after the email chain? But at any rate, for him.

It started before I believe.

 

[cydewaze]

It started before I believe.

It had to. Bush is referred to as "Ex-President" in it.

 

[the iron horse]

In my simple country boy view, we should all relax.

No worries

The earth is a wonderful place and it is not failing us.

 

[BVS]

The earth is a wonderful place and it is not failing us.

But we're failing her...

 

[Irvine511]

In my simple country boy view, we should all relax.

No worries

The earth is a wonderful place and it is not failing us.

the earth will be fine.

we'll all be dead.

 

[HyperU2]

It started before I believe.

Of course you would.

 

[BVS]

Of course you would.

Drunk again?

Actually we had a thread about it, back when it was circulating the first time so I was recalling the timeline from that, but nice try.

 

[coolian2]

Drunk again?

and posting from his phone while driving home from the bar

 

[BVS]

 

[HyperU2]

And firing my gun out the window.

 

[The_Pac_Mule]

 

[the iron horse]

the earth will be fine.

we'll all be dead.

Yes, but there is hope

 

[deep]

Maybe when we are having spring break at the North Pole with house boats, jet skis and film crews from Girls Gone Wild it will finally sink into Ardi's thick skull

Shipping Could be Using Arctic Route Regularly in Ten Years

15 October 2009

ARCTIC – Following on from our previous stories concerning Beluga Shipping’s navigation of the North-East passage comes news that a recently conducted polar expedition to study ice conditions has concluded that the Arctic could be easily navigable for summer shipping in ten years and completely open in twenty.

In a speech delivered yesterday Professor Peter Wadhams of the Catlin Arctic Survey said that: “The Catlin Arctic Survey data supports the new consensus view - based on seasonal variation of ice extent and thickness, changes in temperatures, winds and especially ice composition - that the Arctic will be ice-free in summer within about 20 years, and that much of the decrease will be happening within 10 years.

“That means you'll be able to treat the Arctic as if it were essentially an open sea in the summer and have transport across the Arctic Ocean.”

The expedition found that the average thickness of the ice floes measured by the team was 1.8m, a depth considered too thin to survive the next summer.

While the news will no doubt inspire a flurry of concern over global warming and climate change, which are without doubt subjects that need to be taken seriously, on a purely practical note the apparently inevitable melting of the polar icecaps will considerably shorten a number of global trade routes, aiding in reducing shipping cost, prices and (ironically) emissions.

 

[deep]

This is an email forward that isn't exactly factual.

So

 

[purpleoscar]

Maybe when we are having spring break at the North Pole with house boats, jet skis and film crews from Girls Gone Wild it will finally sink into Ardi's thick skull

First planet earth is not like someone's environmentally controlled house. Secondly planet earth has had warm periods before the industrial revolution. Thirdly if we are warming the planet shouldn't we know how much is man made and how much is natural before we act? Fourthly what are you doing about it? Changing light bulbs and driving hybrids don't do enough. Lastly if we act what are the consequences of world government, delayed development in the third world and increased energy bills?

 

[purpleoscar]

Here's another evil denier:

YouTube - Lord Christopher Monckton Speaking in St. Paul

Slides:

http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/monckton_2009.pdf

 

[65980]

I never really understood the big debate over "Is Global Warming real?" or not. I personally believe it is, because, as others have stated, 99.9% of experts on the subject believe it is, and 0.01% of those who say it isn't aren't qualified to say so. But, even allowing for the possibility that the more severe recent fluctuations in heat are not human-activity caused, the major problems facing the Earth are unchanged.

The number 1 impending problem on Earth, in my opinion (and in the opinion of many experts, I might add) is not specifically global warming but rather the pressure the growing number of the planet's people, and the growing number of First-worlders in particular, are putting on the planet's available resources, which are largely being mismanaged.

In other words, there is a clear limit to how many people on Earth can have hugely wasteful, extravagant lifestyles, such as myself and 90% of people on this Forum have.

Consider that if China alone achieves First-World living standards -- which is its stated goal; and bear in mind its economy grows faster than any on Earth -- then the resource depletion on Earth to support First-world living standards will double. As many water, fishing and other resources are already largely depleted, that is a catastrophe waiting to happen.

The alternative to "letting" other parts of the world catch up to First Worlders is of course to deny them First-world standards, so that we can hog everything. Result? War and chaos.

So, I can't see any way out of complete impending chaos in the future, unless all the parts of the world find means by which to safely and responsibly manage the Earth's resources. That is the impending problem, more than global warming (which is more of a by-product of that problem -- obviously, these problems are all related).

So, unless we can collectively stop cutting down the forests, stop over-fishing what is left in the rivers and oceans, stop irresponsible farming and clear-cutting that leads to soil erosion, stop wasting fossil fuels, etc., etc, then Global Warming is the least of our worries.

In any case, taking steps to reduce Global Warming is just common sense. It shouldn't require a doomsday scenario to motivate governments to encourage resource responsibility, but it does.

 

[purpleoscar]

Well I think to save time the video I posted contains a different premise and using the current fuel we have (including nuclear) will probably be necessary because we need TIME before we can find a renewable source. I don't think it's moral to call all our lives "extravagent" when we all DEMAND high quality healthcare and education at the same time. If we all are on the wrong direction it's probably because we are animals and it's in our interest to go in this direction and adapting would be much better and more realistic than a brutal forced diet in the middle of a recession. It would turn into a depression if we followed cap and trade and closed down jobs. Cap and trade has been a failure in Europe and also you shouldn't expect that China and India will give a crap about our attitude that they must stop growth. China and India are going to grow no matter how many lightbulbs we change and prius's we drive. People are okay with climate change laws until the economic results hit, then you will see a backlash.

One of the graphs in the slides is made by geologists and it shows in the Pre-Cambrian period with a much higher C02 rate than there is now and not a much higher temperature. Then when you add the positive vs. negative feedback of clouds you can see there is a lot to debate yet. I seriously have a problem with the idea that we need to scare people into making changes. When scientist alarmists are proven wrong (over decades by now) on past alarms (Malthusian overpopulation/Global cooling) the public will probably need even more scaring each time precisely because alarmists can't be taken seriously after all their past exagerrations.

 

[BVS]

But why are you basing your beliefs on Prince Charles and Alarmists? You are taking the extreme and doing the opposite extreme... how is that logical? The majority are not alarmist and agree on a lot of common ground, why do you choose to ignore them?

 

[dan_smee]

When I worked for Peter Garrett, the hardest thing most callers had trouble with was the term global warming. I genuinely had people call me and say "Peter Garrett is a lier, he is full of shit because it is the middle of summer and it is 12 degrees."

First line of that article and I didnt bother with the rest. Just because it is called global warming doesnt mean your temperature will rise. Fuck

 

[BVS]

When I worked for Peter Garrett,

THE Peter Garrett?

He's one of my heroes!!!

 

[dan_smee]

THE Peter Garrett?

He's one of my heroes!!!

Yeah, our Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, until a month ago I was the admin guy in the office. I left to get a job with more sane hours, and to talk to more sane people on the phone!

 

[Kieran McConville]

Popular electro-pop artist 'Muscles' is also our minister for customs and import duties, you may be interested to know.

 

[BVS]

Yeah, our Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, until a month ago I was the admin guy in the office. I left to get a job with more sane hours, and to talk to more sane people on the phone!

Very cool. Does he still write or sing in any form?