PDA

View Full Version : Climate change confidence (scientists vs the public)


enjolras
06-21-2011, 09:49 AM
This is really hard to stomach. Despite increasing confidence over climate change in the scientific community, the public is headed very much in the opposite direction. Of course (as this thread will undoubtedly show) a bunch of "regular folks" surely know more than those stupid scientists.


http://www.npr.org/2011/06/21/137309964/climate-change-public-skeptical-scientists-sure

The American public is less likely to believe in global warming than it was just five years ago. Yet, paradoxically, scientists are more confident than ever that climate change is real and caused largely by human activities.

Something a bit strange is happening with public opinion and climate change.

Anthony Leiserowitz, who directs the Yale University Project on Climate Change Communication, delved into this in a recent poll. He not only asked citizens what they thought of climate change, he also asked them to estimate how climate scientists feel about global warming.

"Only 13 percent of Americans got the correct answer, which is that in fact about 97 percent of American scientists say that climate change is happening, and about a third of Americans just simply say they don't know," he said.

epicSocialism4tw
06-21-2011, 10:03 AM
It probably has alot to do with the fact that 1) prominent global warming scientists were caught in collusion lying, and 2) there is an entire framework of politicians and businesses who stand to benefit immensely from continued global warming legislation...what's at stake is the entire economy.

There are plenty of reasons not to buy into the liberal religious aspect of global warming. Especially at a time when other liberal economic boondoggles have wrecked the economy and continue to hold it down.

TonyR
06-21-2011, 11:10 AM
1) prominent global warming scientists were caught in collusion lying...

This has largely been debunked, but keep spreading the misinformation.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/media-not-excited-anymore-about-debunked-climategate-scandal/


2) there is an entire framework of politicians and businesses who stand to benefit immensely from continued global warming legislation...


And there is a much, much larger, and significantly more powerful, group of corporate interests who stand to lose immensely to the results of climate science.

Smiling Assassin27
06-21-2011, 12:25 PM
It probably has alot to do with the fact that 1) prominent global warming scientists were caught in collusion lying, and 2) there is an entire framework of politicians and businesses who stand to benefit immensely from continued global warming legislation...what's at stake is the entire economy.

There are plenty of reasons not to buy into the liberal religious aspect of global warming. Especially at a time when other liberal economic boondoggles have wrecked the economy and continue to hold it down.

I think it has more to do with the fact that scientists have repeatedly tried to avoid FOIA laws and are unwilling to a)disclose their data willingly and b)engage in a meaningful, publicized, nationwide exchange with those who still question their ethics, integrity, and accuracy of data. The fact that they cling to their data and deliberately attempt to circumvent those who want a look at it is troubling.

Combine that with the fact that scientists, pols, and media outlets alike believe we are just too dumb to understand, and you get what you have now--a wave of skeptics (not of warming, necessarily but of various aspects of the climate change debate) who are dismissed as dull, uninformed, and beneath contempt.

cutthemdown
06-21-2011, 12:38 PM
Well when they make predictions that don't come true what do you expect? Besides most of them want to dismiss the sun as the major player of the Earths climate. That is crazy to me because it's obviously the driving force. Our weather is controlled by the sun. The Earth is the past had higher levels of co2 and humans weren't even big on the planet yet. We have a period of no sun spots coming and if anything we are going to cool.

ICON
06-21-2011, 12:57 PM
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_kVvGPTCwtbs/S_XIwpeGpRI/AAAAAAAAAHg/wj1n2fj8kJQ/S700/science_it_works_jpg.JPG

Hulamau
06-21-2011, 02:21 PM
It probably has alot to do with the fact that 1) prominent global warming scientists were caught in collusion lying, and 2) there is an entire framework of politicians and businesses who stand to benefit immensely from continued global warming legislation...what's at stake is the entire economy.

There are plenty of reasons not to buy into the liberal religious aspect of global warming. Especially at a time when other liberal economic boondoggles have wrecked the economy and continue to hold it down.

Yada, yada, yada same 'ole tired worn out and utterly superficial straw man arugment pealed from the 'Rusty Humphreys/Glenn Beck/Rush Baby' club playbook.

This whole 'top scentists caught 'lying' about global warming' is hotair you obviously must have cut and pasted from one of Sara Palin's infomercials, right? And without bothering to actually read what happened in so called 'climate-gate'. Including the exoneration of the collective research pointing overwhelmingly toward the conclusion held fast by over 97% of scientist in this field (including all those who are bi-pedal, ambulatory and half-way intelligent)!

The fact that much of the public tunes in and out on this is quite normal, I'm afraid. For one, the issue is too large and all-encompassing to see it clearly in real time, and its not a pretty picture as well and people in general have a limited shelf-life on their attention span for potentiallly dire scenarios that make them feel rather helpless. Particularly, when said issue might demand real changes in their way of living ... whether voluntary or not.

Its much easier for some of the more knee jerk among us to latch on to any such superficial 'drive-by analysis' that says .. hey its all a 'liberal hoax' ... and then promptly stick their heads deep into the sand again while whistling past the grave yard, than it is for them to bother to actually read some of the research and discuss openly these issues. Not to mention look out the window from time to time.:-)

The fact that some people & industries stand to gain from such a scenario isnt, in any way at all, a legitamate defacto rebuttal to the research nor the reality it overwhelmingly reflects! Come to terms with that first Llama and then we can start to talk about how to best managethe economic consequences.

And there WILL be economic, social and nearly every other catagory of impact which ever way we go, thats a given. But that is up to the collective 'us' to make the best out of a crappy situation and extract economic adaptation and recovery .. if not an all out renewal ... out of whatever dislocations are incurred during the transitions that are coming ... one way or the other!


Granted we may be along for the ride now whatever we try to do to stim the tide, at least the arrow may already have been shot, more or less, for the next 100 plus years or more on what is likely going to unfold, even if we all went carbon neutral tomorrow, planet wide.

That likelihood also can be a real disincentive for many to contining to talk about a possible fait acompli, so the 'what me worry' brigade can rally a lot of recruits to their cause in such a scenario.

That pretty much sums up the current disconnect between what is happening and what not only climate scientist, but also what most other respected scientist in related fields, are busy raising the alarm about ... and almost with one united voice.

But some sections of the public who have what, understandably, seems to them more immediate and local problems to deal with no longer have room for such an unhandy prospect and so when such trusty minstrels of -'in-depth' investigations as Fox News and the even more fringe crowd try to wave their magic wand and put the genie back in the bottle, its little wonder they can get a good many vacillating converts for a while, however temporary most of them likely will be.

These opinions will no doubt continue to shift back and forth until the obvousness of whats going on smacks everyone up side the head .. one way or the other.

Tombstone RJ
06-21-2011, 02:39 PM
The Earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling and some of the skeptics are not denying the earth is warming, what they are questioning is if this is a completely man made phenomena or if this is just part of a larger natural cycle.

There was a group of scientists who cooked their data (no pun intended) so to speak in order to make the numbers jibe with the global warming theory.

Mountain Bronco
06-21-2011, 03:40 PM
Climate Change is surely occuring, but the cause is the real question. I just haven't seen real data that shows this is a man made problem but I don't know if that will exist, because in terms of earth and climate change Man is a blip on the radar time wise so our sample size is not appropriate.

That said, why not take steps anyway as it can't hurt?

cutthemdown
06-21-2011, 03:49 PM
It can't just be co2, I just don't buy that. I do believe some parts of Earth warming, some cooling. A change is occurring but there is way more at work then man made co2. Also even if it is man made most of the efforts to diminish that are a boondoogle. It's being understood more and more that the numbers on the electric hybrids dont add up. People are spending money to be green and its not any greener. Thats the govt for you right there. The FDA recently made a law saying old drugs could be retested. So what happens drug companies find highly used, older drugs, that never had fda approval, they grab the drug, do a quick study on it with 150 or so patients, claim it to be safe when all the docs already said it was, then sue to stop all other companies to make it for 3 yrs and make billions jacking up the price. That is how the govt and big pharmacy, and Obamas fda have changed things. So now certain medications that were 5 cents a pill are now 5 bucks a pill. Why should we believe anything the govt or people trying to sell us stuff say. If global warming wasn't pushing all these expensive products on us I wouldn't be as skeptical.

Rigs11
06-21-2011, 04:00 PM
More nonsense for the rightwing geniuses to debunk.

Oceans heading for mass extinctions, experts warn
Scientist: Situation is 'more dire' than any of us thought

WASHINGTON — Mass extinctions of species in the world's oceans are inevitable if current trends of overfishing, habitat loss, global warming and pollution continue, a panel of renowned marine scientists warned Tuesday

Carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels ends up sinking in the oceans, which then become more acidic, devastating sensitive coral reefs. Warmer ocean temperatures also are shifting species from their normal habitats, Rogers said. Non-native species moving into new areas can cause havoc to those ecosystems.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43479398/ns/world_news-world_environment/

cutthemdown
06-21-2011, 05:46 PM
Even if true Riggs Co2 is going to rise. There just isnt any way to cut considering China and India growing so fast. Even if we did everything Gore asks we can't force developing countries to go along with it. So either we ride out the changes and try to stay competitive, or we burden ourselves with policies that wont change anything. The big push to hybrid cars is a joke the put out just as much co2 once you figure in the battery change. They sold people on the fact the batteries would last 150 thousand miles but they wont. Cars will need 2 batteries in its life and that throws it all out the window, might as well have driven a hummer.

TonyR
06-21-2011, 05:46 PM
Yada, yada, yada same 'ole tired worn out and utterly superficial straw man arugment pealed from the 'Rusty Humphreys/Glenn Beck/Rush Baby' club playbook.

Now THAT is a beatdown. You'd like to think that eventually this guy will get tired of having his ignorance exposed like this.

Archer81
06-21-2011, 05:55 PM
According to Algore the oceans were supposed to rise 22 feet.

Still waiting.


:Broncos:

epicSocialism4tw
06-21-2011, 06:58 PM
Yada, yada, yada same 'ole tired worn out and utterly superficial straw man arugment pealed from the 'Rusty Humphreys/Glenn Beck/Rush Baby' club playbook

How dare someone have a critical point of view on a subject regarding science!!!

You do realize, that scientists are supposed to be critical of every bit of information, right? That they are supposed to have their data out in the open for other scientists to look at, right?

It should cause you to think if you come across a series of emails (the ones that actually got spilled into public) that blatantly reveals collusion among many climate guys to both hide information and willfully manipulate data.

You know that something is inherently wrong when data is being manipulated, and when the data is being hidden from critical scientists. Wake up, man.

This isn't science. Its glorified meteorology. It has been co-opted by a massive financial movement called "Green", which is full of shysters and snake oil salesmen.

Its much easier for some of the more knee jerk among us to latch on to any such superficial 'drive-by analysis' that says .. hey its all a 'liberal hoax' ... and then promptly stick their heads deep into the sand again while whistling past the grave yard, than it is for them to bother to actually read some of the research and discuss openly these issues. Not to mention look out the window from time to time.:-)

It's not a liberal hoax, its a liberal god. A god with immutability, transfiguration, omnipotence, and wrathful vengeance.

The fact that some people & industries stand to gain from such a scenario isnt, in any way at all, a legitamate defacto rebuttal to the research nor the reality it overwhelmingly reflects! Come to terms with that first Llama and then we can start to talk about how to best managethe economic consequences

There are HUGE issues at the core of the Green movement. It's a multinational power grab, attempting to transfer more wealth than any other single political movement in the history of the world.

These morons are literally trying to put a government stamp on carbon and to control who gets what.

The issues at the core are issues of individual rights, and you'd be able to understand that if you were looking. Pull your head out of the sand.

And there WILL be economic, social and nearly every other catagory of impact which ever way we go, thats a given. But that is up to the collective 'us' to make the best out of a crappy situation and extract economic adaptation and recovery .. if not an all out renewal ... out of whatever dislocations are incurred during the transitions that are coming ... one way or the other!

The "collective us" is a glaring lie that you have believed like a child. Who will regulate Russia? China? India? That's right...nobody.

Nothing is changing. You need to wake up.

That pretty much sums up the current disconnect between what is happening and what not only climate scientist, but also what most other respected scientist in related fields, are busy raising the alarm about ... and almost with one united voice.

Scientists were also in one united voice about the shape of the earth, about geological time, about the nature of heavenly bodies, and many other former pillars of science. Science is more political than it is scientific. If you knew the industry, you'd agree.

But some sections of the public who have what, understandably, seems to them more immediate and local problems to deal with no longer have room for such an unhandy prospect and so when such trusty minstrels of -'in-depth' investigations as Fox News and the even more fringe crowd try to wave their magic wand and put the genie back in the bottle, its little wonder they can get a good many vacillating converts for a while, however temporary most of them likely will be.

You shouldn't be so afraid of people with different views than you have. That's the problem with you liberals. You just aren't aware of how closed-minded and completely one-off'ed you are from the liberal zombie factory. You line up at the sour teet of Rachel Maddow, bow at the rotted throne of the New York Times, and echo back whatever the DNC edicts demand.

Unplug your brain from the machine, guy. Go down the rabbit hole. Wake up.

Inkana7
06-21-2011, 07:04 PM
Stuff that makes him look like a fool

Jesus, you can vote?

epicSocialism4tw
06-21-2011, 07:05 PM
Jesus, you can vote?

