Be very very worried about the real WMD - Global Warming

jfuh · Apr 1, 2006

taxedout said:
All of them ?

The republicans are in the majority of both houses and it is predominantly republicans (the influential ones) that are in bed with the oil companies (see enron).
Of course there are also a good number of dems in bed with oil companies as well (campaign contributions).
Thus a good reason why this issue is not recieving the attention it so rightfully should is largely attributed to this fact.
Also of the incredibly powerful oil industry lobbiests that have thier foot in the door of every congressman's door, and spewing half truths of how the economy would be hurt within thier own districts and how that would effect thier re-election efforts.
So yes, they're very much in bed with the oil companies.

jfuh · Apr 1, 2006

KCConservative said:
Mentioned, yes...ad nausium. Proven, no. But opinions are healthy, to be sure.

You deny that this administration has intentionally lied about science? See post #1 source #2 of this thread "Rewriting the science".

mpg · Apr 1, 2006

jfuh said:
You deny that this administration has intentionally lied about science? See post #1 source #2 of this thread "Rewriting the science".

I saw that 60 Minutes story and they were a lot more specific and thorough than the article you posted because it was longer. Obviously it's extremely suspicious to have someone from the oil industry in a position like that. I don't trust him at all and I think it was a very bad idea for Bush to put someone like that in a position like that. However, it's not a direct conflict of interest. We can't just assume that he's lieing. He merely expressed skepticism. The edits that he made weren't significant in my opinion. He merely expressed the same kind of skepticism that I've expressed. It's not as if he changed "global warming" to "global cooling". If anything, he brought attention to Hansen's report, which otherwise wouldnt've been read by the general public.

alphamale · Apr 2, 2006

jfuh said:
Very well then alpha, answer this question. Do you deny the direct correlation between carbon dioxide and global warming? yes or now

See post #15 for evidence of this correlation.

As any person who passed Statistics and Probability 101 with a grade of "C" or better knows, "Correlation does NOT imply Causation".

jfuh · Apr 2, 2006

alphamale said:
As any person who passed Statistics and Probability 101 with a grade of "C" or better knows, "Correlation does NOT imply Causation".

So with your grade of C in stats. So are you claiming then that carbon dioxide concentrations have nothing to do with global warming?

jfuh · Apr 2, 2006

mpg said:
I saw that 60 Minutes story and they were a lot more specific and thorough than the article you posted because it was longer. Obviously it's extremely suspicious to have someone from the oil industry in a position like that. I don't trust him at all and I think it was a very bad idea for Bush to put someone like that in a position like that. However, it's not a direct conflict of interest. We can't just assume that he's lieing. He merely expressed skepticism. The edits that he made weren't significant in my opinion. He merely expressed the same kind of skepticism that I've expressed. It's not as if he changed "global warming" to "global cooling". If anything, he brought attention to Hansen's report, which otherwise wouldnt've been read by the general public.

Who is Phil Cooney? Is he a scientist? No he's a lawyer, and a former petroleum lobbyist at that. Who is James Hansen, a world renowned climatologist. So a lawyer with no science hand edits the work that was completed by a world renowned scientist?
That's like having Clinton going around and re-writing the bible, or Bush going about and re-writing darwin's origin of species. Hell, it's like having a pre-schooler writing a 10 page college essay with crayon and scribble.
This administration has been anti-science from day one.

alphamale · Apr 2, 2006

jfuh said:
So with your grade of C in stats. So are you claiming then that carbon dioxide concentrations have nothing to do with global warming?

Did I say that? I don't remember saying that. The issue, Sir Isaac Newton, is HOW MUCH does it have to do with global warming: 90%? 1%? .000001%?
Ecolooneys are willing to throw millions of people out of work without being able to answer that question. Blink your eyes twice if you get it yet Sir Isaac.

jfuh · Apr 3, 2006

Further sources proving global warming from Nature. The top scientific publication group.
Source 1: Warnings rise over rising seas

Source 2: Glacial pace picks up

Source 3: Alaskan tundra thaws in warming world

jfuh · Apr 3, 2006

alphamale said:
Did I say that? I don't remember saying that. The issue, Sir Isaac Newton, is HOW MUCH does it have to do with global warming: 90%? 1%? .000001%?
Ecolooneys are willing to throw millions of people out of work without being able to answer that question. Blink your eyes twice if you get it yet Sir Isaac.

