looks like some scientist think global warming is not caused by man

[usmc-sooner]

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
Kate Ravilious
for National Geographic News

February 28, 2007
Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human- induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.

Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. (Get an overview: "Global Warming Fast Facts".)

Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.

Solar Cycles

Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.

Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.

"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.

By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars.

Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists.

His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.

"And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report." (Related: "Global Warming 'Very Likely' Caused by Humans, World Climate Experts Say" [February 2, 2007].)

Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."

Planets' Wobbles

The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun.

"Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained. (Related: "Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says" [September 13, 2006].)

All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years.

These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth.

Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now.

"Mars has no [large] moon, which makes its wobbles much larger, and hence the swings in climate are greater too," Wilson said.

No Greenhouse

Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface.

He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars.

But "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice," said Evan, of the University of Wisconsin.

Most scientists now fear that the massive amount of carbon dioxide humans are pumping into the air will lead to a catastrophic rise in Earth's temperatures, dramatically raising sea levels as glaciers melt and leading to extreme weather worldwide.

Abdussamatov remains contrarian, however, suggesting that the sun holds something quite different in store.

"The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Abdussamatov said. "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years."
news.nationalgeographic.c...rming.html

[rufnek05]

you mean ManBearPig is not real? what is al gore going to do now?

[jk the sooner fan]

in other news, Al Gore has planned speaking engagements on Mars to convince martians they should start living much differently

he's a shoe in for "Best Documentary" at this years Martian Academy Awards......

[rufnek05]

look out, he's here

[TopDawg]

"some scientist think"

Clever.

[Howzit]

Well, I know I feel better.

Thanks, Habibullo Abdussamatov!!!!1

[usmc-sooner]

"some scientist think"

Clever.


it's alright TD, you can still believe

[usmc-sooner]

in other news, Al Gore has planned speaking engagements on Mars to convince martians they should start living much differently

he's a shoe in for "Best Documentary" at this years Martian Academy Awards......

He's going to fly to Mars but off set it with space credits. :D

[TopDawg]

Thanks for giving me permission to agree with the other scientists.

[Ardmore_Sooner]

"some scientist think"

Clever.


Kinda like "many experts thought" that Gore would be our President. :rolleyes:

[TopDawg]

Kinda like "many experts thought" that Gore would be our President. :rolleyes:

No. Not like that. See, I was pointing out that usmc used two incorrect plural words "some" and "think" but then used the correct singular word "scientist."

I just thought it was a clever way of making the argument sound more convincing than it really is.

[Ardmore_Sooner]

I was just trying to get under your skin anyways. No hard feelings. ;)

[usmc-sooner]

Thanks for giving me permission to agree with the other scientists.

believe in Santa Clause, the tooth fairy and Global warming, all you want if it helps you sleep at night. :D

[jacru]

the sun causes warming. wow!

[jk the sooner fan]

how many scientists exactly have to validate this before anybody believes it?

[usmc-sooner]

No. Not like that. See, I was pointing out that usmc used two incorrect plural words "some" and "think" but then used the correct singular word "scientist."

I just thought it was a clever way of making the argument sound more convincing than it really is.

dang it, if I keep doing that I'll have a cult like following of democrats who drink my kool aid.

[JohnnyMack]

1. Global warming exists.

2. Whether or not we did it has not been proven.

[jk the sooner fan]

you know, the sun is growing, its a star.....and a bunch of years from now the size of the sun will completely envelope the earth

at least thats what the astronomy professor told me

[usmc-sooner]

1. Global warming exists.

2. Whether or not we did it has not been proven.

1. did we cause it on Mars?

2. was the Earth's temperature ever warmer than now, like say at the beginning of time, like when dinosaurs were here.

3. is the temperature never, ever ever supposed to change. Seems like everything else does, why wouldn't temperature.

[TopDawg]

usmc, do you have a breathalyzer handy?

[usmc-sooner]

usmc, do you have a breathalyzer handy?

handy as your Al Gore T shirt,

TD do you have common sense handy? or do we have to wait and see what the party decides you think.

[TopDawg]

wow, you're in rare form today

[jacru]

1. Global warming exists.

2. Whether or not we did it has not been proven.
Global cooling exists too. They both happen in cycles and have since before man industrialized. We didn't cause it.

[1stTimeCaller]

I like Top Dawg's style. Rather than address anything in the article, he chooses to point out a grammar error. Well played sir. Well played.

[toast]

don't you people get it???? once iran has nukes it's wwIII baby, i give us 6 months max and global warming won't matter.


just kidding. carry on.

[usmc-sooner]

I like Top Dawg's style. Rather than address anything in the article, he chooses to point out a grammar error. Well played sir. Well played.

he's a masterdebator :)

[TopDawg]

i was kinda hoping you were just kidding around...but if you really are being serious...ok

For starters, you could've found a better article to illustrate your point (well, actually, maybe you can't). It's not exactly a resounding endorsment of this one scientist's credibility.

Then you compared Santa Claus and the tooth fairy to global warming. As Johnny Mack said, global warming exists. It's a fact. Even you commie scientist friend admits that the globe is warming.

Now I know you probably meant to say "human's causing global warming," so I'll cut you some slack on this one. But just for future reference...unless you want other people to question your critical thinking skills, avoid arguing against global warming.

Third, I don't know what the heck you meant with your kool-aid comment. I can kinda get at what you were implying, but it seems to me that your comments in this thread have a much more partisan feel than mine which leads me to wonder which one of us is really hanging on every word from our party.

[TopDawg]

I like Top Dawg's style. Rather than address anything in the article, he chooses to point out a grammar error. Well played sir. Well played.

No, not so much a grammar error. I don't typically point those out. See, I'll explain it again because you seem to have missed it even after I spelled it out.

I thought it was "convenient" how usmc (accidentally?) used the plural words "some" and "think" and still used the correct singular word "scientist."

See, it's less of a grammar error and more of a misleading statement. The correct way to summarize the article would be to say "looks like a scientist thinks."

See how that totally changes the meaning?

I didn't address the article because I thought the article did a fine job of expressing my viewpoint. Mainly: this scientist thinks "x" but most other scientists disagree.

[usmc-sooner]

debates all over TD, JM and Al Gore say it's a fact. We're doomed.

TD I just posted an article I found on another Sooner board, I seriously doubt this Russian guy is Republican, my point is how some of you hard corps democrats act like without Global warming we're screwed it's just gotta be.

[usmc-sooner]

No, not so much a grammar error. I don't typically point those out. See, I'll explain it again because you seem to have missed it even after I spelled it out.

I thought it was "convenient" how usmc (accidentally?) used the plural words "some" and "think" and still used the correct singular word "scientist."

See, it's less of a grammar error and more of a misleading statement. The correct way to summarize the article would be to say "looks like a scientist thinks."

See how that totally changes the meaning?

I didn't address the article because I thought the article did a fine job of expressing my viewpoint. Mainly: this scientist thinks "x" but most other scientists disagree.

you've obviously put more thought into than I did. Jeez are you in a constant state of paranoia

[TopDawg]

debates all over TD, JM and Al Gore say it's a fact.

Well, even IF we were the only three who said it, we still out-number your scientist.

[Howzit]

debates all over TD, JM and Al Gore say it's a fact. We're doomed.

TD I just posted an article I found on another Sooner board, I seriously doubt this Russian guy is Republican, my point is how some of you hard corps democrats act like without Global warming we're screwed it's just gotta be.

No! We're saved! Habibullo Abdussamatov said so!

[TopDawg]

you've obviously put more thought into than I did. Jeez are you in a constant state of paranoia

Are you in a constant state of non-thought?

[usmc-sooner]

it's an article folks it says the sun has a lot to do with Global Warming, if it upsets you don't have to read it.

[Fraggle145]

1. Global warming exists.

2. Whether or not we did it has not been proven.

This is true, however it is very likely that we did. If you want to see the report put together by ~2000 scientists that was then approved in peer review by other scientists, before it was then reviewed by the governments of the UN (including ours and the Bush Administration) go here: http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

The early take home from that report: "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (this means greater than 90% in politico speak) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

The facts are that CO2 (and the other greenhouse gases) has gone up drastically since the 1970s, and it does make the earth warmer. In the peer reviewed literature, a recent article in "Science" (the #1 scientific journal), presented a subsample of ~1000 papers on global warming, and there wasnt a single one that said global warming did not exist. However in the media and popular literature a similiar study showed that ~50% of those say that global warming doesnt exist. The goal is to create doubt in order to go about business as usual. Which I dont understand because from an economic perspective "green" energy and more efficient uses of energy decreases waste (i.e., pollution) and therefor make more money for everyone.

I encourage you to read that report and make up your own mind. However in the scientific community (which I am a part of) I am confident in saying, there really isnt a debate.

[usmc-sooner]

Are you in a constant state of non-thought?

dude I made a typo. I didn't misplace your pom poms. Feel free to comment on the article. agree/ disagree? I'll concede I made a grammar error. You've obviously read that. Do you think you can drag this into several pages on grammar errors, you haven't said anything about much else.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

how many scientists exactly have to validate this before anybody believes it?He*l, I'm already shaken. I'll be temporarily, anyway, rethinking my vote towards the Chicago Senator.

[TopDawg]

it's an article folks it says the sun has a lot to do with Global Warming, if it upsets you don't have to read it.

The sun DOES have a lot to do with global warming. Nobody denies that.

Let me know if you find an article that says gravity holds us down.

[Vaevictis]

Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

All I'm going to say on this is:
1. I suppose it's possible.
2. Correlation between Earth warming up and Mars warming up does not imply any common cause.
3. The absence of peer reviewed papers supporting his theory, and the presence of many peer reviewed papers contrary to his theory places his credibility at a minimum.

[TopDawg]

dude I made a typo. I didn't misplace your pom poms. Feel free to comment on the article. agree/ disagree? I'll concede I made a grammar error. You've obviously read that. Do you think you can drag this into several pages on grammar errors, you haven't said anything about much else.

Dude, I was just pointing out that it was comical. I didn't mean for it to turn into grammar smack. It was other people who made it that. I just thought it was funny/coincidental/whatever that your accidental typo actually served to make your side of the argument seem stronger. Instead of saying "a scientist thinks" (which actually would be two typos...one of them kinda bizarre), which makes the article sound kinda weak...you said "some scientist think" which, if you're just glancing, makes his stance sound more convincing.

I wasn't being the grammar police, I was just pointing out the irony.

And I have commented on the article.

[usmc-sooner]

This is true, however it is very likely that we did. If you want to see the report put together by ~2000 scientists that was then approved in peer review by other scientists, before it was then reviewed by the governments of the UN (including ours and the Bush Administration) go here: http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

The early take home from that report: "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (this means greater than 90% in politico speak) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

The facts are that CO2 (and the other greenhouse gases) has gone up drastically since the 1970s, and it does make the earth warmer. In the peer reviewed literature, a recent article in "Science" (the #1 scientific journal), presented a subsample of ~1000 papers on global warming, and there wasnt a single one that said global warming did not exist. However in the media and popular literature a similiar study showed that ~50% of those say that global warming doesnt exist. The goal is to create doubt in order to go about business as usual. Which I dont understand because from an economic perspective "green" energy and more efficient uses of energy decreases waste (i.e., pollution) and therefor make more money for everyone.

I encourage you to read that report and make up your own mind. However in the scientific community (which I am a part of) I am confident in saying, there really isnt a debate.

the world may be heating up, I think that's up to debate. I've seen studies on both sides, I've seen both sides appear to be very agenda driven. I've seen studies they did in NYC and studies they did in Buffalo and Syracuse and they came up with drastically different conclusions. What I'm trying to say is there is no increase in greenhouse gases on Mars and if this guys studies are legite the article says yes greenhouse gases may be a cause but the biggest cause is the changes in the sun.

PS I purposely left some grammar errors in this so TopDawg could participate in the debate.

[TopDawg]

PS I purposely left some grammar errors in this so TopDawg could participate in the debate.

http://img.epinions.com/images/opti/50/e7/Palisade_Toys_The_Muppet_Show_Series_II_Fozzie_Bea r-resized200.jpg

WAKA WAKA WAKA!

;)

[Fraggle145]

the world may be heating up, I think that's up to debate. I've seen studies on both sides, I've seen both sides appear to be very agenda driven. I've seen studies they did in NYC and studies they did in Buffalo and Syracuse and they came up with drastically different conclusions? What I'm trying to say is there is no increase in greenhouse gases on Mars and if this guys studies are llegite the article says yes greenhouse gases may be a cause but the biggest cause is the changes in the sun.

PS I purposely left some grammar errors in this so TopDawg could participate in the debate.

I guess what I am arguing is that you have to look at the scale of those studies vs. the scale of this study that I presented. As for the Mars thing, yes the sun plays a large role in warming the earth, and the greenhouse gases are what allow earth to be habitable, however if we are to increase that layer we will get warmer especially if the sun is getting warmer. It is the same reason Venus is ~800 degrees and mercury is ~300 degrees but is closer to the sun. the greenhouse gas layer on Venus is extremely thick.

However, I think that you missed the point made by the other scientist in the article :" The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun. "Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained. (Related: "Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says" [September 13, 2006].) All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years. These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth.Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now."

If this is true than it may not be the sun, and since he didnt address it in his study we really cant say which one of those processes (wobble or sun irradiance) are responsible.

The other point I would make is that yes other data from the Ice cores does show cyclical temperature and CO2 Oscillations, the big difference now is that even when it has been warmer in the past, the CO2 levels during that time were much more reduced. There has never been as much CO2 out there as there is right now. The article that I linked is the reoprt from the IPCC that is referenced in your article. I again urge you to read that study since it is the cutting edge of the scientific communities opinion on global climate change.

[usmc-sooner]

Fraggle,
who funds these studies? who pays the bills?

I've heard scientist say that they need to research this but they don't have the conclusive proof as of yet to say it is a fact.

[Scott D]

I'm absolutely certain beyond any shadow of a doubt that the fact that Mars is closer to the Sun than the Earth has absolutely nothing to do with its global warming. Next our Russian friend will tell us that Plutonium isn't an actual element on the periodic table without primary elements.

[usmc-sooner]

I'm absolutely certain beyond any shadow of a doubt that the fact that Mars is closer to the Sun than the Earth has absolutely nothing to do with its global warming. Next our Russian friend will tell us that Plutonium isn't an actual element on the periodic table without primary elements.

actually he said mars is having higher temperatures recently, just like scientists say the earth is. I thought that was the easiest comparison he made. Maybe not.

