How in the world is "global warming" at all related to CNC?
Sure, sometimes members want to talk about things other than CNC, but isn't that what areas like the Club House are for?

I could remotely see, that if global warming was a re-occurring or hot topic among the members here, that this area would be created for an open exchange of information and ideas, but the title: "Stop Global Warming Discussion Forum" already denotes a bias opinion that Global warming exists and should be stopped.

Did I miss something? :)
Colin

I thought it was kind of strange myslef.

actually cnc manufacturing has a large impact on the environment , the impact that mining has is substantial , something we as machinists and consumers need , as a whole cnc metal working machines hold a large amount of coolant ,and consume large amounts of lube oils , the fact they call the coolants environmentally friendly is a joke , someone should see the shrubs around our chip dumpster
where do these oils and coolants go after guys are done mopping the floors ,

then we get back to recycling the scrap material which is a green idea but is it ,its another dirty process
most companies are honest but what is the impact of the one that aren't


plus the key factor to the new forum is the man who owns the site wants it:D

plus the key factor to the new forum is the man who owns the site wants it:D[/QUOTE]

Q: who does the company owner turn his vacation request in to?
A: no one. :D

How in the world is "global warming" at all related to CNC?
Sure, sometimes members want to talk about things other than CNC, but isn't that what areas like the Club House are for?

I could remotely see, that if global warming was a re-occurring or hot topic among the members here, that this area would be created for an open exchange of information and ideas, but the title: "Stop Global Warming Discussion Forum" already denotes a bias opinion that Global warming exists and should be stopped.

Did I miss something? :)
Colin


Let me answer that for ya....IT'S MY SITE AND I CAN DO AND SAY WHAT EVERY I WANT ...hope that helps.

actually cnc manufacturing has a large impact on the environment , the impact that mining has is substantial , something we as machinists and consumers need , as a whole cnc metal working machines hold a large amount of coolant ,and consume large amounts of lube oils , the fact they call the coolants environmentally friendly is a joke , someone should see the shrubs around our chip dumpster
where do these oils and coolants go after guys are done mopping the floors ,

then we get back to recycling the scrap material which is a green idea but is it ,its another dirty process
most companies are honest but what is the impact of the one that aren't


plus the key factor to the new forum is the man who owns the site wants it:D


Excellent points!

As an aside.. I used to work at a large Defence company here in the UK. Well, with all the legislation concerning environmental stuff they brought in ISO14000 which means you have to (as much as possible) produce your product with minimal environmental impact.

We made missiles... environmentaly friendly missiles? I thought they were meant to blow the blinking environment up!

:)

Let me answer that for ya....IT'S MY SITE AND I CAN DO AND SAY WHAT EVERY I WANT ...hope that helps.

30203


30204

...already denotes a bias opinion that Global warming exists and should be stopped.

Did I miss something? :)



Apparently so. ;)

Let me answer that for ya....IT'S MY SITE AND I CAN DO AND SAY WHAT EVERY I WANT ...hope that helps.

Thanks for clearing it up. :rainfro:

Global Warming...... ask the people in the mid west that just got slammed by one of the worse ice storms in their recent history.... ask them where global warming is when you need it! And just for the uninformed the planet has been steadily warming since um..... I don't know..... hmmmm......THE LAST ICE AGE. Liberal yee-haws. Stick to what you seem to know best. CNC machines

Respectfully,

John

P.S if anyone wants to have an informed debate about the topic, I will be more than willing to wax that butt both factually and philosophically.

I live in the Midwest. And let me tell you, winter took a long time to get here. I wasn't even close to having a White Christmas. It was depressing almost, how warm it was for a while. Mentioning single examples of outlying weather is bunk (and manipulative and irritating too), and it goes against what the definition of a "climate" really is - an average. Even besides that, "global warming" is a broad statement for what really adds up to "climate change." Some parts might warm, some parts might cool, but generally, we're changing our environment way too quickly, with some ruinous effects (e.g. ecosystems). The uncertainty of what's going to happen is really the worst part.

After using my father's TAIG MicroMill to make countless circuit boards for power electronics designs, I decided to build my own custom CNC mill for less money than one could be bought. I used threaded rod from Home Depot coupled with rollerblade bearings and angle brackets held together with JB-Weld, $5 surplus stepper motors, and my own custom control box. I used no plans - everything was totally from scratch, with no help from anyone. It isn't completed yet, but I've got one-axis movement right now, and plan to finish it sometime soon. It's not super-accurate but it's what I need for PCBs.

What would I use these PCBs for, you ask? I'm building an AC induction motor controller for my grandfather's electric car. [My grandfather helped restore Mrs. Henry Ford's personal electric car for the Henry Ford Museum.] It's currently been a six-year project, and the car does run right now, but I need to make some further improvements in the electronics (a multilevel converter if any of you has any clue what that means).

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/awmatt/lab.html
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/awmatt/pcbdev.html

I also used my great-grandfather's lathe to machine some other parts:
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/awmatt/mech.html

Obviously, I find EVs a fun hobby. But my convictions to renewable energy are very strong. I try to be a logical person (my mind is technical, as you can tell), and I also have learned, through my renewable energy interest, to see past the cover some individuals put up to confuse or manipulate me.

I have no doubt human-activity-induced global warming is occuring right now - in fact I don't see how it could be avoided given the huge amount of greenhouse gases we're emitting. We're just putting the earth back to the way it was to begin with - hot and with a thick atmosphere (read uninhabitable). Having 2005 be the warmest year on record (almost tied with 1998) frightens me. The second link below says, "Astonishingly, every single year since 1992 is in the current list of the 20 warmest years on record." There is just no way this is due to something random, and no large volcanoes have gone off recently either. I don't see how this could be more obvious; I really don't. Being a jerk about it and denying it doesn't make you any smarter - researching it might. I personally don't get too much pleasure from having power to say whatever I want, no matter how ridiculous, on "my own forum," but if some people do, I guess that's fine (though irresponsible at best). I do like to share my ideas and successes when they're backed with a lot of hard scientific research and hands-on development.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/recordtemp2005.html
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/Fingerprints.html

In addition to my personal EV hobby, and also building a DC motor controller for someone else as a semi-open-source project, I'm the president of the Michigan State University Solar Car Team. On Thursday we're planning to inherit the GM EV1 from the University's storage facility. I personally plan to restore the car's electronics and get it to run. Lots of students are excited about this - it's a very positive experience, and the wave of the future (as we're quickly running out of oil, since we're so wasteful with it). This is between my other duties as a Master's EE candidate; I graduated BSEE with high honors last May.

One of my publications towards my BSEE, in case you still doubt my logical ability:
http://www.egr.msu.edu/~mattes12/appnote3.pdf
[I was recommended by one of the vice presidents of Texas Instruments to work a consulting job that pays nearly $50/hour. Still think I'm not logical about global warming?]

- Arthur Matteson

look at stuff like pcb's , man made , can t get rid of it , insinerate it and the dioxide is worse than the product to begin with
pcb doesn t break down
animals were tested in the antarctic practacally untouched by man , the animals have high levels of pcb in their bodies (try testing average joe)
i saw a program where scientists are working to produce a type of molecule that will attack and destroy pcb's ,wonder how thats going to turn out

Where on this earth is incontrovertible proof that WE (humans) are causing "global warming" or climate change?

I am going to take this apart piece by piece for you.

What we can agree on?

1.) Climate change is most definitively a more accurate term. I merely used the nomenclature previously specified in the forum title.

2.) Recent history (20 years or so) have been warmer than say the previous 20 years. (In areas where temperature has been recorded)

3.) A non-polluting, plentiful, renewable energy source would be ideal and should be researched. (But as with all research, there may not be a realistic tangible success based on current levels of technology and the lack of funding for said research, that said, I encourage everyone to try)

What do I take issue with?

1.) The website, you cite, has an agenda. The article does use good sources; however, they use a narrow scope of focus to make a broad claim.

2.) The relevance of your education (not barring a degree with practical experience in environmental science), the amount of money you "could" make(absurd by the way, if you knew my hourly contract rate) and the ability to write an engineering paper (I must admit I didn’t read) has no bearing on your ability or qualifications to debate this issue. I personally don't care if you are a rocket scientist. Stick to the facts and only the facts and we will get along famously.

3.) Lack of continuity and focus:
In order to keep this debate focused (global warming and or climate change); please refrain from going off on tangents (e.g. hobbies, non-relevant publications, general ranting, etc.).

It also makes an easier read with less fluff to sort through.

4.) Making the following statement;

"I have no doubt human-activity-induced global warming is occurring right now - in fact I don't see how it could be avoided given the huge amount of greenhouse gases we're emitting."

This is a whopper! Let me introduce you "to my little friend" doubt!

I am going to ask you read this page. I am going to preface this article by telling you, that what you are going to read was generated by an agenda driven group, however, the article is well written and sites scientific journals and leading scientists, and I couldn't say it any better than they do (with out considerable effort). I am only asking that you take under consideration the facts of the article; not the conclusions drawn.

http://bruderheim-rea.ca/warming6.htm (http://bruderheim-rea.ca/warming6.htm)

If this does not blow a huge hole in your rhetoric, please let me know and I will be happy to provide more facts to do so.

5.) "...I also have learned, through my renewable energy interest, to see past the cover some individuals put up to confuse or manipulate me."

Facts are not confusing. The only cover being put up here is in your head. I am not trying to manipulate you. It is not a big conspiracy. Now look at my pocket watch... your getting sleepy.... global warming does not exist..... When you awake you will be a Liberal Environmental Wacko.... oh damn too late.

"A bit of levity never hurt any debate." This is a direct quote from the guy being a Jerk.

To Arthur,
I sincerely wish you well. It sounds like you are involved in many wonderful things and I hope they bring you joy. My objective is that this debate will be informative, and if at the conclusion you still hold your misguided views, so be it. I will respectfully agree to disagree. All I ask is that you keep an open mind and focus on the facts, even when these facts are directly in opposition to your beliefs.

To all others,
It is obvious that Arthur is an educated and logical person, however, I would like to point out that even logical and learned people are susceptible to propaganda. Understand that Arthur and I probably are not too far off from one another ideologically (so far). We just disagree on what is fact and what is fiction.

There is no shame in admitting; the world is round and that the sun is the center of our solar system. Sooner or later the truth will emerge. I hope this debate will help you find your truth.