Did you really just type "stuff that makes him look like a fool"?

Did you get kicked in the head by a mule?

epicSocialism4tw
06-21-2011, 07:09 PM
http://thepeoplescube.com/images/Complete_Idiots_GlobalWarmi.gif

tnedator
06-21-2011, 07:33 PM
More nonsense for the rightwing geniuses to debunk.

Oceans heading for mass extinctions, experts warn
Scientist: Situation is 'more dire' than any of us thought

WASHINGTON — Mass extinctions of species in the world's oceans are inevitable if current trends of overfishing, habitat loss, global warming and pollution continue, a panel of renowned marine scientists warned Tuesday

Carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels ends up sinking in the oceans, which then become more acidic, devastating sensitive coral reefs. Warmer ocean temperatures also are shifting species from their normal habitats, Rogers said. Non-native species moving into new areas can cause havoc to those ecosystems.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43479398/ns/world_news-world_environment/

It was a report done by a number of advocate groups like Greenpeace.

I might at that the IPCC is under fire, including from some AGW proponents for allowing a Green peace guy to manage approve one of the chapters in the upcoming report and including pseudo science/propaganda.

tnedator
06-21-2011, 07:38 PM
Another thing that makes people skeptical, beyond the rigging of the data and refusal to comply with FOIA requests to see underlying data, is the combination of outlandish predictions that don't come true and then the attempt to cover them up.

Back in '99 or so, the UN said that rising sea levels would create 50 million climate refuges by 2008. When that didn't come true, they simply pulled the article/page from their website for a while, and then reposted it, but now it says "50 million climate refugees by 2018".

Yea, that's real science for you. Let me try it.

Tned spinning his magic climate bottle.....

Ok, average temperatures will drop by .7 degrees Celsius over the next 14.7 years.

Missouribronc
06-21-2011, 09:14 PM
The fact that they have to keep changing the name of whatever phenomenon they are trying to prove, pretty much proves how hokey the actual science is.

Very little of it has been subjected to true scientific review, and the reason is politicians have convinced themselves that it is true, and if you stand up against any of these inane theories, you're blackballed from funding.

It's a farce. Not "global warming," the pathetic governmental-money parlay that has led to the problem.

tnedator
06-21-2011, 09:27 PM
The fact that they have to keep changing the name of whatever phenomenon they are trying to prove, pretty much proves how hokey the actual science is.

Very little of it has been subjected to true scientific review, and the reason is politicians have convinced themselves that it is true, and if you stand up against any of these inane theories, you're blackballed from funding.

It's a farce. Not "global warming," the pathetic governmental-money parlay that has led to the problem.

Something I got a real kick out of this week was Mann's new sea level rise hockey stick. After him, Jones and others had their emails published where they talk about how important it was to never refer to or discuss the medieval warming period, Mann needed to address it in his newest paper, because it helped make his case, so he calls it the Medieval Climate Anomaly.

Hotwheelz
06-21-2011, 11:46 PM
You do realize, that scientists are supposed to be critical of every bit of information, right? That they are supposed to have their data out in the open for other scientists to look at, right?

It should cause you to think if you come across a series of emails (the ones that actually got spilled into public) that blatantly reveals collusion among many climate guys to both hide information and willfully manipulate data.


<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/7nnVQ2fROOg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Hotwheelz
06-21-2011, 11:56 PM
Also:

<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/uXesBhYwdRo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Basically any video that guy does.

doonwise
06-22-2011, 12:20 AM
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_kVvGPTCwtbs/S_XIwpeGpRI/AAAAAAAAAHg/wj1n2fj8kJQ/S700/science_it_works_jpg.JPG

Science does not work! And, really, how dare you use a computer and all that fancy light speed information travel baloney that allows you to post your heresy.

Climate Change: Not in the bible, therefore cannot be happening.

epicSocialism4tw
06-22-2011, 12:36 AM
Science does not work! And, really, how dare you use a computer and all that fancy light speed information travel baloney that allows you to post your heresy.

Climate Change: Not in the bible, therefore cannot be happening.

Um...hate to break it to you, but there are several massive climate changes in the Bible, including The Flood.

If liberals were in any way informed on what is and what isn't in the Bible, they would use The Flood and Noah as anectdotal support for their fear in climate change.

The only problem is that the Flood required a return to the God of Abraham, where liberalistic climate change religion requires sacrifice and penance to the god of liberalism.

Then we could also draw the correlary between carbon taxes and penance paid to the Catholic Church for atonement before Martin Luther put it on a skewer. Liberalism needs a Martin Luther.

Jetmeck
06-22-2011, 01:00 AM
Um...hate to break it to you, but there are several massive climate changes in the Bible, including The Flood.

If liberals were in any way informed on what is and what isn't in the Bible, they would use The Flood and Noah as anectdotal support for their fear in climate change.

The only problem is that the Flood required a return to the God of Abraham, where liberalistic climate change religion requires sacrifice and penance to the god of liberalism.

Then we could also draw the correlary between carbon taxes and penance paid to the Catholic Church for atonement before Martin Luther put it on a skewer. Liberalism needs a Martin Luther.



Liberal or not, a blind man can see the changes.

More snow in winter, hotter summers, more drought, more rain in other areas.

It is called "CLIMATE CHANGE" for you slow folk out there.
Go ahead be stupid, don't see what is happening right in front of you. Regardless of whether you believe or not it is happening right
now !!!!

epicSocialism4tw
06-22-2011, 01:07 AM
Liberal or not, a blind man can see the changes.

More snow in winter, hotter summers, more drought, more rain in other areas.

It is called "CLIMATE CHANGE" for you slow folk out there.
Go ahead be stupid, don't see what is happening right in front of you. Regardless of whether you believe or not it is happening right
now !!!!

Climate change happens all the time, every moment, over the entire span of the lifetime of the earth.

I don't think that anyone is arguing that it doesn't happen.

But if you're buying what the would-be carbon salesmen are selling you, you're a fool.

Jetmeck
06-22-2011, 01:12 AM
Climate change happens all the time, every moment, over the entire span of the lifetime of the earth.

I don't think that anyone is arguing that it doesn't happen.

But if you're buying what the would-be carbon salesmen are selling you, you're a fool.

Look does my post say anything about man made climate change but you assumed thats what I meant ?

Only fool on here is your little attention whoring ass.
Stick your head back in the sand or elsewhere........

cutthemdown
06-22-2011, 01:19 AM
Ok lets say co2 is causing the Earth to warm. Lets say humans are a main cause of it. Does anyone really think buying hybrids is helping? Do you really believe the claims that they put out so much less co2 it will help global climate change? Or is it more just a new industry to make money? They say now that because most electric/hybrids will require a battery replacement before 140-150 thousand miles they could put out as much co2 as a regular car. It takes a ton of energy to mine the minerals and make those batteries.

Plus other countries are growing more then we can cut. If anything we should be investing in technologies to combat the change, not stop it. Sea walls, levies, storm proof buildings and weather resistant crops. Trying to spend it to make less co2 won't help anything. We will just spend the money, the earth still warms, and we are broke and unprepared.

Taco John
06-22-2011, 02:06 AM
Here are some other recent polls:

51% Blame Extreme Weather on Long-Term Planetary Trends, 19% Blame Human Activity source (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/51_blame_extreme_weather_on_long_term_planetary_tr ends_19_blame_human_activity)

On average, less than 40% of likely voters think that humans cause global warming - (meaning there is no mandate in Washington for this issue). source (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/energy_update)

A solid majority (60%) say finding new sources of energy is more important than reducing the amount of energy Americans now consume. source (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/energy_update)

Also, this isn't just an American trend. Europe, Canada, Developed Asia, Middle East and North Africa (http://www.gallup.com/poll/147203/Fewer-Americans-Europeans-View-Global-Warming-Threat.aspx) are all losing interest in global warming. Also Australia, where the belief that global warming is from natural causes has shot up 10 full points (http://www.gallup.com/poll/141782/Australians-Views-Shift-Climate-Change.aspx) in the last few years.

And last but not least, 60% of the people in America who identify themselves as understanding the global warming issue very well believe more today than they did 2 years ago that global warming is exaggerated in the news:

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/lvtycsu370mwyanhq6m9kw.gif
source (http://www.gallup.com/poll/126563/Conservatives-Doubts-Global-Warming-Grow.aspx)


Basically, this is a dead issue in America and in many places abroad. We're much more likely to get a program passed that puts a new GM car in every garage than see any meaningful global warming legislation passed.

TonyR
06-22-2011, 05:30 AM
If liberals were in any way informed on what is and what isn't in the Bible...

So, in your sad little world "liberals" can't be knowledgeable about the bible? Or be religious for that matter? You really should change your name to "epicignoramus".

ol#7
06-22-2011, 05:38 AM
Frankly I am astonished that the left is still clinging to this issue. I would have thought that there was enough contradictory evidence that it would no longer carry water as a political pillar. Guess not. My personal favorite is that a cooling trend somehow is proof of global warming. Over in the UK, there was a huge scandal over cooked books, media compliance and government incompetence/tomfoolery in an attempt to deceive the public/gin up support for the issue. Should we be good shepherds for the Earth, not waste our resources and have clean air and water? Of course! Are we the root cause of climate change (assuming there is such a thing and were not just in a naturally occuring cycle or at the mercy of that large warm thing hanging in the sky) the jury is still out on that one.

alkemical
06-22-2011, 06:03 AM
Ok lets say co2 is causing the Earth to warm. Lets say humans are a main cause of it. Does anyone really think buying hybrids is helping? Do you really believe the claims that they put out so much less co2 it will help global climate change? Or is it more just a new industry to make money? They say now that because most electric/hybrids will require a battery replacement before 140-150 thousand miles they could put out as much co2 as a regular car. It takes a ton of energy to mine the minerals and make those batteries.

Plus other countries are growing more then we can cut. If anything we should be investing in technologies to combat the change, not stop it. Sea walls, levies, storm proof buildings and weather resistant crops. Trying to spend it to make less co2 won't help anything. We will just spend the money, the earth still warms, and we are broke and unprepared.



A few quick things:

Food production responsible for much of greenhouse gas emissions

According to the FAO, the food and agricultural sector is responsible for more than one third of global greenhouse gas emissions, with "by far the most important" aspect of that sector's environmental impact, it says, lying in the initial production process -- not in transportation.
Don't Miss

All about: Cities and pollution
Going green in the UAE
Rich, poor and climate change

Within that initial stage, the most harmful activities are deforestation and cultivation. Deforestation, which clears the way for food to be grown, accounts for 18 percent of the food and agriculture sector's emissions. Cultivation, including "intensive livestock operations, irrigated rice paddies and application of synthetic fertilizers on cultivated land" releases enough methane and nitrous oxide to account for 13.5 percent of the sector's greenhouse gas contribution.

Quoting the UK-based Soil Association, the FAO says in conventional agriculture (i.e. non-organic) the largest amount of energy used -- 37 percent -- goes towards "synthetic pesticides and mineral fertilizers, particularly nitrogen, and to a lesser extent, phosphorous, and potassium."

Nitrogen fertilizer in particular is extremely fossil fuel-intensive, requiring 1.5 tons of oil equivalents to make 1 ton of fertilizer.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/03/16/eco.food.miles/index.html


Secondly:

Why invest in "fighting climate change", and not investing in how to maximize it?

Example: When Hati got hit with the hurricane, a chunk of the infrastructure was being rebuilt with sustainability ideas: Solar Street lights, etc etc. Why upgrade existing infrastructure with outdated technologies? Why not, rebuild a home in say...Joplin that has more sustainability features?

Just ideas to kick around.

alkemical
06-22-2011, 06:05 AM
Here are some other recent polls:

51% Blame Extreme Weather on Long-Term Planetary Trends, 19% Blame Human Activity source (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/51_blame_extreme_weather_on_long_term_planetary_tr ends_19_blame_human_activity)

On average, less than 40% of likely voters think that humans cause global warming - (meaning there is no mandate in Washington for this issue). source (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/energy_update)

A solid majority (60%) say finding new sources of energy is more important than reducing the amount of energy Americans now consume. source (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/energy_update)

Also, this isn't just an American trend. Europe, Canada, Developed Asia, Middle East and North Africa (http://www.gallup.com/poll/147203/Fewer-Americans-Europeans-View-Global-Warming-Threat.aspx) are all losing interest in global warming. Also Australia, where the belief that global warming is from natural causes has shot up 10 full points (http://www.gallup.com/poll/141782/Australians-Views-Shift-Climate-Change.aspx) in the last few years.

And last but not least, 60% of the people in America who identify themselves as understanding the global warming issue very well believe more today than they did 2 years ago that global warming is exaggerated in the news:

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/lvtycsu370mwyanhq6m9kw.gif
source (http://www.gallup.com/poll/126563/Conservatives-Doubts-Global-Warming-Grow.aspx)


Basically, this is a dead issue in America and in many places abroad. We're much more likely to get a program passed that puts a new GM car in every garage than see any meaningful global warming legislation passed.



Do you want to buy a Chevy Trailblazer, it has the 4.2L I6 ;)

TonyR
06-22-2011, 06:08 AM
Over in the UK, there was a huge scandal over cooked books, media compliance and government incompetence/tomfoolery...

As has been mentioned more than once in this thread this "huge scandal" you speak of has been largely debunked. Of course the media hasn't been pushing the real story nearly as hard as they pushed the "scandal" because, well, that's not how media works. Scandal sells.

