Ask Me Help Desk

Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum.php)
-   Current Events (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=486)
-   -   Climate Change? (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=579204)

  • Jun 1, 2011, 06:46 AM
    excon

    Hello again,

    All this gobbledygook is to mask your belief that if you ACCEPT the idea of climate change, you must support a massive change in the marketplace. You think it will have a deleterious effect - hence your disbelief...

    I think it could foment the economic BOOM that will sustain our global business leadership through the 21st century and beyond.

    But, instead of doing that, our business leaders RELY on congress to protect them. Instead of innovating, they've become lazy and fat. If congress wouldn't kiss their a$$, MAYBE we could be competitive again...

    Let me ask you this... If you could make a profit by LOBBYING congress, or COMPETING in the marketplace, which one would you do?

    I believe you succumb to politics, because I CAN'T believe that any rational human being TODAY believes that throwing trash into the air is a cool thing to do. Apparently, YOU do.

    To support your POLITICS, you embrace the most ridiculous argument ever heard. You somehow believe that BECAUSE you exhale CO2, and the trees LOVE it, it CAN'T be dangerous. THAT is the substance of your argument... It's RIDICULOUS on its face...

    I'm old. There was a time in my life when EVERYBODY believed that the earth was big enough to absorb all the trash that we threw on the ground, in the ocean and into the air. MOST of us found out that the earth CAN'T do that. How did that message MISS YOU??

    excon
  • Jun 1, 2011, 06:55 AM
    paraclete
    I just love the sort of logic we are getting into here
    1. if you believe in climate change you must believe in a market mechanism to control it
    What is this? Capitalist economics 101?
    2. CO2 concentrations are higher after a warm period therefore the warm period caused CO2 to rise
    So where did the CO2 come from?
  • Jun 1, 2011, 06:58 AM
    tomder55

    ... so in other words ;you believe in this pseudo-science because you believe it could open up new markets and business opportunities ;even though it's based on a proven fraud .

    You can take all your Al Gore marketing schemes and put them in a push cart and peddle them to the gullible .

    Quote:

    I believe you succumb to politics, because I CAN'T believe that any rational human being TODAY believes that throwing trash into the air is a cool thing to do. Apparently, YOU do.
    I've already answered this nonsense charge enough times.
  • Jun 1, 2011, 07:17 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    ....so in other words ;you believe in this pseudo-science because you believe it could open up new markets and business opportunities ;even though it's based on a proven fraud .

    I've already answered this nonsense charge enough times.

    Hello again, tom:

    Yes, we have been over it... Nonetheless, although you SAY throwing garbage into the air isn't good, I've NEVER heard you say we should STOP.

    Even if I accept your allegation of "proven fraud", and I don't, the OVERWHELMING worldwide consensus of scientific opinion, doesn't accept it. I don't Pick which science I believe.. You do - ala creationism..

    But, in the FINAL analysis, it DOESN'T matter what we BELIEVE, because we ARE going to run out of oil in ANY case. That IS going to happen. It REALLY is. So, the changes that I say are coming, are coming whether I say it or not. Now, we can let that FACT ruin our economy, or we can let that FACT be the basis for an energy revolution...

    So, whether we STOP throwing our trash into the air because it's a good idea, or whether we stop doing it because we run out of stuff to burn, we ARE eventually going to stop. I think we should take ADVANTAGE of that, instead of letting IT take advantage of us.

    Beyond that, as a winger, you DON'T seem to have much faith in our ability to innovate our way out of this. You keep on saying that the technology ISN'T there, but you won't INVEST in MAKING the technology be there. Now, it's true. I don't know if there IS another source. But, if that fact is going to take us down, I'm not going down without a fight.. You? Not so much.

    excon
  • Jun 1, 2011, 07:33 AM
    tomder55

    Quote:

    I've NEVER heard you say we should STOP.
    Indeed I have... as recently as my first reply to this posting .