John

Thanks for the link, I'll add it to my list of "Evil Big Oil" (EBO) URLs. .... Along with my list of "Humans Are Killing The Penguins" URLs.

There's a couple of points you make that I think are really critical to keep in mind, and one of those is agenda. It's clear that EBO's agenda is to ensure continued growth and sales. Since I wanna drive my Hummer that drags along a boat, 4 ATVs, and a pair of dirt bikes (all of which spew GHGs in spades), I'll go along with that agenda with a smile.

Arthur here, bless his heart, is actively working to change the planet and protect us from ourselves. His agenda is noble.

But what of Al Gore's agenda? And Michael Mann and James Hansen?? AlGore flies all over the world to teach us we shouldn't fly all over the world spewing CO2!! Me thinks there's agendas on the other side of the equation.

One agenda, as I've posted in the sibling thread here, is that of the insurance companies, in whose best interests it is to spread fear....and raise premiums. The more convinced we are of impending doom, the more they can charge. (I accept that there is a measure of validity to that from a practical standpoint)

AlGore's agenda? Get elected on a platform that he's building?

There's another agenda that's sneaking up on us very quietly, one that has a very simple and direct agenda, that of money. There's a new stock market in town, and it's called ''Carbon Credits".

It won't fly without gubbmint regulation and mandates, and those won't happen unless we're all alarmed.

All that notwithstanding, the question is still "is the earth warming?" It well may be. The climate is definitely changing on a global scale, but our climate is hardly in equilibrium, and never has been.

Is it changing outside the range of 'normal' (if there is a norm) variability? Maybe, but the influence of human forcing is incredibly small given all the different and powerful factors at work.

Some big Hollywood star says one thing, and some young unknown says another. Who's right? Same thing is happening in science right now. Mann and Hansen are claiming they're right, but there's a host of other scientists who are publishing, in peer reviewed journals, diametrically opposed conclusions.

Arthur, keep doin' what you're doing. It's a good thing. John, keep showing that there's more to this than what makes a well produced movie and scares the crap out of everybody.

Me? I'll shut up now.

Fizzi,
Most if not all of what you say is true (I didn't fact check). We have no real understanding of the climate changes we are now experiencing. Is it normal? Are we in an upward cycle? What is "normal"? These are my points exactly.

I become discouraged when educated and logical (let’s not forget logical, sheesh...) people say with conviction or state as fact, that we (evil humans) are responsible for climate change. The fact is there just isn't enough information to say definitively that we are responsible and it is absurd to state as much.

Let’s pose a question to the masses;


Who among us want to polute anything on our planet?

Who among us is against clean, plentiful and renewable energy sources?

Answer: No one!

I don't want to discourage Arthur from his environmentally friendly pursuits. I would like to encourage them; however, let’s not run around spewing miss information in the process. Lets have an intelligent debate not one filled with rhetoric and bull poo.

Incontrovertible fact:

1.) There is not a significant body of research, (emphasis on NOT) that hands down, demonstrates that climate change is anything more than "NORMAL".

I encourage scholars and scientists to continue the evaluation the global climate. We obviously don't know enough about it yet. But until then; drop the alarmist attitude and focus on being productive. For you Arthur that might be engineering the next generation electric car. For you Fizzi; it might be pointing out Al Gore (our beloved inventor of the Internet... Thank God for Al Gore!) is full of dog poo!


I am looking forward to more stimulating debate.

I am also taking contributions to fund my new, well produce movie to entertain the masses; Title? "Global Warming and you!" Why you don't necessarily have to buy a house on the coast of Florida to have beech front property.


Respectfully,

John

Well fizzissist nailed it by saying that even the mighty expert scientists come to opposing conclusions.
Regarding global warming iam certainly a noob but in fact many history changing inventions were made by dilettants because most of the complex scientific issues are mostly bases on a simple idea and most simple ideas can be explained with complex scientific theories.

And my theory about global warming is that i dont care if the pollution will be reduced because people believe in global warming or another theory, pollution is bad and thats not a theory, thats a fact.

As i said iam not an expert regarding global warming but as i get it, the point of the bruderheim article is that they are saying that its not really getting warmer or at least that there is not enough proof but i didnt see one word about "global dimming".

Global dimming more or less counters the effects of global warming. Dimming means that tiny particles (also caused by pollution!) in the atmosphere are reducing the ammount of sunrays reaching the earth, like a layer of fog.
The scientists who came up with this theory also made experiments to prove it and they claim if the whole world would stop the pollution instantly we would experience a sudden (within weeks/months) jump in temperature and would be exposed to the real grade of our global warming.

Nice scenario for a hollywood blockbuster.

Well in this case the temperature charts and diagrams in that article would be immediately in need of a update.

I too don't believe the hype on global warming. You may want to listen to this wisconsin public radio show earlier this week that just seemed to make more sense to me then most of the other stuff coming at us.
----------------------------
http://wpr.org/webcasting/audioarchives_display.cfm?Code=jca

Tuesday
1/23/2007
8:00 AM
Joy Cardin - 01/23C
According to Joy Cardin's guest, global warming is a natural phenomenon that occurs approximately every 1500 years, and is not caused by human-emitted greenhouse gases.

Guest: Dennis T. Avery, senior fellow, Hudson Institute. Co-author, "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years" (Rowman & Littlefield)

i haven t totally bought into global warming either but we really are messing things up

to more or less quote George Carlon the comedian ,

what makes us so arrogant to think we can save the planet , the world is forever changing and replenishing itself , and it will be 100% again once it rids itself of us

i think we are only helping our own demize

C'mon, Climate change is happening. Even if, say, personally, you would prefer to listen to Limbaugh and O'Reilly belaboring "liberal conspiracies" and quoting limited and highly questionable "research" funded by corporations to cast doubt over the findings of say, every scientist on the planet, it's getting harder and harder to do when even our decider-in-chief is mentioning climate change as a problem in the State of the Union address.

This simply isn't a partisan issue. It's a fact. Now, HOW we react to it, and what needs to be done - if anything at all - or if we are even the cause of it, may be a partisan issue, but to say climate change just isn't happening at all is beyond stupid at this point.

Now while liberals always have a problem getting thier head out of the clouds long enough to accomplish anything realistically practical whatsoever, it is even harder lately to get neo-cons to pull thier heads out of the sand and acknowledge any basic reality not pre-approved by thier political dogma. Especially self-apparent obvious realities, as then they require complex layers of conspiracy and jingoism to deny.

Of course, this post won't actually accomplish anything, as the Ann Coulter worshippers just ignore any unapproved viewpoint as unamerican terroristic propaganda anyway.

"...as the Ann Coulter worshippers just ignore any unapproved viewpoint as unamerican terroristic propaganda anyway."

...speaking of unapproved.....

"The Weather Channel’s most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to "Holocaust Deniers" and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists. "
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528

There is no question climate change is happening. The questions are do we (evil humans) have anything to do with it? Is the climate change we are experiencing anything out of the norm?

The rest of you post is pure rhetoric and crap. If you want anyone to take you seriously... try citing an example of what O'Reilly or Limbaugh has said that you believe to be inaccurate and then cite a factual example that contradicts their argument. Other than your power of observation; "climate change is happening..." Duh....) you are uninformed or incapable of factual debate. Example statement below.

"Even if, say, personally, you would prefer to listen to Limbaugh and O'Reilly belaboring "liberal conspiracies" and quoting limited and highly questionable "research" funded by corporations to cast doubt over the findings of say, every scientist on the planet..."

The above is an example of a non truth. This is how you can tell it's a non truth. The author offers no substantiation, no real world proof, and no facts to support his claim. This is a perfect example of someone stating opinion as fact.

"..highly questionable "research"...". What research? Where is it? How did you come to the conclusion that it is questionable? Where is the support for your statement?

"..every scientist on the planet...” This one is an unintelligent statement. If every scientist could agree on why there is global temperature change this forum wouldn't exist. This debate wouldn't exist. Again I ask; where is the support for your statement?

Could it be there is no support for your position? How can your views be taken seriously, if you are unwilling or unable to support them?

To all Environment Wackos,
Keep it coming. I would ask that you guys step it up a little and bring your "A" game. The recent posts by your friends have been lacking of substance; dismal attempts of persuasion at best. Let’s try not to make it too easy for me.

Respectfully,

John

John,
Sorry, but I have to correct you on a few points....

1) The word 'crap' is a euphemism, but I understand it's choice due to the political correctness requirements of the forum

2) He states "..every scientist on the planet..". Yes, it's a 'non-truth', but to be more accurate, it's an example of an absolutely ridiculous claim. Dr. Naomi Oreskes, Professor of History and Science Studies at UCSD was the one who initiated the idea that 1000 scientists are in consensus, and Dr. Benny Pieser promptly ripped the claim apart.

Of the 200 or so 'scientists' who's work comprise the IPCC's TAR, only about 33 are actually climate scientists. (ref: Dr. Patrick Michaels, research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia)

His claim is flat out ignorant and not researched AT ALL!

3) You're letting him off the hook on the "highly questionable research" statement.
We need only look at Mann's Hockey Stick (MBH98) and the subsequent battle between he and Stephen McIntyre & Ross McKitrick. Here's a perfect example of the LACK of scientific consensus, and questionable research on the part of the PRO-AGW camp!!

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004GL021750.shtml

Dr. Stephen Schneider of Stanford, who brought us the scare of an impending ice age back in the early '70s is now taking the side of Mann et. al. and exaggerating the claims of impending global warming doom....exaggerating by his own admission!!

"To capture the public imagination,
we have to offer up some scary scenarios,
make simplified dramatic statements
and little mention of any doubts one might have.
Each of us has to decide the right balance
between being effective,
and being honest."

- Leading greenhouse advocate, Dr Stephen Schneider
( in interview for "Discover" magagzine, Oct 1989)

I hope I haven't been too harsh on you John, I know you have good intentions. But sometimes you just gotta take these idiots to the woodshed.

---------------------------------------------------
Consensus? Not Hardly....

For AGW
....We endorse the conclusions of the IPCC assessment that
“There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50
years is attributable to human activities” ....
http://www.cfcas.org/LettertoPM19apr06e.pdf

Anti AGW
..."Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise."
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605

You forget Fezzi, I am an evil conservative. We have no heart therefore, we can not feel. You can always tell who we are. We're the ones that back up our statements with more than just rhetoric.

