Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

[FoolKiller]

Good BBC synopsis of the "state of the ice", worldwide:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4315968.stm

"Back in geological history, about 55 million years ago, the Arctic was a warm (possibly 20C) shallow sea that would have been ice-free without the intervention of a human-enhanced greenhouse effect.

Natural variations may be playing a role in the picture seen now; but, as with other parts of the planet, it is the speed of change which alarms many researchers as much as the change itself."

Wait a second. We created a greenhouse effect and heated the Earth so that ice formed in the arctic? Maybe I read that wrong?


My immature side did find a great quote in that article though. ...the current rate of shrinkage they calculate at around 8% per decade.

 

[DeLoreanBrown]

The news from the Arctic does'nt look all that promising , the Antarctic has rock underneath & above sea level in the East , but the Arctic is pouring it's shrinkage into the Atlantic & that is no way good news , you can't argue when satellites show the kind of thinning in the kind of timescale that , if it were a joe Greenland would get used for a Toupeé

 

[Zardoz]

This...

Amazon "timber mafias"

..explains this to a large degree:

(Previously posted story)

We have an infinite capacity for greed and avariciousness, don't we? There is no "bottom of the barrel". We just keep going lower and lower.

 

[Zardoz]

More good news:

Kids, you're all screwed...

Energy demand will rise by 50% over the next 25 years, huh? You think that might have an effect on the biosphere?

 

[Famine]

I laughed when I heard this... Here's why:

[The IEA] says that under current consumption trends, energy demand will also rise by more than 50% over the next 25 years.

...

The IEA says the world has enough oil supplies to last until 2030

So... energy demand will increase by more than 50% over the next 25 years, which, funnily is the exact same time our oil will run out. So the headline is...

Global greenhouse gas emissions will rise by 52% by 2030

Yeah - then fall to zero overnight when the oil has run out?

IEA says ENERGY DEMAND will rise by more than 50%, environmentalists then assume it means OIL DEMAND - which cannot possibly be true because we don't have that much oil and would have no other systems in place when is suddenly runs out one day in 2030.

It really is simple-minded.

 

[Zardoz]

...It really is simple-minded.

Sure is. Ballooning population (9 billion by 2050), rapidly increasing industrialization, and steadily-increasing energy demand with no real alternative other than fossil-fuel burning to meet it. And, like you said, eventually the oil runs out. Only a simple-minded species would paint itself into this corner, huh?

The next two generations are in for it for sure, aren't they? Beyond that, let your imagination run wild.

 

[Famine]

9 billion by 2050? My arse. 9 billion by 2025 at the latest.

Define "no real alternative other than fossil-fuel burning". Taking a random G8 country... say... the UK... 20% of the UK's energy is produced by nuclear power. Around 5% comes from "renewables" (I hate that term). So, one of the largest economies on Earth has real alternatives.


Your lack of faith in humanity is disturbing though. Do you honestly think that 2030 will arrive and, pow, out of oil, oh bugger we've got no power? Really?

 

[Zardoz]

...Do you honestly think that 2030 will arrive and, pow, out of oil, oh bugger we've got no power? Really?

Really expensive power, and not much of it. A crucial factor in the phenomenal global economic expansion of the last fifty years has been cheap oil. That era is over. As the oil runs out, what will happen to the price of the precious commodity? $70 a barrel was just a little preview of what's coming.

Way more important: What will replace it? Do you honestly think anything can replace oil?

 

[Famine]

Yes.

 

[Danoff]

Do you honestly think anything can replace oil?

I do too.

 

[Zardoz]

Yes.

I do too

Okay, how do we do it? Hydrogen is a will-of-the-wisp, fusion is far away and may never actually be economically viable, renewables are puny sources by comparison, and uranium sources are also finite.

And what about all the products made from oil? How do we replace those?


(Here are a few blurbs, some hopeful, some apocalyptic. All agree: Things are going to get tough. They only disagree on how bad it might be.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0301-12.htm

http://www.communitysolution.org/

http://www.energybulletin.net/8110.html

http://www.energybulletin.net/9406.html

http://dieoff.org/

http://www.livescience.com/environment/end_oil_041214.html

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/



Then there's this guy:

http://www.vialls.com/wecontrolamerica/peakoil.html

He says the supply of oil is "infinite" and the Russians know how to extract it... )


Finally, how can you guys argue with good, solid science like this? :

 

[DeLoreanBrown]

The argument stretches back to a 1956 prediction by M. King Hubbert that oil production in the lower 48 U.S. states would peak in the early 1970s. He was right. The United States now imports nearly 60 percent of the oil it uses.