It's also sad commentary that you criticize "the left" for pushing something because it isn't politically expedient but is instead perhaps the "right thing to do".

tnedator
06-22-2011, 06:12 AM
As has been mentioned more than once in this thread this "huge scandal" you speak of has been largely debunked. Of course the media hasn't been pushing the real story nearly as hard as they pushed the "scandal" because, well, that's not how media works. Scandal sells.

It's also sad commentary that you criticize "the left" for pushing something because it isn't politically expedient but is instead perhaps the "right thing to do".

It's hard to 'debunk' emails, unless the claim is that they were fabricated.

As to 'coverage', much of the media covereage (MSM) was focused on the 'felony theft' and not on the contents of the emails. Even in those rare cases I read or saw some of the contents of the emails discussed by the MSM, they would add at the beginning of the end something like, "while it's a foregone conclusion that global warming exists...."

GoBroncos84
06-22-2011, 07:27 AM
This has largely been debunked, but keep spreading the misinformation.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/media-not-excited-anymore-about-debunked-climategate-scandal/




And there is a much, much larger, and significantly more powerful, group of corporate interests who stand to lose immensely to the results of climate science.

The exact responses I was going to post. Good job TonyR

ol#7
06-22-2011, 07:27 AM
As has been mentioned more than once in this thread this "huge scandal" you speak of has been largely debunked. Of course the media hasn't been pushing the real story nearly as hard as they pushed the "scandal" because, well, that's not how media works. Scandal sells.

It's also sad commentary that you criticize "the left" for pushing something because it isn't politically expedient but is instead perhaps the "right thing to do".

I criticize the left for holding onto this as a political issue. That isnt sad commentary unless you believe it is in fact only a liberal concern to want clean air, water and a healthy environment (No those evil independants and conservatives couldnt want those things). I criticize an ideology that worships at the teet of Algore into buying into a wealth transfer without tangible results based on flawed/made up data developed based upon a political agenda.

Requiem
06-22-2011, 07:39 AM
It's no surprise. Look at this thread, it's proof.

AGW has much, much more to do than just "mother****ers controlling the god damn weather, crazy lib ****os!"

S.I.A.S.D.

woodall
06-22-2011, 08:28 AM
But if you're buying what the would-be carbon salesmen are selling you, you're a fool.

And if you are buying anything that religion or the Bible is selling then you are worse than a fool, you are an idiot.

TonyR
06-22-2011, 08:35 AM
I criticize the left for holding onto this as a political issue. That isnt sad commentary unless you believe it is in fact only a liberal concern to want clean air, water and a healthy environment (No those evil independants and conservatives couldnt want those things). I criticize an ideology that worships at the teet of Algore into buying into a wealth transfer without tangible results based on flawed/made up data developed based upon a political agenda.

I don't have any problem with the scrutiny of both climate change science and any programs/policies suggested to address it. In fact I fully support such scrutiny. What I don't support is blind dismissal of the science and/or progam/policy suggestions. You can always tell when someone has a closed mind on the subject when they bring up Al Gore. It's a dead giveaway.

manchambo
06-22-2011, 09:02 AM
It probably has alot to do with the fact that 1) prominent global warming scientists were caught in collusion lying, and 2) there is an entire framework of politicians and businesses who stand to benefit immensely from continued global warming legislation...what's at stake is the entire economy.

There are plenty of reasons not to buy into the liberal religious aspect of global warming. Especially at a time when other liberal economic boondoggles have wrecked the economy and continue to hold it down.


So you're saying that all of the scientists who believe in global warming other than the ones involved in the email issue don't know about the email issue, and also don't know anything about the "entire framework of politicians and businesses who stand to benefit"? Why are you better able to balance these things against the scientific evidence than scientists?

Or maybe it's just that all scientists are liberals involved in a vast conspiracy?

Requiem
06-22-2011, 10:01 AM
What people like Epic are saying is that humans have little or no demonstrable impact on the ecosystems in which they reside. That is pure nonsense. Anyone who claims that (which there are dozens in this thread) are completely ignorant to the advancement of human civilization.

bronco militia
06-22-2011, 10:14 AM
algore needs more abortions to curb pollution

http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/21/gore-promoting-fewer-children-to-curb-pollution/

alkemical
06-22-2011, 10:16 AM
http://ano.lolcathost.org/thumbs/tumblr_lb83zl4asP1qz5t09o1_500.jpg

Requiem
06-22-2011, 10:18 AM
^ LMFAO!

Winning.

Pony Boy
06-22-2011, 10:49 AM
There was a group of scientists who cooked their data (no pun intended) so to speak in order to make the numbers jibe with the global warming theory.

This.....and the fact that Al Gore is the father of the carbon credit exchange.

Rock Chalk
06-22-2011, 11:06 AM
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_kVvGPTCwtbs/S_XIwpeGpRI/AAAAAAAAAHg/wj1n2fj8kJQ/S700/science_it_works_jpg.JPG

Yep.

The problem here is that there is not enough reliable data to conclude anything. Climatology is the study of weather over hundreds and thousands of years. In any given short time frame (say, a decade, or 4 decades) there will be ups and downs but over a longer time frame, the stability of the climate is measured.

There indeed may be a slight global warming trend in the climate, but science has absolutely no way of measuring whether this is caused by humanity's presence or not. The fact is, that you can take any century from any millennium and find similar results as what climatologists are preaching right now.

The earth goes in cycles and the variables are far too numerous for even the most powerful supercomputers to accurately model.

When ice cores dating back tens of thousands of years suggest that there are warm periods, cold periods, extreme cold periods, extreme warm periods, with and without mega natural causes (i.e. massive global volcanic eruptions, impact events, major Solar maximums), it leads many people - including scientists themselves - to dispute the "data" which is using a VERY SMALL sample size. Accurate weather data only dates back a few decades. Prior to that, the data that has been gathered cannot be considered reliable and CANNOT, scientifically, be included in the end interpretation.

Which leads to another problem, data has to be interpreted and analyzed and there are NUMEROUS times in EVERY scientific field where data has been misinterpreted and mis-analyzed. Data is NOT information, it is just data, that must be put into information form and people with agenda's - such as environmentalist scientists who refuse to willingly release their data - can manipulate their results.

I don't particularly care one way or the other. Global warming or not, climate is something that is going to change whether we affect it or not and instead of pointing fingers, science needs to focus on WHAT can be done to limit the damage to real human beings. That's their folly. They are detached from the effects and give little consideration for what to do, given a set of data, that will impact human civilization.

Garcia Bronco
06-22-2011, 11:08 AM
Climate Change is surely occuring, but the cause is the real question. I just haven't seen real data that shows this is a man made problem but I don't know if that will exist, because in terms of earth and climate change Man is a blip on the radar time wise so our sample size is not appropriate.

That said, why not take steps anyway as it can't hurt?

This

Garcia Bronco
06-22-2011, 11:16 AM
Yep.

The problem here is that there is not enough reliable data to conclude anything. Climatology is the study of weather over hundreds and thousands of years. In any given short time frame (say, a decade, or 4 decades) there will be ups and downs but over a longer time frame, the stability of the climate is measured.

There indeed may be a slight global warming trend in the climate, but science has absolutely no way of measuring whether this is caused by humanity's presence or not. The fact is, that you can take any century from any millennium and find similar results as what climatologists are preaching right now.

The earth goes in cycles and the variables are far too numerous for even the most powerful supercomputers to accurately model.

When ice cores dating back tens of thousands of years suggest that there are warm periods, cold periods, extreme cold periods, extreme warm periods, with and without mega natural causes (i.e. massive global volcanic eruptions, impact events, major Solar maximums), it leads many people - including scientists themselves - to dispute the "data" which is using a VERY SMALL sample size. Accurate weather data only dates back a few decades. Prior to that, the data that has been gathered cannot be considered reliable and CANNOT, scientifically, be included in the end interpretation.

Which leads to another problem, data has to be interpreted and analyzed and there are NUMEROUS times in EVERY scientific field where data has been misinterpreted and mis-analyzed. Data is NOT information, it is just data, that must be put into information form and people with agenda's - such as environmentalist scientists who refuse to willingly release their data - can manipulate their results.

I don't particularly care one way or the other. Global warming or not, climate is something that is going to change whether we affect it or not and instead of pointing fingers, science needs to focus on WHAT can be done to limit the damage to real human beings. That's their folly. They are detached from the effects and give little consideration for what to do, given a set of data, that will impact human civilization.

And this too

Smiling Assassin27
06-22-2011, 12:48 PM
If someone was able to demonstrate clearly and convincingly that global warming was a)no longer true and/or b)was of no consequence to climate of the Earth, do you really think that these scientists and environmentalists and al gore would say, 'Oh GOOD! We no longer have anything to worry about and can now move on to the next pressing issue on our planet!'?

Of course not. This is why the populace affords these people little credibility. We all know that these folks will STILL push the agenda and its 'solutions' even in the face of definitive proof (of which, there exists none currently either way). It's a bad way to fly and the public knows this.

alkemical
06-22-2011, 12:52 PM
With how we humans, have sort of **** in our own bed. I won't say that humans have caused global climate change...but we certainly aren't helping our causes:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20595-earths-oceans-on-course-for-mass-extinction.html

Mass extinctions are seldom pretty, but this one would transform Earth's oceans forever, especially coral reefs.

A new report by the International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO) assesses how climate change, overexploitation, pollution, habitat loss and other stressors are affecting the ocean as a whole.

The conclusion? We're on course for a mass extinction that would include coral reefs and the menagerie of species that rely on them, as well as multiple species of fish consumed by people, although it may not be as severe as the "big five" extinctions of Earth's distant past.

"We're seeing a combination of symptoms that have been associated with large, past extinctions," says Alex Rogers, the head of IPSO.

barryr
06-22-2011, 12:55 PM
If GW causes by man was so obvious, then there would be a much more consensus in the scientific community about it than there is now. Just dismissing those that think there isnīt enough evidence as "not real scientists" doesnīt cut it nor does ignoring those that stand to profit if more "green" policies are put into place either. There are many in the GW debate who like to tell others how to live, but donīt practice what they preach.

Hotwheelz
06-22-2011, 01:16 PM
If GW causes by man was so obvious, then there would be a much more consensus in the scientific community about it than there is now. Just dismissing those that think there isnīt enough evidence as "not real scientists" doesnīt cut it nor does ignoring those that stand to profit if more "green" policies are put into place either. There are many in the GW debate who like to tell others how to live, but donīt practice what they preach.
Like say... 97% consensus?

Hotwheelz
06-22-2011, 01:26 PM
Like this?

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[104]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Surveys_of_sc ientists_and_scientific_literature

Rohirrim
06-22-2011, 01:48 PM
If there is one thing history teaches us about human beings, they find it much easier to cling to old stupidities than to embrace new learning, as the drama llama proves on the OM day after tedious day. Think of the world as the global expression of Easter Island. I think that's what we can expect out of mankind. He will denude the world to the last particle of life rather than change his behaviors or discomfort his beliefs and concepts.

This is a coral reef:
http://www.solcomhouse.com/images/green_Wrasse_web.jpg

When your grandchildren are middle-aged, the reefs will (in all likelihood) have disappeared from the Earth.


Fact: Coral reefs are among the oldest ecosystems on Earth.
Fact: Coral reefs are the largest living structure on the planet.
Fact: Although coral reefs cover less than 1% of the Earth's surface, they are home to 25% of all marine fish species.
Fact: 500 million people rely on coral reefs for their food and livelihoods.
Fact: Coral reefs form natural barriers that protect nearby shorelines from the eroding forces of the sea, thereby protecting coastal dwellings, agricultural land and beaches.
Fact: Without the existence of coral reefs, parts of Florida would be under water.
Fact: Coral reefs have been used in the treatment of cancer, HIV, cardiovascular diseases and ulcers.
Fact: Corals' porous limestone skeletons have been used for human bone grafts.
Fact: It is estimated that coral reefs provide $375 billion per year around the world in goods and services.
Fact: If the present rate of destruction continues, 70% of the world's coral reefs will be destroyed by the year 2050.

Smiling Assassin27
06-22-2011, 03:05 PM
If there is one thing history teaches us about human beings, they find it much easier to cling to old stupidities than to embrace new learning, as the drama llama proves on the OM day after tedious day. Think of the world as the global expression of Easter Island. I think that's what we can expect out of mankind. He will denude the world to the last particle of life rather than change his behaviors or discomfort his beliefs and concepts.

This is a coral reef:
http://www.solcomhouse.com/images/green_Wrasse_web.jpg

When your grandchildren are middle-aged, the reefs will (in all likelihood) have disappeared from the Earth.


Fact: Coral reefs are among the oldest ecosystems on Earth.
Fact: Coral reefs are the largest living structure on the planet.
Fact: Although coral reefs cover less than 1% of the Earth's surface, they are home to 25% of all marine fish species.
Fact: 500 million people rely on coral reefs for their food and livelihoods.
Fact: Coral reefs form natural barriers that protect nearby shorelines from the eroding forces of the sea, thereby protecting coastal dwellings, agricultural land and beaches.
Fact: Without the existence of coral reefs, parts of Florida would be under water.
Fact: Coral reefs have been used in the treatment of cancer, HIV, cardiovascular diseases and ulcers.
Fact: Corals' porous limestone skeletons have been used for human bone grafts.
Fact: It is estimated that coral reefs provide $375 billion per year around the world in goods and services.
Fact: If the present rate of destruction continues, 70% of the world's coral reefs will be destroyed by the year 2050.

