Climategate

I think this is moving in circles. I have no clue (without offense) what you people want to say? That its difficult to find solutions or alternatives? Hell yes! But again. What is the alternative to not trying it? Not thinking about it? Not at least use what is possible at the moment with curent technology?

The real issue is that many argue they do not feel responsible cause others are not trying anything or that economy would see to much preasure the last conferece was seen by many people as a dissaster and dissapointing cause they did what they always do "talking", talking about how important it is to do something. Fact is that we have to start somewhere. That we reached a point where discussions, on a political level arent advisable anymore. Most of the things that start to affect humanity are not serious but they will be very soon serious enough what ever if its global warming or just a change in weather.

We have to realise that we actualy do NOT have any other choice. If for example Mars or Jupiter would be planets just like our earth nice, warm and viable. Then maybe, yes then we eventualy would have no reason to do everything that is possible.

I just think that there is a lot possible if certain groups, nations and companies would just "try" it. As said, it would be already a start to prevent places like those in Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe. If we would stop to send our waste in poor nations where they do not care or have not the resources to care about the waste. We still have a lot of tolerance in our own industry when it comes to technology and improvements. And cars should be really our smallest problem as they are maybe just responsible for 5% CO2 production. Already the methane of cows all over the world for food production is a lot worse. We should start eventualy to invest less in meat. To manufacture 2,2 pound meat one has to waste more then 15 pound of wheat and that only counts for the food as it doesnt even mention the needed energy for transportation and preparation. This will probably become even worse in the future considering the fact that China, Russia and India manufacture more and more meat since those states reach more and more economical wealth.
 
crni, as i said... the problem is all these people putting forth false replacements.

you can still go out and find a lot of enthusiasm for biodisel, yet it is not viable on anything other than barely over the individual scale.

for 1 SUV that gets 30 MPG on average driving going 10k miles a year, it would require over 10 fast food restaurants ( like mcdonalds ) to provide the cooking oil to make enough biodisel.

there are a LOT less than 10 mcdonalds per SUV in america i believe.

and thats without doing SUV + truck, SUV + truck + 18 wheeler/mac truck... you get the idea.

hydrogen fuel cells?

if the US, and ONLY the USA, converted over to 100% hydrogen fuel cells...

would require every atom of platinum mined worldwide since the 1700's, and would power our cars for 5 years. and thats with the breakthrough discovered by ford in 2007 that halves the platinum required per cell.

oh, and we could not make computer parts either. they use platinum in that as well.



we need REAL solutions. not this same bullshit that people keep talking about. until someone comes up with a REAL solution to the oil/nuclear problem, crying about it does nothing to help the situation.
 
TheWesDude said:
we need REAL solutions. not this same bullshit that people keep talking about. until someone comes up with a REAL solution to the oil/nuclear problem, crying about it does nothing to help the situation.
Click to expand...

Nuclear power is one of the solutions to the worldwide energy crisis. More nuclear power plants replacing oil and coal plants should be the first step to ecological recovery.
 
TheWesDude said:
and water vapor is worse of a greenhouse gas than CO2... so you would be putting a worse GHG into the atmosphere... how is THAT a solution????
Click to expand...

I believe thats the point I was trying to get at............

Now, as for producing hydrogen, we know how, yes it takes alot of energy. The powerplants typically are kept better than the thousands of cars that had been abused mechanically and produce all sorts of crazy shit instead of what they're supposed to. Also it localizes the pollution.
 
Well, back to topic beforing we all end talking about NWO or something.

http://sppiblog.org/news/a-response-to-michael-mann

"Back of December 18, 2009, the Washington Post ran an editorial (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/17/AR2009121703682.html) by Penn State’s Dr. Michael Mann, who attempted to explain why the recent release of the Climategate emails “doesn’t alter evidence for climate change.” But Dr. Mann—a central figure in the released emails—is speaking only from one side of the issue—his side. While the contents of the Climategate emails may not alter the evidence of climate change published in the scientific “peer-reviewed” literature, it is an entirely different matter when it comes to evidence of climate change that may have been kept out of the peer-reviewed literature. And the Climategate emails illuminate continual efforts from Dr. Mann and colleagues to limit the contents of the peer-reviewed scientific literature to only those types of results and conclusions that they liked. As such, the extant scientific literature of the past 5 to 10 years cannot be considered to be a fair representation of what it would have been had it not been manipulated. Thus, it is impossible to judge whether or not the evidence for climate change has been altered by the Climategate emails, contrary to Dr. Mann’s claims."