Kenneth Deffeyes, a Professor Emeritus at Princeton University, has taken Hubbert's logic a step further and predicts the world's oil production will top out late in 2005.

KwikKwote + Red Sky @ Morning is an associated v.recent publication by the aforementioned emeritus or his mentor

 

[Zardoz]

BBC story on the coming shortage of power in the UK:

"Doing nothing is not an option"

 

[///M-Spec]

Then there's this guy:

http://www.vialls.com/wecontrolamerica/peakoil.html

He says the supply of oil is "infinite" and the Russians know how to extract it... )

This guy also believed the aircraft involved with 9/11 were remotedly hijacked using a secret electronic override developed by the DoD and implied the attack was staged by the US government and NOT by terrorists of Middle East origin.

Gosh, I love the Internet.


M

 

[Danoff]

Good Fox News Articles on Global Warming

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,172188,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175241,00.html

 

[FoolKiller]

Good Fox News Articles on Global Warming

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,172188,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175241,00.html

Glad to see I'm not the only one reading the Junk Science article.

Friday's article linked the Global Warming Petition where over 17,000 scientists have signed on to say that they think the global warming threat is simply alarmism.

 

[Zardoz]

Good Fox News Articles on Global Warming

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,172188,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175241,00.html

Glad to see I'm not the only one reading the Junk Science article.

You guys need to keep up with things better. Even Fox News is finding it hard to stay in denial about what is happening worldwide:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175036,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,174956,00.html

The Competitive Enterprise Institute is really upset that they may be losing their media shill:

http://www.cei.org/gencon/032,04960.cfm

You can't blame them for being pissed, huh? They've always depended on Fox to read right off their punchlist in the past, and that may not be the case in the future.

 

[Danoff]

You guys need to keep up with things better. Even Fox News is finding it hard to stay in denial about what is happening worldwide:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175036,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,174956,00.html

I read those too.

 

[FoolKiller]

You guys need to keep up with things better. Even Fox News is finding it hard to stay in denial about what is happening worldwide:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175036,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,174956,00.html

So, 17,000 scientists are wrong and a one sided special program featuring Robert F Kennedy Jr is your proof?

Did you read this? I have only gotten about halfway through because I am at work, but so far it looks like a good case. Some of this has been brought up before and many of the questions this presents never get answers. Instead they are responded to by pictures of a glacier that is smaller than it was last year.

 

[Zardoz]

We can post dueling, contradictory references indefinitely:

http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/article_detail.cfm?article_num=666

We'll run out of oil before we run out of global warming debate pages to cite...

 

[Danoff]

...which is why I don't see how anyone can have made up their mind on the subject.

 

[Zardoz]

A new 650,000-year record

 

[Danoff]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,176649,00.html
Good Article ^

 

[DeLoreanBrown]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,176649,00.html
Good Article ^

An 'Adjunct Scholar' for the 'Cato Institute' Do you really have a Clouseau Dano ??? If Murdoch-FOX is your best source Danoff , you are not in a GLOBAL debate . Choose 'scholars' from outside the good old USA also and you'll have credibility on a Global Forum, as it is , whatchya gonna do NUKE ME if I say you can do better for proofs . America must be the only place left in the world that has a media Stalinist Russia would have been proud of. This guy will keep debunking 'coerced companies' & 'junk science' w/out ever offering proofs or alternatives because people with large soapboxes & SFA else will only ever feel threatened ,will never truly investigate and will always feel incensced by the growing tide of 'cranks' , 'greens' and 'moderates' in the real scientific establishments & businesses of Europe , Asia , Oceania etc etc

 

[Danoff]

Blah Blah, I hate the US, Blah Blah Blah

Care to actually discuss the points in the article or are we just going to bash Fox?

 

[DeLoreanBrown]

You cannot quote me saying i hate the US nation , retract that immediatly
Also, I can and will denigrate FOX and i certainly will disclaim against the Cato Institute as it is something you should be ashamed of quoting if you have any comprehension of the terms 'freedom' and 'truth' . Being a bully will align you forever with the tactics of bullying that not many residents of the USA utilize . Also ; I will re-iterate this is a GLOBAL debate about GLOBAL warming , do not be a freaking EEJOT and add to the problem and not the debate by closing your mind inside borders that only leave your argument , obtuse , unscientific and cowardly . This is the internet , you want to be a publicist for your great nation , then prove it has valiant qualities and not the mind-numbing tedium of threat.
In fact , i challenge you to do TWO things for me ( you won't , you're incapable & humourless to boot ) ; IN ONE POST support your argument with internet pointers that are'nt backed up by uour mammy&nukes i.e reference the debate outside the USA , keep it scientific , next have the courtesy to QUOTE WHOM YOU CHALLENGE FULLY , Danoff , instead of taking a bunch of sentences out of each post , out of context and adding your little put-down to each one . This is a Cato Institute tactic & you'll eventually have to come clean and admit employment by them if you continue.......