<a href="http://www.gifbin.com/981784"><img src="http://www.gifbin.com/bin/sw7yu299707.gif" alt="funny gifs" /></a>

Rohirrim
06-22-2011, 03:34 PM
<a href="http://www.gifbin.com/981784"><img src="http://www.gifbin.com/bin/sw7yu299707.gif" alt="funny gifs" /></a>

That's pretty much how I picture you.

Houshyamama
06-22-2011, 03:41 PM
<a href="http://www.gifbin.com/981784"><img src="http://www.gifbin.com/bin/sw7yu299707.gif" alt="funny gifs" /></a>

After reading this thread, this gif suits you well.

I hope all you doubters in this thread realize that your skepticism is a direct result of a massive effort by the super rich invested in fossil fuels to tarnish the work done by countless scientists.

Despite what you may think, you are NOT smarter than the 97% of scientists whose experience, knowledge and research you are tossing aside for a number of reasons.

Tombstone RJ
06-22-2011, 04:21 PM
Like this?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Surveys_of_sc ientists_and_scientific_literature

just following your link:

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

Please note: The IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itself. A main activity of the IPCC is publishing special reports on topics relevant to the implementation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),[4] an international treaty that acknowledges the possibility of harmful climate change. Implementation of the UNFCCC led eventually to the Kyoto Protocol. The IPCC bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific literature.[5] The IPCC is only open to member states of the WMO and UNEP. IPCC reports are widely cited in almost any debate related to climate change.[6][7] National and international responses to climate change generally regard the UN climate panel as authoritative

Didn't the US refuse to be a part of the Kyoto Protocol because it basically gave developing nations free reign on producing carbon emmissions while the US got penalized if it didn't cut way back on carbon emmissions (which many argue would severely limit the US economy)?

I'm pretty sure that many of these UN people (who are promoting Global Warming as a fact) are the ones who cooked the data to promote Global Warming. In other words, there is an agenda to promote the idea that Global Warming due to carbon emmissions is a fact, while the data suggests that it's not a fact, but a theory. And also that many of these UN nations stand to do very well economically by agreeing to something like this Kyoto Protocol while the US would have an extremely difficult time economically if it agreed to these terms?

Listen, I'm all for sustainability and the like, but I don't really trust the UN on stuff like this. The UN has a reputation for being somewhat corrupt.

broncosteven
06-22-2011, 07:13 PM
Yep.

The problem here is that there is not enough reliable data to conclude anything. Climatology is the study of weather over hundreds and thousands of years. In any given short time frame (say, a decade, or 4 decades) there will be ups and downs but over a longer time frame, the stability of the climate is measured.

There indeed may be a slight global warming trend in the climate, but science has absolutely no way of measuring whether this is caused by humanity's presence or not. The fact is, that you can take any century from any millennium and find similar results as what climatologists are preaching right now.

The earth goes in cycles and the variables are far too numerous for even the most powerful supercomputers to accurately model.

When ice cores dating back tens of thousands of years suggest that there are warm periods, cold periods, extreme cold periods, extreme warm periods, with and without mega natural causes (i.e. massive global volcanic eruptions, impact events, major Solar maximums), it leads many people - including scientists themselves - to dispute the "data" which is using a VERY SMALL sample size. Accurate weather data only dates back a few decades. Prior to that, the data that has been gathered cannot be considered reliable and CANNOT, scientifically, be included in the end interpretation.

Which leads to another problem, data has to be interpreted and analyzed and there are NUMEROUS times in EVERY scientific field where data has been misinterpreted and mis-analyzed. Data is NOT information, it is just data, that must be put into information form and people with agenda's - such as environmentalist scientists who refuse to willingly release their data - can manipulate their results.

I don't particularly care one way or the other. Global warming or not, climate is something that is going to change whether we affect it or not and instead of pointing fingers, science needs to focus on WHAT can be done to limit the damage to real human beings. That's their folly. They are detached from the effects and give little consideration for what to do, given a set of data, that will impact human civilization.


Alec Beat me to it!

I live next to Lake Michigan which was carved out of a huge glacier, one could say that global warming started when that glacier started receeding.

People think things have always been static while the Earth has been in a state of flux since it was created.

tnedator
06-22-2011, 07:31 PM
After reading this thread, this gif suits you well.

I hope all you doubters in this thread realize that your skepticism is a direct result of a massive effort by the super rich invested in fossil fuels to tarnish the work done by countless scientists.

Despite what you may think, you are NOT smarter than the 97% of scientists whose experience, knowledge and research you are tossing aside for a number of reasons.

Not to be confused with the super rich that have billions invested in alternative energies that only really make sense if they can sell this poison carbon gas stuff. You know, that stuff plants eat.

ColoradoDarin
06-22-2011, 08:07 PM
Once again, with feeling!

I’ll believe it’s a crisis when the people who tell me it’s a crisis start acting like it’s a crisis.

Until they start foregoing private jets and beachside mansions, it’s going to be hard for me to take their calls for sacrifice on my part seriously.

Houshyamama
06-22-2011, 10:36 PM
Not to be confused with the super rich that have billions invested in alternative energies that only really make sense if they can sell this poison carbon gas stuff. You know, that stuff plants eat.

What? You're serious? You think they're even remotely comparable? I'm well aware of what plants "eat". I have a degree in Molecular Biology, how about you?

ol#7
06-23-2011, 12:52 AM
What? You're serious? You think they're even remotely comparable? I'm well aware of what plants "eat". I have a degree in Molecular Biology, how about you?

Way to play the look at how smart I am, I have a degree in________so my opinion is more valid than yours card.

Myself, I prefer the socratic school of thought that wisdom is derived from knowing that you dont know everything.

I am suprised that some dont see the contradiction in their arguments. They use a strawman to state there are evil billionaires who are profiting from old energy while ignoring the algores "Inconvenient Truth anyone..." who are making or stand to make billions off of new energies (while riding in limo's, private jets, living in mansions and gobbling up more resources in a month than I will use in my lifetime).

It is also amusing that just because one group of scientists have an opinion that it cant be biased or the result of an engineered outcome. This is why Big Tobacco had scientists on their staff for years and years, they knew their product was unsafe but they could put out information that would mislead the public and the public would gobble it up. They could engineer a desired result.

Thats still no excuse to harm the environment, but to say that climate change has been proven to be a man made event (as almost every media outlet had succumbed to doing) is the result of the successful selling of mass hysteria, not a result of the triumph of science to better understand our world and our role in it.

epicSocialism4tw
06-23-2011, 01:33 AM
It is well understood that the earth has existed in various relative temperatures since it cooled and formed out of the face of the deep.

The great thing about life is its flexibility. When one ecosystem changes, so does its inhabitants. Species die. Other species flourish in their place. You can rest assured that wherever there are bacteria and microorganisms that fix nutrients into the food chain, that there will be a food chain that follows it, with increasing morphological complexity. New species are being worked out in every generation. Old species are passing away during the same span of time. Its something that is far beyond our control.

If temperatures increase in places in the ocean where certain temperature-sensitive ecosystems thrive, you can rest assured that those ecosystems will be replaced with different ones better acclimated to the new temperatures. It just takes time. You can also rest assured that formerly harsh environments will become thriving environments as their temperatures become more habitable to life that exists on the planet in those warmer environments.

There is life in the most extreme environments on the planet. Extreme temperature environments, extreme chemical environments, extreme physical environments...all of these have flourishing life forms within them.

Life goes on.

The liberal religious apocalypse regarding global warming is nothing but fear mongering, propheteering, profiteering, and is the exact opposite way to handle the situation. If the sun is indeed changing, then we just have to live with the consequences. No amount of neurotic liberal guilt or liberal religious penance (carbon taxes) will rectify the situation.

I mean...does anyone really believe that taxing cow farts will help?

cutthemdown
06-23-2011, 02:31 AM
I think America could cut co2 output in half and the total the Earth puts out would keep going up. Trying to tax it would be a huge mistake, cost a ton, and not cool the Earth. Even all the push to other energies should be more based on ****ing the oil producing countries and making money then it should be on co2 output. Also most of the rich liberals pushing this stuff put out more co2 then I do so **** them. We are still waiting for the 50 million climate refugees they promised us. In 25 yrs when the sea ice is still there, and Polar bears still there, they will change up the prediction once again. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if at some point they do say the only reason we aren't warming as fast as we thought is the suns lack of solar spots, once that goes back to normal in 150 yrs we are ****ed.

Hotwheelz
06-23-2011, 03:12 AM
just following your link:

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

Please note: The IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itself. A main activity of the IPCC is publishing special reports on topics relevant to the implementation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),[4] an international treaty that acknowledges the possibility of harmful climate change. Implementation of the UNFCCC led eventually to the Kyoto Protocol. The IPCC bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific literature.[5] The IPCC is only open to member states of the WMO and UNEP. IPCC reports are widely cited in almost any debate related to climate change.[6][7] National and international responses to climate change generally regard the UN climate panel as authoritative

Didn't the US refuse to be a part of the Kyoto Protocol because it basically gave developing nations free reign on producing carbon emmissions while the US got penalized if it didn't cut way back on carbon emmissions (which many argue would severely limit the US economy)?

I'm pretty sure that many of these UN people (who are promoting Global Warming as a fact) are the ones who cooked the data to promote Global Warming. In other words, there is an agenda to promote the idea that Global Warming due to carbon emmissions is a fact, while the data suggests that it's not a fact, but a theory. And also that many of these UN nations stand to do very well economically by agreeing to something like this Kyoto Protocol while the US would have an extremely difficult time economically if it agreed to these terms?

Listen, I'm all for sustainability and the like, but I don't really trust the UN on stuff like this. The UN has a reputation for being somewhat corrupt.
I like how you completely ignored the part where 97% of experts disagree with you.

tnedator
06-23-2011, 05:22 AM
What? You're serious? You think they're even remotely comparable? I'm well aware of what plants "eat". I have a degree in Molecular Biology, how about you?

Hell yes, they are comparable. You think it's more noble to make millions or billions if it's inline with AGW thinking?

Houshyamama
06-23-2011, 11:49 AM
Way to play the look at how smart I am, I have a degree in________so my opinion is more valid than yours card.

Myself, I prefer the socratic school of thought that wisdom is derived from knowing that you dont know everything.

I am suprised that some dont see the contradiction in their arguments. They use a strawman to state there are evil billionaires who are profiting from old energy while ignoring the algores "Inconvenient Truth anyone..." who are making or stand to make billions off of new energies (while riding in limo's, private jets, living in mansions and gobbling up more resources in a month than I will use in my lifetime).

It is also amusing that just because one group of scientists have an opinion that it cant be biased or the result of an engineered outcome. This is why Big Tobacco had scientists on their staff for years and years, they knew their product was unsafe but they could put out information that would mislead the public and the public would gobble it up. They could engineer a desired result.

Thats still no excuse to harm the environment, but to say that climate change has been proven to be a man made event (as almost every media outlet had succumbed to doing) is the result of the successful selling of mass hysteria, not a result of the triumph of science to better understand our world and our role in it.

Yeah, I was pretty wasted last night. Douche move, my bad tnedator. I'm going to stay out of this debate while sober. I'd rather stick my arm in a meat grinder personally :)

Agamemnon
06-23-2011, 01:03 PM
I honestly can't believe anyone would think that the money being invested in keeping us dependent on fossil fuels equals or is less than the money being invested in alternative fuels. Or that nearly all scientists agreeing that global warming is real and at least partially the result of human activity is somehow propaganda for these mythical alternative fuel moguls that apparently rule the world.

People really will believe anything.....

Houshyamama
06-23-2011, 01:17 PM
I honestly can't believe anyone would think that the money being invested in keeping us dependent on fossil fuels equals or is less than the money being invested in alternative fuels. Or that nearly all scientists agreeing that global warming is real and at least partially the result of human activity is somehow propaganda for these mythical alternative fuel moguls that apparently rule the world.

People really will believe anything.....

Edit: I'm done :)

gobroncos313
06-23-2011, 01:40 PM
Frankly I am astonished that the left is still clinging to this issue. I would have thought that there was enough contradictory evidence that it would no longer carry water as a political pillar. Guess not. My personal favorite is that a cooling trend somehow is proof of global warming. Over in the UK, there was a huge scandal over cooked books, media compliance and government incompetence/tomfoolery in an attempt to deceive the public/gin up support for the issue. Should we be good shepherds for the Earth, not waste our resources and have clean air and water? Of course! Are we the root cause of climate change (assuming there is such a thing and were not just in a naturally occuring cycle or at the mercy of that large warm thing hanging in the sky) the jury is still out on that one.


The liberals play the name game. They started out calling in global warming and now have changed it to "Climate Change" this way no matter what happens they can keep scaring the hell out of everyone and move forward with their agenda.
Just like referring to them selves as "pro-Choice" instead of pro-abortion. Liberals never really want to be identified with what they really believe.

epicSocialism4tw
06-23-2011, 01:56 PM
The liberals play the name game. They started out calling in global warming and now have changed it to "Climate Change" this way no matter what happens they can keep scaring the hell out of everyone and move forward with their agenda.
Just like referring to them selves as "pro-Choice" instead of pro-abortion. Liberals never really want to be identified with what they really believe.