[Fraggle145]

Fraggle,
who funds these studies? who pays the bills?

I've heard scientist say that they need to research this but they don't have the conclusive proof as of yet to say it is a fact.

That is one of the biggest issues in science today. I believe that these people are funded by the UN (UNEP) here is their website. http://www.ipcc.ch/

We all say we need more funding because we always do, it takes $$ to get/make the technology needed to study these things. For example OU/and UNLV have built a building for assessing climate change in Nevada. They took four 2 ton monoliths of dirt out to that building and test the varying effects of increased temperatures, sun light, CO2 etc on them. That project I think cost (along with help from NSF) 1-5 million dollars. Its hard to make facilities that will let you have accurate control and take all of the variables necessary to have a good study. The other thing with money is many of the scientists who act skeptical about global climate change (for example Dr. David Demming in OU's geology and petroleum engineering dept who was in a debate yesterday with Dr. David Keroli (sp?) head of meterorolgy yesterday about whether global climate change was real) are funded by oil. I dont need to tell you who was against global climate change. So its hard to know if someone is bought or not and how money is shaping thier opinions.

The main reason they say that they cant say it is a fact is because nothing in science is absolute, except for say gravity, newtons laws, and evolution. There is always potential to be disproven because science tests things by falsifying them. The problem with global warming is its hard to falsify or not. Because we cant run a series of 100 year experiments with a spare earth. So these studies are correlative and have to be modeled because we are trying to predict what is going to happen. All of the evidence we have supports that this is likely to be occuring, however you are right to remain skeptical because it is supportive, but doesnt test a hypothesis. However, I would say that when the evidence is this large and we have a lot to gain by becoming less wasteful then what do we have to lose by erring on the side of caution? I guess all I can say is that I personally (and the overwhelming majority of the scientific community) believe from this evidence that global warming is happeing and humans are causing it.

[Ardmore_Sooner]

I believe that we are helping cause the earth's temperature to increase. I'm not so much consered with what is causing the warming, but are we doing to stop it if it is true. Has anyone bought an electric/hybrid car to combat it? Has anyone purchased a more fuel efficient way to heat homes? It's all talk and no action. Al Gore had to fly a plane that runs on fossil fuels that emmits carbon dioxide into the atmosphere to get to Norman yesterday. We can talk all we want, but none of us has put forth a decent effort to stop any of it.

[TopDawg]

We can talk all we want, but none of us has put forth a decent effort to stop any of it.

I think there are more people doing that than you think. Sure, just about everybody could do more include me and Al Gore, but that doesn't mean that the small things we are doing...hopefully on the way to doing bigger and better things...aren't making a difference.

Fraggle, were you at the debate yesterday?

[Fraggle145]

I believe that we are helping cause the earth's temperature to increase. I'm not so much consered with what is causing the warming, but are we doing to stop it if it is true. Has anyone bought an electric/hybrid car to combat it? Has anyone purchased a more fuel efficient way to heat homes? It's all talk and no action. Al Gore had to fly a plane that runs on fossil fuels that emmits carbon dioxide into the atmosphere to get to Norman yesterday. We can talk all we want, but none of us has put forth a decent effort to stop any of it.

Actually OU and Norman have done a lot to start the ball rolling. Norman holds itself to the Kyoto protocol. OU is on the Chicago exchange, which basically sets goals of emission reduction and then if it exceeds thme gets carbon credits that it can sell to other members on the exchange. If we make it into a money/market issue it will fund itself. The transition may be slow, but I would argue you have to start somewhere. We have to try. I know the fact that Al Gore buys carbon credits due to his over expenditure of carbon is controversial, however at least he is buying the credits instead of saying oh well. Essentially even though he isnt doing it himself he is funding someone else to do it. it all has to start somewhere.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I believe that we are helping cause the earth's temperature to increase. I'm not so much consered with what is causing the warming, but are we doing to stop it if it is true. Has anyone bought an electric/hybrid car to combat it? Has anyone purchased a more fuel efficient way to heat homes? It's all talk and no action. Al Gore had to fly a plane that runs on fossil fuels that emmits carbon dioxide into the atmosphere to get to Norman yesterday. We can talk all we want, but none of us has put forth a decent effort to stop any of it.Eeewwww!

[Fraggle145]

I think there are more people doing that than you think. Sure, just about everybody could do more include me and Al Gore, but that doesn't mean that the small things we are doing...hopefully on the way to doing bigger and better things...aren't making a difference.

Fraggle, were you at the debate yesterday?

Ya I was at the debate, then Gore's talk, and then at the reception/dinner with Gore yesterday evening, as well as Dr. Camille Parmesan's talk about its effects on wildlife distributions on Tuesday.

[Ardmore_Sooner]

So it's still ok to pollute as long as someone is buying credits? Instead of buying carbon credits and telling everyone about the rise in temperatures, why doesn't Gore find alternatives to the problem by putting money into alternate fuel sources? Just saying.

And by the way, I did go to Gore's lecture and agree with what he says. I did before and after the lecture. I just feel there is a better way to combat the problem rather than continually addressing it.

[TopDawg]

Ya I was at the debate, then Gore's talk, and then at the reception/dinner with Gore yesterday evening, as well as Dr. Camille Parmesan's talk about its effects on wildlife distributions on Tuesday.

Cool. I caught most of the debate and the first part of Gore's talk, but none of the other stuff.

Based on some of what you were saying, I figured you were at the debate. When Karoly took Demming's 30-year figure and then showed what it would be like in 100 years...that was pretty impressive.

[TopDawg]

So it's still ok to pollute as long as someone is buying credits? Instead of buying carbon credits and telling everyone about the rise in temperatures, why doesn't Gore find alternatives to the problem by putting money into alternate fuel sources? Just saying.

And by the way, I did go to Gore's lecture and agree with what he says. I did before and after the lecture. I just feel there is a better way to combat the problem rather than continually addressing it.

There's a lot of truth to what you say...but there's also something to be said about raising awareness of the issue. I can't imagine global warming would be nearly as hot (HA!) a topic if someone like Gore wasn't raising awareness.

There have been other famous people who have quietly been living a very eco-friendly lifestyle, but nobody knows about it because they do it quietly. They are to be commended for their lifestyle, but they did squat to raise awareness of the issue on a large scale.

[Ike]

So while I think this guy has an interesting theory, I think it needs more evidence to convince me.


http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=edae9952-3c3e-47ba-913f-7359a5c7f723&k=0
In this article, the same guy seems to say that we are warming now, and that the sun's irradiance is dropping, and will lead to a "deep freeze" that lasts for about 50 years in 2040 before we start warming again. I'm a little troubled by this because it seems to indicate that solar cycles are far to rapid to account for the historical evidence that has been uncovered about our climate, which imply that our planet enjoys relatively long periods of stability...his theory would indicate that no such long periods of stability would ever exist, as he seems to suggest that solar cycles are far too rapidly changing to allow that to happen.

[Ardmore_Sooner]

Oh i agree that awareness is a very big part of it, I just wish we could have something that works along with the awareness.

I just feel that carbon credits are just an excuse to make us feel we are putting a temporary fix to the problem. It is temporary, but not long enough in my opinion.

[Fraggle145]

So it's still ok to pollute as long as someone is buying credits? Instead of buying carbon credits and telling everyone about the rise in temperatures, why doesn't Gore find alternatives to the problem by putting money into alternate fuel sources? Just saying.

And by the way, I did go to Gore's lecture and agree with what he says. I did before and after the lecture. I just feel there is a better way to combat the problem rather than continually addressing it.

Oh there absolutely is part of it is getting people to make small lifestyle changes. part of it is to quit using technology that is 150 years old (see the combustion engine) and start coming up with new ideas. However we do need to keep bringing it up that is how it becomes an "issue" rather than "something we have to consider." Its the same way that rights were won for women and minorities. It is a slow process until you reach a tipping point. and I think that is what Gore's goal is to make everyone no matter what your politcal affiliation is to realize that this is happening and start getting it to the tipping point, and get people to start the little thing.


Cool. I caught most of the debate and the first part of Gore's talk, but none of the other stuff.

Based on some of what you were saying, I figured you were at the debate. When Karoly took Demming's 30-year figure and then showed what it would be like in 100 years...that was pretty impressive.

Ya Karoly is really smart, it is sad we are losing him back to austrailia after this year. What really impressed me was when he took a quote from Demming's own publication that basically contradicted Demming's own arguments. The best part is that that data is accessible to the public that Karoly used... it is all in that report.

[Vaevictis]

Has anyone bought an electric/hybrid car to combat it? Has anyone purchased a more fuel efficient way to heat homes? It's all talk and no action.

I own a hybrid. All of my lights are CF. My windows are double-paned. Probably about 80% of my yearly home electricity consumption is wind power. I don't own a home, but when I do, I will be making large investments in energy efficiency and local energy sources (such as solar power).

People are doing stuff to make a difference.


So it's still ok to pollute as long as someone is buying credits? Instead of buying carbon credits and telling everyone about the rise in temperatures, why doesn't Gore find alternatives to the problem by putting money into alternate fuel sources? Just saying.

Heh, actually, carbon credits make a large difference. You want to know what the "gold" standard for a carbon credit is? Installation of renewable energy sources such as wind, hydro or solar power. They take your money for the carbon credits, then they turn around and 1:1 reduce emissions somewhere by providing money to take people off of coal/oil power plants and put them onto the renewable non-carbon emitting sources.

[Fraggle145]

So while I think this guy has an interesting theory, I think it needs more evidence to convince me.

Since the stability of those cycles is well known fact from the ice core data, and I dont see anything to indicate that temerature has been fluctuating that much even in the last 9000 years to suggest that solar cycles are what is responsible. JMHO

[OCUDad]

PS I purposely left some grammar errors in this so TopDawg could participate in the debate.How can we tell the purposeful ones from the usual illiteracy?

[TopDawg]

Ya Karoly is really smart, it is sad we are losing him back to austrailia after this year. What really impressed me was when he took a quote from Demming's own publication that basically contradicted Demming's own arguments. The best part is that that data is accessible to the public that Karoly used... it is all in that report.

Dang, I didn't know he'd be heading back to Aussieland. That stinks. His accent made the debate even more enjoyable.

Yeah, using Demming's own quote against him was pretty good too. And using Demming's professional association's own conclusions against him was nice as well. But I could see how that was easy to come up with before the debate.

But the fact that Demming used a figure to support his side that then opened the door for Karoly to use the same figure against Demming's side was great.

And, yeah, I love that all his data came from that report.

[Fraggle145]

The main thing I dont think anyone here has addressed yet is that the ones who come up with the environmentally friendly solutions are going to have a jump on the competition economically because their products will be more effecient and thus will be cheaper in the long term.

[Ardmore_Sooner]

Oh there absolutely is part of it is getting people to make small lifestyle changes. part of it is to quit using technology that is 150 years old (see the combustion engine) and start coming up with new ideas. However we do need to keep bringing it up that is how it becomes an "issue" rather than "something we have to consider." Its the same way that rights were won for women and minorities. It is a slow process until you reach a tipping point. and I think that is what Gore's goal is to make everyone no matter what your politcal affiliation is to realize that this is happening and start getting it to the tipping point, and get people to start the little thing.



1789-1920 = 131 years
1789-1965 = 176 years

You think that we have this much time to fix the problem?

People are to thick headed to change their lifestyles as soon as we would like them too.

[Fraggle145]

1789-1920 = 131 years
1789-1965 = 176 years

You think that we have this much time to fix the problem?

People are to thick headed to change their lifestyles as soon as we would like them too.

I dont think we have that much time, however, I think that once rights for minorities bacame a real issue in the country (i.e., desegregation) That process once it began happened fairly quickly. I think the part that took the longest was reaching the tipping point. By most projections we need to get our emissions down in about a 45 year window which i think is realistic. if you look in the IPCC report you can look at the projections for temperature increase and see that that is the second lowest line beside stopping all emissions all together.

[Jeopardude]

Why do you believe in global warming? Al Gore flies in planes!

[TopDawg]

Yeah, in the debate I think Karoly said something along the lines of if we can make some big changes in the next 20 years, we can make a big difference in where the earth is 100 years from now. This conclusion, also, was from the report.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

So while I think this guy has an interesting theory, I think it needs more evidence to convince me.


http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=edae9952-3c3e-47ba-913f-7359a5c7f723&k=0
In this article, the same guy seems to say that we are warming now, and that the sun's irradiance is dropping, and will lead to a "deep freeze" that lasts for about 50 years in 2040 before we start warming again. I'm a little troubled by this because it seems to indicate that solar cycles are far to rapid to account for the historical evidence that has been uncovered about our climate, which imply that our planet enjoys relatively long periods of stability...his theory would indicate that no such long periods of stability would ever exist, as he seems to suggest that solar cycles are far too rapidly changing to allow that to happen.OK, Globalwarming believers, chew on this one a while. Tell us why it can't be.

[Fraggle145]

Yeah, in the debate I think Karoly said something along the lines of if we can make some big changes in the next 20 years, we can make a big difference in where the earth is 100 years from now. This conclusion, also, was from the report.

Absolutely, the quicker the changes happen the faster the ball will roll down the hill.

[yermom]

Oh i agree that awareness is a very big part of it, I just wish we could have something that works along with the awareness.

I just feel that carbon credits are just an excuse to make us feel we are putting a temporary fix to the problem. It is temporary, but not long enough in my opinion.

no one even wants to believe that it's a problem we are causing. that is the first step

really people already know what they need to do to fix the problem, they just don't want to.

a lot of the problem is money. people researching more efficient forms of electricity have to get paid from somewhere.

electric/hybrid cars are still expensive because they aren't mainstream yet, the more they are mass produced, the more they will get better with the technology and the costs should go down

of course if we let BRJ plan our cities it would help too ;)

[Fraggle145]

OK, Globalwarming believers, chew on this one a while. Tell us why it can't be.

I thought that I addressed this in a previous post, but the cycles that we show on earth give us no indication that subtle solar irradiance variations cause vast differences in global warming or cooling. Otherwise those cycles of iceage and warming would be alot more variable throughout the 650,000 years that we have data for, but they simply arent. They are more constant which suggests that the sun warms the earth but its subtle variations dont mean that much. Secondly if this scientist had a better control of his data then the obvious experiment is to do the same thing on Venus and determine if its temperatures have increased. If they had then his conclusion would be more relevant. The other problem with his hypothesis is the same problem that many people have with global warming in that it isnt falsifiable it is correlative. Therefore, I am disinclined to believe him over the mounds of correlative evidence that have been produced by our top climate scientists.

