The Environment Thread

[17to85]

 

One of the problems is you either hve to embrace it or be called a denier. No in between.

And I think they've hoodwinked some people into thinking we can stop the ice from melting. The earth has been hit and cold many times and will continue to be so. No matter what we do eventually the ice will melt. And eventually it will freeze again.

 

There is plenty of evidence that the current warming trend is both more severe and more rapid than the natural cycle of warming and cooling that the Earth has undergone historically.

 

I find this defeatist attitude very depressing. Did not humanity act quickly to save the ozone layer from CFCs? Granted that was a much smaller issue as our lives weren't dependent on CFCs, but the point still stands that humanity can act with self preservation in mind when we put our minds to it.

 

the natural cycle of warming and cooling is all over the map. Sometimes it's been slower in the past sometimes it's been faster. There is no historical trend. The chart of warming and cooling is all over the place. This idea that it's warming faster than it ever has in the past is hogwash and fear mongering. 

[Mark F]

edit

[Mark F]

 

 

he natural cycle of warming and cooling is all over the map. Sometimes it's been slower in the past sometimes it's been faster. There is no historical trend. The chart of warming and cooling is all over the place. This idea that it's warming faster than it ever has in the past is hogwash and fear mongering.

 

 

guess that settles it.

[Mark F]

 

http://www.desmogblog.com/harrison-Schmitt

 

LOL - Desmog blog - dedicated to discrediting anybody, especially scientists, who doesn't fall in line with the cultist doom-saying AGW apocalypse.  Oh no!  A scientist who says AGW fear-mongering is nonsense has a brother in law who once pumped gas at Exxon in high school, so therefore he is "in the pay of Big Oil!"  Just a load of total crap.

 

 

useful. thanks.

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

 

MYTH: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus causing most of the earth's warming of the last 100 years.

FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO₂ content of the atmosphere has increased by about 120 part per million (ppm), most of which is likely due to human-caused CO2 emissions. The RATE of growth during this century has been about 0.55%/year. However, there is no proof that CO₂ is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO₂ levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO₂ as a result.

Interesting argument. I'd like to read more. What's the source on this?

 

 

The World's Pals @:

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3

[The Unknown Poster]

Already linked.

[Fatty Liver]

 

 

MYTH: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus causing most of the earth's warming of the last 100 years.

FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO₂ content of the atmosphere has increased by about 120 part per million (ppm), most of which is likely due to human-caused CO2 emissions. The RATE of growth during this century has been about 0.55%/year. However, there is no proof that CO₂ is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO₂ levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO₂ as a result.

Interesting argument. I'd like to read more. What's the source on this?

 

 

The World's Pals @:

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3

 

 

This is a far more informative link to the "Friends of Science" activities, compiled by the "Center for Media and Democracy". 

 

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Friends_of_Science

[17to85]

 

 

 

he natural cycle of warming and cooling is all over the map. Sometimes it's been slower in the past sometimes it's been faster. There is no historical trend. The chart of warming and cooling is all over the place. This idea that it's warming faster than it ever has in the past is hogwash and fear mongering.

 

 

guess that settles it.

 

I don't feel like digging through my old notes from university to get you some sources, but trust me, I studied geology and geography so I know a bit about the earth. 

[kelownabomberfan]

 

 

 

MYTH: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus causing most of the earth's warming of the last 100 years.

FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO₂ content of the atmosphere has increased by about 120 part per million (ppm), most of which is likely due to human-caused CO2 emissions. The RATE of growth during this century has been about 0.55%/year. However, there is no proof that CO₂ is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO₂ levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO₂ as a result.

Interesting argument. I'd like to read more. What's the source on this?

 

 

The World's Pals @:

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3

 

 

This is a far more informative link to the "Friends of Science" activities, compiled by the "Center for Media and Democracy". 

 

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Friends_of_Science

 

 

I'd believe this so-called "Center for Media and Democracy" if they exposed Front groups, as they call them, on both sides of the debate.  This just looks like a hack job on any organization that dares challenge the warm-monger apocalyptic view.  A friend of mine has a double doctorate in mathematics and is a member of "Friends of Science", and believe me, he is getting nothing from "Big Oil".  He just wants to inject some truth into the discussion, which a lot of people don't want to hear, mostly because they've been so brain-washed that they don't want to have to think about this anymore.  He also got a kick out of those six guys that want to put the Friends of Science in jail, as he says it is nothing new, warmists are always trying to shut them up as they fear the giant gravy train of government cash is going to come to an end, and they'll have to find a new environmental issue to blow way out of proportion.  It is fun to watch my friend destroy elitist liberals at parties though, who are still parroting fear-mongering lines from Al Gore's Inconvenient Lie movie from 2007.  It's 2015 and not one of Al's scary predictions from that Oscar winning "documentary" have come true.  Of course they didn't come true, because they were total BS.