    Quote:

    Beyond that, as a winger, you DON'T seem to have much faith in our ability to innovate our way out of this. You keep on saying that the technology ISN'T there, but you won't INVEST in MAKING the technology be there. Now, it's true. I don't know if there IS another source. But, if that fact is going to take us down, I'm not going down without a fight.. You? Not so much.
    A few centuries Alchemy ago was cutting edge and popular science in it's time. It would've been a complete waste of money to invest in it ;and I'm sure many kings did and got fleeced.
    Eugenics was all the rage at the end of the 19th and early 20th century .The National Academy of Sciences and the National Research Council were both proponents of that settled science . Aren't you glad our government didn't waste their money ? Most reseach in that abomination came from private philanthropy.

    The race to the moon was a proven doable before government investment was made . All the promise of atomic energy was already known before the investment was made .

    Now ;that being said ,I've never said there shouldn't be investments in alternate energy sources. That's just more words you've put in my mouth. What I don't think we should do is tax whale oil lamps to death on the promise of some future discovery of electric lighting . Let the discovery come 1st BEFORE the massive outlay of investment .
  • Jun 1, 2011, 09:00 AM
    tomder55
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    I just love the sort of logic we are getting into here
    1. if you believe in climate change you must believe in a market mechanism to control it
    what is this? capitalist economics 101?
    2. CO2 concentrations are higher after a warm period therefore the warm period caused CO2 to rise
    so where did the CO2 come from?

    You really don't understand where the CO2 came from during a warming period where humans didn't burn fossil fuels ? Aren't you the one who keeps on mentioning tectonics ? Volcanoes releasing CO2 and other particulates ? Here's another possibility . The methane trapped under permafrost or on the seabed is released due to the initial warming and turns into CO2 after some lag time .
  • Jun 1, 2011, 10:31 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    'Climate change happens '. I am looking for that bumper sticker if there is one out there.

    Here ya go, complete in 60's psychedelic color.
  • Jun 1, 2011, 02:18 PM
    cdad
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TUT317 View Post
    Hi Tom,

    A hypothesis is only a proposed explanation of phenomena. I think you mean the methodology is full of holes.

    Tut

    In this case hypothesis may be the correct word for the subject matter. The basis of the climate change and global warming came from looking at Venus. Then later brought into the measures of the scientific world around 1959 by a swedish scientist who was trying to avoid an ice age. He proposed that by adding CO2 to our atmosphere we could artificially warm our plant avoiding it or at least minimizing the effects of it. Those of us that lved through the 60's might remember that the big push at that time was that an ice age was coming.
  • Jun 1, 2011, 03:47 PM
    TUT317
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by califdadof3 View Post
    In this case hypothesis may be the correct word for the subject matter. The basis of the climate change and global warming came from looking at Venus. Then later brought into the measures of the scientific world around 1959 by a swedish scientist who was trying to avoid an ice age. He proposed that by adding CO2 to our atmosphere we could artificially warm our plant avoiding it or at least minimizing the effects of it. Those of us that lved through the 60's might remember that the big push at that time was that an ice age was coming.


    Hi Dad,

    Yes, in this case it is still very much up for debate. You are probably right about CO2 causing Venus to be a 'runaway greenhouse'. I think scientists are like everyone else. We all have a habit of thinking like cause must have like effects. If it works on Venus so why not here?

    To try and establish a DIRECT LINK between CO2 and Global warming was probably doomed from the start ( too many independent variables on earth). It even forced some scientists to act dishonestly when it came to establishing a link.

    To suggest that global cooling is the result of increased CO2 is to fall into the same trap as global warmists. What scientists seems to be saying now is there is a correlation between increasing CO2 and climate change. Is this correlation enough to demonstrate a statistical significance? If enough scientists in a particular area believe there is a strong correlation then you will get a consensus.

    Tut
  • Jun 1, 2011, 04:21 PM
    tomder55

    Quote:

    If enough scientists in a particular area believe there is a strong correlation then you will get a consensus
    Yes ,especially when their research funding depends on supporting the consensus..
  • Jun 1, 2011, 04:28 PM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    You really don't understand where the CO2 came from during a warming period where humans didn't burn fossil fuels ? Aren't you the one who keeps on mentioning tectonics ? Volcanoes releasing CO2 and other particulates ? Here's another possibility . The methane trapped under permafrost or on the seabed is released due to the initial warming and turns into CO2 after some lag time .