I thought my response was measured and accurate and had a good chance of raising Monkey Boy’s ire. I need one of these bozos to stand up and fight (I didn’t want to chase him off with those annoying facts of yours, Thanks a lot by the way… sarcastically!).

They (Leftist Wackos) are simply making it a one sided debate. There is the true injustice.

To address "...letting him off the hook" I am going to let the next one (misguided Wacko) "have it". If for no other reason than to redeem myself in your eyes (laughing uncontrollably).

To All others,
Please step up to the plate and take a swing. I hate to have to beg, but damn! If you are willing to have an intelligent conversation and SUBSTANTIATE your statements Bring It On!

In the immortal words of Michael Buffer....

“LET'S GET READY TO RUMBLLLLLE!"

Respectfully,

John

You gotta read this!!!
I had no idea we was so bad off!

A Methodology Critique in Defense of Those Wascally Wepublicans
January 16, 2007

"You may have heard the news by now. People who hold conservative political opinions are suffering from a syndrome in need of a cure. How do we know this? Because a professor of psychology has demonstrated it to be so. The news has been getting a lot of press lately....."

http://ironshrink.com/articles/070116_political_conservatism_study_methodology.php

...being pretty much a libertarian myself, I shouldn't be so offended, but it smacks of 'if you're not a liberal, you ain't @#$!'

i haven t totally bought into global warming either but we really are messing things up

to more or less quote George Carlon the comedian ,

what makes us so arrogant to think we can save the planet , the world is forever changing and replenishing itself , and it will be 100% again once it rids itself of us

i think we are only helping our own demize

dertsap you are being too reasonable; I don't know whether to be pleased or annoyed :) , if everyone was like this there would be no entertainment in these posts.

I simplify the global warming controversy down to three answers:

Yes

Maybe

No

But I suppose someone who is being tedious will ask what are the questions.

Is Global Warming occurring?

Is Human activity contributing to it?

Can we slow it down, stop it, or reverse it?

There is another question: Should we figure out how to adapt to it?

Perhaps someone would like to provide an answer.

And a related question: How?

I don't know how much your link contributes to the topic, but it was a most enjoyable read.

Thank you.

John

To all Environment Wackos,
Keep it coming. I would ask that you guys step it up a little and bring your "A" game. The recent posts by your friends have been lacking of substance; dismal attempts of persuasion at best. Let’s try not to make it too easy for me.

Respectfully,

John

:LMFAO:

I like your style! :D

but I think you scared everyone (wackos) away though!

Geof, I'd like to answer those questions for you.

Is Global Warming occurring? Probably. According to most of what I read, yes.

Is Human activity contributing to it? Undoubtedly. We're also causing cooling.

Can we slow it down, stop it, or reverse it? Picture yourself as riding on a 100 car locomotive traveling at 60mph. Stick your hand out the window like you did as a kid while riding in the car. Divide the effect by 100million.

There is another question: Should we figure out how to adapt to it?

...And THAT is the single most important and effective approach. Work to reduce pollution, work to adapt to a constantly changing climate, and be more responsible in our use of land.

What can we, as machinists do? Optimize chip loads. Optimize feeds and speeds. Recycle our tooling as much as possible. Reduce or eliminate coolant or cleaners. Become more efficient. Work towards lights out manufacturing. Live closer to work. Use colored anodized strings of aluminum chips as Christmas decorations.

And drink weaker coffee.

And drink weaker coffee.


Man you had me going for a while.............

Man you had me going for a while.............


Originally Posted by fizzissist View Post
And drink weaker coffee.

Yep! ..... He is insane!(nuts)

Thought you guys might like some newspaper scans showing us the scientists' warnings of impending ice-age doom!!

http://www.saveportland.com/Climate/index.html

I whole heartedly offer my sincerest apology to the Wackos for scaring you off (Maybe that will help). Please come back. I will keep Fizzi off your back for at least the first few posts. "Trust Me" Really.

I am still waiting for some intelligent debate from the other side.

Bueller...Bueller...Bueller...Bueller...





John

i grew up northern ontario , winter is cold and to the extremes at points , and no shortage of snow , i remember christmas morning trying on my new skates with the hope of going to the local outdoor rink and trying them out ,it rained all day , dec was mild , jan typically brutal , no big deal ,

last year i was reading in the paper how the same thing happened in quebec ,and the blame was global warming
funny how people can t remember anything past last year
the problem is propiganda from the media , they need to pump up the storys ,
they need to exagerate the issues to make the story interesting for people ,
for example the david suziki foundation was pumping up the issue that fish farming here is responsible for sea lice and other deseases that have been hitting the natural fish stocks , huge uproar over that ,
one day i was reading the paper and in a small area was a letter sent in from one of the top guys from green peace , he more or less said it was all a bunch of crap , there were no research finding that prooved it was happening ,
who do you beleave?
and why wasn t his letter blown up so that it was quite clear that he disagreed with it ,simple because it won t create anymore interesting hard hitting news
we all know the sky is blue , but if propigated thru the media we were told it was pink ,we would say no way , after a number of years we may start to question our own beleafs , after time it will be beleaved the sky is pink ,be it takes a week or 100 yrs

my personal obsearvation is the weather has been different , and getting to the points of extremes in some places , something is happening , is it global warming ,who knows maybe aliens are messing with us

my point is i don t beleave everything i'm told especially when it comes to conspiracy theories which are THEORIES dreamed up by other people

we need to do what we can environmentally to ensure our survival

its like letting your kid play with your old shotgun , you know its not loaded but what happens that time you go out hunting and forget to remove the shells and the kid blows his head off

why take the chance

....:rainfro: I'm still waiting for an answer from the ALGore camp as to WHAT WARMED THE PLANET UP FOR 800YEARS!!

....but while I'm waiting, I promise to be nice for the first few posts.....:)

For the sake of simplicity, it would appear that there are two camps for causes of climate change:
1 Its a natural cycle
2 We are causing it
Ok. If its a natural cycle, then it occurs on a time scale so vast, that we, as homo sapiens can't really relate to it, and there is nothing we can do about it. Hold on for the ride.
If we ARE causing it, then we can do something about it (albeit drastic).
For the sake of argument, i propose the following; we all know that as we age, we gain weght. You do not weigh at 45 what you did at 18. A 45 year old man goes to the doctor, in the past year he has gained 50 lbs. It is determined by the doctor that the man has developed a serious doughnut addiction in the past year, consuming 6 doughnuts per day. Now, being reasonable types, we know that there could be many other causes for this weight gain (cancer, Thyroid etc) however, laying off the doughnuts would be a reasonable first step whilst other possibilites are ruled out.
Simplified? Very. However, you probably get my point.
Fizzissist (phoenetics works for me dude), as you pointed out, pollution is bad, and reducing it if not eliminating it, is a worthy goal. If for nothing else, air pollution kills millions world wide, so why not.
Now i'm not for a second asserting that WE are the cause of global warming/climate change, what i am saying is that given its the only one of the theories on the plate that we can have an affect on, would it not be prudent to take action on this? After all, IF the scientist's involved with the Kyoto protocalls are right (i am assuming that they are intelligent, have integrity, and are only acting out of humanitarian interests) then we only have a short time frame to enact change.
I am convinced that climate change is happening, and not by any of the rhetoric spewed out by the green side (who like the "other" side have their own agenda). My reasons are all based on first hand experience. Where i live, the winters are not what they were even 15 years ago. Even into the '80s, ice roads could be relied upon to be useable by November, now, you are lucky to be using them for hauling by late December. Areas of the globe that have more variable seasons are the ones who are going to experience the biggest swings in "normal" values. Like any system that becomes unstable, you start to get bigger swings above and below the mean as the system seeks stability. We had the coldest November on record, yet we have had some of the hottest summers on record recently. Anyway, i am getting off topic a bit, as it seems we all agree that climate change is happening.
So, what do we (the global we) do? As i stated above, why not try and control what we can, it wouldnt hurt, and if the human caused camp is right, at least we have a start on it.

Ice skaters hit Donner for first time in years
JEFF DELONG
RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL
Posted: 1/25/2007

"....The lake froze for the first time in years, which brought out ice skaters, hockey players and warnings from the local fire department to be careful on the ice.

"This is the first time in 20 years we have skated on Donner," said Truckee-area resident Buck Beddie, who was playing hockey on the frozen lake surface with friend Heather Simon and was among dozens frolicking on the ice Tuesday afternoon.

"We came out because it is such a rare occasion that Donner freezes over and there is ice," Beddie said...."

http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070125/NEWS10/701250334/1002

Global warming: undetermined at this point so ignore "probable causes" until such time as a "cause" presents itself to be "probable".

As far as helping out, I think most people wouldn't choose to throw away 5 cans of trash a week but until someone stops packaging my 1.50 toothbrush in plastic/cardboard that in all probability cost more than the tooth brush, I won't be able to help.

On the other hand we could recycle as is being done more and more around the world. Sounds good but individuals don't need to recycle but communities do. So in actuality the trash companies are the ones that need to conform.

A lot of people are pushing the burden on the individual, it needs to be on the community not the individual. The individual's role has to be to get the community to do it as a whole.

If people as groups were more coordinated we could boycott products that didn't conform to a specific goal in recycling, But people are typically weak as a group, So realistically it takes years for any movement to get started one way are another.

And I totally agree with the Derstap on the news thing, they have to hype with bad new or no one wants to watch.

Here is another angle for the conservationist:

The earth doesn't care what we do to it, as its billions of years old and it will be the same so far into the future that we can't relate to it.

We are the only ones who care, and its because WE have a vested interest in it.

Life sprang up after the planet cooled from molten rock and I am sure that life will spring forth after we have Humanely and conservatively turned it back into molten rock!

Your experience (as far as climate change goes) is irrelevant. Since you like analogies let me give you one of my own.


I drive to work everyday. At various points during my trip my vehicle is in some "state" of motion. Possible states include stopped, accelerating, decelerating or maintaining a constant speed.

If you were to materialize in my vehicle for the thirty seconds or so as I accelerate hard to from 0 to reach 65 mph and dematerialized shortly before my acceleration tapered off, you would only have a small frame of reference by which to frame a conclusion. From your experience; it is possible to conclude that I continued to accelerate in to the next dimension. (Seems unlikely doesn't it)

The same is true for your experience with climate change. From your experience the climate is warming. I'll tell you what; call me back in a few thousand years and let me know if you still think anything out of the norm is going on.