back to off-topic:

Tagaziel said:
Nuclear power is one of the solutions to the worldwide energy crisis. More nuclear power plants replacing oil and coal plants should be the first step to ecological recovery.
Click to expand...

well said :)

edit: just couldnt resist after seeing the river with all that trash. Im sure its also because of global warming...

http://online.wsj.com/public/articl...Kz2szefZXutgTSbaDI_20070608.html?mod=rss_free
 
The issue isnt the source of nuclear energy but that its not a clean energy unless we find ways how to take care about the waste.

While I agree that nuclear energy is a good form of energy it definetly will not save our planet. Unless we are talking about fusion which though is at the moment just still wishfull thinking and probably at least need 50 years before any real use.
 
I think the problem with climate gate had more to do with the problem of academics as fashion business than the theory of global warming.

It seemed that the scientist were really trying to make sure their data fit. Bad science, bad scientists. Dumb.

But as for the theory of global warming. When you can start seeing more of Greenland, when ships can travel the northwest passage all year, when polar bears drown and chunks of Antarctic ice the size of massachusetts are slipping in to the ocean- then I think its hard to dispute the theory.
 
well we do a lot of damage to our planet and thast what has to stop. Regardless if its global warming or the poltution in the ocean.
 
but since Co2 isnt a pollutant, we not only not solve anything, but we make things worse, since we spent trillions chacing a ghost...

which already started food riots...

Edit:

welsh said:
But as for the theory of global warming. When you can start seeing more of Greenland, when ships can travel the northwest passage all year, when polar bears drown and chunks of Antarctic ice the size of massachusetts are slipping in to the ocean- then I think its hard to dispute the theory.
Click to expand...

Why do you think its called greenland? it was green in the past, since it was also warmer...

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/NYT-vikings_greenland/NYT-vikings_greenland.html

poor erik :/

Polar bear population was estimated in 5000 in 1960. there are now 25000, plus they are great swimmers and dont drawn.

http://www.newsbusters.org/node/11545
http://news.aol.com/article/polar-bears-iceberg-photographer/553782

The passage was also open in 1903 and 194?, the causes are far more complex.

Ofc you see blocks of ice falling, its only natural, its part of the cycle. it was always been like that, they havent even increased in frequency (well, maybe because we are getting cooler since 1998). beware of media and images manipulation :/
 
actually, the reason the polar bear population is exploding ( it really is, by a significant amount ) is DUE to the melting glaciers throwing out large ice floes into the water.

you see, bears can only swim for 15-20 miles in a stretch, and these large ice floes allow them to take a break. the more of these ice floes in the water, the larger their hunting ground becomes. the easier it is to hunt. the less environmental damage these polar bears do by hunting in small areas.

its actually quite the opposite. global warming HELPS polar bear populations.
 
Oh no-- time for dueling websites?

Wall Street Journal?

obviously biased?
http://www.bearplanet.org/global-warming-polar-bears.shtml

Cannibal bears?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ng-hungry-polar-bears-resort-cannibalism.html

Another bias?
http://www.nwf.org/polarbearsandglobalwarming/

Dudes, come on. Glaciers are melting all over the world. Its not just arctic ice. Species are disappearing because of global climate changes. I accept that we live in a complex ecosystem, but really, how much obvious proof do you need?
 
Zeal said:
Why do you think its called greenland? it was green in the past, since it was also warmer...

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/NYT-vikings_greenland/NYT-vikings_greenland.html

poor erik :/
Click to expand...