[basslicker]

 

One of the problems is you either hve to embrace it or be called a denier. No in between.

And I think they've hoodwinked some people into thinking we can stop the ice from melting. The earth has been hit and cold many times and will continue to be so. No matter what we do eventually the ice will melt. And eventually it will freeze again.

 

There is plenty of evidence that the current warming trend is both more severe and more rapid than the natural cycle of warming and cooling that the Earth has undergone historically.

 

I find this defeatist attitude very depressing. Did not humanity act quickly to save the ozone layer from CFCs? Granted that was a much smaller issue as our lives weren't dependent on CFCs, but the point still stands that humanity can act with self preservation in mind when we put our minds to it.

 

 

Global Warming is essentially proven to be a fraud.  They don't even say it anymore.  Its' 'climate change' now....which is genius actually, considering the earth is ALWAYS changing.  As for Global warming, it's a fraud as most have heard that there has been no general increase in global temperatures for over 20 years. It's called 'the pause' because when scientists working on government agendas have their lies exposed they make up some gibberish to cover it up.

[The Unknown Poster]

Breaking it down to something really simple, what is the answer to the question that if these scientists acknowledge the earth has and will continue to experience normal temperature cycles and at some point in earth's future it will

Experience both ice ages and melted ice caps, why would we try to fight it?

Even if man is causing an increase in temperature it is well within normals for the earth. And if there is no way to stop he earth from going through normal warming trends what are we doing?

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

 

 

 

 

MYTH: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus causing most of the earth's warming of the last 100 years.

FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO₂ content of the atmosphere has increased by about 120 part per million (ppm), most of which is likely due to human-caused CO2 emissions. The RATE of growth during this century has been about 0.55%/year. However, there is no proof that CO₂ is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO₂ levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO₂ as a result.

Interesting argument. I'd like to read more. What's the source on this?

 

 

The World's Pals @:

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3

 

 

This is a far more informative link to the "Friends of Science" activities, compiled by the "Center for Media and Democracy". 

 

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Friends_of_Science

 

 

I'd believe this so-called "Center for Media and Democracy" if they exposed Front groups, as they call them, on both sides of the debate.  This just looks like a hack job on any organization that dares challenge the warm-monger apocalyptic view.  A friend of mine has a double doctorate in mathematics and is a member of "Friends of Science", and believe me, he is getting nothing from "Big Oil".  He just wants to inject some truth into the discussion, which a lot of people don't want to hear, mostly because they've been so brain-washed that they don't want to have to think about this anymore.  He also got a kick out of those six guys that want to put the Friends of Science in jail, as he says it is nothing new, warmists are always trying to shut them up as they fear the giant gravy train of government cash is going to come to an end, and they'll have to find a new environmental issue to blow way out of proportion.  It is fun to watch my friend destroy elitist liberals at parties though, who are still parroting fear-mongering lines from Al Gore's Inconvenient Lie movie from 2007.  It's 2015 and not one of Al's scary predictions from that Oscar winning "documentary" have come true.  Of course they didn't come true, because they were total BS.

 

First off here is some of the funding source complete with supported facts:

 

Funding

The Globe and Mail reported that FoS has taken undisclosed sums from Alberta oil and gas interests. The money was funneled through the Calgary Foundation, to the University of Calgary and on to the FOS though something called the “Science Education Fund.”  [3]

The following from SourceWatch: [7]

In the course of an internal review and audit begun in March of 2007, the University determined that some of the research funds accepted on behalf of the Friends of Science “had been used to support a partisan viewpoint on climate change” and had returned unspent grant money on September 10, 2007, according to a Calgary Foundation statement (PDF).

As a consequence, the University advised FoS “that it would no longer accept funds on the organization's behalf”, according to an email from University legal counsel Elizabeth Osler sent on December 24, 2007 (PDF)

On February 17, 2008, CanWest News Service reported that UofC officials had shut down Cooper's “'Research on Climate Change' trust account”, and were about to advise Elections Canada of the University's ongoing review of the matter. [8]

SourceWatch also provides a grant history of the Calgary Foundation (PDF). 