You’re going to have to bring more than personal experience to this forum.

More fluff from the masses. I love it.

Respectfully,

John

miljnor,

Let's not be to hasty, to abandon personal responsibility when it comes to being responsible for ones own pollution. It is not the communities place to go through my garbage and sort it, just as it is not their place to tell me how much energy I can consume or the motor vehicle I can drive. I am always leery of a communal philosophy governing behavior or choice (If you want to be a Branch Davidian than you have to have sex with David). Smells of communism and so far that hasn't worked out so well.


Respectfully,


John

I am not saying that we should relieve anyone of personal responsibility (maybe I should have worded my post differently)

Here is an analogy:

There are certain modes of transportation available.
1 walking
2. Riding bike
3. Scooter
4. Motorcycle
5. Car/truck
6. Public transportation

These are a few of them.

I can chose any of them but tend to use the car/truck solution as it fills these needs: gets you there in a timely manner, can carry what I need to carry and I have one.

Now as far as responsibility goes, you could choose any mode of transportation, but the one you pick is usually based off of convenience.

One could argue that driving a huge SUV is irresponsible if a 2 door Spec will do or that riding a scooter when walking will get the job done. But if you have no ego and don’t care about status or maybe the ephemeral “quality of life” then you will undoubtedly walk everywhere because you are very concerned about “the environment”.

All this of course is BS, people want things and status is important and I will drive my v10-powered viper (I wish) whatever speed I want (until I get a ticket). Hell I would fly a helicopter to work everyday if I could. Human nature ALWAYS comes into play except in these nifty little discussions.

Would I throw a wrapper on the ground, No Do I recycle, yes when I can would I go to the trouble of separating all of my trash and drive it to the appropriate recycling center, HELL NO! I don’t have the time and/or the inclination. Does this make me a bad person, maybe, maybe not?

But what it comes down to is everyone will do what the can when they can (human nature dictates: to do the most for the least) and only your personal upbringing/view on life will make you do more. So with that in mind people will do what it is that is common to civilization, ie. Throw their trash in the trashcan, recycle when forced or convenient and buy those pre-packaged goodies because they want them not because they think they should conserve so the landfills don’t get filled. Its just human nature!

So when you talk about changing the world or even you community you have to think on the society or group as a whole (no this isn’t communism, yuk!) Its called outsmarting human nature (which some refer to as laziness but in actuality its to get the most for the least). If you don’t design a system that takes this into account it is doomed to failure (like most governments).

Hopefully this rant will clear things up a little (like mud)

-

recycling and what ever you so choose should be done in self consiousness rather than self rightiousness ,

i know a few people who feel they are DOING their part ,they also eat organic food only ,
its a self rightious kick for some void in their miserable life , just do it , i don t want to here about it ,unless it s valid
as far as organic food goes , Ya i hate eating rock too , not enough salt and they hurt my teeth

i agree with miljnor about everything being far too over packaged , the stacks of plastic and cardboard left over from christmas was rediculous

Do you buy your food from those bulk bins after all the sniffly kids have been rifling through it with their grubby hands?

Or would you prefer nicely packaged food that is virtually guaranteed not to be contaminated, even if the packaging costs as much as the product?

The consumer has spoken on this one.

Toothbrushes are probably the best example of a way to inoculate yourself with germs that are almost guaranteed to get into your bloodstream. I'll take mine sterile, thank you. It's worth an extra dollar to me.

--97T--

Some grist for the mill:

Scientists wanting government money and the press have always had your best interests at heart --

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp

Since we all like to look at trends and discern patterns from them,

“A global central planning authority is implicit in all potential international efforts to combat alleged global problems,” explains economist George Reisman. Environmentalism is socialism revived; the Greens are the Reds incarnated.

In his seminal work, Capitalism, Reisman elaborates on the philosophical affinity between these maniacal movements: The Reds argued that “the individual could not be left free because the result would be such things as ‘exploitation,’ ‘monopoly,’ and depressions. The Greens claimed that the individual could not be left free because the result would be such things as the destruction of the ozone layer, acid rain, and global warming. Both claim that centralized government control over economic activity is essential. The Reds wanted it for the alleged sake of achieving human prosperity”; the Greens for the alleged sake of avoiding environmental damage.”

Blatantly lifted from Ilana Mercer's article at
http://www.ilanamercer.com/ReincarnationOfTheReds.htm


My summation: The common man has abused his freedom, he can't be trusted with it, he needs to be controlled before he blows up the world with his unrestrained production and consumption. If you can't stand over him with a gun to control his activities, tax and ration his carbon use. He won't understand what that really means until it is too late.

Do you buy your food from those bulk bins after all the sniffly kids have been rifling through it with their grubby hands?

Or would you prefer nicely packaged food that is virtually guaranteed not to be contaminated, even if the packaging costs as much as the product?

The consumer has spoken on this one.

Toothbrushes are probably the best example of a way to inoculate yourself with germs that are almost guaranteed to get into your bloodstream. I'll take mine sterile, thank you. It's worth an extra dollar to me.

--97T--

I personally like my stuff wrapped as well but the issue is what to do about the waste?

I am sure we could come up with something the fits a more thrift use of materials but its not necessary if you change the way trash is dealt with.

It all comes back to recycling which is a must but I think that you have to think of recycling on the community scale not individually.


My summation: The common man has abused his freedom, he can't be trusted with it, he needs to be controlled before he blows up the world with his unrestrained production and consumption. If you can't stand over him with a gun to control his activities, tax and ration his carbon use. He won't understand what that really means until it is too late.

I disagree with this statement wholeheartedly! I think humans as a whole work way better with very little restrictions and a lot of freedoms.

Every system has checks and balances, name a few things that we haven't been able to recover from and I might agree with the "until its too late" jargon. Even the most die hard selfish capitalistic self centered egomaniac knows that breathing Carbon monoxide isn't good for you and will want to fix the problem and probably compromise to get the air to be clean again.

A system of government should provide guidelines for mutual cooperation and survival and place great penalties on any transgression. Most societies tend not to have clearly defined penalties or crimes and if they are clearly defined, they have a muddled system of prosecution of said crimes.

I personally don't know everything we need to do to fix our society, but I could make a few good guesses at some of the fundamental changes that someone would have to make. One of the first ones would to be: When you make a constitution of rules and law they should be immutable and unchanging, and should any governmental agency that tries is guilty of the highest crime and prosecuted accordingly!

But you can never get rid of the politics and politics always leads to misinformation for the purpose of gain, by one party or another. If you could find a way to "Vulcan" the political process to "just the facts" then you would be well on your way to a more Utopian government.

Did anyone else watch An inconvenient Truth? You guys are talking as if this is a normal state for our climate. Did the 650,000 year chart of carbon dioxide levels not show otherwise? What about the numerous 30-year before and after satellite photos. Is there a global warming trend? No doubt in this man's mind yes.

Now, are we causing it? We as in human industry. Well, did we cause the hole in the ozone layer? Did banning CFC's fix it? I'm told we did, and and I'm told it did. But I can't become an expert on what causes things. I have to trust what I'm told and I do that with sources I trust. It is my opinion that Al Gore presented data that shows the last 30 years show a marked increase in CO2 levels and a historical correlation of rising temperatures. Do I believe the individual has to do something. I do personally yes. I'm not going to get into a debate as these are my views based on what I have learned from sources I trust. I don't plan to say "oh hell I guess I'm wrong and I'm wasting my time recycling, buying a more fuel efficient car, turning off unused lamps, changing to CFL's, and donating monies to environmental causes and buying green power." I tend to err on the side of caution.

I would say that even if your not driven to do something to make a difference in CO2 levels for the environment, do something for your wallet. It is a fact that you can save money by switching to CFLs in your home. Walmart changed all of the lamps in their ceiling fans in their stores and quoted a large (I want to say $1 Billion but I can't recall for sure ... it was an article in Business 2.0) in energy costs. My recent trip to Lowes confirms they are a believer too. Buy at the warehouse stores for bigger savings too.

See my next post for some on my questions.

Jay

My summation: The common man has abused his freedom, he can't be trusted with it, he needs to be controlled before he blows up the world with his unrestrained production and consumption. If you can't stand over him with a gun to control his activities, tax and ration his carbon use. He won't understand what that really means until it is too late.

Speak for yourself. There are many of us that are not part of your little scenario...I'll take EVERY DROP of my sovereignty, thank you very much.

The PROBLEM is corporation & government. NOT US!!!! If you want to do something about pollution and being responsible, try shutting down stupid wastes of energy like the space shuttle et al, that spew TONS of pollution into our atmosphere...and for what? Not your butt, nor mine (or ANYONE YOU PERSONALLY KNOW) will EVER be going on any space trip....but they will sure let you pay for it. How about all of the munitions exploded EVERY DAY? Aside from killing PEOPLE directly, it is killing the environment. (nuts)

I agree with John that 'global warming' is not proven. It's yet another buzz phrase to scare the sheeple. If you travelled the world and went to just about ANY country and met the common folk there, you would QUICKLY come to the realization that people are people...that it isn't US & THEM...and that people are generally good & hard working. You can't take a country's FORCED policy and say that 'we the people' voted for it and we all agree. If you think that a president is actually voted into office, then I guess I can understand that type of perspective...BTW, there is no Easter Bunny in real life...and if you think that any human on this planet is 'free', you're living in fantasy land.

Every creature under the sun knows what is RIGHT & WRONG. Period. I believe that the majority of people will do the right thing if given an honest way to do it. Touting that pollution from cars is causing global warming & pollution is getting out of control is RUBBISH. The environment is MUCH cleaner than it was 20 yrs ago. THAT is a FACT!!! The people have been doing their best, it's GOVERNMENT & COMMERCIAL entities that grease each other's palms, look the other way, and spew FAR MORE crap into the environment than anyone else!

The earth is a living thing (as Carlin so eloquently pointed out) and it will flush all of us out of existence if it has to. And..what if it did? We are all going to die sooner or later. Get over it. Is this the BIG FEAR that has people all upset? Worried about dying? As if the human race is the crown jewel in the universe? LOL!!!! Those who believe that, have some soul searching to do...