[Ardmore_Sooner]

OK, Globalwarming believers, chew on this one a while. Tell us why it can't be.

I just use what I have learned. Tons of scientists say thats what is happening. It could all be wrong. I really don't know anything further than what I believe. I don't think it is nearly as big as a problem that some people make it out to be, but I don't think it should be taken lightly. What's so hard to believe about it?

[Fraggle145]

OK, Globalwarming believers, chew on this one a while. Tell us why it can't be.

Here is some data for you from the report linked on the previous pages:

http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/2544/10775794yw0.png

data from the northern hemisphere showing increased temperature, increased sea level, and decreased snow cover.


http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/8059/57303393kv2.png

Blue is the model without greenhouse gases, pink is the model with green house gases.

[usmc-sooner]

How can we tell the purposeful ones from the usual illiteracy?

well the usual illiterate ones are for the usual illiterates like you.

[TopDawg]

OK, Globalwarming believers, chew on this one a while. Tell us why it can't be.

Would you care to tell us why the IPCC report can't be?

[jacru]

... I really don't know anything further than what I believe.
....What's so hard to believe about it?
Sounds like religion. Which I'm all for, but belief isn't science. Science is provable. Until they can prove it, dont be messin' with my modern western lifestyle.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I just use what I have learned. I don't think it is nearly as big as a problem that some people make it out to be, but I don't think it should be taken lightly. What's so hard to believe about it?What's proper is to take it with a grain of salt. The left wing and media hystrionics will always draw scepticism from the right, since the left always has their unrelenting drive toward more GOVERNMENT CONTROL and authority over how we live. I would be suspect if I were you, and not swallow algore's goop hook, line and sinker. The history of the left in America suggests you proceed with GREAT, not just some scepticism.

[Howzit]

:les: THE SAME THING IS HAPPENING ON MARS!!!

[JohnnyMack]

:les: THE SAME THING IS HAPPENING ON MARS!!!

like you've ever even been there to know that. :rolleyes:

[jacru]

:les: THE SAME THING IS HAPPENING ON MARS!!!
How did the conservatives, republicans, capitalists, and other selfish earth-rapers get on Mars? :rolleyes: ;)

[Ardmore_Sooner]

I'm not given in by the left. I just have my own opinions. I don't see how this is becoming a political issue. Why does every arguement about this have to do with bipartisan politics? I haven't swallowed Gore's evidence completely, there are parts that I believe and parts that I look a little more into. Have you seen his movie or heard him speak on the issue?

[jacru]

Once a person loses credibility with you, they seldom get it back. I wouldn't believe Al if he said the sky was blue.

[Ardmore_Sooner]

I tend to be open minded and TRY to listen to every point of view on an issue, even those I disagree with.

[SoonerGirl06]

We can talk all we want, but none of us has put forth a decent effort to stop any of it.

Could it possibly be because nobody knows for sure if it's true or not? There's this constant bickering from both sides and I can't tell left from right as to whether or not there really is a true global warming of the Earth. From my NON scientific point of view, I don't think so. I think what we're experiencing is just normal climate changes that the Earth goes through periodically.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I'm not given in by the left. I just have my own opinions. I don't see how this is becoming a political issue. Why does every arguement about this have to do with bipartisan politics? I haven't swallowed Gore's evidence completely, there are parts that I believe and parts that I look a little more into. Have you seen his movie or heard him speak on the issue?I have seen his movie, and have heard and seen him since he became a Senator, way back when. He has been on a crusade against the internal combustion engine for a long time, yet continues to live a lavish lifestyle, including the use of beaucoup fossil fuels. However, I might vote for him in the primary, or Obama. I haven't decided for sure, yet.

[SoonerGirl06]

How did the conservatives, republicans, capitalists, and other selfish earth-rapers get on Mars? :rolleyes: ;)

Through good hard earned tax dollars.

[Ardmore_Sooner]

Could it possibly be because nobody knows for sure if it's true or not? There's this constant bickering from both sides and I can't tell left from right as to whether or not there really is a true global warming of the Earth. From my NON scientific point of view, I don't think so. I think what we're experiencing is just normal climate changes that the Earth goes through periodically.

And I respect your opinion to think that, and like I said, for all I know you may be 100% correct. Part of my argument is with those who completely believe in every bit of it (which I don't), and how those who believe in it have tried to stop it. There are parts I believe and parts I don't. I'm not here trying to say anyone is right or wrong

[SoonerGirl06]

I have seen his movie, and have heard and seen him since he became a Senator, way back when. He has been on a crusade against the internal combustion engine for a long time, yet continues to live a lavish lifestyle, including the use of beaucoup fossil fuels. However, I might vote for him in the primary, or Obama. I haven't decided for sure, yet.

Haven't seen his movie.. don't care to. I can figure out what it's all about my his stance on the issues. Which is "Do as I say and not as I do."

Grant it, the man may give back to the environemt by way of carbon credits, but if he was really serious and concerned about it, I think he'd do more than just talk about what needs to be done and actually do something about it.

[SoonerGirl06]

And I respect your opinion to think that, and like I said, for all I know you may be 100% correct. Part of my argument is with those who completely believe in every bit of it (which I don't), and how those who believe in it have tried to stop it. There are parts I believe and parts I don't. I'm not here trying to say anyone is right or wrong

And I'm not saying that you are... I was using your comment to make my arguement as well.

[Ardmore_Sooner]

I have seen his movie, and have heard and seen him since he became a Senator, way back when. He has been on a crusade against the internal combustion engine for a long time, yet continues to live a lavish lifestyle, including the use of beaucoup fossil fuels. However, I might vote for him in the primary, or Obama. I haven't decided for sure, yet.

I agree with you on this and that was part of my argument a few pages back. I still don't think buying carbon credits is "morally" right as he used a few times in his speech yesterday. He is still emitting carbon dioxide in the air no matter how you slice it.

[Ardmore_Sooner]

Haven't seen his movie.. don't care to. I can figure out what it's all about my his stance on the issues. Which is "Do as I say and not as I do."

Grant it, the man may give back to the environemt by way of carbon credits, but if he was really serious and concerned about it, I think he'd do more than just talk about what needs to be done and actually do something about it.

This sums is up!

[Ike]

Could it possibly be because nobody knows for sure if it's true or not? There's this constant bickering from both sides and I can't tell left from right as to whether or not there really is a true global warming of the Earth. From my NON scientific point of view, I don't think so. I think what we're experiencing is just normal climate changes that the Earth goes through periodically.


It could be that we are going through a normal climate change that has nothing to do with us. However, some things we are pretty sure about at the current time are a) greenhouse gasses do have an effect and b) we are putting a lot of them into the air. It is entirely possible that the amount we put into the air is negligible, but some pretty smart people have told me that this is likely not the case.

Given that, I believe it is prudent to explore alternative energy sources and transportation modes that don't have the downside of the ones we currently use. I don't believe that it is prudent to so with such fervor that our economy stops dead in its tracks, but given the possibility that this may be a problem caused by us, I think we should explore other possibilities as aggressively as possible. Given that we are also fighting a war with crazy people that live on top of the largest supplies of the very energy source we currently depend on, I think that there are even more reasons than the climate for alternative energy exploration, and for going forward as aggressively as possible.

[Ike]

Oh, and I think carbon credits are on the same moral level as the old practice of buying indulgences from the church.

[JohnnyMack]

1. did we cause it on Mars?

2. was the Earth's temperature ever warmer than now, like say at the beginning of time, like when dinosaurs were here.

3. is the temperature never, ever ever supposed to change. Seems like everything else does, why wouldn't temperature.

1. No.

2. I wasn't around then, but I'd have to go with yes, at some point the earth's average temperature has been warmer than it is now.

3. Never said it shouldn't.

My take on this issue is that the temperature of the earth is cyclical. We go through cool periods and through warm periods. I'm not a scientist so I can't tell you how long a period is. Is it 100 years? Is it 1000 years? 10,000 years? I don't know. I would venture a guess that this isn't the first time the earth has experienced a warming trend. What I don't know, and I don't know how anyone can know this since we we've never altered the atmosphere like this before is whether or not our actions have helped speed up the warming process. I tend to think that Mother Nature is a bit more powerful than we are, if that tips my hand at all.

[SoonerGirl06]

Given that, I believe it is prudent to explore alternative energy sources and transportation modes that don't have the downside of the ones we currently use. I don't believe that it is prudent to so with such fervor that our economy stops dead in its tracks, but given the possibility that this may be a problem caused by us, I think we should explore other possibilities as aggressively as possible. Given that we are also fighting a war with crazy people that live on top of the largest supplies of the very energy source we currently depend on, I think that there are even more reasons than the climate for alternative energy exploration, and for going forward as aggressively as possible.

I'm not negating what you're saying, because I pretty much agree. But I've been hearing that there needs to be changes for years and years... most people get on board and try their best to do their part to help the environment. But no one seems to want to stand up and actually DO something about it... there's this constant debate on what needs to be done, yet we're still dependent on foreign oil, car manufacturers continue to make bigger and bigger vehicles that consume more fuel, energy companies don't want to let go of their billions of dollars of profit and actually move toward alternative energy sources (ie: wind, solar..). So here we are years and years later still having the debate...

[Ardmore_Sooner]

I'm not negating what you're saying, because I pretty much agree. But I've been hearing that there needs to be changes for years and years... most people get on board and try their best to do their part to help the environment. But no one seems to want to stand up and actually DO something about it... there's this constant debate on what needs to be done, yet we're still dependent on foreign oil, car manufacturers continue to make bigger and bigger vehicles that consume more fuel, energy companies don't want to let go of their billions of dollars of profit and actually move toward alternative energy sources (ie: wind, solar..). So here we are years and years later still having the debate...

Then I guess we have already lost......

[SoonerGirl06]

Then I guess we have already lost......

I wouldn't say that 'cause it's still an issue. When it's no longer an issue... then we've lost.

Why do you say that we've already lost?

[Ike]

I'm not negating what you're saying, because I pretty much agree. But I've been hearing that there needs to be changes for years and years... most people get on board and try their best to do their part to help the environment. But no one seems to want to stand up and actually DO something about it... there's this constant debate on what needs to be done, yet we're still dependent on foreign oil, car manufacturers continue to make bigger and bigger vehicles that consume more fuel, energy companies don't want to let go of their billions of dollars of profit and actually move toward alternative energy sources (ie: wind, solar..). So here we are years and years later still having the debate...

well, part of the problem is this: We don't have great alternatives.

There's nuclear power, but there's that pesky radioactive waste thing you have to deal with.

There's solar power, but if you wanted to power your home or your car with all solar, it's expensive....the cost per kilowatt-hour is dropping, slowly, as technologies improve and more mass production of solar cells comes on line, but it's still more expensive than oil, coal and natural gas.

There's wind power, but as a global energy solution, has problems with consistency.
(also, solar and wind power may themselves affect the climate if used as a global energy source as they take energy away from the atmosphere)

There's ethanol, but there ain't enough farmland to produce enough if it were to be a national source of energy.

The list goes on. All of these show promise to some degree or another, but none of them are as cheap as pumping oil out of the ground. part of that has to do with mass production of course, but part of it has to do with the fact that we've been using the last 100 years to perfect the art of extracting energy from fossil fuels, and the art of extracting energy from other sources is less refined.

[TopDawg]

Haven't seen his movie.. don't care to. I can figure out what it's all about my his stance on the issues. Which is "Do as I say and not as I do."

Oh geez, not this again.

Does Al Gore say "don't fly in planes?" Does Al Gore say "don't live in big houses?"

Look, we all agree and I'm sure even Al Gore would agree, that he could do more. We all could. But just because we don't know the solution yet, just because we're trying to do what seems nearly impossible, doesn't mean we shouldn't do what we can.

What if Rosa Parks would've thought "what difference does it make if I sit in the front or the back?" People can make a difference, even by doing simple things while facing overwhelming odds.

[SoonerGirl06]

well, part of the problem is this: We don't have great alternatives.

There's nuclear power, but there's that pesky radioactive waste thing you have to deal with.

There's solar power, but if you wanted to power your home or your car with all solar, it's expensive....the cost per kilowatt-hour is dropping, slowly, as technologies improve and more mass production of solar cells comes on line, but it's still more expensive than oil, coal and natural gas.

There's wind power, but as a global energy solution, has problems with consistency.
(also, solar and wind power may themselves affect the climate if used as a global energy source as they take energy away from the atmosphere)

There's ethanol, but there ain't enough farmland to produce enough if it were to be a national source of energy.

The list goes on. All of these show promise to some degree or another, but none of them are as cheap as pumping oil out of the ground. part of that has to do with mass production of course, but part of it has to do with the fact that we've been using the last 100 years to perfect the art of extracting energy from fossil fuels, and the art of extracting energy from other sources is less refined.

So in essence... we really need to quit bitching about using fossil fuels until we're ready to pony up the money necessary to use alternative energy sources?

[Ike]

So in essence... we really need to quit bitching about using fossil fuels until we're ready to pony up the money necessary to use alternative energy sources?
bingo. Or unless we are willing to put in our own time and effort to do something to make alternative energy sources economically viable.

[TopDawg]

But, Ike, would you also say that we should try to do what we can in the meantime to minimize our (possibly) negative impact on the earth while we're looking for those solutions or answers?

[Ike]

But, Ike, would you also say that we should try to do what we can in the meantime to minimize our (possibly) negative impact on the earth while we're looking for those solutions or answers?

of course, but within reason. If you have to drive 25 miles to work every day, riding a bike probably isn't a great idea. If you have to shuttle kids around every day, driving an SUV may still make the most sense...all those kids and their baseball gear won't fit into a smartcar. Some people take the suggestion that they minimize their impact to mean that they go back to living in earthen huts.

[SoonerGirl06]

Oh geez, not this again.

Does Al Gore say "don't fly in planes?" Does Al Gore say "don't live in big houses?"

Look, we all agree and I'm sure even Al Gore would agree, that he could do more. We all could. But just because we don't know the solution yet, just because we're trying to do what seems nearly impossible, doesn't mean we shouldn't do what we can.