Read these articles alpha, and then tell me whether you get it or not.
Source 1: Greenhouse-gas levels highest for 650,000 years
Climate record highlights extent of man-made change.

Source 2: The cost of global warming

jfuh · Apr 3, 2006

mpg said:
I saw that 60 Minutes story and they were a lot more specific and thorough than the article you posted because it was longer. Obviously it's extremely suspicious to have someone from the oil industry in a position like that. I don't trust him at all and I think it was a very bad idea for Bush to put someone like that in a position like that. However, it's not a direct conflict of interest. We can't just assume that he's lieing. He merely expressed skepticism. The edits that he made weren't significant in my opinion. He merely expressed the same kind of skepticism that I've expressed. It's not as if he changed "global warming" to "global cooling". If anything, he brought attention to Hansen's report, which otherwise wouldnt've been read by the general public.

I suggest you also read the articles I've posted in post 258~259.
Also here's another related article to the governmental response towards global warming
Source: Climate change: is the US Congress bullying experts? Climate chief Rajendra Pachauri responds to US demands for information.

Trajan Octavian Titus · Apr 3, 2006

jfuh said:
Read these articles alpha, and then tell me whether you get it or not.
Source 1: Greenhouse-gas levels highest for 650,000 years
Climate record highlights extent of man-made change.

Source 2: The cost of global warming

From your own article:

Unnatural changes

The newly analysed ice does show that although the climate is in constant flux, it is capable of producing extended warm phases even when carbon dioxide levels are stable, says Stocker. Two places in the record, for example, are marked by periods of almost 30,000 years when temperature hardly changed at all. And the beginning of these 'interglacial' phases was not linked to rises in carbon dioxide.

Couldn't find anything on the percentages man made global warming why don't you just answer the question since you have stated that it's in there why don't you post it.

jfuh · Apr 3, 2006

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
From your own article:
Couldn't find anything on the percentages man made global warming why don't you just answer the question since you have stated that it's in there why don't you post it.

One thing I have to credit you about, you actually read the articles.
Sadly you don't read them to thier entirety. Very next sentence after the one you picked out:

That's not to say that current rises in temperature are due to natural shifts, as some climate-change sceptics have claimed. "The CO2 emitted now is not part of the natural cycle," Stocker points out.
"In the palaeorecord there's no human activity driving the change," says Chris Jones, of the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Exeter, UK. The current challenge facing climate modellers is to work out the one-way effect of the huge spike in greenhouse gases now being pumped into our skies by human activities.

Though no, there are no percentages. However the drive home message is that CO2 spikes today are not of natural causes, as has been one of your major argument points. So that would almost dictate 99% of the CO2 spikes are completely artificial in origin.
Actually if you go back to my post to which you are responding to, I did not claim there to be percentages in these articles. However alpha's response demonstrated an utter lack of knowledge with regards to the science.

And former to this:

The burning of fossil fuels in the industrial era has pushed greenhouse-gas levels far beyond their natural fluctuations, says Stocker. "This is really something unprecedented," he says. Humans, by releasing fossil fuels from their imprisonment underground, are now adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere on top of those released as part of natural climate cycles.

The news comes as world leaders plan to attend a United Nations climate change conference in Montreal, Canada, which begins on 28 November. Delegates will discuss current efforts to reduce greenhouse emissions, and what plans should follow on from the initial phase of the Kyoto Protocol, which ends in 2012.

The past four ice ages and their intervening warm periods are thought not to have been typical. Glacial cycles before this had longer, cooler intervening periods than more recent ones. Researchers are unsure why this is, although they hope the ice cores may hold some clues.

Help me understand this tot. How is it that after so much evidence posted here, you can continue to deny the facts of the matter? The fact being that it is human causes that are causing the very real threat of global warming.

Trajan Octavian Titus · Apr 3, 2006

jfuh said:
Help me understand this tot. How is it that after so much evidence posted here, you can continue to deny the facts of the matter? The fact being that it is human causes that are causing the very real threat of global warming.

Because that's not the argument the argument is that other things are causing it as well and to a far larger degree and it is a natural cycle. C02 emmissions are not the only thing that causes global warming. Reducing C02 emmissions will not end global warming so why should we cripple our economy?

jfuh · Apr 3, 2006

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Because that's not the argument the argument is that other things are causing it as well and to a far larger degree and it is a natural cycle. C02 emmissions are not the only thing that causes global warming. Reducing C02 emmissions will not end global warming so why should we cripple our economy?