    No Tom what I am decrying is the false logic implicit in these ideas.

    No market mechanism is going to make any difference to climate change all it will do is make someone richer than they already are and impose costs on those who can least afford it

    I am aware that volcanic activity supplies much of our CO2. What we don't have is a record tying in volcanic activity to high concentrations of CO2

    I am also against the false logic of theory postulated as absolute truth. So you can wrap Mr. Gore and his ilk up in that one. All he has done is demonstarte that much deeper research is needed
  • Jun 13, 2011, 09:43 AM
    speechlesstx
    According to the evidence, carbon emissions have risen far more than 'experts' feared over the last decade. By now, with their worst fears realized, we should be noticing some significant global warming. Where's the warming?

    Quote:

    Ten Years And Counting: Where’s The Global Warming?

    Global greenhouse gas emissions have risen even faster during the past decade than predicted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other international agencies. According to alarmist groups, this proves global warming is much worse than previously feared. The increase in emissions “should shock even the most jaded negotiators” at international climate talks currently taking place in Bonn, Germany, the UK Guardian reports. But there’s only one problem with this storyline; global temperatures have not increased at all during the past decade.

    The evidence is powerful, straightforward, and damning. NASA satellite instruments precisely measuring global temperatures show absolutely no warming during the past the past 10 years. This is the case for the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, including the United States. This is the case for the Arctic, where the signs of human-caused global warming are supposed to be first and most powerfully felt. This is the case for global sea surface temperatures, which alarmists claim should be sucking up much of the predicted human-induced warming. This is the case for the planet as a whole.

    If atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions are the sole or primary driver of global temperatures, then where is all the global warming? We’re talking 10 years of higher-than-expected increases in greenhouse gases, yet 10 years of absolutely no warming. That’s 10 years of nada, nunca, nein, zero, and zilch.

    There is a difference between global warming theory and alarmist global warming theory. Global warming theory holds that certain atmospheric gases warm the earth. Unless other factors intervene, adding more of these gases will tend to warm the atmosphere. This is well accepted across the scientific community. Alarmist global warming theory entails the additional assertion that the earth’s sensitivity to even very modest changes in atmospheric gases is extremely high. This is in sharp scientific dispute and has been repeatedly contradicted by real-world climate conditions.

    Most powerfully, global temperature trends during the twentieth century sharply defied atmospheric carbon dioxide trends. More than half of the warming during the twentieth century occurred prior to the post-World War II economic boom, yet atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions rose minimally during this time. Between 1945 and 1977, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels jumped rapidly, yet global temperatures declined. Only during the last quarter of the century was there an appreciable correlation between greenhouse gas trends and global temperature trends. But that brief correlation has clearly disappeared this century.

    Which brings us back to the sharp scientific disagreement about whether the earth’s climate is extremely sensitive or merely modestly sensitive to minor variances in the composition of its atmospheric gases. Carbon dioxide comprises far less than 1 percent of the earth’s atmosphere. In fact, we could multiply the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere a full 25 times and it would still equal less than 1 percent of the earth’s atmosphere. The alarmists claim that the minor increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations during the past 100 years, from roughly 3 parts per 10,000 to roughly 4 parts per 10,000, is causing climate havoc. Real-world temperature data tell us an entirely different story.

    The Scientific Method requires testing a proposed scientific hypothesis before accepting it as the truth. When real-world observations contradict the hypothesis, you go back to the drawing board. For more than a century now, real-world climate conditions have defied the alarmist global warming hypothesis. This is especially so during the past decade, when temperatures should be rising dramatically if the alarmist hypothesis is correct. Temperatures are not rising dramatically. They are not even rising at all.

    Oh well, back to the old drawing board…
    Throwing trash into the air isn't good, OK? So where's the warming? We're having a nasty hot June here, but that's not proof of anything other than it's hot this year. Is there some delayed effect we should be expecting? Climate-wise, not Obama's promise for electricity rates to "necessarily skyrocket."
  • Jun 13, 2011, 09:51 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Throwing trash into the air isn't good, OK? So where's the warming?