What if Rosa Parks would've thought "what difference does it make if I sit in the front or the back?" People can make a difference, even by doing simple things while facing overwhelming odds.

Listen... you're putting a spin on my words... and with all due respect I think you need to chill.

Sure, we should do what we can to make the environment better. But don't go around bitching about global warming and putting everyone into a tizzy about it (which is what AG is doing) when you're flying around in jet planes, living in a 20,000 sq foot house and basically not doing a whole lot more than making a butt load of money off of speeches every year and paying back with carbon credits. I think I'd have more respect for what Al Gore had to say if he did more for the environment during his 8 years as Vice President.

And how can you even put Rosa Parks into the same class as Al Gore? She's in a league of her own and did more for the civil rights movement by sitting in the front of the bus one time than Al Gore has done for the environment in the past 16+ years.

With that being said... I think I'll go for another glass of wine.

[SoonerGirl06]

bingo.


I have to admit.. I like hearing that! :D

[TopDawg]

Listen... you're putting a spin on my words... and with all due respect I think you need to chill.


Well you were putting a spin on Al's words and I thought we'd already been over that with the "hypocrite" thread the other day. My apologies that you happened to get the leftovers of my frustration from that thread.




And how can you even put Rosa Parks into the same class as Al Gore? She's in a league of her own and did more for the civil rights movement by sitting in the front of the bus one time than Al Gore has done for the environment in the past 16+ years.

I knew someone would think I was comparing the two of them and I almost said "I'm not trying to compare Al Gore to Rosa Parks" to prevent that. Sorry I didn't. But, with all due respect, now you're putting a spin on my words and should chill.

I was comparing Rosa Parks to anybody who, as a common person, does something seemingly insignificant that makes a difference. If we all had that same attitude, we could make a big difference. I was not trying to play down Rosa Parks' contribution to the civil rights movement or over-play anybody else's contribution to the global warming movement. I was trying to illustrate that small actions sometimes lead to big things.

[TopDawg]

of course, but within reason. If you have to drive 25 miles to work every day, riding a bike probably isn't a great idea. If you have to shuttle kids around every day, driving an SUV may still make the most sense...all those kids and their baseball gear won't fit into a smartcar. Some people take the suggestion that they minimize their impact to mean that they go back to living in earthen huts.

Well, yes, of course. I don't think anybody, even the wacko nut-job Al Gore, is trying to convince anybody to completely abandon their lifestyle right now. If he was, NOBODY would be paying any attention to him.

Minimize is probably the wrong term for this phase of the global warming movement. Diminish is probably a better way to put it. I know that I, for one, have really started to look honestly at ways that I can diminish my effect on the environment. Sure, I've still got a long way to go and a lot of what I'd like to do is outside my means right now, but there are a lot of things I can do that I try to do. Even more that I hope to do down the road.

I'm not to the point, yet, where I can (or will) make drastic changes to my lifestyle. But I'm trying to get there. And if we find out in 10 years that this was all a bunch of bull...then so be it. I probably saved myself some money in the meantime anyway.

[SoonerGirl06]

Well you were putting a spin on Al's words and I thought we'd already been over that with the "hypocrite" thread the other day. My apologies that you happened to get the leftovers of my frustration from that thread.

Again... with all due respect... I never put a spin on Al Gore's words. I couldn't quote him if my life depended on it. I just don't agree with his actions or lack there of regarding global warming.

Apology accepted. ;)





I knew someone would think I was comparing the two of them and I almost said "I'm not trying to compare Al Gore to Rosa Parks" to prevent that. Sorry I didn't. But, with all due respect, now you're putting a spin on my words and should chill.

Honey, if I chilled anymore than I am right now... I'd be on the floor passed out. ;) But I will offer you my apologies nonetheless for taking your words out of context... if that's what I did.


I was comparing Rosa Parks to anybody who, as a common person, does something seemingly insignificant that makes a difference. If we all had that same attitude, we could make a big difference. I was not trying to play down Rosa Parks' contribution to the civil rights movement or over-play anybody else's contribution to the global warming movement. I was trying to illustrate that small actions sometimes lead to big things.

Noted... duly noted.

[Jerk]

Well, I haven't read through this.

All I can say is this: When the computer models can start getting a 7 day forecast correct, then maybe I'll start believing those models when they predict the weather 50 years from now.

Wait...

That is still rediculous.

[TopDawg]

Again... with all due respect... I never put a spin on Al Gore's words. I couldn't quote him if my life depended on it. I just don't agree with his actions or lack there of regarding global warming.

Apology accepted. ;)

A few glasses of wine and you get fiesty.

If you can't quote him even if your life depended on it, maybe you should stay away from trying to sum up his message in one catchy phrase. ;)

[Fraggle145]

1st I want to say I dont swallow anyones political ideas as my own, I dont watch the news, and I dont read newspapers except for the sports sections. The reason why, is the media is biased either to the right or left depending on which station you watch. If I want to know more on a subject I read about it, which as a scientist, I have to. I have read a lot of peer reviewed scientific literature about global warming, but I am by no means an expert. Every possible thing that anyone could want to know about global warming is on that site if you care to look in that report (http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf) and the previous reports put out by the IPCC (http://www.ipcc.ch/). This report is accepted by our government and the Bush Administration.

Here are some more resources:
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. http://www.usgcrp.gov/ipcc/

U.S. Global Change Research Program. http://www.usgcrp.gov/
(http://www.usgcrp.gov/)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Global Warming Page. http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/

University Corporation for Atmospheric Research. http://www.ucar.edu/ucar/
(http://www.ucar.edu/ucar/)
National Corporation for Atmospheric Research. http://www.ncar.ucar.edu/ncar/index.html

U.S. Long Term Ecological Research Network, Global Change Research. http://www.lternet.edu/global_change/

Union of Concerned Scientists. http://www.ucsusa.org

Pew Center on Global Climate Change. http://www.pewclimate.org/

Pacific Institute, Global Change Program. http://pacinst.org/global.html (http://pacinst.org/global.html)

So the last thing I want is for this to devolve into a big government vs little government issue. I think there needs to be intervention by the government because we are used to being the way we are.


...car manufacturers continue to make bigger and bigger vehicles that consume more fuel, energy companies don't want to let go of their billions of dollars of profit and actually move toward alternative energy sources (ie: wind, solar..). So here we are years and years later still having the debate...

This is simply not true for the whole world it is true for GM, Ford, and American auto companies. All of which are in the red. Even China makes cleaner vehicles than we due, by a lot. It is no secret that the Japanese companies (especially Toyota) are very profitable and are the cleanest in the industry. Why are they cleaner? because their engines are simply more efficient! The misconception, at least in my mind is the the Economy is going to STOP in order to be green. This simply isnt true. Why can we not make the transition over a period of years where we look for alternatives and explore them instead of complaining that nobody is doing anything. I think this is why people are looking to the government to do something, because we have no influence over what companies do in markets that arent necessarily free like oil and power. I believe that the carbon credits are essentially are a means to provide a buffer to the economy so that there is a tradeable resource. Also whomever has the ingenuity to create new technology is going to be so far ahead of the curve and they will have a technology that everyone else in their field will have to by the rights to use. Either way, whether you believe it or not, how much of an inconvenience is it to try to be better and maybe prevent a catastrophy in the long run. Err on the right side of caution... As far as the cycles I mean look at the report! the information over the past 600000 years is in it! and if what you are looking for isnt there then you can look on the other sites. These arent corrupted sites like the media... Make no mistake about it the overwhelming majority of scientists believe that global warming exists, there isnt a debate!

We are starting to take steps, no nobody is perfect, but if you expect someone like Al Gore to have all of this knowledge and power (whether you like it or not) and then take it and go live on a kibbutz and not tell anyone about it would be crazy. I mean I drive an SUV does that make me a hypocrite, ya a little bit, but do i recycle? ya, do I take the stairs instead of elevators? ya, do i turn the lights off? ya we have to start somewhere.

Sorry this is so long, just something that as a scientist I am passionate about.

[Fraggle145]

...making a butt load of money off of speeches every year and paying back with carbon credits...

This isnt true, the money from this talk and DVD and book go back into a fund that support climate research.

[sooneron]

1st I want to say I dont swallow anyones political ideas as my own, I dont watch the news, and I dont read newspapers except for the sports sections. The reason why, is the media is biased either to the right or left depending on which station you watch. If I want to know more on a subject I read about it, which as a scientist, I have to. I have read a lot of peer reviewed scientific literature about global warming, but I am by no means an expert. Every possible thing that anyone could want to know about global warming is on that site if you care to look in that report (http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf) and the previous reports put out by the IPCC (http://www.ipcc.ch/). This report is accepted by our government and the Bush Administration.

Here are some more resources:
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. http://www.usgcrp.gov/ipcc/

U.S. Global Change Research Program. http://www.usgcrp.gov/
(http://www.usgcrp.gov/)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Global Warming Page. http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/

University Corporation for Atmospheric Research. http://www.ucar.edu/ucar/
(http://www.ucar.edu/ucar/)
National Corporation for Atmospheric Research. http://www.ncar.ucar.edu/ncar/index.html

U.S. Long Term Ecological Research Network, Global Change Research. http://www.lternet.edu/global_change/

Union of Concerned Scientists. http://www.ucsusa.org

Pew Center on Global Climate Change. http://www.pewclimate.org/

Pacific Institute, Global Change Program. http://pacinst.org/global.html (http://pacinst.org/global.html)


LIES, LIES, I TELL YOU!!!


http://www.iflipflop.com/cheney_short_of_breath.jpg

[Scott D]

of course, but within reason. If you have to drive 25 miles to work every day, riding a bike probably isn't a great idea. If you have to shuttle kids around every day, driving an SUV may still make the most sense...all those kids and their baseball gear won't fit into a smartcar. Some people take the suggestion that they minimize their impact to mean that they go back to living in earthen huts.

well if you physicists would quit being lazy and figure out how to bend that whole space time continuum thing so we could have interstellar travel so I can get away from these crazy lefty/righty people, tia.

[sooneron]

Oh and you people are crazy to think that mankind can adversely affect this planet in ANY way!

[1stTimeCaller]

1. No.

2. I wasn't around then, but I'd have to go with yes, at some point the earth's average temperature has been warmer than it is now.

3. Never said it shouldn't.

My take on this issue is that the temperature of the earth is cyclical. We go through cool periods and through warm periods. I'm not a scientist so I can't tell you how long a period is. Is it 100 years? Is it 1000 years? 10,000 years? I don't know. I would venture a guess that this isn't the first time the earth has experienced a warming trend. What I don't know, and I don't know how anyone can know this since we we've never altered the atmosphere like this before is whether or not our actions have helped speed up the warming process. I tend to think that Mother Nature is a bit more powerful than we are, if that tips my hand at all.

STFU

TIA

:pop:

[THE Roy Williams]

like the economy, the weather is cyclical.

[SCOUT]

I have trouble believing all of the hype around global warming. I think the scientific research is interesting and very well may be right. However, I think we have gone a little overboard on the pending crisis without being sure we are right.

The reason for my skepticism is the crying of wolf that I have seen so many times before. Everything is portrayed to the public as a catastrophe but in reality turns out to be much less. For example, the food supply was going to be so short that mass starvation was predicted within 15 years back in the seventies. This was going to be due to the coming ice age. The northeast (and into Canada) was going to be largely inhospitable due to acid rain shortly after that. Deforestation was going to cause such a short supply of lumber that our economy could collapse. The rain forest was going to be completed eradicated by 1990 (or so). The whales were going to be extinct. We were all going to get Ebola, SARS, AIDS, Bird Flu, and so on.

Very intelligent people provided seemingly strong proof that all of these things were going to happen. You will forgive me if I remain a bit skeptical at this point on global warming.

With all that said, I have solar screens, a radiant barrier, extra insulation, tankless water heater, and several solar lights. I think alternative fuels and energy conservation are good ideas in their own right even without the hysteria. JMHO of course.

[Fraggle145]

1. No.

2. I wasn't around then, but I'd have to go with yes, at some point the earth's average temperature has been warmer than it is now.

3. Never said it shouldn't.

My take on this issue is that the temperature of the earth is cyclical. We go through cool periods and through warm periods. I'm not a scientist so I can't tell you how long a period is. Is it 100 years? Is it 1000 years? 10,000 years? I don't know. I would venture a guess that this isn't the first time the earth has experienced a warming trend. What I don't know, and I don't know how anyone can know this since we we've never altered the atmosphere like this before is whether or not our actions have helped speed up the warming process. I tend to think that Mother Nature is a bit more powerful than we are, if that tips my hand at all.

The cycles are every ~100,000 years. Although CO2 (and other green house gases cycle with this temperature cycle, the big difference in this one and the others is the almost double increase in CO2 that is making it go much faster and higher than normal. The other problem this can/is causing is the acidification of the world oceans so things like corals, snails, and shellfish are having a harder time making shells and if it gets to a certain level then they no longer will be able to form them.

[Scott D]

With all that said, I have solar screens, a radiant barrier, extra insulation, tankless water heater, and several solar lights. I think alternative fuels and energy conservation are good ideas in their own right even without the hysteria. JMHO of course.

The primary purpose it serves in my mind is creating innovation for technology to progress forward to where we can find a peaceful way to get the population of the planet to a more manageable level.

[Fraggle145]

I have trouble believing all of the hype around global warming. I think the scientific research is interesting and very well may be right. However, I think we have gone a little overboard on the pending crisis without being sure we are right... ...With all that said, I have solar screens, a radiant barrier, extra insulation, tankless water heater, and several solar lights. I think alternative fuels and energy conservation are good ideas in their own right even without the hysteria. JMHO of course.

This is the big point regardless of whether it is right (which I obviously believe it is) there is no reason that we shouldnt be more efficient instead of causing the extra strain on the environment. The other hting was many of the things in the middle of your quote had to do with HCFCs and Sulphurs which we no longer use, but did cause acid rain.

[yermom]

i love how this turns into "I hate Gore"


which is it? global warming doesn't exist? or Gore sucks? or humans didn't cause it?

you people should pick one

[Jerk]

so...how many of you are so concerned about this that you've parked your car permanently and started using a bicycle?

Come on, you've gotta do your part.

[JohnnyMack]

STFU

TIA

:pop:

TEA

BAG

:hot:

[SCOUT]

The other hting was many of the things in the middle of your quote had to do with HCFCs and Sulphurs which we no longer use, but did cause acid rain.
I understand that those things did happen, although to varying extents. My point there was that they were proclaimed to be the crisis of our time. The reality is that we needed to make some adjustments. So far, global warming seems to follow that same pattern.