Did you read the quote from the former reply to you? CO2 spikes today are not the result of natural cycles.
Who said anything about the economy? The entire thread is about global warming, not global warming of the economy (which would be a very good thing now).
And yes reducing CO2 emissions to the point of half the CO2 concentrations today would most certainly avoid catastrophies of the current trend.

jfuh · Apr 4, 2006

Seems California is leading in the right direction to reverse the effects of Global warming:2razz: This is a good start, being that California is the largest market in the US for automobiles and much of energy consumption as well.
Source:California Considers Bill to Limit Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Trajan Octavian Titus · Apr 4, 2006

jfuh said:
Did you read the quote from the former reply to you? CO2 spikes today are not the result of natural cycles.
Who said anything about the economy? The entire thread is about global warming, not global warming of the economy (which would be a very good thing now).
And yes reducing CO2 emissions to the point of half the CO2 concentrations today would most certainly avoid catastrophies of the current trend.

How do you know it would stop global warming? You don't even know the to what extent CO2 emmissions cause global warming so how can you say that ending CO2 emmissions would stop it? Answer: you have no idea.

jfuh · Apr 4, 2006

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
How do you know it would stop global warming? You don't even know the to what extent CO2 emmissions cause global warming so how can you say that ending CO2 emmissions would stop it? Answer: you have no idea.

You're partially correct in that, I'm uncertain of how bad it would get. However, to only claim that as a rational is missleading. Though I don't know how bad it could get, however I do know that it would be very very bad.
Just the same thing as, I don't know how many WMD's Saddam has, I just know he has them or wants to get them, so I'm going to everything in my power to stop him from getting WMD's. Exact same rational.
In this case, I don't know how bad things would get with the way emmissions of CO2 are going today, however I do know that CO2 contributes to global warming and if it's not stopped things will indeed become very very bad. Life as we know it will deminish.

Trajan Octavian Titus · Apr 4, 2006

jfuh said:
You're partially correct in that, I'm uncertain of how bad it would get. However, to only claim that as a rational is missleading. Though I don't know how bad it could get, however I do know that it would be very very bad.
Just the same thing as, I don't know how many WMD's Saddam has, I just know he has them or wants to get them, so I'm going to everything in my power to stop him from getting WMD's. Exact same rational.
In this case, I don't know how bad things would get with the way emmissions of CO2 are going today, however I do know that CO2 contributes to global warming and if it's not stopped things will indeed become very very bad. Life as we know it will deminish.

That's not what I'm saying what I'm saying is that you don't know what percentage of global warming is caused by CO2 emmissions and what percentage is caused by other variable so your claim that cutting CO2 emmissions by 50% would end global warming has no validity to it. Until you can answer the question of what percentage of temperature fluctuation is created by added CO2 emmissions to the atmosphere then how can you predict the effects of cutting those C02 emmissions would have on climate change?

jfuh · Apr 4, 2006

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
That's not what I'm saying what I'm saying is that you don't know what percentage of global warming is caused by CO2 emmissions and what percentage is caused by other variable so your claim that cutting CO2 emmissions by 50% would end global warming has no validity to it. Until you can answer the question of what percentage of temperature fluctuation is created by added CO2 emmissions to the atmosphere then how can you predict the effects of cutting those C02 emmissions would have on climate change?

Actually yes I did. As posted in my post #260 U cited the source then in #262 I actually quoted from that source which you also did in post #261. The current spike in CO2 is completely of artificial causes.
So yes if we cut current emmission levels by at least 50% and stop deforestation and bleaching of coral reefs the effects of global warming could very well be halted. If we further decrease while increaseing sink capacity we could actually reverse CO2 concentrations to pre-industrial levels.
But there needs to be a point of initiation, and right now is that very time.
Also see Source:1 of post 1 in this thread.

Trajan Octavian Titus · Apr 4, 2006

jfuh said:
Actually yes I did. As posted in my post #260 U cited the source then in #262 I actually quoted from that source which you also did in post #261. The current spike in CO2 is completely of artificial causes.
So yes if we cut current emmission levels by at least 50% and stop deforestation and bleaching of coral reefs the effects of global warming could very well be halted. If we further decrease while increaseing sink capacity we could actually reverse CO2 concentrations to pre-industrial levels.
But there needs to be a point of initiation, and right now is that very time.
Also see Source:1 of post 1 in this thread.