 

Now, of course your friend doesn't get a cheque cut and signed directly from big oil, he may even be an unpaid volunteer- but a lot of the funding comes from alberta oil and the FoS were initially set up to muddy the discussion on AGW. 

 

Also, just because your buddy has a double Doctorate in Math (Good for him, very good accomplishment) does not make him any more knowledgeable or honest about climate change. 

[The Unknown Poster]

So receiving funds from oil does not mean the science is wrong. Oil would have an interest in this information gaining traction if it was in fact, the truth.

[17to85]

Look the climate is changing, that's pretty well studied and it most likely does relate to CO2 emissions. The real question is, is it worth all the hand wringing and doom and glooming and the millions, probably billions it costs to try and change what might not be changeable? 

[kelownabomberfan]

 

Now, of course your friend doesn't get a cheque cut and signed directly from big oil, he may even be an unpaid volunteer- but a lot of the funding comes from alberta oil and the FoS were initially set up to muddy the discussion on AGW. 

 

 

 

Sorry, but this is unadulterated BS.

 

And what about all of the funds that AGW lobby groups get from US sources with vested interest in "Green Renewables"?  Is that not also about "muddying the waters" and causing all kinds of angst about AGW purely for profit?  What is hilarious is that some of the biggest investors in "Green" technology are oil companies.  I'm sorry but I'm not buying the complete BS that all of these "front groups" as they are called are lobbying on behalf of "Big Oil". Big Oil doesn't need to lobby anybody, or muddy any waters whatsoever.  From what I've seen, the biggest liars and therefore biggest beneficiaries of the entire AGW hoax are organizations like Greenpeace and "Friends of the Earth".  Since the AGW scam went mainstream in 2007, they've taken in literally billions of dollars and grown their organizations exponentially.  Also - NASA now receives $4 billion a year to "study" this scam.  Of course they are going to promote this unproven hypothesis and scare everyone, their funding depends on it!  Why, if these sources you keep quoting are so devoted to the truth, are they not reporting on these "front groups" on the supposed "Green" side? 

 

No bigger fraud that I've seen in this whole mess was the completely concocted story about how cancer rates were so high in oil sands communities.  It was all a load of cock and bull.  But as it was revealed (by Ezra of course as no one else would do it) US environmentalists were funding the entire sham.  And yet, no one cared.  That's why I can't trust this crap that you are posting.  There is big money at stake on both sides, but you don't want to see both sides.

[The Unknown Poster]

No KBF it only works one way. The AGW crowd do their work out of a deep desire to save the universe and only

Take money from special interest groups because they have a shared love of the planet.

Lol

[max power]

Just look at it scientifically.  Who are the people that are the most concerned about climate change?  The left.  And what's their track record? So far they've been wrong about nearly everything.  Not to mention they have a tendency to try using any "crisis" to expand government size and control over people's lives.  What are the chances that in this one case they are not wrong and doing what they always do? Not very good.

[The Unknown Poster]

Im still waiting for a reasonable response to the question of what the climate change people intend to do when the earth goes through a natural warming cycle.  Giving them a free pass that humanity has caused a recent upward trend in temperature, what happens when its, you know, the SUN doing it.  All this talk of how horrible it will be when the sea rises....its inevitable.

 

Although I also assume that in 10-20 years we will be told its a new ice age.  Seems to be the climate change paranoia trend.  They actually taught us in school when I was a kid that it was an ice age we were entering.

[17to85]

There is a lot of bad science in this thread from all of you. 

[The Unknown Poster]

Thats the problem.  None of us (or most of us) are not scientists. 

[17to85]

Yet people feel obligated to comment despite that?

[The Unknown Poster]

Yet people feel obligated to comment despite that?

Are you suggesting no one should comment on any subjects of which they are not certified experts?  That would eliminate pretty much every thread and certainly eliminate all discussion.

[17to85]

No what I'm saying is that if people don't understand the science they shouldn't be commenting on the science. 

[The Unknown Poster]

No what I'm saying is that if people don't understand the science they shouldn't be commenting on the science. 

So only scientists should have an opinion?

 

There is contradictory "science".  Seems even scientists dont know.

[sweep the leg]

No what I'm saying is that if people don't understand the science they shouldn't be commenting on the science. 

The General Discussion forum is predicated on strong opinions from people who don't know what they're talking about.