[Fraggle145]

so...how many of you are so concerned about this that you've parked your car permanently and started using a bicycle?

Come on, you've gotta do your part.

Thats just an ignorant comment. Everyone advocating global climate change on here has already said they havent parked their car permanently, however you can start to do little things. Instead of bashing people for having an opinion different than yours you might try getting educated on what their opinion is based on rather than wait on tv to tell you what to think. :mad:

[Fraggle145]

I understand that those things did happen, although to varying extents. My point there was that they were proclaimed to be the crisis of our time. The reality is that we needed to make some adjustments. So far, global warming seems to follow that same pattern.

agreed. and skepticism is merited. I just wish more people would want to err on the side of being protective and efficient (as you have stated you are) rather than on the side of being wasteful.

[yermom]

so...how many of you are so concerned about this that you've parked your car permanently and started using a bicycle?

Come on, you've gotta do your part.

no one so far has suggested this... and i'm about as likely to park my car as you are to take part in one of those "toys for guns" things ;)

[JohnnyMack]

no one so far has suggested this... and i'm about as likely to park my car as you are to take part in one of those "toys for guns" things ;)

You can:

TEA

BAG

as well.

Hippie.

:hot:

[Ardmore_Sooner]

i love how this turns into "I hate Gore"


which is it? global warming doesn't exist? or Gore sucks? or humans didn't cause it?

you people should pick one

Can it be the Globalwarmgoresucksididntdoit thread? ;)

[Jerk]

Thats just an ignorant comment. Everyone advocating global climate change on here has already said they havent parked their car permanently, however you can start to do little things. Instead of bashing people for having an opinion different than yours you might try getting educated on what their opinion is based on rather than wait on tv to tell you what to think. :mad:

Man, looks like I've touched a nerve :pop:

Dude, if I thought we were all going to die, then I would be doing whatever it takes to avoid it.

[JohnnyMack]

Man, looks like I've touched a nerve :pop:

Dude, if I thought we were all going to die, then I would be doing whatever it takes to avoid it.

You there, gun freak, you get this memo yet?

TEA

BAG

:hot:

[Fraggle145]

i love how this turns into "I hate Gore"


which is it? global warming doesn't exist? or Gore sucks? or humans didn't cause it?

you people should pick one

It is: "because Gore sucks and I dont agree with most of his opinions he has to be wrong about this one."

Or its

"well you guys and he isnt doing anything so I'm not gonna do it and you cant make me, unless you make the government make me, and they you are a hippie tree huggin *****"

That has been what was inserted in between those of us actually having an intelligent conversation about this (both those for and against).

[Fraggle145]

Man, looks like I've touched a nerve :pop:

Dude, if I thought we were all going to die, then I would be doing whatever it takes to avoid it.

The thing is we are gonna die before the really bad things start to happen. Dont get me wrong they will start to happen, but it is the same (granted tired) story it is going to effect your kids and grandkids type of thing.

[Howzit]

like you've ever even been there to know that. :rolleyes:

I don't need to be there, I have Habibullo Abdussamatov.

[Ardmore_Sooner]

It is: "because Gore sucks and I dont agree with most of his opinions he has to be wrong about this one."

Or its

"well you guys and he isnt doing anything so I'm not gonna do it and you cant make me, unless you make the government make me, and they you are a hippie tree huggin *****"

That has been what was inserted inbetween those of us actually having an intelligent conversation about this (both those for an against).

Agreed

[Jerk]

You there, gun freak, you get this memo yet?

TEA

BAG

:hot:

Nope.

[JohnnyMack]

Nope.

Yo.

Check this out:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17422580/

[Ardmore_Sooner]

This thread has been hijacked. :rolleyes:

[KABOOKIE]

i love how this turns into "I hate Gore"


which is it? global warming doesn't exist? or Gore sucks? or humans didn't cause it?

you people should pick one


I can pick two..... :D

[olevetonahill]

Oh i agree that awareness is a very big part of it, I just wish we could have something that works along with the awareness.

I just feel that carbon credits are just an excuse to make us feel we are putting a temporary fix to the problem. It is temporary, but not long enough in my opinion.
Are ya saying its Kinda sorta like
Buying your way out of the draft ?

[Ike]

well if you physicists would quit being lazy and figure out how to bend that whole space time continuum thing so we could have interstellar travel so I can get away from these crazy lefty/righty people, tia.


well, I think some people have already figured that out...what you need to do is get real close to a spinning black hole.


Of course, you probably won't survive, but the bits of you that make it through could, in principle, wind up in another corner of the universe.

[Scott D]

well, I think some people have already figured that out...what you need to do is get real close to a spinning black hole.


Of course, you probably won't survive, but the bits of you that make it through could, in principle, wind up in another corner of the universe.

ok so you need to work on that gravitational pull issue so that I don't become billions of tiny particles that won't be reassembled.

And why don't we have transporters yet? hmmmmm? lazy physicists ;)

[Jerk]

Yo.

Check this out:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17422580/

This is why I love Oklahoma. Some dude has a million rounds of ammo around here and no one will blink an eye. Out there in Kalifornia they freak out and call the ATF.

Is there a law in Kalifornia against having a certain amount of ammo?

No way could I live out there. Half of everything I own would be illegal.

[TopDawg]

This is why I love Oklahoma. Some dude has a million rounds of ammo around here and no one will blink an eye. Out there in Kalifornia they freak out and call the ATF.

Is there a law in Kalifornia against having a certain amount of ammo?

No way could I live out there. Half of everything I own would be illegal.

Oh you krazy konservatives!

[Jerk]

Oh you krazy konservatives!

At least we're not crazy enough to try something that has repeatedly not worked and has a dismal and documented record of failure, like, uh...socialism.

[TopDawg]

Oh, Jerk, you krack me up!

[usmc-sooner]

1 2 Global Warming's coming for you
3 4 better listen to Al Gore
5 6 get your carbon credit fix

[Jerk]

1 2 Global Warming's coming for you
3 4 better listen to Al Gore
5 6 get your carbon credit fix

I heard Rush or someone compare the carbon credits to the medieval catholic church's 'indulgence tax' :D

Global Warming is indeed becoming a religioun. Mother Earth is worshipped. Mankind is the debil. Al Gore is teh Savior. They even have their own 'end times' when the ice caps melt and flood all the blue states. The initial sin of bringing evil into the world was the advent of the internal combustion engine. heh..and Karl Marx's little red book is their 'Bible.'

[Ike]

ok so you need to work on that gravitational pull issue so that I don't become billions of tiny particles that won't be reassembled.

And why don't we have transporters yet? hmmmmm? lazy physicists ;)


are you really going to trust us physicists with re-assembly of your body?


Most of the physicists I know, including myself, have very strange senses of humor...you might wind up wearing your junk on your chin...



just sayin.

[Vaevictis]

All I can say is this: When the computer models can start getting a 7 day forecast correct, then maybe I'll start believing those models when they predict the weather 50 years from now.

Take a physics class or two that includes basic thermodynamics and you'll learn why you're comparing apples to oranges here.

If you were to ask a good meteorologist what the global average temperature is 7 days out, they'd probably get the answer correct (within a couple tenths of a degree) every time.

Predicting a local state (7 day forecast) within a system is usually pretty hard. Predicting the overall behavior of the system (global average temperature) is usually trivial by comparison.

[Ardmore_Sooner]

Take a physics class or two that includes basic thermodynamics and you'll learn why you're comparing apples to oranges here.

If you were to ask a good meteorologist what the global average temperature is 7 days out, they'd probably get the answer correct (within a couple tenths of a degree) every time.

Predicting a local state (7 day forecast) within a system is usually pretty hard. Predicting the overall behavior of the system (global average temperature) is usually trivial by comparison.

Stop trying to make sense. ;)

[Jerk]

Hey wait, I've thought of more (re: global warming religioun)

The Saints - instead of John the Baptist, Mathew, Moses, et al, we have Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy, and George Soros.

The Anti-Gore (Anti-Christ) is 'capitalism.'

The Beast is the 'United States'

'Revelations' has been replaced with 'An Inconvienent Truth'

'The Church' has been replaced by 'The United Nations'

'Judas Iscariot' is now 'any scientist who disagrees with man-made global warming'

Wicked ones, the lost, the damned, are 'conservatives'

Hang on I will think of more...

Liberals - Gods, err...Mother Earth's angels.

'The Holy Land' ......Blue States (hehehe)

[Jerk]

Take a physics class or two that includes basic thermodynamics and you'll learn why you're comparing apples to oranges here.

If you were to ask a good meteorologist what the global average temperature is 7 days out, they'd probably get the answer correct (within a couple tenths of a degree) every time.

Predicting a local state (7 day forecast) within a system is usually pretty hard. Predicting the overall behavior of the system (global average temperature) is usually trivial by comparison.

okie dokie there, nostradamus.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

okie dokie there, nostradamus.You should probably cease further comment intended to persuade. The wisdom and intellect of the members of my new party(the Dim) is IRREFUTABLE, and your attempts to convince anyone otherwise are doomed to failure.

[Ardmore_Sooner]

Hey wait, I've thought of more (re: global warming religioun)

The Saints - instead of John the Baptist, Mathew, Moses, et al, we have Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy, and George Soros.

The Anti-Gore (Anti-Christ) is 'capitalism.'

The Beast is the 'United States'

'Revelations' has been replaced with 'An Inconvienent Truth'

'The Church' has been replaced by 'The United Nations'

'Judas Iscariot' is now 'any scientist who disagrees with man-made global warming'

Wicked ones, the lost, the damned, are 'conservatives'

Hang on I will think of more...

Liberals - Gods, err...Mother Earth's angels.

'The Holy Land' ......Blue States (hehehe)

You forgot the mark of the beast and the letters to the seven churches. ;)

[Ardmore_Sooner]

I'm still trying to figure out how this whole thread became political......

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I'm still trying to figure out how this whole thread became political......Hysteria over a fear like global warming, even if it is legitimate in any way, will lead to greater govt. control , restrictions and taxation.

[Ardmore_Sooner]

Hysteria over a fear like global warming, even if it is legitimate in any way, will lead to greater govt. control , restrictions and taxation.

I agree, but this thread in no way was going towards that direction until a few people moved it that way is all I am trying to say. No big deal. :D

[SoonerGirl06]

I'm still trying to figure out how this whole thread became political......

With all the strong minded posters on this board you find that hard to believe? ;)

[Ardmore_Sooner]

With all the strong minded posters on this board you find that hard to believe? ;)

Well that is true.... ;)

[yermom]

because to fix global warming you have to move into Socialism

[Vaevictis]

okie dokie there, nostradamus.

No need for Nostradamus, just a course or two's worth of calculus based physics. Maybe a course on basic astronomy.

[Fraggle145]

I love how instead of trying to get educated on an issue, people would rather just bash someone elses opinion, especially if it means any sort of inconvenience to them...

[yermom]

it would probably take Rush Limbaugh saying it for any one to listen ;)

[Fraggle145]

Sometimes I think that even if Jesus himself said it, people would tell him to quit being a hippie, and wouldnt believe it.

[Ike]

I love how instead of trying to get educated on an issue, people would rather just bash someone elses opinion, especially if it means any sort of inconvenience to them...

Learning **** is hard. Slamming experts for being snot-nosed elitist hypocrite bastards however is easy.

[TopDawg]

Learning **** is hard. Slamming experts for being snot-nosed elitist hypocrite bastards however is easy.

Oh what the hell would you know about it you intellectuatlist bastard? Maybe there's global warming up there in your ivory tower, but down here on good ol' planet earth, things are fine!

[JohnnyMack]

Oh what the hell would you know about it you intellectuatlist bastard? Maybe there's global warming up there in your ivory tower, but down here on good ol' planet earth, things are fine!

Yeah!

Hey, can you pass me the sunscreen?

[usmc-sooner]

I think the best debate was a guy on TV, who argued both sides, he cited scientists who believe in it, and scientist who don't believe in it. He finally concluded that you couldn't absolutely say beyond a reasonable doubt that it was occurring but in his opinion should be studied.

Look I have no problem for funding scientific research, I don't like how people are pushing this. If they said hey we need money to study this, I'm all for it. But I think it's too political and scare tactics annoy me.

My other problem is that even if it is 100% without a doubt true, we will not change enough to correct the problem. The guys like Al Gore who are the most passionate don't really try to change their lifestyle that much and the general public won't either.

I hope nobody takes this as me bashing their opinions. It's just my opinion.

[Howzit]

Learning **** is hard. Slamming experts for being snot-nosed elitist hypocrite bastards however is easy.

How teh heckfire can I take global warming serious when these guys are only 90% confident in their hypothesis?

THAT MEANS THERES STILL A CHANCE GLOBAL WARMING IS BS!!

[usmc-sooner]

How teh heckfire can I take global warming serious when these guys are only 90% confident in their hypothesis?

THAT MEANS THERES STILL A CHANCE GLOBAL WARMING IS BS!!

so you're saying there's a chance. :D

[Howzit]

:D

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/allposters/66/1800228066p.jpg

[Fraggle145]

...My other problem is that even if it is 100% without a doubt true, we will not change enough to correct the problem...

I dont think this is necessarily true... the American people have proven throughout history that when change is demanded we can make it happen... (see womens suffrage, minority rights, and in the environment no longer using DDT & HCFCs, which in a round about way repaired the whole in the ozone) JMHO

[Jerk]

That's cool. You guys can imply 'dumb and dumber' if you have a different opinion around here. Not all scientists agree with man-made global warming, and just because they are in the minority doesn't mean they are wrong. I've latched on to my side because the socialists hippies have grabbed the other as a vehicle to force their agenda on everyone. **** them. I'm driving my truck extra fast today. Ludicrus speed. Better get the **** outta the way.

I'm sure alot of people here won't mind giving up alot of freedom for this cause..

as long as its not their own.

This is all a scam for more taxes and more government.