Nailed it.

That's wise insight.

Irish Stout
06-23-2011, 02:01 PM
The liberals play the name game. They started out calling in global warming and now have changed it to "Climate Change" this way no matter what happens they can keep scaring the hell out of everyone and move forward with their agenda.
Just like referring to them selves as "pro-Choice" instead of pro-abortion. Liberals never really want to be identified with what they really believe.

And this doesn't go both ways? Conservatives calling themselves pro-life while advocating vigorously for maintaining the death penalty. Calling themselves both conservatives and the party of fiscal responsibility while spending and borrowing to the hilt.

Thats all anyone does these days is play the name and blame game.

Irish Stout
06-23-2011, 02:03 PM
Nailed it.

That's wise insight.

Sure, with half a nail. Wise as a drunk monkey. Get educated man.

epicSocialism4tw
06-23-2011, 02:13 PM
Sure, with half a nail. Wise as a drunk monkey. Get educated man.

He saw through to this without (I assume) having read it: http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm

Rules for Radicals is the genesis of the modern liberal attack on the language of American culture.

4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."

5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."

"I have always believed that birth control and abortion are personal rights to be exercised by the individual. If, in my early days when I organized... neighborhood in Chicago, which was 95 per cent Roman Catholic, I had tried to communicate this, even through the experience of the residents, whose economic plight was aggravated by large families, that would have been the end of my relationship with the community. That instant I would have been stamped as an enemy of the church and all communication would have ceased."

"The end is what you want, the means is how you get it. Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work. ... The real arena is corrupt and bloody."

"The tenth rule... is you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments."

"The third rule of ethics of means and ends is that in war the end justifies almost any means...."

Bronco Vixen
06-23-2011, 02:14 PM
It is well understood that the earth has existed in various relative temperatures since it cooled and formed out of the face of the deep.

The great thing about life is its flexibility. When one ecosystem changes, so does its inhabitants. Species die. Other species flourish in their place. You can rest assured that wherever there are bacteria and microorganisms that fix nutrients into the food chain, that there will be a food chain that follows it, with increasing morphological complexity. New species are being worked out in every generation. Old species are passing away during the same span of time. Its something that is far beyond our control.

If temperatures increase in places in the ocean where certain temperature-sensitive ecosystems thrive, you can rest assured that those ecosystems will be replaced with different ones better acclimated to the new temperatures. It just takes time. You can also rest assured that formerly harsh environments will become thriving environments as their temperatures become more habitable to life that exists on the planet in those warmer environments.

There is life in the most extreme environments on the planet. Extreme temperature environments, extreme chemical environments, extreme physical environments...all of these have flourishing life forms within them.

Life goes on.

The liberal religious apocalypse regarding global warming is nothing but fear mongering, propheteering, profiteering, and is the exact opposite way to handle the situation. If the sun is indeed changing, then we just have to live with the consequences. No amount of neurotic liberal guilt or liberal religious penance (carbon taxes) will rectify the situation.

I mean...does anyone really believe that taxing cow farts will help?

Careful Epic, this sounds suspiciously similar to evolutionism...

epicSocialism4tw
06-23-2011, 02:15 PM
Careful Epic, this sounds suspiciously similar to evolutionism...

And?

Bronco Vixen
06-23-2011, 02:16 PM
I honestly can't believe anyone would think that the money being invested in keeping us dependent on fossil fuels equals or is less than the money being invested in alternative fuels. Or that nearly all scientists agreeing that global warming is real and at least partially the result of human activity is somehow propaganda for these mythical alternative fuel moguls that apparently rule the world.

People really will believe anything.....

THANK YOU!

I could not agree more with this post.

Rohirrim
06-23-2011, 02:48 PM
I encourage everybody to take the time to go out to California and have your picture taken with the giant sequoias and redwoods. I'm sure your great grandchildren will be fascinated to know that such things once existed and that you were right there, looking up at them.

Houshyamama
06-23-2011, 02:53 PM
I encourage everybody to take the time to go out to California and have your picture taken with the giant sequoias and redwoods. I'm sure your great grandchildren will be fascinated to know that such things once existed and that you were right there, looking up at them.

Jesus is coming back in like 10 years dude, stop thinking about the future of the planet.

epicSocialism4tw
06-23-2011, 04:07 PM
I encourage everybody to take the time to go out to California and have your picture taken with the giant sequoias and redwoods. I'm sure your great grandchildren will be fascinated to know that such things once existed and that you were right there, looking up at them.

The liberal apocalypse approaches!

Everyone start sending your money to televangelists like Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, and Barack Obama!

Houshyamama
06-23-2011, 04:13 PM
The liberal apocalypse approaches!

Everyone start sending your money to televangelists like Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, and Barack Obama!

What is your opinion on the receding coral reefs, specifically ocean acidification?

Rohirrim
06-23-2011, 06:06 PM
The liberal apocalypse approaches!

Everyone start sending your money to televangelists like Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, and Barack Obama!

So your adherence to a failed political ideology is more valuable to you than the kind of world you leave to your descendants? Basic right wing boilerplate. Surprises no one. That's the major problem we have in America today. Troglodytes are blocking the progress of our nation, preferring their failed philosophies and failed politics over the obvious need for innovation and adaptation. Oldest rule in nature: Fail to bend and you will be broken.

Right wing cement-heads should just remember, America was at its strongest, and richest, when it was at its most progressive.

epicSocialism4tw
06-23-2011, 06:14 PM
So your adherence to a failed political ideology is more valuable to you than the kind of world you leave to your descendants? Basic right wing boilerplate. Surprises no one. That's the major problem we have in America today. Troglodytes are blocking the progress of our nation, preferring their failed philosophies and failed politics over the obvious need for innovation and adaptation. Oldest rule in nature: Fail to bend and you will be broken.

Right wing cement-heads should just remember, America was at its strongest, and richest, when it was at its most progressive.

http://amboytimes.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c62f553ef0131100500b2970c-800wi

epicSocialism4tw
06-23-2011, 06:15 PM
http://www.alltopics.com/files/svwsticker/articlesimage/obama-fail.jpg

epicSocialism4tw
06-23-2011, 06:25 PM
I called it.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/nbc-trumpets-global-warming-quotes-al-gore-in-piece-on-modern-day-noahs-ark/

Hulamau
06-23-2011, 10:18 PM
It can't just be co2, I just don't buy that. I do believe some parts of Earth warming, some cooling. A change is occurring but there is way more at work then man made co2. Also even if it is man made most of the efforts to diminish that are a boondoogle. It's being understood more and more that the numbers on the electric hybrids dont add up. People are spending money to be green and its not any greener. Thats the govt for you right there. The FDA recently made a law saying old drugs could be retested. So what happens drug companies find highly used, older drugs, that never had fda approval, they grab the drug, do a quick study on it with 150 or so patients, claim it to be safe when all the docs already said it was, then sue to stop all other companies to make it for 3 yrs and make billions jacking up the price. That is how the govt and big pharmacy, and Obamas fda have changed things. So now certain medications that were 5 cents a pill are now 5 bucks a pill. Why should we believe anything the govt or people trying to sell us stuff say. If global warming wasn't pushing all these expensive products on us I wouldn't be as skeptical.


It is likely a combination of natural cycles, accelerated to a fair degree by man's ever growing footprint. I have no problem with that perspective at all. But it's the "its all a hoax" crowd that have their heads up their arses.

And the manipulation of big industry and Big Pharma, with its right hand cohort and revolving door between them at the FDA, that does take advantage of every situation they can to advance their profits and grip of control, regardless of whether or not it's in the best interest of the public.

But that has been true long before Obama and will continue to be the way things work long after he's gone, regardless of who is president! Greed, power politics and manipulation alas are not qualities limited to one side of the aisle, I'm afraid. Its an equal opportunity affliction among a good number of politicians (not all), both red and blue, as well large number of corporate titans (not all) running the show behind the scenes.

Hopefully many worrisome scenario's turn out better than they appear, but its not easy being overly optimistic with a straight face these days.

Agamemnon
06-23-2011, 10:28 PM
Being responsible caretakers of Earth is not a partisan issue. Trying to make it one is an act of unimaginable stupidity.

Requiem
06-23-2011, 10:37 PM
Stupidity: Believing that the issue is just about heating and cooling of the Earth.

Agamemnon
06-23-2011, 10:50 PM
Stupidity: Believing that the issue is just about heating and cooling of the Earth.

There is no need to believe anything. The widespread pollution and systemic damage we are causing to this planet is a bad thing. Pumping obscene amounts of toxins into our atmosphere (whether or not they are in fact causing global warming or not) is a bad thing.

This isn't about belief. This about people pulling their heads out of their asses and seeing what's right in front of them, nothing more. And it has absolutely nothing to do with the "Liberal" or "Conservative" memes that people seem to think are so important.

Houshyamama
06-23-2011, 10:56 PM
There is no need to believe anything. The widespread pollution and systemic damage we are causing to this planet is a bad thing. Pumping obscene amounts of toxins into our atmosphere (whether or not they are in fact causing global warming or not) is a bad thing.

This isn't about belief. This about people pulling their heads out of their asses and seeing what's right in front of them, nothing more. And it has absolutely nothing to do with the "Liberal" or "Conservative" memes that people seem to think are so important.

I agree completely. This is not a partisan issue.

Scientific data exists regardless of one's political leaning. It doesn't matter what someone believes. Belief is inconsequential. The evidence is in front of your eyes whether you choose to see it or not.

Requiem
06-23-2011, 11:01 PM
There is no need to believe anything. The widespread pollution and systemic damage we are causing to this planet is a bad thing. Pumping obscene amounts of toxins into our atmosphere (whether or not they are in fact causing global warming or not) is a bad thing.

This isn't about belief. This about people pulling their heads out of their asses and seeing what's right in front of them, nothing more. And it has absolutely nothing to do with the "Liberal" or "Conservative" memes that people seem to think are so important.

I know. My point is that there is way more to the issue than those who deny human impact on our environments would like to believe. One of my favorite (and most sad) case studies I spent a half a year on was in re: to OK Tedi. So very, very sad.

Irish Stout
06-23-2011, 11:02 PM
http://amboytimes.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c62f553ef0131100500b2970c-800wi

Thats a well thought out, reasoned and logical argument. Thank you for contributing.

epicSocialism4tw
06-23-2011, 11:20 PM
Thats a well thought out, reasoned and logical argument. Thank you for contributing.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_LWMucmgw8gU/S0tXTBvTj6I/AAAAAAAAAWA/_BFDebLiN_4/s400/obama.jpg

Agamemnon
06-23-2011, 11:24 PM
I know. My point is that there is way more to the issue than those who deny human impact on our environments would like to believe. One of my favorite (and most sad) case studies I spent a half a year on was in re: to OK Tedi. So very, very sad.

Ah, guess I misunderstood you. Had to look up OK Tedi, and it's a story that's being repeated all over the world on a daily basis. I was living north of the Summitville mine when they poisoned the Alamosa River and killed all the fish. I went there as a kid and I remember how the water was totally lifeless. Many of the plants and trees near the mine were dead. This kind of thing is happening everywhere and it's disgusting.

TonyR
06-24-2011, 06:14 AM
I agree completely. This is not a partisan issue.

Yup, but then you have troglodytes like epicfaildramaskillet jumping into the discussion with negative Obama pics and gifs. Unbelievable what morons some people are.

ColoradoDarin
06-24-2011, 07:01 AM
Seriously, if you really, I mean REALLY thought Global Warming was caused by man, you wouldn't be posting on a message board - using all those servers and all the a/c to cool them, powered by coal!. Algore would never get on a private jet, world leaders who espouse it wouldn't take limos every where. They wouldn't build mansions. They would live in little shacks and grow their own veggies.

The fact that they don't speaks volumes.

I'll start treating it like a crisis when those who tell me it's a crisis *act* like it's a crisis.

ol#7
06-24-2011, 07:43 AM
I agree completely. This is not a partisan issue.

Scientific data exists regardless of one's political leaning. It doesn't matter what someone believes. Belief is inconsequential. The evidence is in front of your eyes whether you choose to see it or not.

The data you reference is hardly accepted by 97% of the scientific community though. Even if it were, it wouldnt make that an absolute truth. I would argue that the evidence of man made climate change is in fact not in front of your eyes and hasnt been proven. There are far too many naturally occuring events that have a larger impact than anything we currently do. If that ticking timebomb under Yellowstone erupts for example, a heck of alot of mankind wont survive to tell the tale and the earths climate will take a dramatic and sudden swing.

I do agree that this is not and should not be the partisan issue it has become. We are all citizens of this planet and as such, shouldnt be wasting it's precious resources or damaging it for future generations. We, especially in the modernized world have made huge improvements in this regard. That is not to say that we have gone far enough or shouldnt be using renewables/alternative energies and continuing to work towards a cleaner planet because we should. Thinking we can solve the problem for the rest of the world though by creating policies that harm us here while giving in to the developing world because we have been shamed/scared into such a reaction based upon a flawed and biased premise however shouldnt be what is steering the course for the future.

Garcia Bronco
06-24-2011, 07:48 AM
I don't know how I find more amusing...the people that think we as warming the globe...or the people that think we can do something about it.

