|
|
Post by bo862 on Oct 18, 2010 20:37:52 GMT -5
jobs
You posted this the other day…
“Denial can make otherwise intelligent individuals/groups/nations behave in a stupid or clueless manner, because they are too threatened by the Truth and are unable to process what is perfectly apparent to everyone. People who live in this Wonderful World go through their daily lives secure in the knowledge that their self-image is protected against any information, feelings, or awareness that might make them have to change their view of the world. Nothing--and I mean NOTHING--not facts, not observable behavior; not the use of reason or logic; or their own senses will make an individual in denial reevaluate that world view. All events will simply be reinterpreted to fit into the belief system of that world--no matter how ridiculous, how distorted, or how psychotic that reinterpretation appears to others. Consistency, common sense, reality, and objective truth are unimportant and are easily discarded--as long as the world view remains intact.”
According to some of your posts that you have made you seem to back the climate denial side. I’m curious to what facts, reason, logic or objective truth you use to back the claim that climate change is not being affected by man?
|
|
|
|
Post by axleman on Oct 19, 2010 5:33:25 GMT -5
Man can certainly make a mess of his environment, however one volcano eruption puts more (pollution into the air than all cars and trucks ever made until now). The earths climate has changed many times and will change again. Man highly overestimates his influence. We should be good stewards of the earth, but Al Gores "climate change" scare tactics is pure BS. If he was so concerned about it why does he live in a huge mansion spending thousands on utilities every year? He found a way to make MONEY and you people buy into it.
|
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Oct 19, 2010 7:23:02 GMT -5
The volcano eruption from earlier this year that shut down the airlines in Europe actually lowered the amount of CO2 being put into the atmosphere during the time period that the airlines were grounded. This was a comparatively small volcano to some in the past. I’m sure there have been plenty to cause more damage, but to cause more damage than billions of humans have in over 150 years of industrialization is not likely. Do you know where someone has documented this or done comparisons? Full article www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/19/eyjafjallajokull-volcano-climate-carbon-emissions Iceland volcano causes fall in carbon emissions as eruption grounds aircraftDavid Adam, environment correspondent guardian.co.uk, Monday 19 April 2010 17.20 BST Article history A larger effect on the atmosphere, though still small in global terms, comes from the mass-grounding of European flights over the past few days. According to the Environmental Transport Association, by the end of today the flight ban will have prevented the emission of some 2.8m tonnes of carbon dioxide since the first flights were grounded.The volcanic eruption has released carbon dioxide, but the amount is dwarfed by the savings. Based on readings taken by scientists during the first phase of Eyjafjallajokull activity last month, the website Information is Beautiful calculated the volcano has emitted about 150,000 tonnes of CO2 each day. Worldwide, the US Geological Survey says volcanoes produce about 200m tonnes of carbon dioxide every year Thanks for throwing me in with Al Gore’s “people,” but I have yet to see his movie. I don’t need a politician to tell me what to believe. |
|
|
|
Post by axleman on Oct 19, 2010 8:38:01 GMT -5
Sorry bo262, wasn't lumping you with Gore. I believe I got the info about the volcano blasts off a program on PBS called NOVA. It talked about the tons of CO2's pumped into the atmosphere by a single eruption. It was very interesting and gave alot of info about how past eruptions effected short term climate change. The earths climate changes that is a fact of nature. To believe that humans can start or stop it is a real stretch. Don't get me wrong I'm for as clean an environment as possible, but to say we are causing climate change is false. Many groups use this issue to push their political agendas.
|
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Oct 20, 2010 7:47:28 GMT -5
I agree with you that we cannot start or stop climate change, but looking at the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere shows that it has almost doubled since the 1950s. There are no other sources (volcanoes, fires etc.) of CO2 production that would explain this amount of increase… except burning fossil fuels.
The information collected from temperature and CO2 levels show that both have been rising since the industrial age began. That’s a good sign that we do have some type of effect on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Oct 20, 2010 7:52:20 GMT -5
Does Lake Toba sound familiar for that volcano on Nova?
|
|
|
|
Post by ktpelec on Oct 20, 2010 7:58:35 GMT -5
8+ Billion people on the planet and growing, to think we are not making some kind of impact is denial.
|
|
|
|
Post by axleman on Oct 20, 2010 8:05:09 GMT -5
Does Lake Toba sound familiar for that volcano on Nova? Yes I believe thats the episode. |
|
|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on Oct 20, 2010 8:46:45 GMT -5
Here we go again.......no one is in denial of global warming(climate change)......what I am in denial , that is man made......remember global warming(climate change) has happened many times before on this planet at a time when there were no humans...so please, let's stop the BS....and live life and stop worrying about it......recycle is for pussies...
|
|
|
|
Post by axleman on Oct 20, 2010 9:43:57 GMT -5
8+ Billion people on the planet and growing, to think we are not making some kind of impact is denial. Yes we humans can sure make a mess, we dirty up the air, water, and all the land we come in contact with, but to say we have changed the earths climate from cool to warm or warm to cool is BS. We as humans highly overestimate our importance here on earth. The earth is a finely tuned machine, our impact on it is minimal at best. We can choose to live in a mess or clean up our act it won't change the earths climate cycle. |
|
|
|
Post by ktpelec on Oct 20, 2010 10:58:57 GMT -5
Any type of discussion on the climate is just an opinion, as none of us are experts in this field and even the experts can't all agree.