[usmc-sooner]

I dont think this is necessarily true... the American people have proven throughout history that when change is demanded we can make it happen... (see womens suffrage, minority rights, and in the environment no longer using DDT & HCFCs, which in a round about way repaired the whole in the ozone) JMHO

People freak out over the price of gas yet it doesn't slow them down. I think given the choice the American people would riot before they made major changes. Like I said even those that seem to be the most passionate like Al Gore aren't changing their lifestyle much. Plus it's not just the American people that would have to change, it would be the entire world. We don't have a lot of luck getting the entire world on one page and thinking alike. What are we going to do pay them to not pollute, go to war with every country that doesn't fall in line? We can't even get Iran, North Korea, China to quit working on nukes. Call me crazy but if they'd rather build WMD's my bet is they could give a darn about pollution and global warming.
This is where I think scientist don't understand, you can talk about changing all you want but it won't happen. We can't make it happen. Right now we can't even get the American people to support their own President during a war. When you start talking about more expensive cars, alternate fuels, more regulations, it just won't happen.

[Fraggle145]

People freak out over the price of gas yet it doesn't slow them down. I think given the choice the American people would riot before they made major changes. Like I said even those that seem to be the most passionate like Al Gore aren't changing their lifestyle much. Plus it's not just the American people that would have to change, it would be the entire world. We don't have a lot of luck getting the entire world on one page and thinking alike. What are we going to do pay them to not pollute, go to war with every country that doesn't fall in line? We can't even get Iran, North Korea, China to quit working on nukes. Call me crazy but if they'd rather build WMD's my bet is they could give a darn about pollution and global warming.
This is where I think scientist don't understand, you can talk about changing all you want but it won't happen. We can't make it happen. Right now we can't even get the American people to support their own President during a war. When you start talking about more expensive cars, alternate fuels, more regulations, it just won't happen.

I disagree, Europe isnt having too hard of a time changing... their gas costs ~$4/gal and they ride bikes! we will just have to agree to disagree on this point.

[usmc-sooner]

I disagree, Europe isnt having too hard of a time changing... their gas costs ~$4/gal and they ride bikes! we will just have to agree to disagree on this point.

our country is too divided to agree on anything right now.
Some European countries won't be the problems, it will be 3rd world countries, who need money more than they need clean air, places in the Africa, the Mid-East, South America, Asia.
some of these places have their military kidnapping kids and forcing them into service, some have kids dying in mines, they are not going to give a flip about doing the right thing when it comes to global warming. Re-read my post, you should probably get that I'm not so much referring to Europe but the countries who going all out to create WMD's, you can't tell me they are too concerned with Global warming.

That's what I mean about some scientist who can't see the big picture, you can throw little instances here and there where some people might/or will change but your not going to get global cooperation on anything. I honestly don't think we'd have global cooperation if Aliens invaded. It's almost beyond ridiculous to think that everyone in the world would cooperate when a good portion doesn't care, and good portion don't believe in it. You can't even get all scientist to agree on this subject yet you think the world will change.

We can agree to disagree, that's fine. You've been extremely polite towards me on the boards and I do respect your opinion.

[Fraggle145]

our country is too divided to agree on anything right now.
Some European countries won't be the problems, it will be 3rd world countries, who need money more than they need clean air, places in the Africa, the Mid-East, South America, Asia.
some of these places have their military kidnapping kids and forcing them into service, some have kids dying in mines, they are not going to give a flip about doing the right thing when it comes to global warming. Re-read my post, you should probably get that I'm not so much referring to Europe but the countries who going all out to create WMD's, you can't tell me they are too concerned with Global warming.

That's what I mean about some scientist who can't see the big picture, you can throw little instances here and there where some people might/or will change but your not going to get global cooperation on anything. I honestly don't think we'd have global cooperation if Aliens invaded. It's almost beyond ridiculous to think that everyone in the world would cooperate when a good portion doesn't care, and good portion don't believe in it. You can't even get all scientist to agree on this subject yet you think the world will change.

We can agree to disagree, that's fine. You've been extremely polite towards me on the boards and I do respect your opinion.

I agree that developing nations are probable not going to adhere to the same standards that other more developed countries can. However, right now it is the developed countries that use the most carbon or create the most waste per person. Although China and India have the most people, we in the US use and waste the most again this is on an individual basis. If we were to lead the way like we have to do with many things in this world, it would be profitable to us and helpful to world health as a whole. So ya I agree when you have the crazies they are gonna be crazy, that doesnt mean we shouldnt try. So I guess I disagree with you in that most of the civilized (for lack of a better term) world will eventually start to adhere to the standards necessary to clean up our acts, but i agree that the developing countries are going to take much much longer to come around.

[TopDawg]

usmc (and others who feel the same way), I agree about the difficulty of getting everybody on-board with this plan. You're right in saying that it's going to be nearly impossible to get everybody in this country, much less the world, on the same page as us (those of us who want to do something about it).

But the same was true with the women's movement and the civil right's movement. And before I go any further, I'm not trying to say that people who don't believe in doing something for global warming = slave owners. That's not at all what I'm trying to say. My point is that we are decades removed from the civil right's movement and there are still American's who don't believe it was a good thing. And you don't have to look too hard to find other countries who are nowhere close to where we are on civil rights.

But does that mean it was a wasted effort? Surely not. Our civil rights movement made the world a better place. There is still A LOT that needs to be done in other countries, and in ours, but it was a good start. That's the same way I feel about trying to make a difference with global warming. We won't be able to solve the problem anytime soon. We may NEVER be able to completely solve the problem. But we can slow it down. We can make it LESS of a problem. And by starting now, we make it that much easier for future generations to continue improving the situation.

[usmc-sooner]

I agree that developing nations are probable not going to adhere to the same standards that other more developed countries can. However, right now it is the developed countries that use the most carbon or create the most waste per person. Although China and India have the most people, we in the US use and waste the most again this is on an individual basis. If we were to lead the way like we have to do with many things in this world, it would be profitable to us and helpful to world health as a whole. So ya I agree when you have the crazies they are gonna be crazy, that doesnt mean we shouldnt try. So I guess I disagree with you in that most of the civilized (for lack of a better term) world will eventually start to adhere to the standards necessary to clean up our acts, but i agree that the developing countries are going to take much much longer to come around.


Also you have this country and probably around half believe it's a hoax. So I don't see how these people are going to agree to change when they believe it's a hoax. I can quote some Senators one from this state who call Global Warming the biggest hoax ever perpetrated. I think it's going to be a little harder to get people to agree on this than you think, much less make changes. For me personally I can't rely on riding a bike to work, Most people in this country can't. If I have to start making changes it's going to take food off my table for my family. So in a way it's make changes and suffer now, or don't make changes and suffer later if you buy into man made Global warming. I've been a lot of places my friend and I've seen very little to convince me that people will work together for anything. No matter how good or noble the cause is, it's hard to imagine for me how anyone would side with Hitler but they did. The science may be there to fix it but the politics and willingness to put aside differences is not. Right now it's even that way in our own country. I just don't see hard corps liberals and conservatives being able to work together. You're not going to convince Imhoff (sp) to make changes for Global Warming and he's a representative (Senator) of your own state. Assuming you're from Oklahoma, I saw where you stated you were an honor student at OU.

[Ardmore_Sooner]

That's cool. You guys can imply 'dumb and dumber' if you have a different opinion around here. Not all scientists agree with man-made global warming, and just because they are in the minority doesn't mean they are wrong. I've latched on to my side because the socialists hippies have grabbed the other as a vehicle to force their agenda on everyone. **** them. I'm driving my truck extra fast today. Ludicrus speed. Better get the **** outta the way.

I'm sure alot of people here won't mind giving up alot of freedom for this cause..

as long as its not their own.

This is all a scam for more taxes and more government.

I think you missed the whole, "So you're saying there's a chance!" quote from Dumb and Dumber.....

[Ardmore_Sooner]

Also you have this country and probably around half believe it's a hoax. So I don't see how these people are going to agree to change when they believe it's a hoax. I can quote some Senators one from this state who call Global Warming the biggest hoax ever perpetrated. I think it's going to be a little harder to get people to agree on this than you think, much less make changes. For me personally I can't rely on riding a bike to work, Most people in this country can't. If I have to start making changes it's going to take food off my table for my family. So in a way it's make changes and suffer now, or don't make changes and suffer later if you buy into man made Global warming. I've been a lot of places my friend and I've seen very little to convince me that people will work together for anything. No matter how good or noble the cause is, it's hard to imagine for me how anyone would side with Hitler but they did. The science may be there to fix it but the politics and willingness to put aside differences is not. Right now it's even that way in our own country. I just don't see hard corps liberals and conservatives being able to work together. You're not going to convince Imhoff (sp) to make changes for Global Warming and he's a representative (Senator) of your own state. Assuming you're from Oklahoma, I saw where you stated you were an honor student at OU.

I believe the Kyoto Protocol is a great way to get things started. Most of the world has signed it, with a few still pending. America and Australia are the only two countries in the world who have yet to sign the Protocol (with the exception of a few African countries that hold no position). Many American cities have signed a similar protocol. I believe to get the whole world to change would be EXTREMELY difficult, but you can't walk a mile until you start taking steps.

Also Iraq and Iran and a few others have yet to sign the Kyoto Protocol for obvious reasons.

[usmc-sooner]

I believe the Kyoto Protocol is a great way to get things started. Most of the world has signed it, with a few still pending. America and Australia are the only two countries in the world who have yet to sign the Protocol (with the exception of a few African countries that hold no position). Many American cities have signed a similar protocol. I believe to get the whole world to change would be EXTREMELY difficult, but you can't walk a mile until you start taking steps.

Also Iraq and Iran and a few others have yet to sign the Kyoto Protocol for obvious reasons.

all I'm saying is that there are a lot of people who don't believe in man made global warming, and they aren't going to be willing to change for something they don't believe in.

I've got a question for you? How will the Kyoto Protocol going to effect me? Am I going to spend more for a car? Pay more taxes to fund it? How will effect the average citizen?

[Ardmore_Sooner]

all I'm saying is that there are a lot of people who don't believe in man made global warming, and they aren't going to be willing to change for something they don't believe in.

I've got a question for you? How will the Kyoto Protocol going to effect me? Am I going to spend more for a car? Pay more taxes to fund it? How will effect the average citizen?

I can't answer that unless you believe in global warming. ;) Just kidding. Right now to buy a car that ran on a fuel different than gasoline would definitely be more expensive, but if more companies mass produced more vehicles that ran on alternative fuel sources than they could be just as cheap or cheaper. Even if you don't believe in global warming at least acknowledge the fact that if we can move away from gas powered vehicles, life in places such as South America and the Middle East would be much easier on ourselves.

I can't tell you how much taxes would be raised or how much it would cost. I didn't do well in macroeconomics so I couldn't say. :)

[usmc-sooner]

I can't answer that unless you believe in global warming. ;) Just kidding. Right now to buy a car that ran on a fuel different than gasoline would definitely be more expensive, but if more companies mass produced more vehicles that ran on alternative fuel sources than they could be just as cheap or cheaper. Even if you don't believe in global warming at least acknowledge the fact that if we can move away from gas powered vehicles, life in places such as South America and the Middle East would be much easier on ourselves.

I can't tell you how much taxes would be raised or how much it would cost. I didn't do well in macroeconomics so I couldn't say. :)

well the technology is there to run on alternative fuels but we use gasoline because it the most efficient fuel out there. Gives us the most bang for our buck. Technically we could make a car that could run off manure but you'd probably have to have a 200 gallon storage tank. We can run an engine on just about anything that will burn but it's just not practical. We know we can run off steam engines, coal and many other things but nothing out there is matching oil and gas, as far as cost and efficiency.

[Ardmore_Sooner]

I just look to an alternate fuel source to more than "global warming". As much as I may fight for the cause, I still question certain aspects of global warming. I feel that using another fuel source would benifit us, like I stated, in countries where we rely heavily on oil. I know 49% of imported oil comes from Canada, but I just feel life would be much easier if we strayed from it. And whether you believe in global warming or not, the vast amounts of carbon dioxide and other chamicals from burning fossil fuels kill plants and leafs on trees. Thats a fact, there is no disputing that.

I'm to the point where I will probably start leaving 30 minutes earlier and start walking to class. I don't worry as much about the "heating of the planet" but more about what is taking place on the planet now that is proven fact.

[sooneron]

all I'm saying is that there are a lot of people who don't believe in man made global warming, and they aren't going to be willing to change for something they don't believe in.


C'mon now, let's be AmeriCANS, not American'ts!:D

[usmc-sooner]

C'mon now, let's be AmeriCANS, not American'ts!:D

I've got to remember that one, that's a classic. :D

[Ardmore_Sooner]

Lol, what show was that from?

[sooneron]

I don't remember.

[usmc-sooner]

usmc (and others who feel the same way), I agree about the difficulty of getting everybody on-board with this plan. You're right in saying that it's going to be nearly impossible to get everybody in this country, much less the world, on the same page as us (those of us who want to do something about it).

But the same was true with the women's movement and the civil right's movement. And before I go any further, I'm not trying to say that people who don't believe in doing something for global warming = slave owners. That's not at all what I'm trying to say. My point is that we are decades removed from the civil right's movement and there are still American's who don't believe it was a good thing. And you don't have to look too hard to find other countries who are nowhere close to where we are on civil rights.

But does that mean it was a wasted effort? Surely not. Our civil rights movement made the world a better place. There is still A LOT that needs to be done in other countries, and in ours, but it was a good start. That's the same way I feel about trying to make a difference with global warming. We won't be able to solve the problem anytime soon. We may NEVER be able to completely solve the problem. But we can slow it down. We can make it LESS of a problem. And by starting now, we make it that much easier for future generations to continue improving the situation.


you make a good point but the problem with that IMO is people could actually see that people were suffering from civil rights violation. You could look and see that racism and sexism had victims. But people will have a harder time trying to sacrifice now for future generations especially if they don't believe it it.

[Ardmore_Sooner]

you make a good point but the problem with that IMO is people could actually see that people were suffering from civil rights violation. You could look and see that racism and sexism had victims. But people will have a harder time trying to sacrifice now for future generations especially if they don't believe it it.

I agree, I think comparing racism/sexism in the 18th-20th century is a lot different than global warming today. Apples and Oranges

[sooneron]

you make a good point but the problem with that IMO is people could actually see that people were suffering from civil rights violation. You could look and see that racism and sexism had victims. But people will have a harder time trying to sacrifice now for future generations especially if they don't believe it it.
Kinda like deficits.

[C&CDean]

So, did anybody actually go see Gore? Did he RYFO?

[Scott D]

So, did anybody actually go see Gore? Did he RYFO?