Smiling Assassin27
06-24-2011, 08:02 AM
I prefer the ones that think both and yet use more fossil fuels than 1,000,000 pigmies on a monthly basis.

Kaylore
06-24-2011, 08:41 AM
The climate is always changing. The Earth has been much cooler and much hotter than it is today. Count me as someone who believes in climate change but doesn't believe we have anything directly to do with it. That said, I'm all for saving energy, but not because I think we'll blow up the Earth. I think we need to save money and it makes sense. I don't believe we are causing the ice caps to melt.

alkemical
06-24-2011, 09:07 AM
It is likely a combination of natural cycles, accelerated to a fair degree by man's ever growing footprint. I have no problem with that perspective at all. But it's the "its all a hoax" crowd that have their heads up their arses.

And the manipulation of big industry and Big Pharma, with its right hand cohort and revolving door between them at the FDA, that does take advantage of every situation they can to advance their profits and grip of control, regardless of whether or not it's in the best interest of the public.

But that has been true long before Obama and will continue to be the way things work long after he's gone, regardless of who is president! Greed, power politics and manipulation alas are not qualities limited to one side of the aisle, I'm afraid. Its an equal opportunity affliction among a good number of politicians (not all), both red and blue, as well large number of corporate titans (not all) running the show behind the scenes.

Hopefully many worrisome scenario's turn out better than they appear, but its not easy being overly optimistic with a straight face these days.

Great post, and in many ways - I really agree.

alkemical
06-24-2011, 09:13 AM
For those of you who don't think that man can alter the weather to a degree. You should look into geoengineering, and look at a few things:

Look at how the humidity has risen in major cities in the desert PHX is a good example. This alters the weather. Smog alters the weather.

The Chesapeake bay used to be terrible, and it's really come a long way. But with enough polltuion killing marshes and swamp land, you begin to alter not only the ecosystem, but the weather as well.

Look at some of the participating causes for the dust bowl:

Continued waves of immigration from Europe brought settlers to the plains at the beginning of the 20th century. A return of unusually wet weather confirmed a previously held opinion that the "formerly" semi-arid area could support large-scale agriculture. Technological improvements led to increased automation, which allowed for cultivation on a greater scale. World War I increased agricultural prices, which also encouraged farmers to dramatically increase cultivation. In the Llano Estacado, the area of farmland doubled between 1900 and 1920, and land under cultivation more than tripled between 1925 and 1930.[6] Finally, farmers did not use appropriate practices for the environment, but agricultural methods that encouraged erosion.[1] For example, cotton farmers left fields bare over winter months, when winds in the High Plains are highest, and burned the stubble (as a form of weeding prior to planting), which both deprived the soil of organic nutrients and increased exposure to erosion.

This increased exposure to erosion was revealed when a severe drought struck the Great Plains in 1934. The native grasses that covered the prairie lands for centuries, holding the soil in place and maintaining its moisture, had been eliminated by the intensively increased plowing. The drought conditions caused the topsoil to grow dry and friable, and it was simply carried away by the wind. The dusty soil aggregated in the air, forming immense dust clouds that prevented rainfall.[citation needed] It was not until the government promoted soil conservation programs that the area slowly began to become rehabilitated.[7]

Due to changing the land, it helped make the drought a bigger problem.

To say man has no effect on the climate is silly, to say man is the only effect on the climate is silly.

But to deny the fact that we, as humans have an impact in our environment - well - that's silly.

That One Guy
06-24-2011, 09:20 AM
I've generally avoided this thread but got bored so I read it. Even if we cut down on the CO2 we produce per person, the out of control population will continue to increase the overall amount produced. At the same time we're dealing with a growing population, we're also dealing with shrinking forests and less plant life. All these extra people have to eat so we're having to exploit fisheries and make more pastures. It goes on and on and on.

The population needs to be controlled at some point. MOST populations will manage themselves but MOST populations don't have the capability to impact the earth in the way we do. GW is the least of my concerns because an out of control population and f'ing idiots doing stupid stuff will impact the things I'm supposed to be scared into missing long before the global warming factor kills everyone off.

Oh, and if given the opportunity, CO2 will make plants flourish just like they did when the dinosaurs roamed the earth. The problem is that we need that space so we can all have 800 more babies.

alkemical
06-24-2011, 09:25 AM
I've generally avoided this thread but got bored so I read it. Even if we cut down on the CO2 we produce per person, the out of control population will continue to increase the overall amount produced. At the same time we're dealing with a growing population, we're also dealing with shrinking forests and less plant life. All these extra people have to eat so we're having to exploit fisheries and make more pastures. It goes on and on and on.

The population needs to be controlled at some point. MOST populations will manage themselves but MOST populations don't have the capability to impact the earth in the way we do. GW is the least of my concerns because an out of control population and f'ing idiots doing stupid stuff will impact the things I'm supposed to be scared into missing long before the global warming factor kills everyone off.

Oh, and if given the opportunity, CO2 will make plants flourish just like they did when the dinosaurs roamed the earth. The problem is that we need that space so we can all have 800 more babies.


Well, that and the model of agribusiness that's used - is part of the problem as well.

AG use is one of the largest consumers of petro chemicals and waste. When you look at the model of say, Monsanto - here's how it sort of breaks down:

Use GMO crop to be resistant to "roundup", etc. chemicals like roundup, kill your soil. The nutrients and beneficials that the ecology of healthy soil has, is dead. So now you need to use fertilizers to beef up your soil. Problem is, they are petro chemical based as well - which kills more soil.

So now you have a crop, that needs vast amounts of resources and energy to produce food, that is being questioned as to its safety and nutrition.

Look up petrol use in agriculture, it's pretty crazy. It isn't even just the tractors, etc that need fuel - but the creation of all the synthetic materials used to grow food.

I'm not saying all farming has to be done via "Amish". But, maybe we need to evaluate our AG principles.

That One Guy
06-24-2011, 09:30 AM
Well, that and the model of agribusiness that's used - is part of the problem as well.

AG use is one of the largest consumers of petro chemicals and waste. When you look at the model of say, Monsanto - here's how it sort of breaks down:

Use GMO crop to be resistant to "roundup", etc. chemicals like roundup, kill your soil. The nutrients and beneficials that the ecology of healthy soil has, is dead. So now you need to use fertilizers to beef up your soil. Problem is, they are petro chemical based as well - which kills more soil.

So now you have a crop, that needs vast amounts of resources and energy to produce food, that is being questioned as to its safety and nutrition.

Look up petrol use in agriculture, it's pretty crazy. It isn't even just the tractors, etc that need fuel - but the creation of all the synthetic materials used to grow food.

I'm not saying all farming has to be done via "Amish". But, maybe we need to evaluate our AG principles.

But, unfortunately, we have no other answer to support the number of people we have on the planet. We need all the food we can get.

alkemical
06-24-2011, 09:34 AM
But, unfortunately, we have no other answer to support the number of people we have on the planet. We need all the food we can get.

There are alternatives:

Aquaponics uses 1/10th of the water of traditional farming. You then have fish to harvest as well as food.

More people could grow gardens and support a portion of their needs. I am setting up an indoor garden: Leaf lettuce, cukes, tomato, peppers - for starters.

I will be using 1/8 the water of traditional farming.


By killing the soil, you aren't using sustainable AG principles. Which means in the end, the product suffers - is less nutritious, and an overall poor quality.

Sustainability is where we need to get to.

Houshyamama
06-24-2011, 09:34 AM
The data you reference is hardly accepted by 97% of the scientific community though. Even if it were, it wouldnt make that an absolute truth. I would argue that the evidence of man made climate change is in fact not in front of your eyes and hasnt been proven. There are far too many naturally occuring events that have a larger impact than anything we currently do. If that ticking timebomb under Yellowstone erupts for example, a heck of alot of mankind wont survive to tell the tale and the earths climate will take a dramatic and sudden swing.

I do agree that this is not and should not be the partisan issue it has become. We are all citizens of this planet and as such, shouldnt be wasting it's precious resources or damaging it for future generations. We, especially in the modernized world have made huge improvements in this regard. That is not to say that we have gone far enough or shouldnt be using renewables/alternative energies and continuing to work towards a cleaner planet because we should. Thinking we can solve the problem for the rest of the world though by creating policies that harm us here while giving in to the developing world because we have been shamed/scared into such a reaction based upon a flawed and biased premise however shouldnt be what is steering the course for the future.

I am not a liberal, believe it or not. I'm a scientist and I have no political agenda when it comes to this. I have read a lot of the studies and I would argue that there is a pretty damn good chance that the 6+ BILLION people on this planet and the changes we have made to this planet have altered the direction and rate at which natural processes have been moving. I don't believe this is a certainty, but it is looking more and more clear that this is the case. The number of scientists who would disagree are very few and far between and many of them are not reputable to begin with.

To be perfectly honest, if you haven't read at least a few of the studies you don't have even close to an informed opinion (not you ol#7, you in general), and that is beyond argument. You're only going on a he-said, she-said basis at that point. That pretty much renders this entire thread useless IMO.

That One Guy
06-24-2011, 09:40 AM
I am not a liberal, believe it or not. I'm a scientist and I have no political agenda when it comes to this. I have read a lot of the studies and I would argue that there is a pretty damn good chance that the 6+ BILLION people on this planet and the changes we have made to this planet have altered the direction and rate at which natural processes have been moving. I don't believe this is a certainty, but it is looking more and more clear that this is the case. The number of scientists who would disagree are very few and far between and many of them are not reputable to begin with.

To be perfectly honest, if you haven't read at least a few of the studies you don't have even close to an informed opinion (not you ol#7, you in general), and that is beyond argument. You're only going on a he-said, she-said basis at that point. That pretty much renders this entire thread useless IMO.

That would render ever opinion I have and most of the Mane useless. We can't do that.

Houshyamama
06-24-2011, 09:48 AM
That would render ever opinion I have and most of the Mane useless. We can't do that.

Ha, me too for the most part.

Hulamau
06-24-2011, 03:40 PM
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_LWMucmgw8gU/S0tXTBvTj6I/AAAAAAAAAWA/_BFDebLiN_4/s400/obama.jpg

Its apparent Epic has turned into an example of a classic petrified ideologue, unable to even catch a glimpse of the forest for all the trees blocking his view.

BTW, the economy complete with market crash and bail out had ALREADY imploded before your very own personal Beelzebub .. Obama... ever took office.... I don't agree with all of Obama's moves and he has made a few missteps as every president has before him .. as well as some good moves.

Yet thinking and reasonable people of whatever political leaning can discern that he inherited a S**t storm meltdown just as he walked through the door and understand that something so FUBARed is very complex and takes time to unwind, regardless of who is sitting in the White House! But Hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant. :-) Carry on! :sunshine:

That One Guy
06-24-2011, 03:46 PM
Its apparent Epic has turned into an example of a classic petrified ideologue, unable to even catch a glimpse of the forest for all the trees blocking his view.

BTW, the economy complete with market crash and bail out had ALREADY imploded before your very own personal Beelzebub .. Obama... ever took office.... I don't agree with all of Obama's moves and he has made a few missteps as every president has before him .. as well as some good moves.

Yet thinking and reasonable people of whatever political leaning can discern that he inherited a S**t storm meltdown just as he walked through the door and understand that something so FUBARed is very complex and takes time to unwind, regardless of who is sitting in the White House! But Hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant. :-) Carry on! :sunshine:

I know one person who seemed to think he had all the answers - presidential candidate Obama.

He deserves the criticism because he criticized so harshly. He won his campaign on the back of "not-Bush" but maintained many of Bush's policies. Remember when we got the "four more years of Bush" accusations of the Mccain campaign? Remember when we heard about how all of Mccain's ideas had already been tried and failed under Bush? Little did we know that we were getting four more years of Bush with either candidate.

Drek
06-24-2011, 04:58 PM
I know one person who seemed to think he had all the answers - presidential candidate Obama.

He deserves the criticism because he criticized so harshly. He won his campaign on the back of "not-Bush" but maintained many of Bush's policies. Remember when we got the "four more years of Bush" accusations of the Mccain campaign? Remember when we heard about how all of Mccain's ideas had already been tried and failed under Bush? Little did we know that we were getting four more years of Bush with either candidate.

Thats what happens when you replace the president but don't replace the two plus term senators and congresspeople who are more concerned with staying in office than doing whats right.

D.C. is 5% people who want to fix the problems and 95% people who have no desire to fix **** because then they'd have to learn a new gimmick to keep themselves in office. Even if the POTUS is part of that 5% he can't make change happen when the 95% vehemently oppose any real reform.

Agamemnon
06-24-2011, 05:17 PM
Thats what happens when you replace the president but don't replace the two plus term senators and congresspeople who are more concerned with staying in office than doing whats right.

D.C. is 5% people who want to fix the problems and 95% people who have no desire to fix **** because then they'd have to learn a new gimmick to keep themselves in office. Even if the POTUS is part of that 5% he can't make change happen when the 95% vehemently oppose any real reform.

It's more than that. Most politicians don't really believe anything needs to be fixed because things as they are are keeping corporate interests happy and profitable, and that's who pays for their campaigns and gets them in office. Regular everyday people have no real voice in our government anymore, and even if they did, the misinformation they bombarded with daily prevents them from having an informed view of things anyway.

fdf
06-24-2011, 05:40 PM
"This whole 'top scentists caught 'lying' about global warming' is hotair you obviously must have cut and pasted from one of Sara Palin's infomercials, right? And without bothering to actually read what happened in so called 'climate-gate'."