They can prove that the earth has gone through heating and cooling periods throughout the last thousands of years. They can also prove there has never been 8+ Billion people on the earth at one time and what effect it may have on these cycles.
|
|
|
|
Post by axleman on Oct 20, 2010 11:09:53 GMT -5
Any type of discussion on the climate is just an opinion, as none of us are experts in this field and even the experts can't all agree. They can prove that the earth has gone through heating and cooling periods throughout the last thousands of years. They can also prove there has never been 8+ Billion people on the earth at one time and what effect it may have on these cycles. That's very true the experts do not agree. Science proves there is climate change. But science can't prove we have anything to do with it, the fact about 8 billion people making a difference is still yet to be proved. We can live in a cleaner environment without going overboard with regulations. Most of it is just common sense. China and India are experiencing what we went through 100 yrs ago, they to will figure it out and clean up their act. Their peoples health will demand it eventually. |
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Oct 20, 2010 18:43:35 GMT -5
This is not true, there is a strong consensus of scientists that study and report on this issue. A survey was done to ask experts that study climate… “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” The result was that 97.4% yes. The full report tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere can be measured; the amount that we emit through fossil fuels can be measured. We can also look at past conditions (volcanoes) to see how CO2 has affected the climate and draw reasonable conclusions to how much ( or how little) green house gases can contribute to climate change. The current CO2 levels are higher than they have been for over 400,000 years. Both of these point to the fact that man is the biggest contributor of CO2 and that changing CO2 levels change the natural energy balance of the planet. Scientists will never say they have "proven" it, but they are saying that they have a high degree of confidence that we are influencing the climate. By the way axle, im not meaning to pick on you in way, your the last one to post. |
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Oct 21, 2010 0:37:46 GMT -5
I assume everyone agrees that volcanoes have effected the climate in the past with aerosols that cool the planet or large amounts of CO2 to cause a greenhouse affect.
I just found this piece of info.
The amount of CO2 produced per year by volcanoes is .3 billion. The amount from humans is 29 billion. That's 100 times higher. If volcanoes have changed the climate with CO2 there is no reason that our CO2 is different.
I can't link to where I found it, I'm on my phone.if anyone needs to see it I will link it later
|
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Oct 21, 2010 21:02:22 GMT -5
“The same scientists that wrote what your talking about wrote for this guy too.”
If that’s the case he is basing his info on facts, not political party bs.
Other than Gore being a libtard, do you have any evidence proving him or the climate scientists wrong?
|
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Oct 21, 2010 23:02:10 GMT -5
"live life and don't worry about it"
There is no need to worry about it any more than you worry about changing the oil in your car. You occasionally need to stop, consider information - mileage / CO2 levels - and decide what needs to be done.
Doing nothing will eventually jam something up
|
|
|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on Oct 22, 2010 18:23:41 GMT -5
Leftist environmentalism placed all its eggs in the global warming basket; and that basket has been slowly unraveling for the last several years. Most recently the expose of the global warming scam among even scientists has made the entire movement the object of ridicule and well-deserved suspicion of its underlying motivations. A key feature of leftist environmentalism is that global warming (or global cooling, climate change or whatever) is primarily due to the evil behavior of human beings. The corollary of this is, of course, that the superior intellect of leftist elites make them uniquely qualified to control the evil behavior of the unwashed masses and save the planet! Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz138IWsoZA |
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Oct 24, 2010 6:21:51 GMT -5
This article is a bit outdated. There have been 3 independent investigations that have shown no wrong doing by anyone involved with the IPCC. A statement from the 3rd panel… “He added: "The honesty and rigour of CRU as scientists are not in doubt ... We have not found any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments." Here is a link to the article on the final investigation www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/07/climategate-review-clears-scientists-dishonesty The statements by Jones in this story were taken out of context. The article is full of these; here are a few examples. “Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing” All Information was found by the investigation panel, nothing was “missing.” Jones’ own admission of having poor organizational skills led to this claim. “There has been no global warming since 1995” This was taken from Jones at the BBC interview. Here is the question “B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming” Here is his response “Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level…” Translation… it did warm but it was not statistically significant. You can find these quotes in the Q&A interview with the BBC. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm Climategate was a scam on the part of deniers. Computers were hacked and then released to the public 2 weeks before a major meeting to continue or replace the Kyoto protocol. Unfortunately it probably was key in preventing any decisions from being made at the meeting. The bright side… 1. this shows that deniers still do not have any facts to base their argument on 2. that they will stoop to any level, including hacking, to “win” 3. that their best argument is to trash the climate scientists themselves This article tries to confuse the discussion and bash the former lead scientist for the IPCC. It shows no evidence that man is not contributing to climate change. |
|
|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on Oct 24, 2010 8:21:40 GMT -5
It's impossible to find anything wrong if you really aren't looking.....The Climategate Whitewash Continues
Global warming alarmists claim vindication after last year's data manipulation scandal. Don't believe the 'independent' reviews..online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704075604575356611173414140.htmlThe bright side… 1. this shows that environmental wackos believe in unicorns... 2 .that if freedom of information doesnt work....hack the mother f@#kers.... 3. that their best argument is my way or the highway |
|
|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on Oct 24, 2010 9:19:49 GMT -5
.........and remember once the word independent is used in a so called investigation, you know that it has to be bullshit!
|
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Oct 31, 2010 20:56:46 GMT -5
The best argument this author has is one person involved in the reviews is a former employee of the university. That must mean the results of all 3 panels need to be tossed out. Of course the rest of the article is the usual attempt to trash individual scientists.
Ktpelec is right, it is just our opinions. I would rather let my opinion be influenced by someone that considers facts, even if a few of those made bad decisions about turning over their emails.
The other side of this opinion is shown with the authors ( Patrick j Michaels ) employer. Cato institute which receives at least some of its funding (40% according to Michaels ) from the oil industry. Listening to these people is the same as listening to the tobacco “experts” that claimed smoking is not dangerous to your health.
|
|
|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on Nov 1, 2010 9:31:47 GMT -5
Ditto......
|
|