I heard he referred to you as ManBearPig. ;)

[C&CDean]

I heard he referred to you as ManBearPig. ;)
I'm cool with that. He'll always be Tipper's Bitch to me.

[Scott D]

well the technology is there to run on alternative fuels but we use gasoline because it the most efficient fuel out there. Gives us the most bang for our buck. Technically we could make a car that could run off manure but you'd probably have to have a 200 gallon storage tank. We can run an engine on just about anything that will burn but it's just not practical. We know we can run off steam engines, coal and many other things but nothing out there is matching oil and gas, as far as cost and efficiency.

Therein lies the crux that Ike has been hinting at, at least in regards to Scientific Funding. While we can all say "yes, oil companies and auto makers are doing things to look for alternative fuel sources and more efficiently running vehicles off of those fuel sources" the fact remains that in the big picture is the funding for that research enough? Sometimes it seems like more goes into making Ipods smaller with more space than making alternative fuel more efficient.

Like you or someone else said earlier, the bigger problem is getting "3rd world" countries on board. Personally, I think a lot of the human increase in contributions to global warming is from those countries..well them and the increased production/driving in largely populated nations like China and India.

[Fraggle145]

all I'm saying is that there are a lot of people who don't believe in man made global warming, and they aren't going to be willing to change for something they don't believe in.

I've got a question for you? How will the Kyoto Protocol going to effect me? Am I going to spend more for a car? Pay more taxes to fund it? How will effect the average citizen?

Well if you live in norman, you would know how much the Kyoto protocol actually changes your everyday living, because Norman has signed it!

[yermom]

according to Gore's data, the US is outweighing the 3rd world countries, and doing less about it than those countries, even by percentage of population

(yes Dean, I went)

i went with something of an open mind, i didn't see anything that jumped out of junk science, i think i have a pretty decent BS detector for that stuff

[yermom]

Well if you live in norman, you would know how much the Kyoto protocol actually changes your everyday living, because Norman has signed it!

i was thinking about this... i'm sure a lot of this has to do with industry, it's not like we are running steel mills or burning coal or anything in Norman, OK

[C&CDean]

according to Gore's data, the US is outweighing the 3rd world countries, and doing less about it than those countries, even by percentage of population

(yes Dean, I went)

i went with something of an open mind, i didn't see anything that jumped out of junk science, i think i have a pretty decent BS detector for that stuff

Well if by "outweighing the 3rd world countries" he means we're a country full of fatasses then I agree with him. If he says we're out-polluting the 3rd world countries I probably gotta agree with that too (although I've been to some 3rd world countries where raw **** runs down the street gutters and the factories are spewing burnt orange grunge into the air).

So, according to algore, when are we all gonna die?

[yermom]

he didn't really say that, although he did show where climate changes have already started displacing people and starting social unrest in places like Darfur

[C&CDean]

Dude, I gotta be honest. If he said there was unrest amongst the hillbillies between Wanette and Lexington then I'd be concerned. Darfur? Couldn't give a ****.

[Ike]

well the technology is there to run on alternative fuels but we use gasoline because it the most efficient fuel out there. Gives us the most bang for our buck. Technically we could make a car that could run off manure but you'd probably have to have a 200 gallon storage tank. We can run an engine on just about anything that will burn but it's just not practical. We know we can run off steam engines, coal and many other things but nothing out there is matching oil and gas, as far as cost and efficiency.

I was reading an article the other day that gave a pretty throrough run-through of all the available car-powering technologies. Interestingly, it isn't gas that gives us the most bang for our buck. It's batteries. IIRC, at todays gas prices, one mile in your car costs about 12 cents (assuming 20mpg). With a battery powered car that you plug into your electrical outlet, they determined that the average cost per mile to run the thing was about 2 cents per mile.

But after that, gas wins, mainly because gas tanks are currently a lot cheaper than batteries (the cost ratio is changing though as the laptop industry has made better and cheaper batteries a priority), and because on the best batteries out there, it would take about a couple hours or so to "refuel" a battery powered car. But one charge could get you about 100 miles.

Because of that, I think that there may be a market for pure battery powered cars in the near future as simply commuter vehicles. Most people spend the bulk of their driving time driving to and from work. As such, if the cost of batteries can see a drop, there might be a time in the near future where it makes sense for a 2 car family to own one battery powered car and one gas powered car (for the longer trips).

[Fraggle145]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

Here is a link to what the protocol actually is about.

http://unfccc.int/essential_background/kyoto_protocol/items/1678.php

Here is the link to the legalese version.

I went to the talk as well. Although as a scientist (currently a PHd student at OU, with a MS from UGA, and an honors degree from OU, not trying to brag just giving my credentials as a qualifier I guess) I have read the literature and didnt need any convincing. :D


Also you have this country and probably around half believe it's a hoax. So I don't see how these people are going to agree to change when they believe it's a hoax. I can quote some Senators one from this state who call Global Warming the biggest hoax ever perpetrated. I think it's going to be a little harder to get people to agree on this than you think, much less make changes. For me personally I can't rely on riding a bike to work, Most people in this country can't. If I have to start making changes it's going to take food off my table for my family. So in a way it's make changes and suffer now, or don't make changes and suffer later if you buy into man made Global warming. I've been a lot of places my friend and I've seen very little to convince me that people will work together for anything. No matter how good or noble the cause is, it's hard to imagine for me how anyone would side with Hitler but they did. The science may be there to fix it but the politics and willingness to put aside differences is not. Right now it's even that way in our own country. I just don't see hard corps liberals and conservatives being able to work together. You're not going to convince Imhoff (sp) to make changes for Global Warming and he's a representative (Senator) of your own state. Assuming you're from Oklahoma, I saw where you stated you were an honor student at OU.

As far as imhoffe goes... :rolleyes: I personally believe he is bought and paid for an has been for a long time, JMHO. The main problem is the fact that media is representing it as if there is significantly more debate in the scientific community than there actually is. Basically, like i said in a previous post if you take a subsample of the scientific literature on global warming in a sample of 10,000 original peer reviewed research articles you might find 1 that is dissenting about if global warming exists or if human beings are causing it. 10,000 papers is about a 10 year body of research just as a point of reference. Contrast that with the media where about 50% of the articles present a dissenting viewpoint. the real problem is the disconnect between the general public and the scientific community. If they werent so separated then the public could more easily decide for itself (and in no way am i saying that scientists should make any/all of the decisions, I think the public should). That is also what makes it hard for us to converse.

As far as it taking food off of your table, I disagree with that. think about it this way, if you use more efficient light bulbs, take shorter showers, use less electricity/gas for heating and cooling you are going to save money! the more energy efficient appliances and practices you use, you save money! I understand because of the way the infastructure is laid out in the US everyone cant take public transport or ride a bike, it just isnt practical, but that doesnt mean that our cars should have lower emission standards than cars in China?! Think of the money we could all save with better functioning engines that burned less fuel! I guess I just think you would be surprised at how big a difference just the little things make not only for you, but on the whole.

[yermom]

Dude, I gotta be honest. If he said there was unrest amongst the hillbillies between Wanette and Lexington then I'd be concerned. Darfur? Couldn't give a ****.


it's just an example. imagine if Mexico was couldn't support it's population, and people started streaming over the border uncontrollably

oh, wait ;)

[Fraggle145]

i was thinking about this... i'm sure a lot of this has to do with industry, it's not like we are running steel mills or burning coal or anything in Norman, OK

It still means that we have to reduce our emissions overall... its a start. Alot of it is probably related to OU and its output, which I am sure is quite a bit...

[yermom]

i'm just saying Norman, OK is probably a "low hanging fruit" as far as US cities go

[usmc-sooner]

i'm just saying Norman, OK is probably a "low hanging fruit" as far as US cities go

yeah but if they'd quit popping off them damn fireworks after touchdowns and shooting them pop guns off at Nebraska we'd have a lot less pollution:D

it's simple to cool down Norman it's our duty to score less. :D

[Scott D]

I was reading an article the other day that gave a pretty throrough run-through of all the available car-powering technologies. Interestingly, it isn't gas that gives us the most bang for our buck. It's batteries. IIRC, at todays gas prices, one mile in your car costs about 12 cents (assuming 20mpg). With a battery powered car that you plug into your electrical outlet, they determined that the average cost per mile to run the thing was about 2 cents per mile.

But after that, gas wins, mainly because gas tanks are currently a lot cheaper than batteries (the cost ratio is changing though as the laptop industry has made better and cheaper batteries a priority), and because on the best batteries out there, it would take about a couple hours or so to "refuel" a battery powered car. But one charge could get you about 100 miles.

Because of that, I think that there may be a market for pure battery powered cars in the near future as simply commuter vehicles. Most people spend the bulk of their driving time driving to and from work. As such, if the cost of batteries can see a drop, there might be a time in the near future where it makes sense for a 2 car family to own one battery powered car and one gas powered car (for the longer trips).

Parlay this into the entire GM conspiracy of the late 30s early 40s and it makes the current situation veddy veddy amusing.

[usmc-sooner]

I gotta be honest, I don't want a battery car.

[Fraggle145]

I gotta be honest, I don't want a battery car.

heh ;)

[yermom]

I gotta be honest, I don't want a battery car.

i think they have a way to go before they are ready for public consumption

this one looks cool though...

http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php?js_enabled=1

[Fraggle145]

i think they have a way to go before they are ready for public consumption

this one looks cool though...

http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php?js_enabled=1

hmmm impressive...

http://www.teslamotors.com/display_data/torquegraph_v2.gif

[Harry Beanbag]

I understand because of the way the infastructure is laid out in the US everyone cant take public transport or ride a bike, it just isnt practical, but that doesnt mean that our cars should have lower emission standards than cars in China?! Think of the money we could all save with better functioning engines that burned less fuel! I guess I just think you would be surprised at how big a difference just the little things make not only for you, but on the whole.


I'm not sure if you had a typo or if I'm not quite understanding what you're getting at. Are you saying we don't have lower emission standards than China? Does China have any emission standards?

I'm all for having cleaner burning engines with higher gas mileage, and I think Detroit can do that fairly quickly.

[Fraggle145]

I'm not sure if you had a typo or if I'm not quite understanding what you're getting at. Are you saying we don't have lower emission standards than China? Does China have any emission standards?

I'm all for having cleaner burning engines with higher gas mileage, and I think Detroit can do that fairly quickly.

Basically, China's standards are much better than ours so our standards are not lower than China's. They require their vehicles to emit less carbon than vehicles in the US are allowed to emit. Their standards are better already than what are planned to be in place in California by 2020. This is, IMO, one of the reasons American car companies are losing money... they cant sell their cars to anyone overseas because they dont meet emission standards! Currently they are also bringing a lawsuit against California to remove the attempt to better their emission standards. I dont have the exact numbers for you at the moment, as soon as I find them again I will throw them up.

[Harry Beanbag]

Basically, China's standards are much better than ours so our standards are not lower than China's. They require their vehicles to emit less carbon than vehicles in the US are allowed to emit. Their standards are better already than what are planned to be in place in California by 2020. This is, IMO, one of the reasons American car companies are losing money... they cant sell their cars to anyone overseas because they dont meet emission standards! Currently they are also bringing a lawsuit against California to remove the attempt to better their emission standards. I dont have the exact numbers for you at the moment, as soon as I find them again I will throw them up.


Wow, that's difficult to believe (not that I'm doubting you).

[Turd_Ferguson]

Basically, China's standards are much better than ours so our standards are not lower than China's.
Am I the only one confused about this?:confused:

[Fraggle145]

Am I the only one confused about this?:confused:

Basically better means that you have lower emission standards, lower meaning that you emit less. It gets confusing, you could say instead that china's standards are more stringent than ours.

[Jerk]

China = Good
USA = bad

Typical.

[Fraggle145]

China = Good
USA = bad

Typical.

yup i'm a communist... :rolleyes:

[Jerk]

yup i'm a communist... :rolleyes:

I didn't say that.

You're implying that China is so much more ahead of us because their standards are stricter. Yeah, they're a great civilization alright. Mass exuctions of their own people for petty crimes and selling organs on the black market to fund the their army... yessir, I think we should do more to emulate them....NOT! They're the most inhumane bast*rds on the planet, but at least they care about the ozone, so goody for them.

[Fraggle145]

I didn't say that.

You're implying that China is so much more ahead of us because their standards are stricter. Yeah, they're a great civilization alright. Mass exuctions of their own people for petty crimes and selling organs on the black market to fund the their army... yessir, I think we should do more to emulate them....NOT!

So because they are horrible in every other aspect, lets not do the one thing they do well. That'll show em.

Edit: And I never said they were so far ahead of us as a society. This is probably the only thing... I guess I am saying I dont think they should be better than us in anything.

[Jerk]

Fraggle, I read this article and it has completely changed my mind. You're right, I'm wrong.

"There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.
The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.
To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”
A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.
To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.
Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”
Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.
“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.
Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality. "
[end]

Newsweek April 28th, 1975

Scientists everywhere say that the earth is freezing, and I agree!!!!

ohh noooz!

Seriously, should I believe these scientists who say the earth is cooling, or a bunch of wack-nut Hollywood weirdos and their buddy Al "I invented the internet" Gore? I'll take the scientists word for it!

[Ike]

i think they have a way to go before they are ready for public consumption

this one looks cool though...

http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php?js_enabled=1

Yeah, they do. At $90-thou, they ain't cheap. However, I think that cost can be brought down in the future. With some of the recent advances I've seen in battery technology, I think it's definitely possible.

[Ike]

hmmm impressive...

http://www.teslamotors.com/display_data/torquegraph_v2.gif

makes designing a transmission for these things an interesting problem...I know a lot of the electric race cars utilize motorcycle transmissions, but I bet that there is more optimization that can be done.

[Fraggle145]

Fraggle, I read this article and it has completely changed my mind. You're right, I'm wrong.

"There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.
The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.
To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”
A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.
To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.
Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”
Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.
“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.
Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality. "
[end]

Newsweek April 28th, 1975

Scientists everywhere say that the earth is freezing, and I agree!!!!

ohh noooz!

Seriously, should I believe these scientists who say the earth is cooling, or a bunch of wack-nut Hollywood weirdos and their buddy Al "I invented the internet" Gore? I'll take the scientists word for it!

Look believe what you want... You can call it hollywood and Al Gore, or you can call it scientists, or whatever... Basically all you bring to the table is snide remarks and no facts. This is the 1st thing of any "relevance" (and I use that term very loosely) that you have mentioned and it basically amounts to:

"Looky looky they made a mistake! I'm never gonna believe science again."