    Hello again, Steve:

    It's out there.. You can't see it, and you can't feel it. You just have to trust the scientific community that it's there. After all, that's WHY we have scientists in the first place.. But, you don't trust 'em, do you? Ain't nothing to say about that.

    excon
  • Jun 13, 2011, 10:26 AM
    speechlesstx

    Ah, so it is a faith based exercise, eh?
  • Jun 13, 2011, 10:31 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Ah, so it is a faith based exercise, eh?

    Hello again, Steve:

    Yeah... I'm not a climatologist. I just believe 'em. I can't see the black hole at the center of the galaxy, but I believe it's there. You don't?

    excon
  • Jun 13, 2011, 11:13 AM
    speechlesstx

    Sounded kind of like someone describing God, so I get it. But with science, I tend to like it a little more concrete.
  • Jun 13, 2011, 11:25 AM
    talaniman

    I don't need science to tell me that the creek is rising, the poles are melting, the bees are disappearing, the fish are dying, the air stinks, the earth is shaking, and its one helluva storm coming.

    Call it whatever you want, but mother earth is doing her thing no matter what humans want to argue about, build at, or dig for. Leave it to us humans to think we have it all figured out, when in fact we have much, much more to learn.

    Doesn't matter what you call it, or who makes money from it, it doesn't take a scientist to know, that the Earth does what it does, and gives life as we know it a chance to live. So messing up the air, the water, and the land ain't such a great idea, not if you intend to live here very long.

    If all you are worried about is where you money comes from, is going, taxes, or how much something will cost you, boy will you be surprised when Mother Nature sends you a bill, because whether you like it or not, you got to pay it.

    But maybe you could pray for a loan, or more time to pay up. Good Luck with that! The climate is changing, and thats all the facts you need to know. All that matters is what we do about it, when the creek has risen, you can't breath the air, and ain't no food no where. Ya think the Earth will care about your 401K then??

    Drill, baby, drill!

    Okay, end of rant!
  • Jun 13, 2011, 01:26 PM
    speechlesstx

    I stated already, and repeatedly prior to that, that throwing our trash in the air is not a good thing. Just wondering where the evidence is that it's causing this climate change... and why we should turn to technology that just very well may be worse than what we have?

    Quote:

    Electric cars may not be so green after all, says British study

    Britain's Department for Transport is spending $66 million over the next year giving up to 8,600 buyers of electric cars a grant of $7700 towards the purchase price. Ministers are considering extending the scheme.

    The study was commissioned by the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership, which is jointly funded by the British government and the car industry. It found that a mid-size electric car would produce 23.1 tonnes of CO2 over its lifetime, compared with 24 tonnes for a similar petrol car. Emissions from manufacturing electric cars are at least 50 per cent higher because batteries are made from materials such as lithium, copper and refined silicon, which require much energy to be processed.

    Many electric cars are expected to need a replacement battery after a few years. Once the emissions from producing the second battery are added in, the total CO2 from producing an electric car rises to 12.6 tonnes, compared with 5.6 tonnes for a petrol car. Disposal also produces double the emissions because of the energy consumed in recovering and recycling metals in the battery. The study also took into account carbon emitted to generate the grid electricity consumed.

    Greg Archer, director of Low CVP, said the industry should state the full lifecycle emissions of cars rather than just tailpipe emissions, to avoid misleading consumers. He said that drivers wanting to minimise emissions could be better off buying a small, efficient petrol or diesel car. “People have to match the technology to their particular needs,” he said.
    But hey, at least someone is getting rich off them, right?
  • Jun 13, 2011, 01:38 PM
    NeedKarma
    Unfortunately Americans will not buy small, efficient petrol or diesel cars so alternatives need to be found.
  • Jun 13, 2011, 02:09 PM
    talaniman

    Ever see what a pot hole does to those small efficient cars? Not a pretty site.

  • All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:31 AM.