We're so close to burning up in one fireball planet where we can't grow food that the logical alternative is to rape the economies of the developed world in order to produce a fraction less of the <2% of the earth's CO2 that humans are responsible for producing for a few years until developing nations can fill the void of our industrial production and pollution and standard of living that we now enjoy. You're willing to sacrifice the standard of living of your children, and so am I! Let's give some fear-mongering politicians with no scientific knowledge our support in signing corrupt treaties with a few nations which won't require they change anything but require us to cut back from producing everything we produce and require us to use far more expensive methods of production in order to meet stricter CO2 emission regulations. If anyone points out that many of these methods require more energy and more goods to be transported, causing them to actually produce MORE CO2 than the previous methods we used, we'll just call them ignorant and other names and site research indicating that the earth is 2 years from becoming a huge fireball. Hopefully they'll be too stupid and afraid of being labelled as ignorant or apathetic to the earth's impending doom that they won't notice that many regulations are ignorant and COUNTERPRODUCTIVE in and of themselves and that others serve NO purpose because they simply result in production/economic activity being moved somewhere else (ie, it happens anyway) and their only effect is to HURT the economies of the nations which enact the stricter "standards."

Yeah, that sounds like a very productive plan of action. It doesn't lower CO2 production any. How could it? You don't control the governments of China and India etc etc etc. Anything you make too expensive to make here WILL be made somewhere where they don't care about CO2 emissions. The only way to support stricter standards here is to IGNORE this and be ignorant. Maybe we should construct a huge wall to keep out their CO2 and winds carrying the heat their CO2 increases? Maybe whine about how it's not fair that their CO2 went ahead and did what we lowered our CO2 to avoid? No wait, that would be ridiculously ignorant and accomplish nothing. Like the legislation in question here.

Environmental fear-monger legislation DOES hurt economies. I suppose that does give a competitive advantage to foreign producers who produce inferior products at superior prices. If that is your motivation, it's a sure-bet to meet your goals. It won't accomplish anything else. And everyone with an education knows this.

Most studies show that a slight rise of temperature will cause a net decrease in damage/losses, human life and property, as a result of changes in weather patterns around the world. Some weather will become more damaging, but most that see change will become less so. The earth has seen far more significant changes in less time than the projected changes that COULD result from continued human emissions of CO2, and it tends to naturally maintain (relatively) its climate and no mass extinctions result from a 2-4 degree shift in temperature averages over 500 years. If one could make the case that we face horrendous climate shifts that will kill mankind, that would be a very serious threat that we would need to deal with. But one can't make that case. There are a countless multitude of figures from "scientists" whose educations don't appear to go beyond introductory high school level science courses where they learn about wavelengths of EMR. They don't know anything about solar activity and its effects on the earth. They don't know anything about the earth's orbit around this star of ours. They don't know anything about the many cycles on earth and the effects they see as a result of CO2 and the effects that these affected cycles subsequently have on other cycles and temperature. Everyone's got temperature indications from a time and place and conditions that they're sure tell us how much it has and is going to increase in the future, regardless of the multitude of differences in conditions (and temperature) between one place currently and an arctic ice mass 10,000 years ago. Claiming that one can make that case in order to support ridiculous legislation that DOES NOT SOLVE THEIR PROPOSED PROBLEM is just STUPID. If CO2 was going to heat up the earth and cause a chain reaction that killed mankind, legislating one nation's CO2 emissions would delay our extinction by what, a month? Or maybe not a month (or even at all), as other nations' CO2 emissions would increase as the business that legislating country lost would be moved to a less restricted area of production. Any real legislation aimed at solving a real problem would have to be global. All of this nonsense talk about one nation's environmental policies like they will ever do anything more than move the economic activity that produces CO2 is just childish nonsense.

Because wa cant pump enough stuff into the ocean to make any lasting effect aswell

ITS SOOO BIG....

"Fokker try to break a hole in this one, please."

  I would, but given that EVERY time anyone has done so in the past you have either dissapeared from the forum, had a nervous breakdown, started a new job that takes up all of your time, been fired and therefore can't affort to access the internet, or simply spat out your dummy and had a tantrum, I think that such an attempt would ultimately be a waste of my time.
  We are all well used to your games, Michael, which is why only the n00bs are trying.
  We are all used to your mind, Michael, which is why I expect you to spin the above line in your favour.

Sure, climate change is inevitable. Humans will screw up the planet, die out, and another chain of evolution will begin.

My problem with global warming is:
1) Its politics not science.
2) Small countries cutting down Co2 wont help anything
3) Theres not enough raw data
4) Theres not enough analysed data
5) There are WAY too many conclusions drawn prematurely

So sure, the globe might warm due to a gas.

But how long will that last? Do you know? No you don't.
Do you know all of the factors changing the Earths climate? No you don't.
Do you know if the Earth is even warming? No you don't.