Your "reference" is also from a popular article, not a scientific journal, and they can pretty much say whatever they want and get it published, which is not the case for scientific literature.

At the time of that article they also didnot have all the data and technology that we have now.

Like I said before, why dont you educate yourself on the subject before you open your mouth and look like an uninformed jackass; like you have on every reply youve added to this conversation. You have yet to bring any facts to support your opinions which pretty much amount to "I hate Al Gore and all you hippies and since I dont agree with most of what you believe in I dont believe in this either," "USA RULES & CHINA SUCKS!," or "I'm not gonna do it and you cant make me!" I mean c'mon how do you expect me to react. I have been presenting facts that you can assess for yourself whether you believe the science or not.

[Ardmore_Sooner]

Look believe what you want... You can call it hollywood and Al Gore, or you can call it scientists, or whatever... Basically all you bring to the table is snide remarks and no facts. This is the 1st thing of any "relevance" (and I use that term very loosely) that you have mentioned and it basically amounts to:

"Looky looky they made a mistake! I'm never gonna believe science again."

Your "reference" is also from a popular article, not a scientific journal, and they can pretty much say whatever they want and get it published, which is not the case for scientific literature.

At the time of that article they also didnot have all the data and technology that we have now.

Like I said before, why dont you educate yourself on the subject before you open your mouth and look like an uninformed jackass; like you have on every reply youve added to this conversation. You have yet to bring any facts to support your opinions which pretty much amount to "I hate Al Gore and all you hippies and since I dont agree with most of what you believe in I dont believe in this either," "USA RULES & CHINA SUCKS!," or "I'm not gonna do it and you cant make me!" I mean c'mon how do you expect me to react. I have been presenting facts that you can assess for yourself whether you believe the science or not.

When I was a senior in high school in my AP English Composition class we had to learn to write argument papers. The hardest part of these papers was addressing the opposing side of the issue. Over time this helped me become more respectable of others opinions, even those that I think are totally against mine and wrong. I don't agree with everything you say Fraggle and some things I do.

A great man named Daryl Davis, an African American who befriended many KKK members and eventually helped them realize the error of their ways once said, "To make the bully go away, just ignore them." Just ignore those who don't want to say anything intelligent and they'll leave you alone.

That being said, I don't want to be anything like China, and I don't think China is the most inhumane place on the planet. Just because they try to pollute the planet a little less doesn't mean that we should just stray away from the idea. That's just idiotic.

[TopDawg]

you make a good point but the problem with that IMO is people could actually see that people were suffering from civil rights violation. You could look and see that racism and sexism had victims. But people will have a harder time trying to sacrifice now for future generations especially if they don't believe it it.

Believe it or not, I don't have a problem with people who still feel like humans are not causing global warming. I disagree with that belief, but I don't feel like it's an incredibly unreasonable thing to believe. I can see how one could still be unconvinced. Heck, even I'm not 100% convinced, but I'm convinced enough that I'd rather err on the side of caution.

Most of my beef with "your side" in this debate is centered around:

(a) the attack the messenger approach...enough with the attacks of Al Gore. I mean, keep it up if you must, but let's be clear on one thing...the global warming debate does not hang on Al Gore's credibility or lack thereof. And although he's not doing everything he can to help the problem, still nobody has proven how he is being a hypocrite.

(b) the pessimistic argument. That's what I addressed in my last post. Sure, we can't SOLVE the problem right now, but we can take steps to make it less of a problem. Just because it can't be solved right now doesn't mean we shouldn't try. And if you're not convinced, fine, keep on living like you're living. But why ridicule those people who are trying to make a difference?

(c) the lack-of-consensus argument. Like I said, it's fine if you're unconvinced about whether or not humans are causing global warming. And we all know that there are some politicians and scientists who (state that they) believe we are not. They may even actually believe it. But let's not deny the fact that MOST scientists do believe we're causing it. Sure, it's not everybody and if you're not convinced, fine. But let's not pretend like those of us who side with the majority scientific opinion are over-reacting to some hidden political agenda.

And that's it. I don't have a problem with your "I'm not quite sure, yet" stance. I don't have a problem with your "I don't want a battery car" stance. In fact, that cracked me up. But if you don't want to change your lifestyle because you're not convinced...that's fine. But don't try to convince me that my changes, however small they may be, don't matter. They do matter. And the more of us who make them, the more they matter.

[Jerk]

Look believe what you want... You can call it hollywood and Al Gore, or you can call it scientists, or whatever... Basically all you bring to the table is snide remarks and no facts. This is the 1st thing of any "relevance" (and I use that term very loosely) that you have mentioned and it basically amounts to:

"Looky looky they made a mistake! I'm never gonna believe science again."

Your "reference" is also from a popular article, not a scientific journal, and they can pretty much say whatever they want and get it published, which is not the case for scientific literature.

At the time of that article they also didnot have all the data and technology that we have now.

Like I said before, why dont you educate yourself on the subject before you open your mouth and look like an uninformed jackass; like you have on every reply youve added to this conversation. You have yet to bring any facts to support your opinions which pretty much amount to "I hate Al Gore and all you hippies and since I dont agree with most of what you believe in I dont believe in this either," "USA RULES & CHINA SUCKS!," or "I'm not gonna do it and you cant make me!" I mean c'mon how do you expect me to react. I have been presenting facts that you can assess for yourself whether you believe the science or not.

ohhh...you want to be an a****** about it? I don't give a flying f*** about your so-called facts because it is obvious to anyone who isn't BLIND that there is an agenda behind all of this crap by a bunch of hyprocrites who'd love to tell other people how to live their day-to-day lives but haven't stopped flying around in Lear Jets and riding in the back of Limos themselves. I'm sorry, but I can't help it - when I see a bunch of spoiled, narcissistic, and shrill "better than thous" from Hollywood try to hammer in to me their point-of-view, it is just my basic nature to take the opposite side. I like being the non-conformist. I like going against the grain. I don't just take whatever the media or government is trying to tell me. When I see Hollywood and the UN jumping on a bandwagon, I see a giant red flag...literally. When I see all of those do-gooder bleeding hearts turning their automobiles into scrap metal and riding bicycles everywhere, then I'll know that they're really serious and something is scaring the bejeezus out of them, and I better be scared too. But I don't see it that way. I don't think it's their lifestyle they want to change, it's the plebians. Can you see Al gore driving a Geo Metro? Can you see Kofi Anon riding coach on an airliner? Hell no. They want two sets of rules. 1 for them, 1 for the rest of us. And then they want to tax us into poverty. They can stick it up their arse. All this amounts to is an excuse for more government and less human freedom.

ps- and since when has science become majority rule? There are scientists who disagree. There's one who was a NASA climatologists, another at MIT, another at UO, and many others. Are they wrong because they are in the minority? Or are they just not going along with the hype?

[TopDawg]

Wasn't Ronald Reagan from Hollywood?

[Jerk]

Lead by example.

[Jerk]

Wasn't Ronald Reagan from Hollywood?

oh yeah and boy does his hometown love and appreciate him :rolleyes:

[yermom]

what exactly does Al Gore or scientists or anyone else get out of this?

where does anyone talk about raising taxes?

[usmc-sooner]

And that's it. I don't have a problem with your "I'm not quite sure, yet" stance. I don't have a problem with your "I don't want a battery car" stance. In fact, that cracked me up. But if you don't want to change your lifestyle because you're not convinced...that's fine. But don't try to convince me that my changes, however small they may be, don't matter. They do matter. And the more of us who make them, the more they matter.

I thought you just had a problem with my grammar. I don't have a problem with your changes. I could care less what you do. You foot the bills for your life and I do the same with mine. I think your being a little dramatic cause I doubt you've made any real changes. I'm not putting you down, it's just that people keep talking about changes and the people talking about change are doing the least amount of changing.
We disagree about a great many things, I don't hold it against you.

[usmc-sooner]

what exactly does Al Gore or scientists or anyone else get out of this?

where does anyone talk about raising taxes?

Al Gore stays in the limelight or the public eye.Scientists get funding (which I don't have a problem with)
taxes are going to pay for the grants and funding they need.

Don't be bringing that weak crap in here yermom. :D

[Fraggle145]

what exactly does Al Gore or scientists or anyone else get out of this?

where does anyone talk about raising taxes?

Dont you know we teamed up with hollywood to steal your freedom. Just ask the Jerk :rolleyes:

[Ardmore_Sooner]

what exactly does Al Gore or scientists or anyone else get out of this?

where does anyone talk about raising taxes?

Since thats what this whole thing has turned into... :rolleyes:

[TopDawg]

I thought you just had a problem with my grammar.

No, dude, like I said I just thought it was funny/ironic. You know me better than to think I'm playing the part of grammar police.


I think your being a little dramatic cause I doubt you've made any real changes.

Well, you don't know me from Adam, but okay. I don't know what you call "real" changes, but we've put a lot of money lately into making our home more energy efficient. I bike to work and walk to the grocery store when I can. We planted a tree in our yard. I try my best to conserve energy and water in our house (although my wife drives me crazy on this one). We recycle many of our recyclable products. She handles the bills, so I'm not sure on this one, but I think we're signed up for wind energy. It's not a lot, but it's a start and I hope to continue working on it. And I'm not asking or expecting anybody else to do more than I am, although I appreciate and admire those that do.

[sooneron]

I'm all for having cleaner burning engines with higher gas mileage, and I think Detroit can do that fairly quickly.
It was right here that I started laughing uncontrollably.

[usmc-sooner]

No, dude, like I said I just thought it was funny/ironic. You know me better than to think I'm playing the part of grammar police.



Well, you don't know me from Adam, but okay. I don't know what you call "real" changes, but we've put a lot of money lately into making our home more energy efficient. I bike to work and walk to the grocery store when I can. We planted a tree in our yard. I try my best to conserve energy and water in our house (although my wife drives me crazy on this one). We recycle many of our recyclable products. She handles the bills, so I'm not sure on this one, but I think we're signed up for wind energy. It's not a lot, but it's a start and I hope to continue working on it. And I'm not asking or expecting anybody else to do more than I am, although I appreciate and admire those that do.

well I was wrong,
I said I wasn't trying to slam you but kudos to you for your efforts. I respect people who stand up for the things they believe in, even though I don't believe in it, I respect the stand you've taken.

for me biking to work is not an option. BTW I try to be as energy efficient as well, mostly to reduce bills and not because of global warming.

[Fraggle145]

[QUOTE=usmc-sooner]I think your being a little dramatic cause I doubt you've made any real changes.[QUOTE]

I can tell you it is harder to make changes, especially when you are a student with like no money, living in an apt you cant really change that, but here goes...

I recycle, I've had the heat turned off since 2/1/07, I take the stairs even if its the top of the parking deck, I run the dishwasher once a week, whenever I replace a bulb I use an energy efficient one that last for like 9 years or whatever, I still drive to campus because I live to far away to ride a bike but once I am there I walk everywhere including to the bars and I carpool when possible, I keep the lights off when possible, I take short showers. Not much but its the best I can do with what I got.

[usmc-sooner]

[QUOTE=usmc-sooner] I think your being a little dramatic cause I doubt you've made any real changes.[QUOTE]

I can tell you it is harder to make changes, especially when you are a student with like no money, living in an apt you can really change that, but here goes...

I recycle, I've had the heat turned off since 2/1/07, I take the stairs even if its the top of the parking deck, I run the dishwasher once a week, whenever I replace a bulb I use an energy efficient one that last for like 9 years or whatever, I still drive to campus because I live to far away to ride a bike but once I am there I walk everywhere including to the bars and I carpool when possible, I keep the lights off when possible, I take short showers. Not much but its the best I can do with what I got.

I respect your efforts.
Hopefully with all your knowledge and degrees, the money will come. I thought guys who majored in Chemistry and Physics ended up loaded.
Hang in there, it's been a while since I was the broke student but I definitely remember.

[yermom]

Al Gore stays in the limelight or the public eye.Scientists get funding (which I don't have a problem with)
taxes are going to pay for the grants and funding they need.

Don't be bringing that weak crap in here yermom. :D

seems Gore is more about advocating personal change than forcing new taxes. someone is going to get research money regardless.


although, i think the Kyoto treaty probably would affect the bottom line of big business, but i'd let the CEO's worry about that, i'm sure they don't give a crap about me

what exactly are you worried might change?

[yermom]

[QUOTE=Fraggle145][QUOTE=usmc-sooner] I think your being a little dramatic cause I doubt you've made any real changes.

I respect your efforts.
Hopefully with all your knowledge and degrees, the money will come. I thought guys who majored in Chemistry and Physics ended up loaded.
Hang in there, it's been a while since I was the broke student but I definitely remember.

well, maybe if he was studying real science like those... ;)

part of the problem is urban sprawl, like BRJ always harps about. it's our lifestyle in America to drive everywhere. it's going to take a lot to change that.

that is pretty far outside of this thread though

[usmc-sooner]

seems Gore is more about advocating personal change than forcing new taxes. someone is going to get research money regardless.


although, i think the Kyoto treaty probably would affect the bottom line of big business, but i'd let the CEO's worry about that, i'm sure they don't give a crap about me

what exactly are you worried might change?

I worry about new government groups who need additional funding, the whole administration and legislation of it all. The fact that we can't really force other countries to act the way we think they should.

One thing that irritates me is a lot of Democrats get all ****y about how we shouldn't be the world's police when it comes to terrorism and the war in Iraq they claim that Republicans use scare tactics and we're trying to get in everyone's business.
It's the same thing with Global warming, it's just a different issue. Are politicians using scare tactics? yes Are they wanting us to start policing the world? yes
like I've said before I've been out in the "real" world, seen the nasty, dirty and sometimes disturbing ways of our fellow humans and we can't govern or control this.

[yermom]

but we are the worst offenders, even China is willing to go by Kyoto

[usmc-sooner]

but we are the worst offenders, even China is willing to go by Kyoto

we have much more to offer than China. Life in China aint the easy life we live here in the US. The Chinese are also in much better physical condition than Americans. What are you willing to give up to be more like the Chinese? The people in China don't exactly decide what China does. I don't see many Americans or Europeans willing to accept China like government and authority to bring about change in environmental issues.

This among many other things is why I don't think we can govern things like this.

[Ardmore_Sooner]

We won't have to worry about China if it's 130 degrees outside.... ;)


I keed I keed.