-B

Question: Why do Ford and GM continue to pump out less efficient vehicles in a time where fuel prices are at an all time high? Toyota and Honda are killing them in sales.

Why did we really invade Iraq?

Would it really be that bad to produce less polluting cars that comply with an agreement everyone else in the world (save Australia and US) signed? Who would lose? Why?

These are questions I have but haven't researched. Why, because there are more interesting things like my family, CNC, robotics, and Krav Maga. again I guess it all comes down to who you trust.

FWIW,
Jay

Did anyone else watch An inconvenient Truth? You guys are talking as if this is a normal state for our climate. Did the 650,000 year chart of carbon dioxide levels not show otherwise? What about the numerous 30-year before and after satellite photos. Is there a global warming trend? No doubt in this man's mind yes.

Now, are we causing it? We as in human industry. Well, did we cause the hole in the ozone layer? Did banning CFC's fix it? I'm told we did, and and I'm told it did. But I can't become an expert on what causes things. I have to trust what I'm told and I do that with sources I trust. It is my opinion that Al Gore presented data that shows the last 30 years show a marked increase in CO2 levels and a historical correlation of rising temperatures. Do I believe the individual has to do something. I do personally yes. I'm not going to get into a debate as these are my views based on what I have learned from sources I trust. I don't plan to say "oh hell I guess I'm wrong and I'm wasting my time recycling, buying a more fuel efficient car, turning off unused lamps, changing to CFL's, and donating monies to environmental causes and buying green power." I tend to err on the side of caution.

I would say that even if your not driven to do something to make a difference in CO2 levels for the environment, do something for your wallet. It is a fact that you can save money by switching to CFLs in your home. Walmart changed all of the lamps in their ceiling fans in their stores and quoted a large (I want to say $1 Billion but I can't recall for sure ... it was an article in Business 2.0) in energy costs. My recent trip to Lowes confirms they are a believer too. Buy at the warehouse stores for bigger savings too.

See my next post for some on my questions.

Jay

Jay,
We haven't been recording data on this rock long enough to know ANYTHING about the complexities of the earth's climate. Period. 200 years of data on record (eye witness) and who knows HOW they can 100% for sure verify that radio carbon dating or measuring CO2 levels from a core sample is accurate. What's the reference? Just cause they say so?

Retail stores that 'embrace green' have done some good in the world. But the primary reason that they do all of these green things is nothing more than window dressing & PR stunts. It's like advertising that you did what you were supposed to be doing right in the 1st place and expecting a trophy or kudos for it...

Ozone? Styrofoam? Yeah OK...try doing some research into HAARP...and then tell me THAT hasn't cooked the entire earth's atmosphere...If you buy the styrofoam story, that's like buying the green monkey AIDS story...

-B

I put "An Inconvenient Truth" right up there with the classics, like Peter Pan and Rug Rats, the Movie.

Jay C, to address your points...

Wally World, UltraK, and all the other super stores providing you with your energy efficient products....care to look where they're made??? Hmmmmm......let me guess....China?

A country with NO environmental standards or consciousness. Need to get rid of that bucket of mercury or spent toluene? Dump it in the yard out back. Oops, it's time to smog the company cars! NOT!!

You're getting your 'cheap' products from places that are polluting more than you're saving, and YOU'RE the bad guy, according to AlGore. Better yet, you just saved yourself out of a job. Not to mention the environmental impacts of the shipping alone.

I just flew over the seas of southeast asia, and the number of container ships I saw was brain numbing. All that stuff for you to save money on, produced in countries with no pollution standards. And we're the bad guys.

Why didn't we sign Kyoto? Because it wasn't fair and didn't result in a level playing field.

Why don't we all drive energy efficient vehicles? Good question. Why don't you ask Honda why I can't buy a Honda Wave (AKA Innova, NF) in this country. They build 'em in Viet Nam with a base price of about $770, and sell 'em in Thailand for around $1200. That same bike is over $3600 in the UK.
Can't buy 'em in the US.

Why did we invade Iraq? To ensure there's oil to fire the electricity for the power to give you internet access.

Every time you start your car, no matter what you drive, you're the reason we invaded Iraq.

Ozone? Styrofoam? Yeah OK...try doing some research into HAARP...and then tell me THAT hasn't cooked the entire earth's atmosphere...If you buy the styrofoam story, that's like buying the green monkey AIDS story...

-B

Yeah, wasn't going to mention HAARP ... might sound to conspiracy theorist :)

Couldn't pass up posting this....

Hypocrisy of the Stars
http://www.tmz.com/2006/10/18/celebs-who-claim-theyre-green-but-guzzle-gas

Yeah, wasn't going to mention HAARP ... might sound to conspiracy theorist :)

Thing is, there are no conspiracy theories...only conspiracies ;)

-B

Let me answer that for ya....IT'S MY SITE AND I CAN DO AND SAY WHAT EVERY I WANT ...hope that helps.

Well that tells me alot about you, Paul.....let me flush the commode. *kerflush*

Random thoughts on the above:

Back to toothbrush wrappers, if it weren't against the law, you could burn them and use the heat to heat your house.

The reason why free men would get together to form a government that has a monopoly on the use of force can be found in the American Declaration of Independence.

Re carbon dioxide and warming -- the warming came before the carbon dioxide in this century. Cause and effect? That's a tough one.

Ozone holes -- remember when NASA claimed there was an ozone hole over Kennebunkport, Maine? CFC's are used as refrigerants because the chemical is one of the most inert chemicals ever produced by man. So inert, that it makes a superior fire extinguisher. Supposedly, the molecule breaks up from an ultraviolet photon, releasing chlorine, which then reacts with an ozone molecule. These molecules can get from your hair spray can into the upper atmosphere and cause everyone to die of skin cancer. Now the whole thing is a pretty nice theory, even though a lot of the basics are a huge stretch of the imagination. What wasn't imaginary, however, was that right about the time of all this fanciful hullabaloo, Mt. Pinatubo was spewing huge amounts of hydrogen chloride into the stratosphere. Which of course is denied by the CFC crowd as not possibly having anything to do with atmospheric chlorine levels, despite the tremendous amounts released. And certainly, it can't react with oxygen radicals, like the almost inert CFC's do. Even if there are huge amounts of it getting blown sky high, it can't get into the upper stratosphere like your hair spray does. Ever notice how the replacement for freon is a chemical cousin, but somehow isn't supposed to be harmful, and it costs a lot more? It was not a little surprising to discover that just when patent protection was running out on Freon, DuPont was funding the groups that were pushing the loudest for a ban on it. Then lo and behold, a newly patented compound! Whaddaya know!

Re My Summation -- I was sarcastically putting words in the statists' mouths. I have the feeling that if they successfully disarm the population, they will get their way. And then, pollution won't be the big social issue...

Re an agreement everyone else in the world (save Australia and US) signed -- It would require us to regulate and tax our industries right out of existence. The government doesn't want to do that too fast, because it would make revenues fall. Of course the tinpot dictators around the world would love to deny us our energy, which is the engine of our civilization. If it hurts America, just show them where to sign up. Let's see how many of them actually cut their own carbon use in the long run. No matter that the whole thing is built on a pack of lies. Make it sound scientific, and the unwashed masses will buy it, is the theory. Which seems to be working. I wonder whether coming in at the bottom of the list in math and science scores will ever have any important effects on our nation?

I like the idea of HAARP -- it reinforces the idea that the earth's weather is precariously unstable, subject to runaway influences of positive feedback mechanisms, and moreover, can be controlled by a mad scientist cackling gleefully as he pulls his lever to launch his diabolical plan to control the world. Too bad none of the physics for the story work out. But I like the story.

Re Flushing -- I hope we are not taking advantage of our gracious host here. I really like the entire website and the people on it. I'm sorry we might not agree on this subject in particular, but the give and take is fun. And it might be worthwhile, as well as therapeutic. Hopefully people will read some of the links and decide for themselves. If all you had to go by were newspapers and TV news, there wouldn't be any chance to see the real data for yourself in order to make your own decision. I give my thanks for the forum and I hope I've not worn out my welcome. I came here looking for information on mills, found out about Tormach here, and I bought one along with a copy of Artsoft Mach Mill. I do support the advertisers with real money.

--97T--

...Ozone holes .... Supposedly, the molecule breaks up from an ultraviolet photon, releasing chlorine, which then reacts with an ozone molecule. These molecules can get from your hair spray can into the upper atmosphere and cause everyone to die of skin cancer. Now the whole thing is a pretty nice theory, even though a lot of the basics are a huge stretch of the imagination......

97T you may know a lot of things but clearly a good knowledge of chemistry is not one of them. You are ranting on here, incorrectly, like the best of the conspiracy theorists. The link between CFCs, ozone, the ozone hole and increased UV levels at higher latitudes especially is real. It is a display of ignorance to deny it or if you do have the background in chemistry to understand it then the display is not something excusable.

Geof, I don't have the background in chemistry. But I'll be happy to look at the proof. Got a link?

--97T--

Geof, I don't have the background in chemistry. But I'll be happy to look at the proof. Got a link?

--97T--

No, just nine years at university studying chemistry ending in a doctorate degree.

Thank your for most informative response. I find it very convincing.

I like your style 97t! :D

When dinosaurs roamed the earth 65 million years ago palm trees grew at the North and South poles. 15 thousand years ago what is now New York City was covered with ice 2 miles thick.

You bet there's climate change. The earth has always done what it wants to do.

This debate reminds me of the story of a flea having carnal relations with an elephant and asking afterwards "Was it good for you too?" Where did we get the arrogance and self-importance to believe our fleeting 200-year old technological history has any effect on a planet that measures time in billions of years? What is needed is some sense of humility of just how insignificant we are; get a grip, SUVs weren't around 65 million years ago or 15 thousand years ago.

What saddens me is seeing the progression of the leftist cancer through the hard sciences now. It corroded the soft sciences (sociology, psychology, political science, history, etc.) and is now beginning to eat its way thru what was formerly immune reasoned human knowledge.

I read where now free thinking meteorologists are being threatened with scientific exile unless they toe the global warming theologists line. This is antithetical to all that is scientific discourse. It says "We don't care about facts or contrary scientific evidence, believe as we believe or suffer the consequences. Heretics will not be tolorated."

This is a religion. Be sure of that. It cleverly does not call itself that but it has all the attributes of a new, fulminating and virulent religion.