There were dozens of cases of premature information leaks, i remember one was from NASA. They were VERY quick to deny the leaked findings, because they simply weren't true.

So if the Earth really is warming...tell me...would you rather be right or ready?

"Sure, climate change is inevitable. Humans will screw up the planet, die out, and another chain of evolution will begin."

in the long run i think so but not because of Co2 ^^

"My problem with global warming is:
1) Its politics not science."

the reports and expiriments are science... the conclusione people draft from those reports are politics
no need to blame the scientist for that.. there are far too many who agree on certain things and work idepently from each other

"2) Small countries cutting down Co2 wont help anything"

so lets all screw up earth together

"3) Theres not enough raw data
4) Theres not enough analysed data"

mostly because we had no similair situtione yet... so in 200 years we will know more... atm.. too many variables....
hart to simulate that...
still the problem i have with the scientis claiming there is no global warming is that they don't have a simulation at all..
they just say some parts are wrong in the simluation.. but have no simulatione which fits better...

so they could claim we need better simulations... fine...
so they could claim i'm not sure if there is global warming... fine...

"5) There are WAY too many conclusions drawn prematurely"

thats science ^^

"So sure, the globe might warm due to a gas. "

it will. no scientist on this earth will argue that.. unless he is a complete moron
(btw there is an experiment you might even do at home to prove that... though i only have a german website for it..)

but!
you can argue how much! since Co2 will warm up earth only just a litle and the secondary effects might increase earth more
yep might
noone knows for sure... but noone can prove that it wont... and thats the problem you have with clobal warming..
not the fact if Co2 will warm up earth... the questione is how much and will it have an impact at all
also the problem you have with certain secondary effects is that they have an impact time... a few you can trigger.. but they will kick in like 100 years later... there is even one with 1000 years     not like we will ever know... though there are enough that might kick in soon.. and after you trigger them.. you cannot stop most..

"Do you know all of the factors changing the Earths climate? No you don't."

who does know everthying about anything?

"Do you know if the Earth is even warming? No you don't."

all institutes facking there data?  nah...

so the questione is which site you choose... i dunno... is not that i understand those clima simulatione...
i understand that Co2 has an impact... but how much?... i hope i will just change the temperatur by 1 degree and thats it..
but why shouldn't i get sure and demand that nations do things agains Co2?

though there are more arguments to reduce Co2....  more Co2 is good for flowers... flowers grow quicker as 100 years ago.. thats fact... but at 500ppm co2 weath and other flowers we eat start losing proteins massivly...

so the question is why shouldn't we try to reduce Co2... do we really have to wait till the moment were we can say : [w00f!] now it is to late but now we all agree....     and if its wrong will anyone get damaget by redeucing polutione?
its not like it is hurting the economy that much... installing filters and such things... effecinter cars... there are countris who give a dam about that.. yeah satly...

oh and since Flint posted it at the begging... seelevel wont rise much because of melting ice... its just that warmer water needs more space... thermodynamic.... thats why in the last 100 years seelevel rised 10 cm...

> V.Kemp wrote:

> I'm ready. I have a lot of lead. Lead can be traded for ANYthing. I live in a pretty cold area. I'd love a 5-10 degree increase or more. I drive my muscle car getting 13 mpg as often as I can find an excuse to. Gas prices are awesome again. <

Am I right in my impression that you live in the north of GB?
If so you might want to check out what is happening to the Gulf Stream, and what the end result will be for our corner of Europe.

It's kind of funny actually; we British live on the same latitude as Moscow, yet we complain that we don't get weather like Madrid.

"With regards to this conclusion, the only debates are as follows: (A) How much is the Industrial Revolution (I.E. humanity) to blame for this spike? (B) Will this trend continue? (C) If this trend does continue, how will it impact human existence?"

Exactly. Questions that need to be conclusively answered - and fast.

you can also add:
D) Can this trend be changed by humans?
E) Which is the most effective method for change?

"This is merely Flint here expressing his own opinion, as revealed in the title it's self."

*Bang* on the money. This is opinion and no where near science.

hmz, what would doc dino say?

drdino.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Fact #1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Scientists who claim global warming have used computer models to "prove" their theory.

When these models are applied on 1920 historical data and run forward, they go so far off course as to defy logic (Random date pulled).