But the global warming which is occurring isn't 100% man made. What I want to know is how much of percentage of the current climate change is caused through our action?

jfuh · Apr 4, 2006

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
But the global warming which is occurring isn't 100% man made. What I want to know is how much of percentage of the current climate change is caused through our action?

The answer, probably what you've been wanting to hear, is no one is certain. What is known however is that humans are responsible for the greenhouse gas emmissions which are then related to the current weather trends. What percentage? Hell who know's what the weather will be like a week from now, specifically that is?

Trajan Octavian Titus · Apr 4, 2006

jfuh said:
The answer, probably what you've been wanting to hear, is no one is certain. What is known however is that humans are responsible for the greenhouse gas emmissions which are then related to the current weather trends. What percentage? Hell who know's what the weather will be like a week from now, specifically that is?

No you don't know that humans are responsible for the current weather trends because you don't know to what degree green house emmissions effect the climate, so for you to say that reducing those greenhouse gases will curb climate shift is a guess on your part and to destroy the economy on a guess or whim is irresponsible in the extreme.

jfuh · Apr 4, 2006

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
No you don't know that humans are responsible for the current weather trends because you don't know to what degree green house emmissions effect the climate, so for you to say that reducing those greenhouse gases will curb climate shift is a guess on your part and to destroy the economy on a guess or whim is irresponsible in the extreme.

I've asked you this already, what relevance is the economy with regards to human's causing global warming?
I've told you already, Global warming effects climate directly, how is it going to change you're weather prediction for tomorrow I don't know, what it will inevitably lead to is warmer temperatures with drought in landlock regions and severe weather on coastal areas. Rising sea levels as well as the destruction of ecosystems. For you to deny this is flat out dishonest and irresponsible.

Do you deny of the ultimate consequences of global warming? or do you think it's just rhetoric by the liberal left?
ARe you denying the position of this article?
The cost of Global Warming

Discussions of climate change tend to involve uncertainties, and most climate researchers have come to accept the inherent unknowns of their business. After all, the climate models they use to project the course of global warming are generally seen as the best that science can offer. But there is a growing feeling that the economic assumptions on which their work is based are outdated and unreliable. And this could have serious implications for assessments of climate change.

This article essentially disproves everything you have claimed with regards to economic development vs tending to global warming issues. So it is your opinion that is irresponsible.
Afterall, what use is a good economy if there's no world to support it?

Trajan Octavian Titus · Apr 4, 2006

jfuh said:
I've asked you this already, what relevance is the economy with regards to human's causing global warming?

Do you know what the KYOTO accords are? That is what those opposed to global warming want the U.S. to sign it would destroy the economy while at the same time China (who has signed the accord) is exempt from its protocals because they are a developing nation. It would end U.S. economic hegemony.

I've told you already, Global warming effects climate directly, how is it going to change you're weather prediction for tomorrow I don't know, what it will inevitably lead to is warmer temperatures with drought in landlock regions and severe weather on coastal areas. Rising sea levels as well as the destruction of ecosystems. For you to deny this is flat out dishonest and irresponsible.

You don't know that CO2 only increases temperatures in combination with lots of other things that are not caused by man. Give the percentage that CO2 causes global warming.

Do you deny of the ultimate consequences of global warming? or do you think it's just rhetoric by the liberal left?

Give me the % of global warming caused by C02 emmissions or this conversation is meaningless.

jfuh · Apr 4, 2006

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Do you know what the KYOTO accords are? That is what those opposed to global warming want the U.S. to sign it would destroy the economy while at the same time China (who has signed the accord) is exempt from its protocals because they are a developing nation. It would end U.S. economic hegemony.

See article in my former post. Kyoto is irrelevant to what I've posted thus far.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
You don't know that CO2 only increases temperatures in combination with lots of other things that are not caused by man.

Yes I do know that CO2 in the atmosphere directely causes increases in temperatures.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Give the percentage that CO2 causes global warming.

See below

Do you deny of the ultimate consequences of global warming? or do you think it's just rhetoric by the liberal left?
http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060123/full/439374a.html

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Give me the % of global warming caused by C02 emmissions or this conversation is meaningless.

100% of global warming is caused by CO2, I've said this many many times.
Of which the current spike in CO2 concentration is caused by humans alone. Source