It hates and destroys all other competing, established religions. It gains control by naming and condemning sinful behavior (driving SUVs, living well thru technology). It shames, causes fear and uncertainty in the unconverted pagans. It offers salvation by cleansing the earth in the name of the religion of enviromentalism. It is zealous by not tolerating divergent views from its orthodoxy and it punishes heretics. It seeks converts from other beliefs to its belief, first by persuasion, later by force. It is a religion. It is not science.

It is a cancer eating its way thru the sciences because it needs the the empty husks left afterwards to dress itself up in to give itself legitimacy and authority to convince and convert the remaining pagans.

Math will be the last holdout. When math goes, the most reasoned pinnacle of human knowledge and the mother of all the sciences, the victory will be complete. Then welcome the new Dark Ages when the religion of enviromentalism conquers. This mud-hut theology will prevail unless we all work to laugh at it. It claims to be science. It is not science when it seeks to silence good men that only seek the truth nature reveals with fear and professional exile. That is religious zealotry.

This pernicious enviromentalist theology cannot stand the ridecule it so richly deserves. I personally have utter contempt for it and I do laugh at it.

Mariss

Thank your for most informative response. I find it very convincing.

That is what I expected which is why I phrased it that way. I do not know what your field of expertise is. But if I posted a question which fell within your field of expertise and you gave an answer would you feel it necessary to post links to prove you are correct? Why do you not trust an answer from someone who has no interest in misleading you and is knowledgeable in the subject area.

Alternatively why don't you go and obtain the knowledge that will enable you to understand and evaluate the details.

That was very well said, Mariss.

Taking your concept a little farther, the most virulent forms of this cancer seem to be established where there is a symbiosis between politicians and researchers. This symbiosis springs up from the need for growth-oriented government and its servile State Science arms to establish and protect us all from the Next Big Scare.

The Next Big Scare must be something that the common man cannot understand, it must have apocalyptic consequences, and it must be something that can only be solved by expanding the power of government and placing the High Priests of State Science in powerful positions. To be really successful, it must also have as a side benefit a requirement to heavily bleed the most successful sectors of the economy.

The science journals will publish a few test balloons to see if a theory that fits the mold will take hold. Others will join the chorus. Before long, the politicians must fund research to establish the legitimacy of it, or they will be branded as uncaring, even dangerous. The researchers must generate an avalanche of data to support it, or they will not get this funding. If the drumbeat in the popular press continues for long enough, it becomes the new dogma, having been firmly established beyond question by the consensus of State Science and the popular opinion they have so carefully crafted.

The common man, who has been educated to believe all such things are beyond his comprehension, soon spouts the new dogma with authority, joining in to contemptuously deride anyone who dares question the Official Truth. If the chorus doesn't silence the questioner, then a high priest might deign to step in and shush the questioner with authority. Truth by consensus will be reinforced by truth through edict. It isn't necessary to silence by force, it is only necessary to palliate whoever else can hear, to silence their doubts by relieving them of the burdensome task of reasoning for themselves by ostracizing the errant questioner. As long as you are with the crowd, you are safe.

The environmental scheme is but one of these lesions. The scheme is being tried on various fronts in the life sciences as well, but on a smaller scale. The biological scares meet all of the requirements except that they are lacking a moneyed victim to vilify and tax into oblivion, therefore there is a limit to their longevity and scope.

When people lose interest in these scares, government will cast aside the researchers with a swipe of the pen, or worse, and resort to the older and more reliable tactic of foreign intrigue and petty wars.

In the meantime, the result of a diet of government money is a contempt for reason throughout the educational establishment. Theoretical mathematics might be immune from being co-opted as the other branches of science have been, partly because much of the reasoning involved is based on axioms, and partly because nobody has figured out a way to bend it to the service of a Big Scare. This has not stopped other branches from taking liberties with statistical methods and making huge leaps of reason based on uncertainties. But, being based on axioms and reason, mathematics has in fact been under attack from the department down the hall, from the beginning. That attack comes from the philosophy department, where there has been a concerted effort going on for centuries to undercut the very concepts of existence, axioms, and reason. This attack on reason is a crucial underpinning of the entire enterprise. It serves to plant a seed of doubt in the minds of everyone, so that only someone with special powers of intellect, like a High Priest, can really comprehend reality. It gives them the ultimate fall - back argument in any debate where a questioner tries to tie their logic back to axioms. They just dismiss the axioms! And this is the hallmark of any religion. It needs people to suspend their own reason.

The ultimate goal isn't to get any but the most gullible to believe completely, but to get most people to compartmentalize their reasoning. Leaving the basis of their knowledge to the experts, and confining their reasoning ability to their own field of expertise, where the results are beyond question. This results in all but a few being pragmatists by default, able to have wildly conflicting vague premises by ignoring the contradictions through self-doubt about their own capacity to understand. Fear, uncertainty, and guilt will serve to shunt thoughts onto more comfortable subjects.

Now, I suppose I've said too much. Time to go produce some more, the tax man is always hungry.

--97T--

Geof,

Since you asked,

If you asked me a question about something in my field, I would answer it if I were able, and not ever ask anyone to accept my conclusions on authority. If someone wanted more information, I would provide it myself or point them to the best source I know.

If I make an assertion, it is open to refutation or question. The burden is then mine to provide reasoning and evidence to back it up, if my purpose in making the assertion was persuasion. And if that were my purpose, it would not be served by dismissively suggesting that you go find out for yourself.

It's not about being trusted, it's about sharing data and the reasoning that leads to a particular conclusion.

Why should anyone trust me, a semi-anonymous internet wanderer, on faith alone? Would they trust me more if I asserted my authority?

I don't understand why you asked me this.

--97T--

Mariss & 97T,
You are absolutely spot on...and if you think back, this is how it has ALWAYS been with 'religion' & government, whether it includes a 'god' in the equation or not. The control of popular belief and information have always been manipulated...and always will be as far as I can see.

For a brief time in history, after WWI, people had access to some of the information in universities. I mean, real science, real knowledge. As time has gone by, access to any useful information has been dumbed down, taken away and compartmentalized (through the guise of specialization AND so IQ70 Joe can 'play too') to the point that a college educatation today is hardly worth the paper it is printed on. Want the piece of paper to prove you know something? Pay thru the nose...and you still won't know squat. As MANY of the more successful people on here know, real knowledge and education comes from doing your life's work and passion...not by being institutionalized...(some need outside validation to prove they know something...quite frankly, I don't.)

This issue (global warming) is the same with all of the other alarmist views & topics. What does it REALLY accomplish? Fear. Nothing more. When you scare people, you can conveniently offer them a 'solution' (your planned agenda anyway) and that usually means people giving up even more freedom. The best advise I ever got was from a retired chief of police in a very large town in NJ...He told me that whatever everybody else is doing, do just the opposite. If people are running to the left, you run to the right. It has proven to be the best advice I have ever received...and has helped me to steer clear of the herd mentality and seek my own truth.

I notice with this issue and most others, how many people are quick to point out how we 'humans' are so horrible and that we need more control. If there is a widespread phenomenon that is killing the planet, the responsibility lays on the king's shoulders to set it right...they were the ones that set the condition in motion to begin with. This is not to alleviate personal responsibility, but to acknowledge that we pretty much follow whatever is put forth in motion by government and big business. Since this wheel is just going to keep on turning as it always has since the beginning of 'civilization', just live your life, do the best you can, and die like we are all going to do anyway...Too much worry, not enough peace on this rock...mostly due to people getting stirred up and worrying about things that they CANNOT and NEVER WILL BE ABLE TO CHANGE!!!

-B

Taking your concept a little farther, the most virulent forms of this cancer seem to be established where there is a symbiosis between politicians and researchers. This symbiosis springs up from the need for growth-oriented government and its servile State Science arms to establish and protect us all from the Next Big Scare.

--97T--

sure ! the world revolves around your government and its ideals in twisting peoples ideas and beliefs

the world doesn t stop at the salty waters on each of your shores ,
or for you maybe it does , maybe thats all the government let you know ,
just keep an eye out for the sea serpent if you ever decide to roam those shores

I'm old enough to remember the "Coming Ice Age" scare of the early '70s. Maybe Global Warming and the Coming Ice Age will synthesize into "Global Tepid".

Mariss

regarding the claims of "CFC" being inert.

Which CFC are you talking about? Chloroflourocarbons area group of chemicals sharing some of the same atoms but they are NOT chemically identical.

Do you know what you get when you heat Freon? (which again, is a family of chemicals, not a single chemical). Think chemical warfare : phosgene gas. Using freon as a fire extinguisher would work (it displaces oxygen), but the chemical warfare agents released would be deadly.

A member of the CFC family, Halon, was briefly marketed as a superior fire extinguishing agent (I know, I used them in the Navy) but were quickly discarded because of health effects when used on real fires.

CFCs can be "broken up" or converted into other forms of chemicals in a large number of ways - not the least of which is ultraviolet radiation. Sure, they are stable at room temperature when kept in a container, but in almost any other environment, all bets are off.

I'm assuming your claim that Pinotubo spewed massive amounts of CFCs into the air was made in the same vein as Reagans assertion that Mt. St. Helens must have produced a lot more sulphur dioxide in one eruption than all the cars could in a year. Well, Reagan was full of crap (good thing he prefaced his statement with "I'm no scientist but"). The amount put out by the volcano paled in comparison to what the united states put out in a single year.

..... And if that were my purpose, it would not be served by dismissively suggesting that you go find out for yourself...I don't understand why you asked me this...

--97T--

Why ask? To find out what your answer is of course. You want me to back up my statement that the chemistry behind ozone depletion caused by CFCs is correct but you don't have the chemical knowledge to understand a detailed explanation. You are the only person who can acquire that knowledge. I was not being dismissive but suggesting a practical alternative which is quite feasible. Or does this quote from your own post describe you?

"The common man, who has been educated to believe all such things are beyond his comprehension, soon spouts the new dogma with authority, joining in to contemptuously deride anyone who dares question the Official Truth."

the one argument that Ive heard (and I am no chemist) is that volcano's are the one source of chlorine that can actually get into the upper atmosphere and the CFC and chlorine are heavier than air and thus need some vehicle to make them get the the ozone layer

just curious if this is a trueish statement or I was fibbed to?