There's nothing to show that it was very much greener than it is today, and green is also relative. Eirik the Red was outlawed first in Norway, then on Iceland. If you discovered new land and wanted to convince people to go settle down there with you, would you call it "grey-barren-icey-deserted-full-of-polar-bears-land"? Of course he called it Greenland. It's also a part of the old Norse folklore, poetry and literature to be ironic, so go figure.


Polar bear population was estimated in 5000 in 1960. there are now 25000, plus they are great swimmers and dont drawn.
Click to expand...

And what makes you think that the 1960 population was unaffected by human activity? I would normally not drown either, but I have a limit on how far I'm able to swim. As does the polar bear, much farther than me, but not indefinite.

And yes, there are warmer and colder periods from time to time, it's largely connected with NAO, right now it's 30-40 cm deep snow where I live, which hasn't been normal for like 20-30 years, and most likely we will see a cold period for some years now. But the average temperature has still increased significantly since they started measuring in late 1800s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
 
kahgan dont get me wrong, it was more of a joke, since greenland getting warmer being atributed to AGW is a casuality vs correlation argument, so is the erik calling it greenland...

But it was warmer, even more than now, and there was no CO2 being expelled then. It tells us at least that the earth getting cooler and warmer is natural and to due to our lack of knowledge still arbitrary.

The main reason for the exponencial increase in polar bear population is due to the outlaw of hunt. When there are no predators, if the animals reside in a habitat with all the requirements, they will blossom...

welsh, imho those articles are what the mainstream media keeps pumping, emotion and silly hipotesys. I guess noone checks anything. edit: (i meant the reporters/journalists, nowdays all research is done on twitter...)

Im not sure if you are aware, but a british took the minestry of education into court due to the fact it was mandatory for schools to play "incovenienth truth" without an "errata" that covered the scientifical mistakes. He of course won the case.

way before climategate, just because you dont listen on the mass media about the petitions signed by independent scientists (below one example) or how IPCC scientists used manipulated data and that data was the ones policy makers are using for all the changes in our way of life, that doesnt means its not true, only means mass media choose to report what it wants, opinion makers like they like to be treated.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/press_releases/monckton-response-to-gore-errors.pdf

http://www.petitionproject.org/

This link shows the 35 but only 9 were taken into court. One of them was the polar bears getting extinct when all observational data tell us they are blossoming... :/

oohh, wouldnt goebbles be proud of these days and age...
 
Zeal said:
kahgan dont get me wrong, it was more of a joke, since greenland getting warmer being atributed to AGW is a casuality vs correlation argument, so is the erik calling it greenland...

But it was warmer, even more than now, and there was no CO2 being expelled then. It tells us at least that the earth getting cooler and warmer is natural and to due to our lack of knowledge still arbitrary.
Click to expand...
The fact that a process happens separately from our involvement, does not mean that we cannot exacerbate it. How is this hard to understand for people? The fact that the earth already goes through warming cycles doesn't mean we can't make it even warmer. That's like saying "The sun warms my house, so it doesn't matter if I turn on the heating because that won't have an effect, warming already happens naturally!" It's nonsense.

Zeal said:
The main reason for the exponencial increase in polar bear population is due to the outlaw of hunt. When there are no predators, if the animals reside in a habitat with all the requirements, they will blossom...

welsh, imho those articles are what the mainstream media keeps pumping, emotion and silly hipotesys. I guess noone checks anything.
Click to expand...
Except the totally reliable (totally unbiased) media that pushes the opposite viewpoint?
Zeal said:
way before climategate, just because you dont listen on the mass media about the petitions signed by independent scientists (below one example) or how IPCC scientists used manipulated data and that data was the ones policy makers are using for all the changes in our way of life, that doesnt means its not true, only means mass media choose to report what it wants, opinion makers like they like to be treated.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/press_releases/monckton-response-to-gore-errors.pdf

http://www.petitionproject.org/

This link shows the 35 but only 9 were taken into court. One of them was the polar bears getting extinct when all observational data tell us they are blossoming... :/

oohh, wouldnt goebbles be proud of these days and age...
Click to expand...
Courts aren't any measure of a scientific process. Neither is pointing to scientists advocating the opposite of the opinion of the overwhelming majority of scientists in general. Because no matter how many different petitions you grab, the scientists who advocate the theory of global warming outnumber the ones who don't by a huge amount. And, given a lack of true expertise in both media reporting and public opinion, looking at what the consensus expert opinion would seem most logical.