Actually, I've read them. Some thoughts:

1. The famous "hide the decline" is less dramatic than the political skeptics have made it. From an academic viewpoint, it was inexcusable. If a PhD student pulled that charting trick in his dissertation, did not disclose it prominently and justify it, he would probably be expelled from the department--he certainly would not get his PhD. But it was a polemic charting point--he omitted some points from a chart where the tree ring data diverged quite dramatically from the temperature data. It was a decline in temperature implied from the recent tree rings that Mann was "hiding." Not an actual decline in temperature. Not good. But shenanigans on non-core issues. Politicians do this kind of thing all the time. And the climate gate guys are politicians as much as scientists.

2. Trenbleth's email of despair about the decline in measured temperatures since 1998 is actually much more troubling. He says, almost quote unquote, "the failure of our [global warming] models to predict the decline is a TRAVESTY." He uses the word "travesty." I find it very troubling that amongst themselves, the global warmers realize (1) There has been a decline in global temperature and (2) Their models failed to predict that decline. Yet in public, they deny the decline in temperature and deny there is anything wrong with their models.

3. If you read thru the programmers notes in the temperature data adjustment code, you can see a programmer who realizes the code he is working on is complete "pippy $hit", makes no sense, and needs (his words) a "fudge factor" that adjusts modern temperatures up and older temperatures down. No "fudge factors" were disclosed in the papers based on this code or in the IPCC reports based on this code.

4. The obvious manipulation and abuse of the peer review process disclosed in the emails to prevent dissenting scientific works from being published is quite blatant.

Bottom line, the climate gate emails were deeply troubling. When you combine them with (1) the failure of the global warming models to predict the decline in temperatures since 1998 and (2) the non-existence of the global atmospheric hot-spot that is predicted by all the global warming models, I believe it is perfectly fair to say that, at a minimum, the hypothesis that increases in CO2 cause non-linear increases in temperature (the fundamental AGW hypothesis), is not proven and that some of the predictions of that model are wrong.

So as of now, the skeptics have the better case. Maybe the AGW folks will turn out to be right. Maybe they can improve their models so that they start making good predictions on future data. But I wouldn't bet on it based on the evidence to date.

epicSocialism4tw
06-24-2011, 05:51 PM
Its apparent Epic has turned into an example of a classic petrified ideologue, unable to even catch a glimpse of the forest for all the trees blocking his view.

BTW, the economy complete with market crash and bail out had ALREADY imploded before your very own personal Beelzebub .. Obama... ever took office.... I don't agree with all of Obama's moves and he has made a few missteps as every president has before him .. as well as some good moves.

Yet thinking and reasonable people of whatever political leaning can discern that he inherited a S**t storm meltdown just as he walked through the door and understand that something so FUBARed is very complex and takes time to unwind, regardless of who is sitting in the White House! But Hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant. :-) Carry on!

Excuses, excuses.

We cant afford another 4 years of Obama. Period.

We need some change we can believe in.

fdf
06-24-2011, 05:52 PM
What is your opinion on the receding coral reefs, specifically ocean acidification?

I have been following the global warming science for some time now. It was apparent to me quite a bit before climategate that global warming science was about to jump the shark. Bad modeling techniques, refusal to release data and code, and the obvious politicization and money behind "big global warming".

I feel somewhat prescient. I predicted (before "ocean acidification" became the new big thing) that as global warming faded as a believable issue, a new and huge danger of CO2 would be discovered. And then bingo, there it was, OCEAN ACIDIFICATION!!!! OH NO!!!!

The bottom line, the green community hates fossil fuels and will continue with an endless line of scare attacks against CO2. It's pretty much a religious thing for them as far as I can tell. Maybe one of the attacks will eventually be right. So far, no.

That One Guy
06-24-2011, 06:46 PM
I will say, if there's got to be an overabundance of CO2 anywhere, I want it to be in the ocean. In aquariums, pumping in CO2 is the absolute #1 solution to getting your plants to grow and blossom. We'll F it up on land but the plants can rock the deep blue.

Que
06-24-2011, 07:36 PM
It probably has alot to do with the fact that 1) prominent global warming scientists were caught in collusion lying, and 2) there is an entire framework of politicians and businesses who stand to benefit immensely from continued global warming legislation...what's at stake is the entire economy.

There are plenty of reasons not to buy into the liberal religious aspect of global warming. Especially at a time when other liberal economic boondoggles have wrecked the economy and continue to hold it down.

So sayeth the tool

epicSocialism4tw
06-24-2011, 07:47 PM
So sayeth the tool

If a tool is brighter than you are, what does that say about you? Ha!

epicSocialism4tw
06-24-2011, 07:54 PM
I have been following the global warming science for some time now. It was apparent to me quite a bit before climategate that global warming science was about to jump the shark. Bad modeling techniques, refusal to release data and code, and the obvious politicization and money behind "big global warming".

I feel somewhat prescient. I predicted (before "ocean acidification" became the new big thing) that as global warming faded as a believable issue, a new and huge danger of CO2 would be discovered. And then bingo, there it was, OCEAN ACIDIFICATION!!!! OH NO!!!!

The bottom line, the green community hates fossil fuels and will continue with an endless line of scare attacks against CO2. It's pretty much a religious thing for them as far as I can tell. Maybe one of the attacks will eventually be right. So far, no.

There's a simple solution to the issue.

Develop the tech. Those who want to see a change in energy useage need to put their money where there mouth is, get up off their butts, and do the R&D themselves. Al Gore should be spending less money on Jet fuel and investing more money in the movement he claims to believe in.

Liberals currently pay much more money to political causes than conservatives do. Maybe they should think about paying less money to extremist liberal policy organizations like the Center for American Progress, the Tides Foundation, and the like and should instead build their own private business that develops cleaner energy at a lower cost. That's how you change the economy.

But they obviously don't believe in their own platform. Instead of replacing fossil fuels, they want to make energy so expensive that poor people can't use very much of it, so that they can replace it with more expensive, less efficient, and maybe marginally cleaner tech. Instead of going about a green revolution in an intelligent way, they want to go about it with a dictatorial edict. Completely anti-American.

It makes you wonder if they really want a green energy economy at all, or if they're just trying to swindle money from the companies who control that marketplace. Its the same thing they're doing with Obamacare.

fdf
06-24-2011, 09:06 PM
I've generally avoided this thread but got bored so I read it. Even if we cut down on the CO2 we produce per person, the out of control population will continue to increase the overall amount produced. At the same time we're dealing with a growing population, we're also dealing with shrinking forests and less plant life. All these extra people have to eat so we're having to exploit fisheries and make more pastures. It goes on and on and on.

The population needs to be controlled at some point. MOST populations will manage themselves but MOST populations don't have the capability to impact the earth in the way we do. GW is the least of my concerns because an out of control population and f'ing idiots doing stupid stuff will impact the things I'm supposed to be scared into missing long before the global warming factor kills everyone off.

Oh, and if given the opportunity, CO2 will make plants flourish just like they did when the dinosaurs roamed the earth. The problem is that we need that space so we can all have 800 more babies.

You are about 30 years too late. The Western world and most of Asia is on the verge of a population implosion. Spain, Italy, Japan will be unpopulated in 100 years unless they take huge amounts of immigration. No culture has ever recovered from birth rates as low as theirs. The US is barely at replacement fertility rate. South America is approaching zero population growth. Only Africa and the Middle East are still growing their populations rapidly and even there, the birth rate has plummeted in most countries.

fdf
06-24-2011, 09:09 PM
It makes you wonder if they really want a green energy economy at all, or if they're just trying to swindle money from the companies who control that marketplace. Its the same thing they're doing with Obamacare.

Actually, their currency is power. Have you noticed that every crisis has only one solution--global socialism? And if there isn't a crisis, they will make one up.

Hulamau
06-24-2011, 11:30 PM
Excuses, excuses.

We cant afford another 4 years of Obama. Period.

We need some change we can believe in.

I dont jump into a lot of these political threads ... I'm here mostly for the Orange and Blue .. a team we're all behind 100%!

Plus, I'd fight for anyone right to hold .. and post ... whatever viewpoints they wish, even if they're standing on thin legs in deep water. Not having read a lot of these Llama, I wasn't up to speed on how far to the right your views really are... But I've no problem with you debating them, even though I disagree on most points (not all) but most so far I've read here so carry on!

We can agree on other issues like hoping for a CBA ASAP!

DivineBronco
06-25-2011, 12:14 AM
I dont jump into a lot of these political threads ... I'm here mostly for the Orange and Blue .. a team we're all behind 100%!

Plus, I'd fight for anyone right to hold .. and post ... whatever viewpoints they wish, even if they're standing on thin legs in deep water. Not having read a lot of these Llama, I wasn't up to speed on how far to the right your views really are... But I've no problem with you debating them, even though I disagree on most points (not all) but most so far I've read here so carry on!

We can agree on other issues like hoping for a CBA ASAP!

sucks nobody jumped in to warn you of his unique type of trolling/extended performance art piece...could have saved yourself a bunch of time

Archer81
06-25-2011, 12:36 AM
This thread...

Oy. Double Oy.

Funny as **** though.

:Broncos:

Requiem
06-25-2011, 12:54 AM
The funniest part is how people don't believe we impact our environments. :)

cutthemdown
06-25-2011, 01:10 AM
Of course we impact the environment. I do think that we overestimate how long it takes the Earth to heal though. If you just clean up a waterway, the life comes back quick. Anyone who says we shouldn't be trying to cut pollution, heavy metals, fertilizers in the water etc etc is crazy. My argument would be that co2 probably not something that can take down the Earths ecosystem. Even if planet warms animals and plants will adapt. We will soldier on. But for sure we should all want clean beaches, rivers etc etc. Without environmental regulations our country would be a cesspool. What we need is a balance though, and often the environmentalist are very hard to work with. The are pretty passionate about their work and sometimes I get the feeling most of them like plants and other animals more then humans.

cutthemdown
06-25-2011, 01:11 AM
The funniest part is how people don't believe we impact our environments. :)

That is laughable. I can't believe that anyone really thinks we have 0 impact. Do we have a detrimental permanent impact is the question.

Archer81
06-25-2011, 01:36 AM
The funniest part is how people don't believe we impact our environments. :)


I dont oppose conservation and going green when possible. I oppose halting all development for a lizard or a guppie.A solution exists. One extreme(zero human footprint, deindustrialization) or the other(total development, come hell or high water) is not it.


I still await the day we find out that Pluto's moon is a mass relay. Then people I dont like can go live somewhere else and get harvested.

:Broncos:

Boomhauer
06-25-2011, 02:19 AM
The Earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling and some of the skeptics are not denying the earth is warming, what they are questioning is if this is a completely man made phenomena or if this is just part of a larger natural cycle. ...

Very true.
Though CO2 levels fluctuate, the Earth has a feedback system to prevent heating - water. If the Earth warms, more clouds are produced that reflect sunlight back into space and rain transports CO2 back down where it's dissolved. A sustained rise in surface temps cannot be cause by CO2 levels or the greenhouse effect.
A second feedback system, to prevent a permanent freeze, is volcanism. On Venus volcanism is soley responsible for its extremely high temps, not its CO2 levels, which makes refering to it as a runaway greenhouse completely inaccurate. Almost no sunlight reaches its surface because the density and composition of its clouds. Likewise, the hottest temps in Earth's history were not due to CO2 levels, but the accompanying volcanism.

Yes, the Earth is getting warmer, but there are many possible reasons. It could be a natural rise lasting centuries. It could be a temporary rise caused by a spike in CO2. But I'd bet it's a sustained climb caused by an increase in surface heat, mimicking volcanism. This increase is man made, which means global warming is man made, but the solution is not a war on CO2. It's to reduce the heat output of major cities and metropolis' who's development exactly matches the rise in Earth's temp.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_kVvGPTCwtbs/S_XIwpeGpRI/AAAAAAAAAHg/wj1n2fj8kJQ/S700/science_it_works_jpg.JPG

Requiem
06-25-2011, 02:49 AM
I do think that we overestimate how long it takes the Earth to heal though. If you just clean up a waterway, the life comes back quick.

Hardly.

I can give you dozens of examples [case studies] of areas that were polluted and entirely ravaged by human impacts decades ago, that have never and will likely never get back to the flourishing days they had before they were molested for all their resources.

When environments get impacted, the people get impacted, especially if pollutants get into water and other resources people use. This causes sickness, disease and transformations that inhibit populations for a long, long time. Some things just never recover.

The saddest thing about such madness, is it almost always happens to the poorest of people and in areas that are consistently exploited; and most people (as evidence of this thread) don't really give a hoot.

Moreover, the biggest madness in this thread are people's myopic views that AGW only has to do with cooling and heating cycles of the Earth, but I guess if you watch FAUXNEWS, that is the kind if 30 second sound-byte you will get. It's unfortunate that people aren't willing to go and educate themselves on this matter, but that is to be expected.

Our electorate is apathetic, uneducated and easily fooled by demogaugery. It is easier to play on the emotions of people than resort to sound debate and be introspective about science and other things. We want everything in an instant. For most, it's much more convienent to turn on the evening news and get the force-fed 30 minute to hour propganda than it is to go out and read a scholarly journal, investigative research or a book on such topics.