GEOF,
How do I say this gently? If you have a doctorate, then you wrote a thesis to achieve that degree. I have never read a thesis that did not substantiate its premise with real research.

You write with so much conviction; much the way I do. The difference is I can back up what I say with hard cold facts. You have chosen to hide behind your credentials. Isn’t going to fly my friend.

Note: Saying you have a doctorate is NOT proof that your statements or conclusions are valid. If I had a dollar for every time a DOCTOR has given some hair brained diagnosis of a given situation......or better yet drawn a conclusion from inconclusive information...... I think you get my point.

Your doctorate is irrelevant. Pretend I'm from Missouri "SHOW ME!" that your statements/conclusions have validity. I will say it as simply as I can; that was a horrific cop-out.

I would still like to see the proof for your side of the debate though.

Respectfully

John

Freon is a brand name. Refrigerant or R-12, R-22 and others is the correct term for what you call Freon.

Simple and common mistake.

John

Freon is a brand name. Refrigerant or R-12, R-22 and others is the correct term for what you call Freon.

Simple and common mistake.

John

"Freon" has become a generic name for group of CFC refrigerants, just like ski-do, while a brand name, is also used as a generic name to describe a snow mobile. I know, I've been working with refrigeration since 1980 - first in the Navy as a Marine engineer and now in the civilian world as a stationary equipment service worker and power engineer.

Jay,
We haven't been recording data on this rock long enough to know ANYTHING about the complexities of the earth's climate. Period. 200 years of data on record (eye witness) and who knows HOW they can 100% for sure verify that radio carbon dating or measuring CO2 levels from a core sample is accurate. What's the reference? Just cause they say so?


We have far more than 200 years of data. We have data going back many centuries from eye witnesses. Writing has existed for a long, long time you know and part of what people wrote was about weather.

The basis for carbon dating is radioactive decay rates which we understand quite well. If the science behind carbon dating were flawed then atomic clocks would not work and nuclear power plants would be uncontrollable.

Carbon dating has been verified in many ways including historical records. For instance, we can take a sample of wood from an Inca ruin where we know the exact age of the youngest buildings because the Spanish that destroyed the place recorded everything. From that we compare the dates to the results of the carbon dating tests to verify the result. Multiple tests are done to determine how much variance there is to determine the maximum amount of error in the testing, which is actually quite small considering the time spans involved.

<snip>


Ozone? Styrofoam? Yeah OK...try doing some research into HAARP...and then tell me THAT hasn't cooked the entire earth's atmosphere...If you buy the styrofoam story, that's like buying the green monkey AIDS story...

-B

HAARP, thats another scary thought. Forget what the conspiracy researchers say, just looking at the official statements is enough to make me cringe. But thats another topic entirely.

Ok, after re-reading the posts and giving it some more thought I am less confident that humans are causing the record CO2 levels. However I wish to amend my statements to reflect my true wish ... that everyone would pick up after themselves and leave the planet a cleaner place than what they found. Not so much to combat global climate but to live in a leave a healthier environment. Secondly to look after your fellow man. No not hand outs, but common courtesy. Just a conscious effort to consider how your actions might affect others ... that's all.

Thank you all for keeping it civil, none of us really need the extra stress some of these topics seem to foster.

FWIW,
Jay

You want me to back up my statement that the chemistry behind ozone depletion caused by CFCs is correct but you don't have the chemical knowledge to understand a detailed explanation. "

Geof,
As you yourself put it in an earlier post to me, if you understand it, then why don't you put in layman's terms, so we can all understand it.

Btw, if you had read through the links I have posted in the "more links" thread, you'd have found that there were in fact several with direct discussions of aerosols, cosmic rays (one in fact was specifically to that factor), etc...

Perhaps you'd be so gracious as to share with us your understanding of how sulphate aerosols provide the 'seed' for cloud formation, and which types of clouds, at which altitudes.....and how each type of cloud, at it's respective altitude traps UV or reflects UV...at their respective wavelengths, of course.

After you've shared with us your knowledge of the chemical mechanisms, you'd be so kind as to expand on just how much water vapor there is in the atmosphere, and what percentage of that is formed into what types of clouds? It is, after all, chemistry, isn't it?

You want me to back up my statement that the chemistry behind ozone depletion caused by CFCs is correct but you don't have the chemical knowledge to understand a detailed explanation.

Translation: You should just believe me because I'm smarter than you are and you're too stupid to understand.

Yes, I was repeating what I'd read elsewhere when I made those admittedly ill-advised assertions. But, I'm willing to examine evidence to the contrary, that's why I asked for it.

I could point to places where other (perhaps mistaken) people have written what I repeated. You, on the other hand, see no need to bother with an exchange of information. We should just recognize your superiority and accept your bald assertion with nothing to back it up. I'm educable. I've learned to be cautious of bald assertions. Your statement above makes two of them. I'll not make judgement on either of them without evidence.

I'm not surprised at your response, except that I was expecting you to pull out the 'pearls before swine' metaphor. There being no information exchanged in our conversation, I believe we have finished it.

--97T--

Rhodan,

Thanks for the information.

I'll read into it further before I shoot my mouth off on the subject any more.

The wiki on phosgene states that it decomposes at temperatures over 200 degrees C. Credible? I don't know.

The MSDS on Freon 22 states "Decomposition products are hazardous. FREON 22 can be decomposed by high temperatures (open flames, glowing metal surfaces, etc.) forming hydrochloric and hydrofluoric acids,
and possibly carbonyl halides.

The MSDS on Halon makes you wonder why you would ever use it where it could be inhaled. Nasty decomposition products, and not good to inhale at any appreciable concentration.

I believe Halon is still used on aircraft, if I'm not mistaken. It would definitely be a 'last resort' option. (But a fire on an airplane is a dire emergency.)

It's not as 'inert' as I thought it was.

--97T--

97T,
Since you've been around this series of threads for awhile, you may remember back when Geof asked me to 'splain it in layman's terms....if I understand it. Thinking that he may not have been clear on the subject, I did.

LIttle did I know he was merely having me jump through his hoops. He tells me to relax, and suggests the tone of my posts is, well shall we say, less than cordial.

Now he's telling you that you're without the intelligence, resources, or fortitude to find the understanding within his technical explanation. I find that most amusing for one simple reason....

The most brilliant people I have ever known or worked with have ALWAYS been able to reduce complex principles to terms a 15yr old could understand.

To presume anyone is, or is not capable of understanding something (especially something as critical to our very existence as the issue of global warming/cooling and the environment) is intellectual arrogance. The most noble thing one can do is to aid in someone's understanding, regardless of their level of comprehension.

-------------------------------------
From Johann Hari....

".....For most of us, the biggest contribution we make to destabilising the planet's climate is through flying. If one person flies one way, one time to Miami, you emit more greenhouse gases than the average SUV driver in a year. You could cycle, recycle and use energy-saving light bulbs for the rest of your life, and it's all cancelled out by a single weekend break by the beach..."
http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_a_l/johann_hari/article2162826.ece

Funny, isn't it...that he and ALGore are on the same side???

I don't know Johann Hari but Al Gore is a politician and is on any side that make him win.

Sometimes posts are inflammatory because they want to stimulate debate/argument or just to be amusing.

So remember that you are typing on a computer, and don't get too caught up in the emotional content (or lack there
of) because some of us like to argue for arguement sake. (ask my wife she probably wouldn't remarry me again! :) )

Okay I will be halfway reasonable; here.

http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/17994/

Translation: You should just believe me because I'm smarter than you are and you're too stupid to understand....

No I made no claim to be smarter than anyone; I do make the claim of having a higher level of education and knowing more than many people in some particular areas.

I have tried explaining chemical concepts to people with no knowledge of chemistry and it is difficult to impossible to do it effectively; some level of knowledge of the technical terms is needed. It does not matter whether it is chemistry, electronics or programming if the listener does not have enough background the explanation is not any help.

Anyway read the link I did post. My post #58 was on the topic of CFCs and high level atmospheric ozone depletion. The chemistry is valid and it is occurring.

the one argument that Ive heard (and I am no chemist) is that volcano's are the one source of chlorine that can actually get into the upper atmosphere and the CFC and chlorine are heavier than air and thus need some vehicle to make them get the the ozone layer

just curious if this is a trueish statement or I was fibbed to?

These are trueish statements, actually depending on how you define 'vehicle' they are true not just trueish. But they really do not have any bearing on whether CFCs are causing ozone depletion.

Take the second one: It is correct that the molecular weight of CFCs and Chlorine are greater than those of nitrogen and oxygen. If the atmosphere was perfectly still then it is likely that these molecules would sink. However, the atmosphere is in constant motion and there is a net circulation that has air rising in equatorial regions and sinking in polar regions so the CFCs are carried aloft. This circulation can be considered the 'vehicle' mentioned above.

It is also true that volcanoes can inject things into the upper atmosphere. I cannot comment whether the chlorine would be in the form of Cl, Cl2 (the chlorine molecule which is its natural state) or chloride, which is non-reactive. But this is not relevant to the question of whether chlorine from CFCs is having any effect. In the upper atmosphere ozone is being constantly created in a reaction between the oxygen molecule O2 and UV photons; the O2 is split into two oxygen atoms. If the two separated oxygen atoms bumped into each other they would simply re-form O2 however, it is more likely they will bump into another O2 then ozone O3 is formed. When two ozone molecules bump into each other then they react and three oxygen molecules and re-formed; ozone is constantly made and removed and the amount existing at any one time is more or less constant. To explain why chlorine from volcanoes is irrelevant to the CFC issue consider a simple analogy: Take a tall bucket with a hole in the bottom and a steady stream of water pouring in the top; the level will rise until the rate of escape at the bottom matches the rate coming in and will stabilize. Now punch another tiny hole; this represents the ozone removal resulting from volcanic chlorine. Yes the level will drop but volcanoes are sporadic so you have to slowly make the hole representing the volcanic chlorine get smaller until it closes off because the volcano's contribution diminishes. Now punch another hole but do not ever close it off; this is the removal as a result of chlorine from CFCs. Now go back to calling it the ozone level rather than the water level in a bucket. Eventually, if the level of CFCs remains constant, the ozone concentration levels off at a new lower value. Naturally if the CFCs go up the ozone continues to go down and the opposite occurs also. I have read that it is possible that the ozone decline has stopped but it is not possible to make a firm conclusion because there is some fluctuation from year to year. And this is where the slow transport of CFCs into the upper atmosphere comes in. CFCs had been in use for a long time before the initial effect on the ozone was hypothesized and even longer before their manufacture was banned in some countries. Even if the escape of CFCs was totally stopped it is unrealistic to expect any significant recovery of the ozone for a long time because all the CFCs at present in the lower atmosphere have to be transported up and reacted away. CFCs are pretty much non-reactive in the lower atmosphere and can be expected to persist for a long time.