And here's another thing you have to think about: if global warming is indeed just a myth, then the harm done by saving energy and cutting back on emission is still beneficial in the long term: developing solutions to this specific problems also im

But if global warming isn't a myth, and we do nothing, then we are screwed.

So take your pick out of extreme cases: either spend effort on something that isn't really hurting much, or watch human life as we know it end. No matter what odds you hang on these things, it's hard to think of a situation where doing nothing would be preferable.
 
My issue is with the bad science (not science at all tbh).

Regarding policy and your 2 option view, the problem is in my perspective even if AGW was true (i mean the harmfull type) they way policies are being made are not the adequate.

Plus not allowing 3rd world countries to develop and instead giving it a allowance (that can be pulled anytime - time the countries wasted) its not in their best interest i think...

just a curiosity: http://www.metro.co.uk/news/807821-pensioners-burn-books-for-warmth

"The fact that a process happens separately from our involvement, does not mean that we cannot exacerbate it."

it also doesnt mean we just can, with no data whatsoever that supports the model, to the point even the astronomical extrapulations still had to be manipulated... what does that tell you? i dont want to tell you, i want you to reflect...(since last time you asked me to tell you instead) the whole process is tainted, so why the push? and why the real ecological problems are being completely ignored? maybe theres more to it... :/

"Courts aren't any measure of a scientific process."

noone said they were, but they found that mainstream science (the "scientific concensus" like the media like to call it) didnt support al gores movie...

"Neither is pointing to scientists advocating the opposite of the opinion of the overwhelming majority of scientists in general."

Completely agree, afterall science is not a democracy. (pity the alarmists dont agree...) althouth i have to disagree with the "majority issue", since any opposition has been silenced by the media and goons (we now have confirmation from the source - IPCC) and like you said, the media are not reliable. Were do you hear about the concensus? mainstream media ofc...

And soon we wont be either hehe :p
 
Sander said:
The fact that a process happens separately from our involvement, does not mean that we cannot exacerbate it. How is this hard to understand for people? The fact that the earth already goes through warming cycles doesn't mean we can't make it even warmer. That's like saying "The sun warms my house, so it doesn't matter if I turn on the heating because that won't have an effect, warming already happens naturally!" It's nonsense.
Click to expand...

ok sander.

i have no doubt that humans are having an effect on our planet.

people in favor of AGW tend to agree that our global naturally occurring CO2 levels is about 125-175. and we are at 380 per latest numbers i have heard.

i contend that every 2,500 PPM of CO2 provides 0.1 Celsius of warming globally averaged over a year.

due to that, 380 is not a significant number as it is so low any warming due to human CO2 emissions and other greenhouse gases is negligible ( not non-existent due to such low quantities.

now... here is where the kicker is.

prove my position wrong.

dont worry, ill wait.
 
TheWesDude said:
Sander said:
The fact that a process happens separately from our involvement, does not mean that we cannot exacerbate it. How is this hard to understand for people? The fact that the earth already goes through warming cycles doesn't mean we can't make it even warmer. That's like saying "The sun warms my house, so it doesn't matter if I turn on the heating because that won't have an effect, warming already happens naturally!" It's nonsense.
Click to expand...

ok sander.

<inserst>

prove my position wrong.

dont worry, ill wait.
Click to expand...

Nicely done! Now you won the argument because there's no way he's going to be able to do that. Well, actually, he probably could.

You can't just throw out your own crazy ideas and then demand that the opposition prove you wrong. The burden of evidence is on you here, you prove your own theory right.
 
welsh said:
Dudes, come on. Glaciers are melting all over the world. Its not just arctic ice. Species are disappearing because of global climate changes. I accept that we live in a complex ecosystem, but really, how much obvious proof do you need?
Click to expand...

:P

_41359378_uncle_sam_riddell.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top