 

[FoolKiller]

Care to actually discuss the points in the article or are we just going to bash Fox?

It is a typical left wing tactic. If Fox News reports it in any fashion, even though Junk Science is a syndicated article, attack Fox and Rupert Murdoch. They do this because Rupert Murdoch is open about his political affiliations. However, by doing this they do not realize that they have pointed out how uninformed they are.

Anyone who actually knew about broadcasting since Fox News came on to the scene would know that Rupert Murdoch owns Fox News by his ownership of Newscorp, but he is not in any content controlling position. That is done by the Chairman, CEO, and President of Fox News Roger Ailes, who has a clause in his contract allowing him full creative and content control. He demanded this because when he was at MSNBC he was not allowed control and he foretold that they would not be the great station they wanted to be. When approached by Rupert Murdoch to launch Fox News he demanded full control so that it could be his vision. Murdoch agreed.

By saying Rupert Murdoch's name it brings about visions of a modern day Hearst and puts a bad taste in everyone's mouth. Anyone who knows how Fox News actually works realizes their ignorance of the subject.


Saying that Fox News and Cato Institute are biased but pretending that CNN and RAN are completely independent and honest is complete hypocrisy. At least the Cato Institute admits to having a conservative philosophy.

 

[Danoff]

This is the internet , you want to be a publicist for your great nation , then prove it has valiant qualities and not the mind-numbing tedium of threat.

I spend the majority of my time in this forum picking on the US. Don't try to tell me I'm trying to be a publicist, because if I am, I'm going about it in a pretty funny way.

I will re-iterate this is a GLOBAL debate about GLOBAL warming , do not be a freaking EEJOT and add to the problem and not the debate by closing your mind inside borders that only leave your argument

Ah... so you were keeping an open mind when you posted this?

Choose 'scholars' from outside the good old USA

Is this an open mind??

I'm not impressed DeLorean. You're proving yourself incapable of intelligent discourse.

 

[DeLoreanBrown]

,

 

[DeLoreanBrown]

You cannot quote me saying i hate the US nation , retract that immediatly

FOX news is now everybody in the US of A . Pravda is your friend . You & Fool Killer can back this to the hilt , it's obvious , 2 on 1 means you win by default.Not a bully bully . Oh No!

In fact , i challenge you to do TWO things for me ( you won't , you're incapable & humourless to boot ) ; IN ONE POST support your argument with internet pointers that are'nt backed up by uour mammy&nukes i.e reference the debate outside the USA , keep it scientific , next have the courtesy to QUOTE WHOM YOU CHALLENGE FULLY , Danoff , instead of taking a bunch of sentences out of each post , out of context and adding your little put-down to each one . This is a Cato Institute tactic & you'll eventually have to come clean and admit employment by them if you continue.......

& this challenging response..

Quote: Originally Posted by DeLoreanBrown

This is the internet , you want to be a publicist for your great nation , then prove it has valiant qualities and not the mind-numbing tedium of threat.
​

I spend the majority of my time in this forum picking on the US. Don't try to tell me I'm trying to be a publicist, because if I am, I'm going about it in a pretty funny way.

Quote: I will re-iterate this is a GLOBAL debate about GLOBAL warming , do not be a freaking EEJOT and add to the problem and not the debate by closing your mind inside borders that only leave your argument
​

Ah... so you were keeping an open mind when you posted this?

Quote: Choose 'scholars' from outside the good old USA
​

Is this an open mind??

I'm not impressed DeLorean. You're proving yourself incapable of intelligent discourse.

& You , my friend , are an OPEN BOOK , by doing exactly as I said you would in my VERBATIM quote of my post , numbered w/out edits before yours.

In fact here's a one liner ...

Quote: Choose 'scholars' from outside the good old USA
​

Is this an open mind??

What , if anything, are you trying to say with this here couplet , that it's impossible to choose sources outside the US ,or , more generously, that an 'open mind' is incencsed & offended by the implication that you would never have done otherwise , if the latter , proofs may be furnished .

Meh , there are far less frustrating subforums on this site & oth Forums that are focussed on resource issues . It may be a bit pointless here , in Libertyland .