It's quite sad.

Inkana7
06-25-2011, 05:08 AM
RAPE THE EARTH

That One Guy
06-25-2011, 06:38 AM
You are about 30 years too late. The Western world and most of Asia is on the verge of a population implosion. Spain, Italy, Japan will be unpopulated in 100 years unless they take huge amounts of immigration. No culture has ever recovered from birth rates as low as theirs. The US is barely at replacement fertility rate. South America is approaching zero population growth. Only Africa and the Middle East are still growing their populations rapidly and even there, the birth rate has plummeted in most countries.

Are you willing to say that the world population next year will be less than it was this year? Are you going to say in five years, it will be less than this year? How about 10? 20? 50?

Trying to manipulate data for your argument's sake wont do it. The issue we have to look at is true numbers of people in the world. Do you see it declining soon?

ColoradoDarin
06-25-2011, 07:21 AM
I believe it is perfectly fair to say that, at a minimum, the hypothesis that increases in CO2 cause non-linear increases in temperature (the fundamental AGW hypothesis), is not proven and that some of the predictions of that model are wrong.

So as of now, the skeptics have the better case. Maybe the AGW folks will turn out to be right. Maybe they can improve their models so that they start making good predictions on future data. But I wouldn't bet on it based on the evidence to date.

Or, viewed graphically....

http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q227/dhaus5650/globalwarmingvsSunspots.jpg

fdf
06-25-2011, 07:59 AM
Are you willing to say that the world population next year will be less than it was this year? Are you going to say in five years, it will be less than this year? How about 10? 20? 50?

Trying to manipulate data for your argument's sake wont do it. The issue we have to look at is true numbers of people in the world. Do you see it declining soon?

Not next year. It takes time for the boomers to die. But in most of the world, boomers neglected to have babies. When they die, populations will crash and keep crashing because the boomers did not replace themselves. (This is somewhat oversimplified because boomers kids are not replacing themselves either--so the crash in population is across multiple generations, not just the boomers. But the falling population numbers will start showing up when the boomers start dying en masse).

Google this issue. You will find that Japan, China, Russia, Italy, Spain, Germany, Canada all have far below 2.1 (replacement) fertility rates. I'm not manipulating numbers or making them up. The fertility rates are what they are. You can look them up. If the fertility rate for a country is under 2.1 per woman, population will decline. That's demographics 101.

Here's a link you can explore on this subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories _by_fertility_rate

Light blue on the map means the country will almost certainly decline in population (fertility rate less than 2). Includes China, Russia, all of Europe, Japan, Australia, and Canada. I find it amazing that CHINA will be having a population crash soon--it's fertility rate is 1.71. But they will.

Green means country has slow or zero growth (fertility rate: 2-3). Includes US (zero), Indonesia (zero), India (slightly above zero), South America, even Iran and Turkey.

What is more, fertility rates are declining world wide over time and have been doing so for years. For example, from the above site, the UN estimates fertility fell world-wide from

Period Fertility Rate
2000-2005 2.65
2005-2010 2.55

Note, (per the UN, not me) the entire world is just a bit above zero population growth! It is heading for negative population growth if fertility continues to fall. Thus, the map on this page is a static snapshot. Draw that map in another ten years and there will be a lot more light blue countries.

The whole population explosion hysteria from the 60's has become a cultural meme that most people have not reexamined in light of the facts. In reality, your grandchildren are MUCH more likely to live in a world of rapidly declining human population than in a population explosion.

TonyR
06-25-2011, 08:06 AM
The US is barely at replacement fertility rate.

It should probably be pointed out here that the hispanic population, far and away the fastest growing demographic in the U.S., has a very high fertility rate.

That One Guy
06-25-2011, 09:55 AM
It should probably be pointed out here that the hispanic population, far and away the fastest growing demographic in the U.S., has a very high fertility rate.

And that was what I was ultimately getting at. Yeah, most of the US are barely replacing themselves but some are doing more than their fare share as well. If we barely replace and Mexicans keep pumping out babies, what happens to total population?

That One Guy
06-25-2011, 10:01 AM
Not next year. It takes time for the boomers to die. But in most of the world, boomers neglected to have babies. When they die, populations will crash and keep crashing because the boomers did not replace themselves. (This is somewhat oversimplified because boomers kids are not replacing themselves either--so the crash in population is across multiple generations, not just the boomers. But the falling population numbers will start showing up when the boomers start dying en masse).

Google this issue. You will find that Japan, China, Russia, Italy, Spain, Germany, Canada all have far below 2.1 (replacement) fertility rates. I'm not manipulating numbers or making them up. The fertility rates are what they are. You can look them up. If the fertility rate for a country is under 2.1 per woman, population will decline. That's demographics 101.

Here's a link you can explore on this subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories _by_fertility_rate

Light blue on the map means the country will almost certainly decline in population (fertility rate less than 2). Includes China, Russia, all of Europe, Japan, Australia, and Canada. I find it amazing that CHINA will be having a population crash soon--it's fertility rate is 1.71. But they will.

Green means country has slow or zero growth (fertility rate: 2-3). Includes US (zero), Indonesia (zero), India (slightly above zero), South America, even Iran and Turkey.

What is more, fertility rates are declining world wide over time and have been doing so for years. For example, from the above site, the UN estimates fertility fell world-wide from

Period Fertility Rate
2000-2005 2.65
2005-2010 2.55

Note, (per the UN, not me) the entire world is just a bit above zero population growth! It is heading for negative population growth if fertility continues to fall. Thus, the map on this page is a static snapshot. Draw that map in another ten years and there will be a lot more light blue countries.

The whole population explosion hysteria from the 60's has become a cultural meme that most people have not reexamined in light of the facts. In reality, your grandchildren are MUCH more likely to live in a world of rapidly declining human population than in a population explosion.

Well it is my very personal opinion that the fact that we're having to exploit the earth at the rate we are, we're overpopulated as is. Is the entire Amazon rainforest going to be destroyed before they start dying? Are all of the wetlands going to be gone and developed before this hypothetical decline finally happens? The country of Haiti is the ****hole that it is because they deforested the place in ignorant overgrowth. Are we going to get there before these people start dying?

Oh, and see above about my comment about playing with numbers. I'm not saying you're lying at all, I'm saying being selective can be deceptive. Some countries might be on a decline but until the entire world population is ready to decline, what one country is doing is really insignificant overall.

fdf
06-25-2011, 10:40 AM
[QUOTE=TonyR;3206432]It should probably be pointed out here that the hispanic population, far and away the fastest gr

Hispanics, Mormans, Evangelicals, and Orthodox Jews. Muslims also have a very high fertility rate.

Give it 60 years and that's what the US looks like.

fdf
06-25-2011, 11:14 AM
Well it is my very personal opinion that the fact that we're having to exploit the earth at the rate we are, we're overpopulated as is. Is the entire Amazon rainforest going to be destroyed before they start dying? Are all of the wetlands going to be gone and developed before this hypothetical decline finally happens?

Well, the boomers will start dying in large numbers in about 10-15 years. At that point, your desire to reduce world population will be fulfilled with a vengeance. I probably won't live to see but a bit of it. I suspect it will be a pretty rough time as population tumbles. But you tell me if the rainforests and wetlands are gone then. And tell me how symbolic measures to reduce CO2 using what may well be bogus AGW science will make any difference in that time frame. If anything, additional CO2 should be good for the rain forests (CO2 is important plant food).

It's fine to have a very personal opinion. But it's important these opinions be supported by actual facts before we go imposing one-world-government to solve the problems you opine we have. On population explosion, you're going to get your wish for a lot smaller world population.

The country of Haiti is the ****hole that it is because they deforested the place in ignorant overgrowth. Are we going to get there before these people start dying?

Probably not. My church has very active missionaries there. I see them several times a year and we talk about what is actually going on there. People are dying right now. But the problem is probably more cultural than population based. Hong Kong has a much greater population density than Haiti. Hong Kong has always been rich. Haiti has always been poor. The Dominican Republic (shares an Island with Haiti) is only a little less densely populated than Haiti and has 1/10th of the problems of Haiti. Haiti would probably be better off with fewer people. But until it gets a functional culture and political system, it's going to be an armpit.

Oh, and see above about my comment about playing with numbers. I'm not saying you're lying at all, I'm saying being selective can be deceptive. Some countries might be on a decline but until the entire world population is ready to decline, what one country is doing is really insignificant overall.

Well, I cited a UN study at the link in my previous post. One of the numbers I quoted from that study was the UN fertility figure for the entire world, which is rapidly approaching Zero Population Growth (ZPG). So no selective numbers there unless I should have included Mars :)

As for countries I did pick to highlight, I picked the four largest countries in the world. Obviously, changes in their population will have a disproportionate effect on world population because they are so big. So the numbers there are important.

Country Population Fertility
1 China 1,336,718,015 1.7 (falling population)
2 India 1,189,172,906 2.3 (almost zero population growth)
3 United States 313,232,044 2.1 (almost exactly ZPG)
4 Indonesia 245,613,043 1.7 (falling population)

Only one of the four (India) has a fertility rate above zero population growth and India's is nearing ZPG. The biggest (China) and Indonesia are at less than Zero Population Growth.

I could have gone further and picked the fifth most populous country in the world, Brazil. It went below Zero Population Growth fertility rate in 2007 (google "Brazil Fertility Rate" and you will find the link) and has continued down.

Bottom line: Intellectual conventional wisdom (especially greens) got stuck in the 60's on the idea that the world was going to go thru a population explosion that would never end. Our intellectual class has never challenged that assumption and just keeps repeating the same old trope. But the facts are a lot different now. You and I have both heard it so many times, we actually have to make an effort to even bother to research it. And an even bigger effort to believe that a "fact" we have known to be true all our lives is just wrong. It took me a while to accept it myself.

On this issue, the data takes you way outside the box of conventional wisdom. So again, I suggest you prepare your grandchildren for a world of imploding population.

fdf
06-25-2011, 11:34 AM
And that was what I was ultimately getting at. Yeah, most of the US are barely replacing themselves but some are doing more than their fare share as well. If we barely replace and Mexicans keep pumping out babies, what happens to total population?

On the numbers now, the net net is zero growth in the US among women citizens. Immigration has caused the small net growth in the US population.

That One Guy
06-25-2011, 11:58 AM
Well, the boomers will start dying in large numbers in about 10-15 years. You tell me if the rainforests and wetlands are gone then. And tell me how symbolic measures to reduce CO2 using what may well be bogus AGW science will make any difference in that time frame.



Probably not. My church has very active missionaries there. I see them several times a year and we talk about what is actually going on there. People are dying right now. But the problem is probably more cultural than population based. Hong Kong has a much greater population density than Haiti. Hong Kong has always been rich. Haiti has always been poor. The Dominican Republic (shares an Island with Haiti) is only a little less densely populated than Haiti and has 1/10th of the problems of Haiti. Haiti would probably be better off with fewer people. But until it gets a functional culture and political system, it's going to be an armpit.



Well, I cited a UN study at the link. One of the numbers I quoted was the UN fertility figure for the entire world, which is rapidly approaching Zero Population Growth (ZPG). So no selective numbers there unless I should have included Mars :)

As for countries I did pick to highlight, I picked the four largest countries in the world. Obviously, changes in their population will have a disproportionate effect on world population because they are so big. So the numbers there are important.

Country Population Fertility
1 China 1,336,718,015 1.7 (falling population)
2 India 1,189,172,906 2.3 (almost zero population growth)
3 United States 313,232,044 2.1 (almost exactly ZPG)
4 Indonesia 245,613,043 1.7 (falling population)

Only one of the four (India) has a fertility rate above zero population growth and India's is nearing ZPG. The biggest (China) and Indonesia are at less than Zero Population Growth.

I could have gone further and picked the fifth most populous country in the world, Brazil. It went below Zero Population Growth fertility rate in 2007 (google "Brazil Fertility Rate" and you will find the link) and has continued down.

Bottom line: Intellectual conventional wisdom (especially greens) got stuck in the 60's on the idea that the world was going to go thru a population explosion that would never end. Our intellectual class has never challenged that assumption since then and just keeps repeating the same old trope. But the facts are a lot different now.

On this issue, the data takes you way outside the box of conventional wisdom. So again, I suggest you prepare your grandchildren for a world of imploding population.

I get what you're saying. I really do. The possibility that it will shrink is there. According to your link, the world dropped from 2.65 to 2.55. That's great. That's still a lot of extra people though. And if every other logistical growth model is used as a guide, it wont be a simple shrinking of a population as you suggest. Things will fluctuate. The US and China both slightly grew their rate (.01 and .03, respectively) from the '00-'05 to '05-'10 numbers. I don't know why people do or do not have children but, as I said, I think we're currently overpopulated and I think it'll be a long time before the worldwide population actually goes negative. What happens to the world through the continued growth and then the eventual, hypothetical, decline is anyone's guess.

Hopefully there is a voluntary population implosion someday. I'd be quite surprised if I see it in my lifetime though and if all things go well, I have ~50 years left on this planet.

That One Guy
06-25-2011, 11:59 AM
On the numbers now, the net net is zero growth in the US among women citizens. Immigration has caused the small net growth in the US population.

Well I wasn't aware that was factored into birth rates but you seem to have more knowledge on the subject so I'll defer that one to you.