Some people are gentle souls and don't like contention. They are peacemakers and are troubled by controversy and strong feelings. I respect them.

Other people like the give and take of a subject being discussed vigorously. Feelings and insults sometimes fly. It comes with the passion of the arguement; the participants know and expect this. They take it in stride without hurt feelings. It's like vigorous mental aerobic excersize versus a quiet walk around the block. To each his own.

Most argements (attempts at persuading others to your point of view) are largely unsucessful. Why? Because the opponent either firmly believes what he does and will not be dislodged or if he is persuaded, cannot stand the loss of face to acknowledge your superior argument. Either way it is quest without a payoff at the end.

Knowing that, why bother? The best reason lies with the defence of your argument. The best you can expect is to formulate what you know in words that persuade yourself primarily. This is a worthile exersize, it concretely states your beliefs in a way you hadn't bothered to form before.

The argument is essentially a religious one as I mentioned before. There are believers that kindly seek to convert the unbelievers and less kindly deal with the heretics. Look at the way "facts" are recieved if you have any question about the premise.

Mariss

John,

I'll be more than happy to take you and with facts.

Why don't we start with a few. I will happily supply the peer-reviewed scientific papers to back these up.

1) The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is directly correlated to the temperature of our planet. The more carbon dioxide that there is in the atmosphere the warmer our planet is. I don't any serious scientist in this field debates this and CO2's role as a greenhouse gas.

2) Scientists have not gone back 650,000 years with detailed temperature and carbon dioxide measurements. The correlation between the two is direct and is just one of the many empirical pieces of evidence that backs up #1 above. This also shows that the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere over the past 50 years has gone from the normal range to higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years.

3) With the rapid rise of carbon dioxide to levels not seen in at least the last 650,000 years has occurred a corresponding rise in temperature. This rise in temperature nicely matches the what the scientists have modeled to be the expected rise in temperature for this amount of carbon dioxide. The temperature of the earth is measured in many ways. Its not just measured by land stations (so your article about the urban heat island effect does not even hold up). The various ways (but I don't believe an exhaustive list are) satellite imagery, ocean temperatures, ice core isotopes and land stations. All of shown consistent and equivalent warming. In fact our skeptic friends up until 2006 claimed that satellite records were not inline with the expected modeled temperature. However a very robust, peer-reviewed paper published this year showed that registration errors amount the various satellities used to produce the composite, temporal data caused this problem. When they corrected for these registration errors it fit the model perfectly. And the skeptics were silent.

4) Papers published in 2006 show that Greenland and Antartica are melting faster than expected. The skeptics love to say that "but ice cover has actually increased in the center of antartica". Of course they have no peer-reviewed papers to back this up. I will say however that it may be the case that snow/ice cover has increased in some areas. Ice cover just as temperature will not uniform decrease/increase everywhere as the planet warms. The earth is a complex, non-linear system. There has been increased snowfall in antartica over the past 10-20 years. So ice/snow cover can increase in some areas even while warming occurs. Afterall, it is still plenty cold enough for it to snow in those areas. Back to the melting there have been quite a few papers in the past 2 years that have robustly documented the melting - esp. in Greenland.

5) Lets also rebut the skeptics claim that the warming will be so gradual that we don't have to worry about it. There is evidence that we can count on this. As mentioned above the earth's climate is complex. A major piece of the puzzle though is the ocean currents. The major ocean currents are what for example keep Britain fairly warm even though its more north than Maine. A n important part of the current system is the relative density of water. Warm water is less dense than cold water. Salt water is more dense than fresh water. When the last ice age retreated there is direct evidence (again a peer reviewed paper can be produced) that it left an extremely large lake in Canada. The great lakes are believe to be the remnants of this. The fresh water from this lake was help back from the ocean by a huge ice damn in the St Laurence seaway area. When this broke and the fresh water lake emptied into the north atlantic it decreased the density of the water there and shut down the major ocean current that warms northern europe. This shutdown lasted for hundreds of years. Northern europe got extremely cold. So climate changes may not be so gradual. There are trigger events. If Greenland did substantially melt this could have the same effect in the northern atlantic. In fact the salinity of the water in the northern atlantic has decreased it the gulf stream current is not 30% weaker than it was 30 years ago.

So John bring it on. I can bring on many more facts. I would like to see peer-reviewed papers from you from reputable journals. Not just links to psuedo-science web articles.

Tim

Global Warming...... ask the people in the mid west that just got slammed by one of the worse ice storms in their recent history.... ask them where global warming is when you need it! And just for the uninformed the planet has been steadily warming since um..... I don't know..... hmmmm......THE LAST ICE AGE. Liberal yee-haws. Stick to what you seem to know best. CNC machines

Respectfully,

John

P.S if anyone wants to have an informed debate about the topic, I will be more than willing to wax that butt both factually and philosophically.

ScopicSoftware,

Wow! ScopicSoftware, I'm really impressed with your cited references. I really like your "appeal to authority" method of argument. It scares me half to death based on the cited authorities. The world is truly going to hell if we all buy into that.

Instead how about if I buy your premise; everything you promise comes to happen. I've been threatened with floods and drought simultasously. Nothing good is ever mentioned about "global warming". It is disaster and gloom all around.

Even the strongtest adherents allow the tropics will be no warmer than they are now. All the effects will be at the higher latitudes. Palm trees may grow at Barrow Alaska and Starvinger Norway.

Please tell me the negative effects of that? The earth becomes more fertile at latitudes above 50-degrees North and South. Growing seasons expand from 3 months to 6 months or beyond. Droughts and floods? How about the predictions hurricanes were to ravage the coasts this year? How did that work out? How about the idiots that predicted it?

The problem with the leftist green envioremetal religion is their catachemism requires a negative outcome to every scenario. Their cause is to sow fear. Its purpose is to underminie technology. You are a sucker to belive it.

I will welcome global warming. I will buy coconut palm tree festooned tropical property in Barrow Alaska and rent it to surfers that want to surf an 80-degree Artic Sea. I will buy property above 60-degrees North to grow sugar cane,:-)

Jeez, doesn't the pervasive negativism of the leftist green philosophy and religion get to you? Everything is negative, bad and makes you feel sinfull. Happy religion that. Don't you want to get out from under that? Do you really want to live life as a negative and pessimistic person? Do you feel in your heart of hearts you are better than that?

All it takes is to reject all the BS you have been feed an live as a free thinking person. Join with me.

Mariss

ScopicSoftware,

Statement's #1-3 1) The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is directly correlated to the temperature of our planet. The more carbon dioxide that there is in the atmosphere the warmer our planet is. I don't any serious scientist in this field debates this and CO2's role as a greenhouse gas.

My original question as to the initial 800 year warming forcing factor still stands.....and I'd STILL like to see the peer reviewed reference that shows temperature LAGS CO2 in all time scales. I'd like to see the peer reviewed reference which shows what the "NORMAL" CO2 level is and just exactly how it is derived.

You've got the papers? I'd honestly like to see them.

Statement #4 4) Papers published in 2006 show that Greenland and Antartica are melting faster than expected.
They do?

RENO, Nev. – Current estimates indicate that sea level worldwide is increasing due to global warming and shrinkage of terrestrial, or land-based, ice. In a new study appearing in this week’s online edition of Science, research led by the Desert Research Institute in Nevada and the University of Missouri-Columbia found that the interior of the East Antarctic ice sheet is actually gaining mass and that this increase is likely due to increased accumulation of snowfall. The mass gain is enough to slow sea-level rise by 0.12 millimeters per year.

This conclusion was based on two key results. First, Curt Davis, MU professor of electrical and computer engineering, and his team of researchers used satellites to observe changes in elevation for 7.1 million square kilometers of the Antarctic ice sheet from 1992 to 2003. They discovered that the ice sheet’s interior was gaining mass by about 45 billion tons per year. The researchers used radar altimeters from the European Space Agency’s ERS-1 and ERS-2 satellites to make 347 million elevation-change measurements during the study period.

Second, Joe McConnell, DRI professor of hydrology, and his team compared the elevation change results with modeled precipitation in the region. This work suggests that the mass gain in East Antarctica is likely due to increased precipitation during the study period, a finding consistent with the most recent report from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
http://news.dri.edu/nr2005/may_icesheets.htm

Hmmmm...........

When dinosaurs roamed the earth 65 million years ago palm trees grew at the North and South poles....Mariss

Aquatic Palm trees I guess considering there is no land at the North Pole.

Come to think of it I am not sure that the Antarctic continent was at the South Pole 65 million years ago. Wasn't it still have a thing going with Australia and India in a continent called Pangea or had they just recently split? I am sure someone will set me straight.

Geof,

I can't say that the bucket analogy is very applicable, or that I agree with it, but it's a good stab at it.

Now that we're into the meat of the discussion, I've had a question that has yet to be answered to my satisfaction. Maybe you can explain this one.

If the chlorine bound in CFCs can migrate into the upper atmosphere, is it not true that chlorine not bound can also?
What about sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl)? We know that it has a relatively low vapor pressure, and it does outgas from aqueous solutions. Does it not also migrate upwards, and would it not also interact with O3?

ChipSweeper,

Did you even read my post? I stated in my post that the interior of Antarctica has gained some ice/snow cover due to increased snowfall. Please read a post before you respond. Thank you for backing up what I said though. Increased ice/snowcover due to increased precipitation is an entirely different matter than the shrinking of the perimeters (i.e., circumference) of the Greenland and Antarctic icesheets due to warming. There is no debate about this.

Regarding the 800 year warming I'm not sure what you are talking about.

I will send you the papers shortly.

Tim
---------------
ScopicSoftware,

Statement's #1-3 1) The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is directly correlated to the temperature of our planet. The more carbon dioxide that there is in the atmosphere the warmer our planet is. I don't any serious scientist in this field debates this and CO2's role as a greenhouse gas