When the models are used to predict the weather next year you get Al Gore saying 10 feet of water rising next year. (Exaggeration, but the point is that they predict weather results way off course).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Fact #2 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When scientists who disagree with global warming make models, they predict the weather extremely close. In fact the last two years they have been dead on. (In general, not specific weather conditions, such as a wet cold winter with new lows across that geographic region, but not what the weather will be on 2-2-09)

There is a fellow who has been making the Farmers Almanac for a while. HE IS MORE ACCURATE THAT THE GLOBAL WARMING THEORISTS YEAR AFTER YEAR!!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Fact #3 ~~~~~~~~~~~

Simple students and stupid academics go on about the absorption rate of CO2. If it was so capable why are not each CO2 cluster the temperature of the sun? Or do they ultimately return heat to somewhere else? Simple students start losing their abilities here, because they say it should disperse, but they cannot answer the questions in full. Also what is the reflection capability of a "heat absorbed CO2 cluster"? They cannot even try that because they were told one thing, then left hanging. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~ Fact #4 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If we burned all the oil in the world today, all at once, and let all the gases up. I mean ALL OF IT. We would see:

A net gain from 0.028% CO2 in the atmosphere (1900), to a .08% concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere (now).

The gases:

Nitrogen (N2) (78.084%)
Oxygen (O2) (20.946%)
Argon (Ar)  (0.9340%)
Carbon dioxide (CO2)      (0.0383%)
Neon (Ne)  (0.001818%)
Helium (He)      (0.000524%)
Methane (CH4)      (0.0001745%)
Krypton (Kr)  (0.000114%)
Hydrogen (H2)      (0.000055%)
Nitrous oxide (N2O)      (0.00003%)
Xenon (Xe)      (9x10-6%) ----- Here the numbers start getting REALLY SMALL!!!
Ozone (O3)      (0%-7x10-6%)
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2)      (2x10-6%)
Iodine (I)  (1x10-6%)
Carbon monoxide (CO)     trace
Ammonia (NH3)     trace

I would note it takes a 1% to 5% level of CO2 to start making it hazardous to life. In a crowded theater with bad air circulation you might see 1%. It will make you a little drowsy.

OSHA, NIOSH, and ACGIH occupational exposure standards are 0.5% CO2 (5,000 ppm) averaged over a 40 hour week, 3% (3,000 ppm) average for a short-term (15 minute) exposure, and 4% (40,000 ppm) as the maximum instantaneous limit considered immediately dangerous to life and health. All three of these exposure limit conditions must be satisfied, always and together.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Funny Fact ~~~~~~~~~~~~

- Carbon Dioxide is 95.3% of the atmosphere of Mars (NASA)
- Average Temperature on Mars is -80

Gamer then you need to run around naked. Carbon Nano-fiber has a 100% energy transfer rate.

Gamer the models for Global Warming are 100% wrong 100% of the time. Thats not 10%, nor 90%, it's 100%. They cannot get even 1 hit in a million tries.

Additionally while we do not know "all of the oil" there is the known reserves, and if multiplied by 10 then we still can only achieve the numbers I really posted.

The Earth has been through periods much warmer, with MUCH MORE CO2 than now, and the ice caps did certainly experience some melting then. Which means that some years are not actually showing, which means that you are a coockoo for not following the entire thing through.

"When these models are applied on 1920 historical data and run forward, they go so far off course as to defy logic (Random date pulled)."

- That,s because computer models usually look at worst- case senarios. As in, if every possible negative factor that could occur would occur, then logic is defied because in reality, rarely will all negative factors combine at anyone time. To make this clear Flint, I'll repeat myself: computer models often show only what will happen is the worst, possible case, and as we know, worst possible cases rarely ever happen.

"The Earth has been through periods much warmer, with MUCH MORE CO2 than now, and the ice caps did certainly experience some melting then. Which means that some years are not actually showing, which means that you are a coockoo for not following the entire thing through."

-I believe the human race still had fur on every part of it's body back then, and eating woolly mammoth.

"There is a fellow who has been making the Farmers Almanac for a while. HE IS MORE ACCURATE THAT THE GLOBAL WARMING THEORISTS YEAR AFTER YEAR!!!"

- Flint, I'm getting really agitated with you and the other anti- climate change people on this forum. Predicting immediate weather changes (anywhere from tomorrow to next year or the year after) is VERY different from predicting long term, and global climate changes [CLIMATE DOES NOT EQUAL WEATHER I.E. YOU CAN NOT COMPARE CLIMATE TO WEATHER IN THAT SENSE]. If you don't believe me, then take an Introduction to Earth systems course at a REPUTABLE university or collage. I've explained this to you guys before, and even posted my uni notes from a course I did, but you morons still this weather/ climate misconception to try and prove climate change experts wrong.

"Worst Case is a bad method of science."

- Worst case scenario is not a bad method of science for two reasons: (1)it's not a scientific method "Scientific method refers to bodies of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.", therefore a worst case scenario is a conclusion drawn from the scientific method; and (2) worst case scenarios are used in many fields to give people an idea of what could possibly happen.

"So then the best case example is?"

- Nice to see American schools are teaching the finer points of grammar. And an example of the 'bast case' would be that global warming (whether caused by humans or not) can be reversed and the ice caps don't melt and as such don't flood NYC and London.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml