Documentary: "The Great Global Warming Swindle" [Archive]

rugatika

03-06-2007, 11:12 AM

Excelent point GoonBag. Suzuki is and Gore operate totally on hearsay and refuse to debate the science that shows that global warming is a constantly ocurring phenomenon on the planet and that CO2 increases are a result of global warming not the cause of it.

www.dailymail.co.uk/pages...ge_id=1965 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=440049&in_page_id=1965)

And then this poll conducted by David "fruitfly" Suzuki himself.

stevejanke.com/archives/217705.php (http://stevejanke.com/archives/217705.php)

hallsofmacadamia.blogspot...wrong.html (http://hallsofmacadamia.blogspot.com/2007/03/experiment-gone-horribly-wrong.html)

Suzuki has hidden this poll that he conducted on his website that shows 86% of Canadians think that the Kyoto targets cannot be met and that we should not even bother trying to meet them. If this is how he presents the science on global warming you can see how he deviates from the scientific method.

Incidentally, Climatecrisis.net is a website that receives funding from Al Gore and other people who have a financial and political stake in getting people to believe in AGW so that they can make millions from them and get politcal power. Therefore, all information on this website cannot be trusted. Furthermore, many points Gore has made on his movie "Inconvenient Truth" have been shown to be as honest as a Michael Moore film, with even the highly tainted political body IPCC disagreeing with the hyperbolic statements made by Al Gore in the movie.

And...one of the scientists who originally put forth the AGW theory is now not so sure. Claude Allegre now does not think that CO2 is the answer behind global warming.

www.canada.com/nationalpo...28f14da388 (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388)

qbochar

03-08-2007, 12:33 AM

Here is something to ponder if you believe in GW, CO2 is not the largest amount of emissions that contributes to this supposed theory but water vapour is.

What are they going to do? Prevent the creation of water vapour and stiffle all life on the planet?

rugatika

03-08-2007, 12:34 AM

CO2 makes up about 0.0383% of the atmosphere as of Jan 2007 and has increased by about 37% in the last 100years or so. So its increased from about .0290% of the atmosphere to 0.0383% (rough math - forgive me).

Water vapour makes up about 97% of the earths atmosphere. It is hard to measure exact water vapour concentrations in the atmosphere globally and so is hard to say if water vapour concentrations have increased over the same time period.

Hard to imagine that CO2 is a significant contributing factor to global warming on those numbers alone, never mind all the science that suggests global warming would be occurring regardless of CO2 concentrations.

GoonBag

03-08-2007, 02:20 PM

I really don't want to get too involved in this discussion but let me just say this:

It is a proven fact that the ozone layer in our atmosphere can affect climate change. It is also a proven fact that certain gases destroy ozone. It is also a proven fact that humans produce tonnes and tonnes of these same gases that destroy ozone. Now, I'm not saying that climate change is caused strictly by humans. But knowing these listed facts how can you say, with a straight face, that we as humans are not affecting climate change?

Ozone Depletion

03-08-2007, 02:55 PM

Ozone depletion is primarily caused by chemicals emitted into the atmosphere, but can only cause so much damage. The poles are the only areas that can be significantly effected by things like CFC's and other contaminants. This is due to the fact the the tropopause is closest to the earth at the poles. The chemical pollutants that are affecting the ozone layer are too heavy to climb any higher into our atmosphere.

GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX!!!!!!!!

I would recommend any pro-global warming people to take the time and contact the Climate Change Experts themselves instead of listen to the drivel put out by Liberalls and Tree huggers (no offense to you Tree Guy, I don't mistake your passion for vegetation as a bad thing). If anyone would like to talk to or e-mail people that actually no whats going on with the environment and/ or climate, spend some time contacting university professors, or heaven forbid maybe even some of the experts in the private sector (although they are all labelled as greedy, environmental hating, oil supporting, mongers)

Rug and Tree Guy,

you guys are doing a great job of revealin what is truly going on out there. Keep up the great work and thanks for posting all the articles. Most were a pleasure to read

rugatika

03-08-2007, 05:38 PM

Goonbag. Thanks again for your contribution, it is much appreciated. Ozone is responsible for about 5% of the "greenhouse gas" effect. Since it contributes to the greenhouse effect I am not sure how its depletion would be a contributing factor to anthropogenic global warming. Do you perhaps mean to imply that ozone depletion is negating the effects of global warming? Are you suggesting we increase the amounts of ozone depleting chemicals into the atmosphere.

"Tonnes and tonnes" may seem like a lot of gas but when you consider the scale of the amount of gas in the atmosphere it becomes quite insignificant.

Climate change has been occurring throughout all of history. CO2 levels have historically risen AFTER global warming has occurred as it is now doing. The Earth has been in a general warming trend for the last several thousand years. This is why we are not under a thousand feet of ice as was the case 15000yrs ago. This is why glaciers are continuing to retreat as they have for thousands of years. It is not a new phenomenon. Looking at past climate records the "normal" situation for Canada has been under ice.

CO2 levels have been increasing since the early 1900's yet temperatures started dropping in the 50's and 60's (remember the ice age scare of the 70's?). How could global temperatures have been dropping with an increase in CO2 during those years?

Human history makes up a very very tiny portion of earth history. For people to panic about a slight increase in temperatures is absurd when this has been happening for millions of years.

Now...how can you say with a straight face that humans are having any sort of an effect on global climate.

Chung

03-09-2007, 10:03 AM

I was listening to CBC yesterday morning, and one of thier topics was reporting on global warming by reporters. The issue was many reporters do not have the scientific background to understand waht they are reporting. One of the basic reporting laws is to have a balanced discussion and show both points of view. The point that CBC drove home was to say that global warming was man caused and ANY debate about it was wrong. What frosts me is that our national broadcaster is promoting muzzling of disenting views! How wrong is that? They went on to say that this should be for every issue where there is a comon consensus on a subject that disenting views or even debate should be stopped and not brought up in the media. I thought many people died in many wars to protect free speech and open debate! It wasn't the debate on global warming that fired me up, it was thej last part about stifling open public debate!!!!

GoonBag

03-09-2007, 11:12 AM

Goonbag. Thanks again for your contribution, it is much appreciated Wow, you sure are polite. What I am refering to is the layer of ozone that completely surrounds the planet earth. The destruction or creation of more ozone greatly affects the earth's climate...this is a proven fact and I don't believe that anyone, to my knowledge, has been able to refute that.

The term global warming is also very misleading and is often used by nay-sayers to try and refute climate change...and climate change is really the topic at hand. Some parts of the earth get cooler, while others get warmer.

At any rate, Canada's contribution to world pollution and climate change is so minimal (less than 2%) that there really isn't much we can do as a country other than try and educate the rest of the world.

Have a good one guys, this is a topic that will never ever get resolved on this board so I am done with the discussion. Its refreshing to see that everyone is being cordial to each other, though :) Later folks.

Craftyhunter

03-09-2007, 11:37 PM

Sorry Goon but nothing about the ozone layer depletion affecting climate change is "fact". As for "global warming" and "climate change" terms used by naysayers, I think you better check with gorsuki becasue they use the exact same terms.

Just because al gore told us, doesn't make it so.

Nazism is alive and well in the environmental ranks. Amazing how loss of freedoms is always driven by people who know whats better for me than me.

Tree Guy

03-10-2007, 09:53 PM

Thanks Ozo! Rug's the man with the facts, I'm just coming in as someone who has paid attention to the debate and has read as much as I can from both points of view.

I've said it before and I will say it again. I REFUSE TO BE SO ARROGANT AS TO BELIEVE THAT OUR SPECIEOUS CAN ALTER THE CLIMATE OF AN ENTIRE PLANET! It does not, can not, will not ever make sense to me. That is not to say that we are a benefit to our enviroment, for we are not.

With fairly limited natural resources, European nations had no choice but to 'green up' years ago. I certainly wouldn't be driving a pickup truck if gas was $3.00/litre! I know that's overly simplistic but bear with me.

The Kyoto Protocal was devised through the UN as a wealth transfer mechanism. Guilt the west and their liberal media into sending untold billions of dollars overseas. Surer than sh!t there would be some big name opportunistic, lying bastards jump on board. Liberals love to declare that the sky is falling and they are the ONLY ones who can save us from ourselves, etc, etc, etc. If there is anyone out there that can PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE enlighten me how spending billions to buy 'credits' with save the planet? The scam is in the brokering of the credits, where there are huge commissions to be made. Hell, Kenneth Laye from ENRON was even looking into it. This is a tax that has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with well-connected insiders and billions (if not trillions) of dollars. That is all. I just wish that people who stop giving the UN a free pass just because they are the UN. It has become an organization so corrupt and bloated that it make Olympic figure skating judges look good! End of rant! lol

rugatika

03-11-2007, 10:36 AM

So the movie is now up on youtube for those that wish to watch it. I haven't seen it yet as it is an hour long, but will watch it when I get a chance. Better watch it before they pull it.

video.google.com/videopla...2811497638 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638)

rugatika

03-11-2007, 12:06 PM

just finished watching it. Pretty convincing evidence that AGW is a huge HOAX.

Everyone should email this video link to everyone they know. There is no way that global warming is caused by CO2. No matter how much David Suzuki and Al Gore or any other make believe "scientist" screams and wails or write 2 bit opinion pieces in magazines...global warming or climate change, whatever these chicken littles would have you believe, is NOT caused by humans.

Once the dust settles I hope everyone will remember just who the people were and what they were trying to do to your families and children so that they could have THEIR way with YOUR money.

Oh and sorry the video is not on youtube as I stated earlier but on google video. Here;s the link again...

video.google.com/videopla...2811497638 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638)

It's a fairly long video (just over an hour) but is very well put together, easy to watch and I think it is very important for everyone to watch. Even if you believe in AGW you will have a hard time watching this video when you see how you have been duped and suckered into something so blatantly dishonest.

Shedcrazy

03-11-2007, 06:15 PM

Enough is enough...I have to say something.

You seem to have a hatred for Suzuki and Gore. You might want to focus your rant and use that energy and help promote environment programs that you think are important.

Do I think that Global warming is happening sure do...sure the science is there. Do I think it is solely because of humans...nope. Do I think humans have helped it along...sure do. You can not change landscapes and use raw resources at the rate we have and not effect the environment around us.

Can one species have that kind effect??? Sure can. We have the largest foot print of any species on the planet and have a huge need to consume non-renewable resources. Thinking that we can't effect what is around us is how many of the species on this planet have gone extinct. "We can't kill them all"...sure we can.. The dodo, passager pigeon, etc.....We can be the sole reason species are no longer here so why can't we effect the climate around us???

If you are so against Suzuki are you against these environmental concerns: Reducing energy? (think he has a energy efficient bulb factory??), Conservation? Green energy development? Species at Risk??? Reducing pesticides???

Does he ride around in a big bus and use a lot of fuel....sure he does. Should he correct it..I hope so... Has he and others like him educated many of our youth about the importance of the environment and what we can do to improve it....Sure has....To me that is the most important thing...

Thanks for saving me from the evil men.....and my money...But I think I will still change my bulbs and look for ways to stop wasting energy and do my part for the environment.

kanonfodder

03-11-2007, 06:50 PM

I think Rug's dislike stems from the fact that these two are the self appointed faces of the green movement, so who else should we take to task? I agree we have an impact but as others have said I am not so arrogant to believe we are the sole cause. I believe weather is cyclilic. If you watch the news why are the record highs and lows usually over 60 years ago? Why was there drought in the 30's in Ab and sask? Wasn't alot of industry happening here....what about the science telling us about the next ICE AGE during the 70-80's.....I for one don't by the hype, but will try to cut down anyways as there is nothing wrong with that....

rugatika

03-11-2007, 07:32 PM

I have a hatred for these two clowns as much as I have a hatred for Ken Lay of Enron, Adscam thieves, nigerian money scammers, and phony contractors that con little old ladies out of their savings. There is absolutely NO evidence to suggest that CO2 contributes anything to current miniscule gains in global warming (and NOBODY has been able to offer any proof of this). This is why they and all others of their ilk refuse to be caught in a debate with anyone that understands what is going on. They cannot support their thesis with any data other than computer models that have been torqued out of any semblance of reality.

Politicians are already starting to talk about carbon taxes and so on. Talk like this can significantly affect capital investment in a province or country.

There is nothing wrong with switching to flourescent light bulbs, driving more fuel efficient cars when possible etc. They are all good ways of saving money and have as a benefit reducing fuel consumption which will lower demand for fossil fuel reserves.

And incidentally, the banning of the use of DDT (pesticide) has cost millions of people their lives in Africa to malaria. This was brought on a by a scare by the book "Silent Spring" by Rachel Carson who Al Gore has said was his initial inspiration to the Green Movement.

Shedcrazy

03-11-2007, 09:03 PM

We can argue this forever....and to be honest I have not seen any facts from you either. I would bet that most of the articles and science is backed from industry though.....

This issue gets debated all the time...The gloabl warming side is not afraid of the debate and they will not spend time everytime someone writes an article on some science web page.

As for DDT you are not quite correct. DDT is still used in Africa and many malaria riddled countires. It is less effective in areas due to the life cycle of mosquitoes is continous in those regions. They also use it more effectively now instead of mass spraying in the past that got into the food chain due to bio-accumulation.
I beleive either last year or the year befoe the WHO passed the continued use of DDT for most of its projects.
I see you picked this pesticide due to the fact there is still a debate on if it really does effect humans and wildlife.....And the nice tie in to Gore...

You can point out errors in most ways of thinking and people. I guess if you want to focus on all the negetive instead of doing anything about it that is fine...

Sorry but I like the idea of carbon taxes, paid Ecological services and green power. If it hurts or slows down industry that is fine...I want a great place for my grand kids to grow up in....

rugatika

03-11-2007, 09:37 PM

Well if you want to leave a planet of global socialism for your grandkids , where the elite decide how we live our lives while they jet around the planet sipping champagne, you're headed down the right track. That's not what I want for my nieces and nephew though.

And by the way...I have posted a ton of facts with scientific studies backing them up that all demonstrate why global warming is NOT linked to CO2 increases. Neither you, nor any of the other alarmists have shown a single scientific study that proves CO2 causes global warming. Watch the video and tell me where their science is wrong. I can tell you why Al Gore is wrong and I have. Now it's your turn.

Shedcrazy

03-11-2007, 10:39 PM

Here is a link for you from your friend...all about people from the "other side" lol

www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/Science/Skeptics.asp (http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/Science/Skeptics.asp)

The movie that Gore NARRATED equals your movie and more...

I mean why keep showing links....Most things that I have read here are not facts, just like the polar bear post. Most of the links that are posted on this topic are easily cleared up...Just like DDT you are just not correct. You are just holding on to CO2 what about other greenhouse gases in combination with CO2.

Are the elite not flying around right now???? I think you got global socialism and the world that we have right now mixed up!

Duffy4

03-11-2007, 10:50 PM

Shedcrazy

He has a drum and he just can't stop beating it. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Robin

rugatika

03-11-2007, 11:01 PM

CO2 is the gas that we are being told we need to reduce in order to stop global warming. It has been identified as the "evil" gas. That is why it is the only gas I refer to.

Your link to the Suzuki site failed to provide a single link to any data that demonstrate how rising CO2 levels CAUSE global warming. It only referred to some eco rags (Mother Jones etc).Global warming has happened in the past several times. Each time this has happened CO2 levels have increased AFTER global warming (800 year lag) from the Vostock ice core data and another independent ice core survey which I can't remember. Furhtermore, global warming as caused by greenhouse gases mean that tropospheric temperatures should be warmer than they are. Global warming has been taking place for several thousand years with some ups (medieval warm period) and downs (Little Ice age) with no correlation to CO2 levels but with a strong correlation to sun activity. This is science. This is historical fact.

Smearing the names of scientists that disagree with you is NOT a scientific argument. If you want to discredit them...show me where they are wrong. This is what Suzuki et al have failed to do. They refer to IPCC committees and concensus that have been fabricated. Several scientists that were members of the IPCC commitee had to threaten to sue to have their names removed from the IPCC report because they didn't support the "science" behind it.

Shedcrazy

03-11-2007, 11:17 PM

Actually if you read most of the info at the website you have posted and the one you did..you see that there is three gases they are concerned about:

Carbon dioxide is the main contributor to climate change, especially through the burning of fossil fuels.
Methane is produced naturally when vegetation is burned, digested or rotted without the presence of oxygen. Large amounts of methane are released by cattle farming, waste dumps, rice farming and the production of oil and gas.
Nitrous oxide, released by chemical fertilizers and burning fossil fuels, has a global warming potential 310 times that of carbon dioxide.

I am not sure where you got that I am swearing names...I do believe you have with Gore and Suzuki. I have never heard of most of the sites you have linked nor know their backing is what I meant.

www.pembina.org/climate-change/science-overview.php (http://www.pembina.org/climate-change/science-overview.php)

Here is another one...and why don't you look at the links on these two sites...

I am sure you have heard of them...!!!

I am tired of this...and it can not be solved here. The bottom line is that being energy efficient is a good thing. There are a lot of people trying to get that message out...not sure what the message of don't do anything helps...

rugatika

03-11-2007, 11:33 PM

I'm getting kind of tired of this too. Good arguments Shed. I will have to respectfully disagree with you as I am still unconvinced that greenhouse gases are playing a significant role in global warming.

Suffice it to say that when people like Suzuki claim the science is complete my spidy senses go into overdrive. Science should always be open to debate and skeptical scientists opinions should always be welcomed.

As the old well wishing goes..."May you live in interesting times." And to that I can easily say that we most certainly do and will likely continue to do so for several years to come.

Thanks for the links and the reading assignments.

Jamie Hunt

03-11-2007, 11:37 PM

Well I hope that Rug is correct about all of this, couse if Zukie is right we are all screwed.

Jamie

Tree Guy

03-12-2007, 12:53 AM

Hey Shed, you are the first to provide a semi-solid counter argument! Thank you. Also, thank you for being respectful, I will respond in kind! Insults accomplish nothing.

I will disagree with your opinion about Rug not providing facts. Rug has posted dozens of links to support his opinion. How many have you put up? Probably more than I have.

The point is that neither Rug nor I dispute the fact that mankind is an awful presence on this planet. We harm more than help. All of us will agree to that. Where we disagree is the extent as to how we harm. I cannot believe that humans can change the climate of a 6 billion year old planet in 200 years of industrialization! It is self-serving science. Shed, thank you for the respectful and insightful responses, but in your next post, could you please post what the percentage of industrialization is in comparison to the age of the planet! My guess, a blink of an eye or less.

Shedcrazy

03-12-2007, 10:44 AM

Well I don't have all the facts at my finger tips as for increases during the industrailization era..here is a chart that shows the increase...yes there are times that CO2 has increased and decreased but look at this curve!

www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/Science/ (http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/Science/)

As far as facts posted...one video that is slanted just as bad as AL Gore narrated movie isn't fact.

One month is the coldest is just using statistics to your advantage.

I have my dubts about that poll....The people that visit Enviro sites wold not vote that way....It would be like running a hunting poll on PETA and hunting winning in a landslide...now come on...Let's be real!

More facts from the sites I have posted already
"Human activities have caused a dramatic increase in the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the earth's atmosphere. Since about 1750, the concentration of CO2 has risen from about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv) to reach 377 ppmv in 2004 — a value that has likely not been exceeded during the past 20 million years. CO2 is a "greenhouse gas" (GHG) that captures heat and warms the atmosphere."

Note sure what else you want!

I can say this at least at the end of day if my side is wrong and we have decreased fossil fuel use, became more enegy efficient, destroyed less habitat..then I still think that is a great victory....Sitting around trying to find faults in everything and not improving anything and worrying about if Suzuki is driving in a bus or Gore has stock in a green company isn't improving anything. Does anyone that is arguing against global warming work for industry??? have stock in some type of industry???? I am imagine some do..does that mean your opinion means nothing????

As for as Suzuki I am have no real opinion. I think that he done alot for the environment...has he made a living form it sure...we all need to earn money. I do not agree with some of his views though and that is everyone right. I liked his idea of the nature challange but disagree strongly on a few of his points.

I think that people thinkthat the effect on the planet or that the increase is so small (CO2) that it can't be helped or stoped. That kind of thinking doesn't solve anything.

GoonBag

03-12-2007, 11:23 AM

Go get 'em Shed. I tired of this argument 3 different threads ago as it will never be won but you are fighting the good fight. People need to look at the facts, see past their prejudices and not listen to hearsay. You've provided some very intelligent arguments here that completely refute the so called nay-sayers. Keep up the good work and let's just hope there are more people like you who can educate the masses.

Shedcrazy

03-12-2007, 01:14 PM

There are a lot of people trying to educate and modify our behaviour, just most people don't listen or want to spend their time arguing instead of trying improve anything. Both sides are guilty of talking and no action.

To use a quote that posted here from a scientist that has not switch sides but thinks it is not as bad as first thought
"The world would be better off, Dr. Allegre believes, if these "denouncers" became less political and more practical, by proposing practical solutions to head off the dangers they see, such as developing technologies to sequester C02. His dream, he says, is to see "ecology become the engine of economic development and not an artificial obstacle that creates fear."

Tree I try to be polite and not let my passion for the outdoors and environment control my emotions when I debate. I work in the environment field and run into anti-green people all the time (I am not for one second saying anyone on this site is, I believe hunters are the first line of true conservationist).

How can you think we are having an negative impact and not have the chance to change the climate? If you change the planet why can't you change the climate around it? If you change one variable then the other variable is likely to change.

Enough for now....this is a very interesting topic. Thanks for the debate and I am glad we can keep our emotions in check.

xsniper

03-12-2007, 05:32 PM

Who was measuring CO2 in 1750 ????? Or is this another computer model, seems to me in the 1700s you would get your head lopped off for stealing air.

Tree Guy

03-12-2007, 09:49 PM

Hey Shed!

Thank you for being polite, I'm trying to do the same. If everyone can try to be rational and listen to everyone else's responses and not let emotion take over we can generate a fantastic conversation.

Goon, if you were tired of this 3 threads ago, why are you still posting now? Just a question.

Shed, you said you worked in the environmental business. So do I. I have been an arborist (tree guy haha) for 15 years now. I have done more for the environment than any 'hugger' that has ever harassed me about cutting a tree down. I work 60 hours a week on average, and statistics prove that I have a very good chance of not coming home at the end of the day (174 US deaths in 2005). I have a degree in economics, yet I save trees for a much lower paying living that beats the sh!t out of me every day, and could leave my kids without a father every day because I believe in what I am doing. My days in the business are coming to an end as, well frankly I'm tired and beat up. There is only so much abuse one body can take for so many years. Yet I still believe, and after all of this, I still disagree with the notion that ONE SPECIEOUS can change the environment of an entire planet. It MAKES NO SENSE! The SUN warms our planet, based on recent evidence about the polar ice caps on Mars melting... I'm not brilliant, but I can certainly put 2 and 2 together. Thanks for the great posts, don't give up, this is fun!

rugatika

03-12-2007, 10:55 PM

Shed I think we all agree that reducing use of fossil fuels is a good thing. I for one think that Alberta should lead the way in nuclear electricity. It is by far the cleanest of the practical energy sources.

I know all the arguments why CO2 is being blamed for global warming, but I just haven't seen the evidence that it causes global warming. When I look at past graphs of global temperatures there seems to be a high correlation with temperature and sun activity. There also seems to be a more gradual correlation with CO2 but with temperature increasing and then CO2 levels increasing after temperatures have increased.

I read on the Suzuki website on one of the links (gristmill I think) on how to talk to a climate skeptic and they failed to explain the lag time for CO2 increases AFTER temp increases.

There seem to be many scientists coming out of the woodwork with stories of being shunned, labeled deniers, and Tim Ball has received 5 death threats so far all for presenting an opposing view of what is causing global warming. David Suzuki has tried scaring little kids, stormed off of radio talk shows when asked about opposing science, and chastised Alberta as being part of the problem when he didn't seem to have any problem burning Alberta diesel in his bus. Scientists that disagreed with the IPCC reports had their names left on the report as part of the 2500 people that agreed with it and only those that threatened legal action finally had their names removed.

All of this is to say that the facts just don't add up and the IPCC, UN, Al Gore, David Suzuki etc, have all been suspect in their respect for the scientific method. One has to wonder why and what it is that they are trying to hide or cover up.

Anyway, good to have an intelligent discussion about it

rugatika

03-12-2007, 11:27 PM

Here's an article in todays newspaper regarding the sun.

www.canada.com/nationalpo...e1e02dced7 (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=551bfe58-882f-4889-ab76-5ce1e02dced7)

Tree Guy

03-13-2007, 12:22 AM

Rug, I think he gave up. That's to bad. Would if we are wrong. Maybe shed is right. Who knows. Shed, keep up the fight. We appreciate a rational response. You do not yell, you counter, this debate needs intelligent counters! Thank you for that, and lets keep it that way!

GoonBag

03-13-2007, 09:17 AM

Goon, if you were tired of this 3 threads ago, why are you still posting now? Just a question.

Because I like to p*ss off little trolls like you. Just a statement.

I still disagree with the notion that ONE SPECIEOUS can change the environment

Come on. Are you REALLY that uneducated? Are you REALLY that naive? Go back to school for crissakes! Shed has alreadyt pointed out several species that mankind has wiped out from the ENTIRE PLANET. You're bringing down the collective IQ on the entire board with ignorant comments like that.

rugatika

03-13-2007, 09:20 AM

"Isn't the only hope for the Planet that industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?" - Maurice Strong. - architect of the Kyoto Accord

rugatika

03-13-2007, 09:51 AM

SHed...on that CO2 curve you posted I noticed that Suzuki claims the NORTHERN hemisphere is warmer than at any other time in the last 100yrs. "And it has already begun - global average temperature has risen by 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1900, and the northern hemisphere is substantially warmer than at any point during the past 1000 years."

What about the southern hemisphere? Has the southern hemisphere cooled or stayed the same? If only one hemisphere is warming wouldn't that point more to a solar influenced warming rather than a global warming caused by atmosphere?

www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=18 (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=18)

motls.blogspot.com/2006/0...lobal.html (http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/09/southern-hemisphere-ignores-global.html)

Just a thought.

osterb

03-13-2007, 10:56 AM

I still sit on the fence on this one. Hugely political. No one knows. To dismiss it could be catastrophic.

rugatika

03-13-2007, 12:47 PM

"There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming."

The above from: www.clearlight.com/~mhieb...imate.html (http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html)

Read the whole page. CO2 levels as LOW as they are now are very rare in the history of the planet. The global warming/CO2 link is growing weaker and weaker.

"We are actually in an ice age climate today. However for the last 10,000 years or so we have enjoyed a warm but temporary interglacial vacation. We know from geological records like ocean sediments and ice cores from permanent glaciers that for at least the last 750,000 years interglacial periods happen at 100,000 year intervals, lasting about 15,000 to 20,000 years before returning to an icehouse climate. We are currently about 18,000 years into Earth's present interglacial cycle. These cycles have been occurring for at least the last 2-4 million years, although the Earth has been cooling gradually for the last 30 million years."

NOTE: interglacial periods happen at 100,000yr intervals and last 15 to 20 thousand years. We are currently in an interglacial period and have at most, 2000years left, although we could slide into an ice age at any time. IF CO2 is truly contributing to global warming we had better start pumping it into the atmosphere as fast as we can in the hopes of extending this interglacial as much as we can. The human population can survive warmer weather. An ice age would significantly reduce the amount of land that could be used for agriculture and would truly lead to mass starvations. If there is anything we should be worried about it is global cooling NOT global warming.

"Incidentally, earth's temperature and CO2 levels today have reached levels similar to a previous interglacial cycle of 120,000 - 140,000 years ago. From beginning to end this cycle lasted about 20,000 years. This is known as the Eemian Interglacial Period and the earth returned to a full-fledged ice age immediately afterward."

nafegavas

03-13-2007, 05:55 PM

Back in the Jurassic period, Oxygen levels were higher as well. Only 2000 years left? Time to top up those RSPs boys. David Kawasaki sucks;) .

Shedcrazy

03-13-2007, 11:59 PM

Sorry boys had to take a break!!! I just got in from the CWD public meeting in Edgerton. I like to be involved in many debates at the same time!! LOL

Anyways lots to read here and I will...Just want to let you know I haven't given up...Just other proirities....

Just one quick point though.....I see we are quoting the Jurassic period and CO2 levels....WE do know what happened in that era don't we....LOL

Tree Guy

03-14-2007, 12:15 AM

Dear Goonbag,

I want to sincerly appologize for lowering the collective IQ of this thread. I did not realize that my comments were so ignorant as to bring everyone down, so , to Rug and Shed, I am sorry to drag you into the sorry ignorant sespool that is my uneducated life.

Goon, thank you for helping me see the light, I am currently looking very seriously into going back to school, as maybe one day, years from now with lots of hard work and dedication I might, just might be able to send up a post as intelligent, educational and insightful as your last one. You've changed my life, man, thanks. Keep up the good work! Now if you'll excuse my, I have to go have sex with my sister. Have a good night!

Sincerly,
Tree

Shedcrazy

03-14-2007, 12:20 AM

After a quick view I must ask where do you find these crazy blog sites.....????

I think the main point you are missing in all this is that since industrailization, CO2 levels have dramaticly increased at a rate that we have not seen. Yes we might have higher levels with different climate conditions in the past but the point of the "green movement" and the "Global Warming movement" is that man has increased greenhouse gases at an unnatural rate and is the main cause of this increase. It might be small in your big picture world but is still there and still happening...

Let's compare this to a human life...say the average life scan is 75 years right now. You add heavy drinking and smoking and the life scan decreases..... Do we as a society think it is ok to be a heavy drinker and heavy smoker??? No it not as acceptable as it once was.... No you think it acceptable to continue what we are doing and increase greenhouse gases and possibly decease the lifescan of the planet????

I am sure the tobacco industry fought the "science" too....Just like big industry (oil/gas and other heavy industry) is fighting the science now.....

Like I said before science is not black and white and I might be wrong but at least I have tried to improve and I can handle that lose......And your side???

And now I am tired!

Tree Guy

03-14-2007, 12:22 AM

Hey Shed, welcome back, man. We need you here in order to compensate for me bringing down the thread's collective IQ. Quick, say something smart!!

Shedcrazy

03-14-2007, 12:25 AM

SMRT.....haha

I will forgive you! Just don't do it again!

rugatika

03-14-2007, 12:39 AM

On my way to bed so a quick note. The "Crazy blog site" where I got that last bit of info was actually from a guy who has done a paleo mapping website which has won scientific web awards from scientific american for 2000 and 2001. Doesn't really matter where the information comes from though. He has noted all his sources etc. The information is all sound, if it isn't I'm open to having it corrected.

My point is that the planet has seen higher CO2 concentrations than we have now and sometimes the temp was hotter and sometimes it was cooler and sometimes it was the same. Seems to indicate a wide range of temps associated with a wide range of CO2 concentrations which would indicate to me anyway that CO2 concentrations are not what we should be focusing all of our energies on. If the planet is headed for a cooling regardless of our current actions, maybe it is not such a good idea to be handicapping industrial progress and innovation right now trying to move global temperatures a fraction of a degree in the direction they may be heading anyway.

I'm all for conservation etc. I just don't think global socialism via carbon trading etc and huge transfers of wealth out of Canada into other nations or companies owned by Al Gore is the way to go. Especially when the science behind all the hysteria is highly suspect. The science is not supporting global warming via human increased CO2 levels and the climate history does not support it. Computer models torqued up by IPCC and UN hacks, enviro-nazis, and Al Gore support it though.

Just some thoughts to ponder. Better get to bed.

Shedcrazy

03-14-2007, 01:08 AM

Actually meant the blog site you referenced the post before...not the web site. Anyways I still feel picking facts that suit the arguement is just as suspect. I mean you can find anything on the internet and use statistics to prove any point.

I think we are starting to go around and around....The main arguement you have is there is no proof that greenhouse gases are causing global warming. I am partly saying you have no proof they aren't but also the main point is we are adding some new greenhouse gases and adding more of old ones at an unnatural rate. You think that is good I think it is bad....

I guess we willl find out some century! I guess I work with species at risk and time is important and not doing anything about it leaves us mainly with less species....

GoonBag

03-14-2007, 08:34 AM

Treeguy wrote:

I have to go have sex with my sister

Why I am not surprised? But that certainly does demonstrate the level of your intelligence. Thanks for removing all doubt. Now isn't it time for you to go to school?

rugatika

03-14-2007, 08:53 AM

I like Lubus Motls. He is a young physicist that is very intelligent. And as a further benefit, physics actually ties into global warming theories, not sure how fruitfly study or being an ex-vice president from a coal mine owning family, ties into climate though. Selecting websites that only had climatologists as authors would leave David Suzuki and Al Gore off the list.

I don't see anything wrong with using facts and statistics to back up my argument. In fact I know of no better way of proving a point than by using facts and statistics. I have found facts and statistics to be wholly more reliable than torqued up computer models with jacked up inputs.

I agree with you though Shed that this can get to be somewhat of a circular argument, it is good to have your ideas challenged though (from both sides). The only true way of verifying any of this is to wait for it to happen. I guess my point is that if this were in a court of law the preponderence of evidence more than casts a shadow of doubt on the alarmists motives, and their science.

As to the goodness or badness of adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere...I don't think I said that it was good or bad (maybe jokingly). The main gist of my argument is that there is not enough evidence for AGW to support a drastic change in our economies, governments and energy consumption. A gradual move in that direction is fine with people changing how they use energy of their own free will.

My point more specifically is that MAN MADE CO2 is not causing global warming. Although I think it could be properly expanded to include the whole littany of greenhouse gases without damaging my argument.

Shedcrazy

03-14-2007, 11:21 AM

I have no problem using facts but anyone can pull out facts about the coldest winter here....or the coldest day there...or this one area isn't warming. Taking samples of CO2 levels from millions of years ago but not showing the whole trend. I see lots of sites on the web doing this to try and trying to prove their point.

I must say you have hold firm on your hatred for Suzuki and Gore...I can understand Suzuki as he was angered a lot of people and some of his ideas are very much the tree hugger side.

I don't really get this Gore thing but I guess because he is the new image of global warming. I find it funny that there is this anger that he only green company...not sure why that is bad or the fact that he bought it in 2004 and global warming has been on the rader since the 70s....He didn't invent global warming ideas after he bought the company....He bought something that he feels is important and makes money....

Can I ask if you work for industry or oil/gas?

I think the fear of the economy crashing is the same thing you are claiming Suzuki is doing..spreading fear...for every industry that will have trouble with new regs there wil be another one that fills it place.

Green energy will slowly take over some markets. Why don't you support energy reduction????

Oh and I will post some key dates since everyone want facts
KEY DATES...

1827 French scientist Jean-Baptiste Fourier compares the warming effect of the atmosphere to a greenhouse.
1863 John Tyndall, an Irish scientist, shows how water vapour in the atmosphere can act as a greenhouse gas by trapping heat.
1890s Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius suggests that burning fossil fuels may lead to a build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which could exacerbate the greenhouse effect.
1957 David Keeling, a US scientist, begins to monitor carbon dioxide on a long-term basis and soon finds a year-on-year rise.
1979 First World Climate Conference highlights the possibility of global warming.
1985 The first world conference on the greenhouse effect his held at Villach in Austria.
1987 Warmest year on record.
1988 US congressional hearings blame major drought in the United States on the influence of global warming. The World Meteorological Organisation set up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
1990 First report of the IPCC finds that the planet has warmed by 0.5C on average since the start of the 20th century.
1992 Climate Change Convention signed in Rio by 154 nations sets initial targets to reduce the scale of carbon dioxide emissions, based on emissions in 1990.
1995 The hottest year to date.
1997 Kyoto protocol agrees binding cuts in emissions but US says it will not ratify unless Third World countries are included.
1998 Hottest year on record, in the hottest decade.
2001 George Bush abandons Kyoto, saying the science is uncertain. IPCC publishes its third assessment report. Link strengthened between man-made emissions of carbon dioxide and global warming.
2002 The EU and Japan ratify Kyoto but Russia delays. The world experiences second hottest year on record.
2003 Heatwave kills thousands across Europe. Scientists link it directly with global warming.
2004 Russia signs up to Kyoto, so it can now come into force in 2005.
2005 Second warmest year on record globally. Kyoto protocol comes into force. Economist Nicholas Stern publishes his report saying that we cannot afford to do nothing about climate change. In August, New Orleans is devastated by Hurricane Katrina.
2006 The IPCC confirms that global warming is real and that man-made emissions of carbon dioxide are at least partly responsible.

See I can play the game too.... Oh and another point there are hundeds of Scientist and climatologist working at the UN and on the IPCC committee...You named 1 that jumped ship....

shotgun

03-14-2007, 01:48 PM

Yes but how do you argue with this:rollin www.glennbeck.com/steakoutourfuture/ (http://www.glennbeck.com/steakoutourfuture/)

Tree Guy

03-14-2007, 08:07 PM

rugatika

03-14-2007, 09:48 PM

"Oh and another point there are hundeds of Scientist and climatologist working at the UN and on the IPCC committee"

Even if a thousand scientists told me that a dog was a cat I still wouldn't believe them.

Tree Guy

03-14-2007, 10:16 PM

Hey Rug!

Did you see Licia Corbella's article in the Calgary Sun today. It is entitled 'Debunking Global Warming Myths'. Good read.

It is basically about a British documentary called, The Great Global Warming Swindle. You can see the film at:

littlegreenfootballs.com/...24760&only (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog?entry=24760&only)

This film is made by the same people who recently exposed the extremist ideology being promoted in Britian's Islamic mosques. If memory serves me correct, I think that you may have posted this one before, but better safe than sorry!

Anyway, considering that CO2 accounts for less than 1% of the composition of our atmosphere, here is a great quote from Dr. Tim Ball: "The analogy I use, is my car's not running very well, so I'm going to ignore the engine, which is the sun, and I'm going to ignore the transmission, which is the water vapour and I'm going to look at one nut on the right rear wheel which is the human produced CO2. The science is that bad."

rugatika

03-14-2007, 10:28 PM

The point about CO2 levels from millions of years ago is to demonstrate that CO2 levels have varied from about 200ppm to 4400 ppm during the history of the planet with various temperatures associated with those levels. High CO2 levels do not necessarily occur with high temperatures (in some cases they do, in some cases they don't).

Yes I work in the oil and gas industry. Does that invalidate the facts?

My hatred for Gore and Suzuki is no different than my hatred for someone selling snake oil, or a greasy contractor out conning little old ladies. I actually used to look up to Suzuki and he was part of the reason for me getting my degree in biology.

I do support energy reduction. I even have some flourescent bulbs. I just don't think we need to be crippling an industry to try and move the climate a portion of a degree in the direction it may be moving soon anyway. Green energy is great and I think we should use more of it. I am a huge supporter of nuclear energy and think Alberta should encourage it. Kyoto will force us to spend billions buying carbon credits without improving anything.

Not sure what game you were talking about but I'll play along.

120,000yrs ago the Eemian interglacial period draws to an end and the Earth is plunged into another ice age that would last 100,000yrs. The Eemian interglacial lasted about 20,000yrs

18,000 yrs ago the present interglacial period started with the warming of the planet as the glaciers that covered most of Canada and into the states began retreating which they continue to this day. Global warming and glacial retreat have been occurring for the entire span of the Holocene interglacial period.

If past patterns continue to repeat themselves as they have for the last 2million years or so of the Pleistoncene epoch we are due for another ice age soon.

There is no science that supports AGW, only herd mentality scientists, computer models, and an iffy theory that postulates that increased CO2 concentrations lead to increased temperatures. Historical data regarding past CO2 concentrations do not support this theory. Historical data regarding climate patterns do not support this theory.

Dan

03-14-2007, 10:44 PM

I do support energy reduction. I even have some flourescent bulbs. I just don't think we need to be crippling an industry to try and move the climate a portion of a degree in the direction it may be moving soon anyway.

This whole deal is about energy efficiency. Why everyone is getting so caught up in the hollywood is beyond me. How is becoming more energy efficient going to cripple the industry? that just boggles my mind.
Someone has the old style thermostat which stays constant all day, converts to the new electronic one that turns off when no one is home. He will regain the price of the new thermostat in about 2 months of energy savings, all the money there after will be gravy, and he will reduce the amount of exhaust, but yet you think he is going to be crippled.

GoonBag

03-15-2007, 08:26 AM

Golly Treeguy, did I really hurt your feelings that bad? Aww, me so sorry but please, stop your weeping. Its embarrassing. Try to act like a man...even if you have to fake it. Now I know you're really just a child, possibly even just a young girl and the internet is new and exciting to you. But try not to get too excited or upset when you read something you don't like. I do, however, look forward to your next display of superior intellect and wonderful nuggets of wisdom. You've been contributing oh so much and I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one sticking it to your sister...that little sl*t. . Uh oh, I think heard the school bell. Run along to class now and try not to get your pretty little dress dirty.

Treeguy wrote

03-15-2007, 08:37 AM

Goonbag, now I'm a little insulted. How does incest releate to my intelligence? That's just unfair and I demand an apology (and so does my sister)! I mean come on. My IQ is being challenged by someone who can't put up a two line post without having to edit.

Goon, if you have something to contribute, please do, but to only talk smack just shows you have NOTHING PRODUCTIVE TO ADD (other than some comic relief, 'cause you are freaken' hilarious, dude!). Add something, say something, please. Only saying that I am stupid because of my thoughts (and incest) is just hurtful and wrong. (Way to funny :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin )

Golly Treeguy, did I really hurt your feelings that bad? Aww, me so sorry but please, stop your weeping. Its embarrassing. Try to act like a man...even if you have to fake it. Now I know you're really just a child, possibly even just a young girl and the internet is new and exciting to you. But try not to get too excited or upset when you read something you don't like. I do, however, look forward to your next display of superior intellect and wonderful nuggets of wisdom. You've been contributing oh so much and I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one sticking it to your sister...that little sl*t. . Uh oh, I think heard the school bell. Run along to class now and try not to get your pretty little dress dirty.(Just to much guys :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol OHHH thanks . )

xsniper

03-15-2007, 08:51 AM

Goonbag you are quite a case aren't you?There is a lot of really good debate going on here, if you have absolutely nothing to contribute, just butt out, or is your plan to get this thread locked up too. Funny how some people react when they are backed into a corner and don't have anything intelligent to defend themselves with.

59whiskers

03-15-2007, 09:44 PM

The whole concept about Kyoto is a joke, sure Canada will comply, but the reality of the costs have not sunk in yet, people are starting to complain about gasoline hitting a $1 again. Fuel costs for refinery retrofits are expensive and shareholders of the oil companies will pass the costs on too the consumer or move on. Time will tell if we really are environmentalists

Tree Guy

03-15-2007, 10:37 PM

Hey 59Wiskers. Kind of where I am coming from on this is that if Canada's global contribution toward global CO2 output is 2%, and CO2 accounts for far less than 1% of our atmospheric content, and China is about to bring 500 coal-fired generator on-line....What's the point? India's also on the cusp of an economic boom.

Look, we are not disagreeing that things are changing, and any efforts toward helping our environment are needed and welcomed. Where we are disagreeing is upon the extent that climate change is due to humanity.

How can any reasonable person believe that an increase in a gas (that plants use to convert into oxygen) that constitutes less than 1% of our atmosphere, will lead to our demise in a few short decades. COME ON!! PEOPLE, GIVE YOUR COLLECTIVE HEADS A SHAKE, 'CAUSE YOUR EYEBALLS ARE STUCK! We are being conned with the greatest scam in the history of mankind. We are being scammed by the very same people who declared 30 years ago that the next ice age was coming and we would all freeze to death! Apparantly they have finally managed to spend all of those huge grants and now need SOME more. 'Well we were wrong last time, but damnit we got it this time! Sign here please!'

It's the worst example of science in the history of science. If some of these scientists (including the great suziki) had to face a court of law and prove their cases, they would have their collective asses tossed in jail! We are being LIED TO! Cannot everyone see that? 'Our planet is getting warmer, so it has to be something that is less than 1% of our atmosphere.' Hey, man, isn't THE SUN what heats us? 'Nah, that can't be it, just watch al gore's movie, he'll tell ya!'

Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid

Shedcrazy

03-15-2007, 11:53 PM

Ok I have had enough....Tree guy your very naive...Every little bit can matter....That kind of attitude has led to many problems in society...Can't do enough....it's their problem....and so on....What a weak arguement.

1% can make a long term difference and no one said it was going to change dramaticly in a few decades. Plus that 1% is per human....

I think you should shake your own head...mine is fine. If your so sure...take them to court. You prove the whole UN and IPCC they are wrong and stupid...Let me know how that goes...

Please also post all the info that you have that 30 yrs ago the majority of scientist thought we were going to freeze to death.

One other thing Tree guy have you even watched the movie????

And if you going to attack a guy for owning a green company or making a living off the green movement and think that is why he is pushing WGW, then how is that any different than someone saying the opposite and working for Oil and gas??? I have no issues with this but you can't bitch about someone else's ethics while doing the same thing....

Anyways this has degraded enough...

Tree Guy

03-16-2007, 12:18 AM

Hey Shed!

Man, I'm really disapointed with that post. I purposefully tried to rattle your cage a little bit and you respond with a petulant post that is quite frankly, a bit difficult to understand. You were doing so well here, you were giving credibility to your side of the debate with respectful and intellegent posts, and now that? You are just going to take your toys and go home? Come on!! PROVE THAT I AM NAIVE! Don't just say it! Prove me wrong and I will happily join your side and wear my pretty new dress doing it! That post was so far below you that even Goonbag was confused! lol! Shed, you're better than that, try again and I won't hold one bad post against you!

Shedcrazy

03-16-2007, 01:23 AM

I have continued to disprove comments on this issue. I will admit that my last post's grammer was a little poor...multi tasking isn't always the best!!

I am not going to let you rattle me...just because I truely believe your wrong. Your movement is weak and has very little support.

I have human history on my side to prove your wrong....Delepletion of natural resources, extint species and polluted fresh water. One species everyday proves you are naive and wrong. Maybe read a little and you can educate yourself.

Tree guy to be honest, your a lot of talk and I have not seen anything posted from you that was very eye opening. You are just hanging on to Ruts great debating skills and ability to hunt down "info".

I can never prove I am 100% just like I can't prove there is no bigfoot!

Chung

03-16-2007, 09:02 AM

My 2 cents

The debate about this is good! Lets keep it up.
My issue is that the media and politicians are treating this as the "Law of Man Caused Global Warming" like the laws of physics. Remember this is still a theory and has to be debated openly and freely untill the theory can be not be disproven. I think we are a long way from that.
There are many that would risk the economy and lifestyle of the western world on this theory.
Make no mistake it won't an extra $.25 / l of gas or $100 in offset credits here. It would be an econmic and lifestyle change. Different techologies and much industrial change / elimination.

GoonBag

03-16-2007, 11:40 AM

This winter was the warmest on record worldwide, the government said Thursday in the latest worrisome report focusing on changing climate. The report comes just over a month after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said global warming is very likely caused by human actions and is so severe it will continue for centuries.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said the combined land and ocean temperatures for December through February were 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit above average for the period since record keeping began in 1880.

The report said that during the past century, global temperatures have increased at about 0.11 degrees per decade. But that increase has been three times larger since 1976, NOAA's National Climatic Data Center reported.

Most scientists attribute the rising temperatures to so-called greenhouse gases which are produced by industrial activities, automobiles and other processes. These gases build up in the atmosphere and trap heat from the sun somewhat like a greenhouse.

Also contributing to this winter's record warmth was an El Nino, a periodic warming of the tropical Pacific Ocean. It was particularly strong in January — the warmest January ever — but the ocean surface has since begun to cool.

The report noted that in the Northern Hemisphere the combined land and water temperature was the warmest ever at 1.64 degrees above average. In the Southern Hemisphere, where it was summer, the temperature was 0.88 degree above average and the fourth warmest.

The late March date of the vernal equinox noted on most calendars notwithstanding, for weather and climate purposes northern winter is December, January and February.

For the United States, meanwhile, the winter temperature was near average. The season got off to a late start and spring-like temperatures covered most of the eastern half of the country in January, but cold conditions set in in February, which was the third coldest on record.

For winter, statewide temperatures were warmer than average from Florida to Maine and from Michigan to Montana while cooler-than-average temperatures occurred in the southern Plains and areas of the Southwest.

For Alaska, both February and winter were warmer than average but far from the record warmth of 2003 and 2001, respectively.

Boy, I'm sure glad Global Climate Change is just a myth....

GoonBag

03-16-2007, 11:42 AM

Treeguy, if you'd like to continue your juvenile squabble with me please do so but do the rest of the board members a favour and have the decency to PM me so noone else has to be subject to your childish dribble.

shotgun

03-16-2007, 12:35 PM

I am not as well versed a Rug on this but I think we all agree that climate change is happening. Always has happened and always will happen. The argument is the cause.

It has been claimed on here that the "anti-human caused global warming" is lacking is support. How does this create fault in its validity? That aside, support is growing. Among all the sheeple, there are still people who can think for themselves and question the motives of the people feeding them information.

Part of the new motivation is this idea of "carbon credits" 12 months ago nobody knew what this was. Today people are creating "carbon credit" companies. Then going out and selling fear to Johnny Mouth Breather.."If you pollute then you must buy my credits to cleanse your soul". Tell you what, for every 10 bucks you spend in gasoline gimme a dollar and I will go talk to the cows and see if I can make them fart less.

Common sense is not so common.

GoonBag

03-16-2007, 12:38 PM

for every 10 bucks you spend in gasoline gimme a dollar and I will go talk to the cows and see if I can make them fart less

LOL! Okay, now that was funny!

Shedcrazy

03-16-2007, 04:00 PM

The only reason the media and the Politicians are now involved is due to the fact that the majority of people argee with the science. They believe that WGW is happening and humans are helping it along with the dramaitic increase in greenhouse gases in the past 200 yrs. This science was not influenced by the media or governments. In fact many fought it at first but now most are on side.

Most of the fear spreading is on the anti-global warming front is due to the large amount of research and money that industry is spending in hopes of continuing on in status quo mode. This ruined ecomoy fear talk is more in the sky is falling aproach that global warming scientist are blamed for.

Prove to me how reducing CO2 levels is going to ruin the economy....please.

shotgun

03-16-2007, 04:16 PM

The majority is not always right and just because the majority of the people bought the fear mongering science. That does not make the science correct.

I do not believe that it will "ruin" the economy. I believe it will have deep and long lasting negative effects on economies around the world.....hold that is wrong...most of the world is doing nothing about it. In fact the largest offenders are not doing a thing...change those effects to Alberta and Canada specifically. The economy will however adjust over time and correct itself.

The question is why would you want that impact on the economy in the first place before you had concrete evidence of what is happening? The evidence posed here and everyplace else has enough holes in to make one pause for thought. If it was evidence in a criminal case it would not prove guilt beyond a doubt. So you are ok with each of our lives being grossly affected for the foreseeable future on hearsay and conjecture. You go ahead gamble with your own family and money. I am going to protect mine.

Shedcrazy

03-16-2007, 05:17 PM

Shotgun the only thing I have saw you mention besidese a bunch of comments that make me laugh is your "info" on polar bears that was very wrong with comments about the inuit that was easily proven wrong....

Everyone keeps asking me to prove it...there are scientist that are trying to..I am not a global warming scientist. I have provided the info and the links. If you don't believe them that is fine but why not add some real comments besides factless comments about the worlding is coming to an end...because you said so???/

lives being grossly affected for the foreseeable future on hearsay and conjecture

The only hearsay and conjesture is this fear from industry that this will cost the economy...Get a grip.

As for gambling with my family and money....Not me...I try and improve things, reduce energy usage and try to educate.
Never said I wanted an impact to the economy, as I don't think there is going to be one...sure some industries most won't change and new ones will replace the ones that don't want to change. Talk about holes is an arguement.....

Go polute as much as you want, increase greenhouse gases and use more and more fossil fuels....for the safety of your family of crse....You fight that evil majority and their need to change outdated behaviours...

shotgun

03-16-2007, 06:18 PM

Easy there killer. I never asked you to do jackcrap you are far from qualified to do such a thing. If I want tips on knuckle hair removal or picking belly button lint I will ask you. You are thinking a bit to highly of yourself that I would come to you looking for advice. As far as I am concerned you are nobody.

I have stated right up front that I am not qualified to be claiming scientific proof on anything (not one my core strengths). I have put up articles written by other out of interest only. You are the one who throwing out "evidence" and "proof" on your own.

I am not sure why you are so defensive Captain Caffeine but you may want to ease up.

Tree Guy

03-16-2007, 08:02 PM

Shed,

Prove to me how reducing CO2 levels will destroy the economy

Prove to me how reducing CO2 levels will reduce global warming!

Why are you guys screaming about a gas this is less than 1% of our atmospheric make up and ABSOLUTLY REFUSING TO DISCUSS THE SUN'S EFFECT ON GLOBAL WARMING!??

Why don't you discuss the oceans that cover 75% of our surface area, and how they interact with the heat from the sun?

Why don't you discuss how our atmosphere is made up of 97% water vapour?

Why don't you discuss that Canada's contribution toward adding to a gas that is less than 1% of our atmosphere is ONLY 2% IN TOTAL?

Why don't you discuss how the polar ice caps on Mars are melting?

Why do you put so much faith in statistics gathered in the 1800's?

Why don't you discuss the fact that 'The Warmest Winter EVER', means the warmest winter ever in 127 years of recording, despitethe fact that Earth is billions and billions of years old?

And Finally....

Why are you so arrogant to believe that mankind can catostrophically effect the CLIMATE OF AN ENTIRE PLANET in 1-200 years, and yet BE THAT MUCH MORE ARROGANT to believe that we can change it back?!!!

Answer me that.

Tree Guy

03-16-2007, 08:20 PM

Dear Goonbag,

Wow, it only took 6-7 posts before you actually added anything to a good debate!

If you want to get into a good thread and talk smack with me, expect to get smacked! My advice, either get better at heckling or just contribute to the thread. We had something productive going here until you piped up and accused me of lowering the thread's collective IQ. I responded with a bit of satire and some comic relief to help ease the tension of the thread.

So with my last post to you it is now evident that you are out of what limited smack you initially possesed and are reduced to a point far below even the playground version of, 'I know you are but what am I'!

Just contribute, or don't. If you have something to add, please add it. As I told Shed, CONVINCE ME I AM NAIVE! Prove me wrong! You can start by answering the questions that I have posted above!

Regards,
TreeGuy

Dan

03-16-2007, 08:29 PM

CONVINCE ME I AM NAIVE

Why don't you discuss how the polar ice caps on Mars are melting?

Polar ice caps are not melting. This was already discussed on another post. They have not found any water on Mars.
Do an ounce of reading and you will find a fact.

you are naive and a nut bar.

Tree Guy

03-16-2007, 08:57 PM

Hey Dan, sorry to correct you but the media was all over the fact today that there is enough ice on Mars, that if it were all to melt, there would be enough water to cover the whole planet in 10m of water. I learned that from 1.3 ounces of reading.

Can someone reply to my questions please? Why is it that name calling is the last bastion of someone who knows that they are WRONG!

101sonny

03-16-2007, 09:05 PM

Can someone reply to my questions please? Why is it that name calling is the last bastion of someone who knows that they are WRONG! Can someone tell me why some feel the need to prove they are alway right even if they ahhh never mind:rolleyes .

Shedcrazy

03-16-2007, 10:07 PM

Why are you guys screaming about a gas this is less than 1% of our atmospheric make up and ABSOLUTLY REFUSING TO DISCUSS THE SUN'S EFFECT ON GLOBAL WARMING!??

I guess you have lost the point of the conversation but the reason we are talking about greenhouse gases (yes CO2 is one of them) is that the dramatic increase in the last few hundred years is human caused...We are humans and we are talking about the effects HUMANs have on the planet.

Why don't you discuss the oceans that cover 75% of our surface area, and how they interact with the heat from the sun?

What about it? What would you like to discuss???

Why don't you discuss how our atmosphere is made up of 97% water vapour?

Your correct! So what would you like to discuss about it? I have always discussed the impact humans are having with the increase in global warming...Which again goes back to the increase in greenhouse gases that is human caused.

Why don't you discuss that Canada's contribution toward adding to a gas that is less than 1% of our atmosphere is ONLY 2% IN TOTAL?

I am not sure that number is correct. I live in Canada and would hope that we in Canada can correct our own behaviour and fix our own problems first.

Why don't you discuss how the polar ice caps on Mars are melting?

What would you like to discuss. I see someone already reponsed to this question

Why do you put so much faith in statistics gathered in the 1800's?

Because I have not seen anything wrong with them or ever saw them questioned before.

Why don't you discuss the fact that 'The Warmest Winter EVER', means the warmest winter ever in 127 years of recording, despitethe fact that Earth is billions and billions of years old?

Because that is the numbers that are turstworthy at this point. That is also not the point of what I am discussing. I was at the begining answering why people keep talking about reducing CO2...BECAUSE the dramatic increase is human caused...Do you get it yet???

Why are you so arrogant to believe that mankind can catostrophically effect the CLIMATE OF AN ENTIRE PLANET in 1-200 years, and yet BE THAT MUCH MORE ARROGANT to believe that we can change it back?!!!

No one has said catostrophically effect....the words are that human are affecting GW. But I have noticed that time and time again you have lost that point.

Human race facts.... We are experiencing an extinction rate as great as the dinosaur age. Human caused. We have de-forested most of the world. We continue to pollute our waters. Arsenic wells have killed hundreds of thousands in Asia alone.

We have the power with nucleur weapon/nucleur waste to destroy most of the planet and you wonder why I am so naive to think humans can effect the planet and thus effect the climate.

We have drained wetlands for decades. Our own tar sands project is destroyinng wetlands/bog/fens and there is no way to reclaim them. These are our natural filters of water. We are over allocated on our water ways making it near impossible to provide enough water in dought years to all water allotments.

No one said return it to the way it use to be but to decrease what we are releasing something we know is not having a positive effect in our environment and climate...

Feel better now?

Tree Guy

03-16-2007, 10:44 PM

Shed,

no one has said catestrophically effect

Hello, how many freakin' times do we have to listen to the oceans rising 20 feet, increased hurricanes, forests and crops dying, polar bears going instinct, drought in Africa, etc, etc... It is not just the AGW side spewing garbage stats.

Shed, you did not answer my questions. Tell us all about the sun. You want to shoot off about a gas that is less than 1% of our atmosphere, but refuse to even consider the fact that our sun is in an active phase that is in turn warming both our oceans and our atmosphere. Come on, you guys are insulting the intelligence of my five year old!

To not recognize the sun as the primary influence in global warming, is like trying to argue that Bill Clinton is a faithful husband.

Shedcrazy

03-16-2007, 10:55 PM

It's almost like your admitting defeat with greenhouse gases and moved on to another issue....!!!! 8)

I have tried to answer your questions....but you are looking for an answer I guess I don't have and I have very limited knowledge on.

The sun is always constant and has been there thru all the droughts and ice ages and so on..........So I would think it is just a constant....in this debate.

We can only correct our mistakes and change our habits. The sun is a little out of our reach and I would say or think we have had no impact on....At least not yet!!! haha

Tree Guy

03-16-2007, 11:10 PM

Shed,

Just get me right here. You are saying that the influence of the sun is a constant?

The sun is a star that is dying, thus its emissions that allow life to exist on Earth, as well as out atmosphere. That is like saying a volcano erupts at a constant rate! Have you never heard of 'solar flares', or 'sun spots'? Our sun is constantly changing, and its effects are light years away.

The sun heats our planet, it warms (and cools) our oceans. The water vapour that constitutes 97% of our atmosphere comes from our oceans being heated by our sun. Do you not see a trend here if the sun has increased its activity? The ice caps on Mars are also disappering, what greater indicator of increased solar activity is that? You're still talking CO@? We have a better chance of being taken out by an asteroid than dying from CO2 releated causes.

Rug, where are you? Can you post up some stats to back me on this?

Tree

Shedcrazy

03-16-2007, 11:35 PM

Well once again you gave really bad facts....

Because carbon dioxide displaces oxygen, it is a health risk since we need oxygen to live. CO2 is an asphyxiant.

There are many deaths related to CO2.....

I haven't heard of anyone dying latley of asteroids...

Is this how you base most of your agruements and facts...out of a Tree.....

Talk about a bad post and facts....

Please informs us of the changes in energy from the sun....and please don't make up these "facts"...

rugatika

03-17-2007, 12:44 AM

Sorry. Me and the girlfriend went out for drinks tonight and been busy with work. So...with a few Pilsners in me...

www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=010405M (http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=010405M)

And some cool pics of the sun doing some cool things...
www.sec.noaa.gov/ImageGallery/ (http://www.sec.noaa.gov/ImageGallery/)

Solar flaring...
hesperia.gsfc.nasa.gov/hessi/flares.htm (http://hesperia.gsfc.nasa.gov/hessi/flares.htm)

The sun is a huge ball of gas (I mean really freaking huge) that is in a constant state of nuclear reactions, and so on. It is a huge ball of chaos. Despite all of the chaos it has a fairly cyclical occurrence of flaring etc. 11 yr cycle and all that. The sun has a huge influence on global temperatures...this is why it often gets cooler at night and warmer during the day (and seldom the other way around). From this it is easy to envision that a small change in solar output can have large impacts on the amount of solar heat reaching the earth.

As Tree correctly stated the sun is a dying ball of gas. As it gets closer to the end it erupts into a white dwarf (I think, if memory serves me correctly) and will basically melt the enitre solar system (OK I'm just guessing there). But it will get too damn hot to be on the beach in just a speedo. The sun is about half way through it's lifespan of about 10 billion years...so we got some time to go yet.

CO2 can indeed be dangerous...:rollin
www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prer...04105.html (http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml04/04105.html)
www.umich.edu/news/index....05/r110305 (http://www.umich.edu/news/index.html?Releases/2005/Nov05/r110305)

Although I think Tree was referring to death by CO2 as an atmospheric component of global warming rather than as its roll in projectile or asphyxiant deaths.

Shed...I often hear about species extinction rates, but seldom hear about any species that have gone extinct. If old species are going extinct, are new and better species filling those niches? Is this not evolution? Where would I find a list of the species that have gone extinct. One species a day time 365 days, times how many years?? Seems like it should be a huge number of extinct species. Name me 300 that have gone extinct in the last year. (just kidding, sort of)

As to the oceans...the oceans absorb CO2 the colder they become and evolve more CO2 as they warm. This would explain the lag time in increased CO2 concentrations as the globe warms since the oceans warm and cool much slower than the planet (much like a giant heat sink, well exactly like a giant heat sink). I'll try and find a link somewhere when I get a chance.

And here's an interesting link I found just for a fun read.

nov55.com/gbwm.html (http://nov55.com/gbwm.html)

What else did I miss?? I'll check back tomorrow if I get a chance. This is one of the best threads I've read and is very informative and has taught me a lot. Like I've always said...hunters and outdoorsman are some of the best people on the planet even the one's that don't agree with me. :rollin :rollin :rollin

rugatika

03-17-2007, 01:11 AM

And here's an interesting article on solar radiation absorption by CO2 pertaining to CO2 concentrations.

nov55.com/ntyg.html (http://nov55.com/ntyg.html)

I only skimmed the article so did not fact check it or anything. But basically says that CO2 only absorbs certain wavelengths of solar radiation and the rest is absorbed by water vapour and other greenhouse gases.

I'm part drunk and tired so I shouldn't even be doing this while I'm driving. Later.

Rug.

Just kidding...I'm not really driving.
Sheesh.

rugatika

03-17-2007, 01:18 AM

This guy has some interesting theories and makes for some interesting reading at the very least.

nov55.com/fure.html (http://nov55.com/fure.html)

rugatika

03-17-2007, 01:30 AM

Oh yeah.

Shed. I had a friend that while he didn't die, he was in much misery from a really bad case of assteroids. Luckily there is a cream for them.

Asteroids?? Oh never mind. I was thinking of something else.

lilsundance

03-17-2007, 09:49 AM

guys keep it clean with out the name calling and all the other bs. This has been a good debate but it is sliding downhill fast. Keep it clean or loose it.

Global

03-17-2007, 12:57 PM

Global warming threatens planetary survival through destruction of wildlife habitats,flooding of coastal communities, and extreme weather conditions. It is brought on by emissions of carbon dioxide and the more potent methane and nitrous oxide from animal agriculture,which create a "Greenhouse effect."

Animal agriculture produces more greenhouse gases than automobiles also livestock farming pollutes the water more than all other activities combined.Just a little food for thought.;)

rugatika

03-17-2007, 03:55 PM

Thanks Robert. Guess that clears everything up.

rugatika

03-17-2007, 04:23 PM

Someone that might disagree with Robert.

www.sciencedaily.com/upi/...arming.xml (http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20070315-13590700-bc-denmark-globalwarming.xml)

Tree Guy

03-17-2007, 05:20 PM

Hey Shed!

Sorry man, I got a little heated last night. I wasn't trying to offend anyone. I'm just really passionate about this debate, and sometimes have to learn how to keep it in check. Plus Rug wasn't here at the time, and frankly, I was just lonely! lol! So in fact it's Rugs fault for having to spend some 'quality time' with his girlfriend! lol! Anyway, I hope you come back!

Tree Guy

03-17-2007, 05:47 PM

I've kind of spent the last couple of hours reading through some of the links posted here. Wow! The one that interested me the most came from Rug, and I highly reccomend it as a facinating theory, that hasn't surfaced here yet.

nov55.com/gbwm.html

Forgive my bumbling as I am still trying to wrap my head around it but I will try to summarize it.

Experiment #1:
Fill your bathtub to the top with HOT water, close the door, and come back in one hour.

Experiment #2:
Fill your bathtub to the top with LUKEWARM water, close the door, crank your thermostat to the max and come back in 3 hours.

In the first case the hot water will quickly influence the temperature of the room. In the second case the temperature of the room will have little to no effect on the lukewarm water in 3 times the time.

The point is that a warm body of water has a much larger influence on atmosphere in an enclosed setting, than apmosphere has on a body of water in an enclosed setting.

The thesis behind this link is that within the Earth' center there are 'hot spots' in the magma. (If you take an orange, basically, its skin represents the crust of the Earth. Lower or thinner areas of the crust are under the oceans, and the higher or thicker areas are our continets.

What his theory is, is that fluctuating 'hot spots' within our liquid core, migrate from being beneath thicker areas of the crust (our land masses), to the thinner areas (our oceans). When they are situated beneath our oceans, they heat up, thus influencing the temperature of the atmosphere.

It does seem to make alot of sense if you even have a layman's knowledge of plate tectonics. Just look at a map and observe the Hawaiian Island chain. They are situated over a very thin area of crust, thus the constantly erupting volcanos. What always confussed me was that if the crust was thin, why wouldn't it be one solid island. 'Hot spot' migration in correllation with the natural shift of the Pacific plate would explain a chain of islands and not a single one.

Very interesting idea. I hope I summarized it OK. There's way more too it than that but....

go ahead disagree

03-17-2007, 08:35 PM

www.farmusa.org.

rugatika

03-17-2007, 08:48 PM

So what is your point Robert? We should stop raising animals to eat?? Stop hunting?? Wipe out all the animals that fart/belch??

At any rate, it has nothing to do with global warming.

Shedcrazy

03-17-2007, 10:56 PM

Ruts...Interesting read...I haven't read it all yet though.

I will respond to your question first. I never saaid a species a day so not sure where your getting that from.

Here is some info...

www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200603/s1596740.htm (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200603/s1596740.htm)

web.archive.org/web/20041021105033/www.amnh.org/museum/press/feature/biofact.html (http://web.archive.org/web/20041021105033/www.amnh.org/museum/press/feature/biofact.html)

archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/08/23/green.century.mass.extinction/index.html (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/08/23/green.century.mass.extinction/index.html)

For a Canadian spin read thru the species listed...
www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/default_e.cfm (http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/default_e.cfm)

If old species are going extinct, are new and better species filling those niches? Is this not evolution?

The only evolution that has happened is that we that caused the majority of the extinction listed in SARA. Not sure if Darwin's theory involved hunting species to extinction and destroying habitat...I guess if you mean a new species filling the old niches meaning humans..your right.
For a species that according to some on this webpage has not had that much of an effect on the planet....Seems we have to a lot of species.

Here is a list of species that have gone extinct since I have been born.

www.unep-wcmc.org/latenews/extinct.html (http://www.unep-wcmc.org/latenews/extinct.html)

rugatika

03-18-2007, 12:17 AM

"I have human history on my side to prove your wrong....Delepletion of natural resources, extint species and polluted fresh water. One species everyday proves you are naive and wrong. Maybe read a little and you can educate yourself." - Shedcrazy, 03/16/07 - 12:23am

"I will respond to your question first. I never saaid a species a day so not sure where your getting that from." - Shedcrazy, 03/17/07 - 9:56pm

No worries about it though.

"Yet most scientists agree that human activity is causing rapid deterioration in biodiversity. Expanding human settlements, logging, mining, agriculture and pollution are destroying ecosystems, upsetting nature's balance and driving many species to extinction." - from - archives.cnn.com/2002/TEC...index.html (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/08/23/green.century.mass.extinction/index.html)

So how does this link to CO2 causing global warming. Sounds like the major species extinctions are being caused by habitat loss, competition from introduced non-native species, and pollution in poorer countries. Separate issue from AGW.

Not sure if I ever said anything about humans not having any impact on the environment. If I did, I was wrong. Humans have and continue to have an impact on the environment around them but I think we are getting much better (particularly in industrialized countries) and the Earth has shown an amazing resilience at healing its wounds from pollution inflicted in earlier years...great lakes etc.

Will a changing climate affect species success and failure? I think it would be naive to assume that climate change would not favour one species over another.

To get back on topic though the question is "Is the climate change caused by humans and more specifically by increasing CO2 levels?" The answer is no. There is too much evidence against climate warming being caused by CO2 or greenhouse gases for that matter.

Huuummmm

03-18-2007, 08:06 AM

Is the climate change caused by humans and more specifically by increasing CO2 levels?" The answer is no. There is too much evidence against climate warming being caused by CO2 or greenhouse gases for that matter. Your ignorance has blinded you.Sober up and we can then talk.
Global warming threatens planetary survival through destruction of wildlife habitats,flooding of coastal communities, and extreme weather conditions. It is brought on by emissions of carbon dioxide and the more potent methane and nitrous oxide from animal agriculture,which create a "Greenhouse effect."

rugatika

03-18-2007, 08:49 AM

Robert, when you go fishing is your favourite method to slowly motor along in the boat while letting your hook drag along behind you? Just asking.

Shedcrazy

03-18-2007, 09:52 AM

First off...mis-quoting and using little bits of quotes is what I expect from most of the other side not you but whatever....
Your closer to your friend Gore than you think....:lol

If you had read the post I was trying to answer Tree Guy's constent question about why people would think he was Naive by thinking that one species (humans) could have an affect on the planet/climate. I was stating a history of the human species footprint on the planet. We do effect the planet in a negative way everyday.....We do use natural resources everyday and pollute...if you want me to correct what we do everyday...feel better???;)

The last post was off topic but you and Tree Guy asked the questions...man oh man....:rollin

So back on topic....sorry for the sidestep but it was asked... I will try and use quotes more to make sure we are not confused on what I am talking about!!!

Will a changing climate affect species success and failure? I think it would be naive to assume that climate change would not favour one species over another.

Totally correct....We are making it perfect for humans...Well and some cockroaches....

"Is the climate change caused by humans and more specifically by increasing CO2 levels?" The answer is no. There is too much evidence against climate warming being caused by CO2 or greenhouse gases for that matter.

Well I disagree......Most evidence is very marginal and even a lot of info posted here states it will help increase global warming just not sure at what extent. I think this statement is as guilty as everyone you are acussing of being dishonest. If there was "too much evidence" then we wouldn't be having this conversation .

Tree Guy

03-18-2007, 01:01 PM

It's funny how much we do agree on. Essentially humans are bad and our climate has recently (200 years) warmed up somewhat. We also agree that there is an elevated level of CO2 in our atmosphere. We also agree that mankind is adding 'bad stuff' to our land, our waters, and our atmosphere.

Where we disagree is on the extent of man's effect on global warming.

Your side is saying is that the increased CO2 levels are what is causing the greenhouse effect to warm the planet up, and unless we significantly reduce our output, there will be some potentially dire consequences. A cause/effect, action/reaction argument that recent statistics (1-200 years), at first glance, seem to back up.

Our side is saying wait, maybe there are other, more significant factors at play here and statistics from within 200 years mean nothing in comparison to the overall age of the planet. Maybe the reason we are warming (in addition to increased greenhouse gasses) has something more to do with the natural cycle of Earth in releation to the ice age cycle, oceans warming, CO2 making up far less than 1% of our atmosphere, our orbit of the sun, solar activity, etc, etc. If it was as simple as what your side is claiming, why is there so much dissent and debate within the scientific community?

I understand how 'Greenhouse effect' makes perfect sense to alot of people. Many, many people have actually set foot in a real greenhouse at their local garden center and witnessed first-hand how warm they are.

What I am saying is, have you ever been in a greenhouse at night? Kind of illustrates my point.

Shedcrazy

03-18-2007, 03:53 PM

I think the majority of people on both sides are very close in what they think or believe is behind global warming.

I doubt either side will ever be able to completely prove if it is right or wrong. I like to side with caution and do our part to reduce a very likely potienal problem (in mind!! and several thousand scientists). They are a lot of scientist studing the data and stats that are a million times better than me and still believe in it....

I am sure IPCC members won't be on this site and look at this conversations and go..."WOW, I never thought about looking past 200 yrs of data...or stepping into a greenhouse at night......we must be wrong"......

I agree with what you have said but I think you really are getting hung up with the 1% percentage by thinking it is too small of a difference. But I doubt I will ever convince you otherwise!
I do disagree with you on one comment:
If it was as simple as what your side is claiming, why is there so much dissent and debate within the scientific community?

Debate is good but like I said before there are thousands working on this problem at IPCC...And there has been a select few that have left. That happpens in most big forums over personnel differences. The only scientist that has been pointed out to me and on this site still believes in GW just not at the extent she once thought. So I am not sure why you made this statment unless your counting yourselves in the scientific community (Which is fine by me ). But I am still only get a handful of people in total!!!:rollin .

I think the simple answer is to say that greenhouse gases don't affect our climate and to carry on....

Tree Guy

03-18-2007, 04:29 PM

Hey Shed!

I think it is obvious that I am not a part of the scientific community! :lol However I am someone who started his education with that intent in mind (I choose a different road eventually). I still remember how studies and experiments are conducted, and nothing is 'true' in science, so to speak, until the experiment has been repeated, repeatedly!

Anyway, you are right, there are alot smarter people than us working on this. Unfortunatly there has been some much rhetoric and propaganda spewed by both sides, that it is hard for the average person to wade through, especially with a degree of bias in the media.

That is in large part why I have been accused of 'riding Rug's coattails'. I'll check out almost all of the posted links (amongst many, many other sources), but I prefer to NOT add to the crap out there. I'm am trying to absorb as much information from BOTH sides as possible, then couple it with my own personal knowledge of science, and navigate where I stand from there, I'm trying to come in here as an average human. It kind of explains some of the inconsistancies in my posts. I'm learning, and my position is evolving accordingly.

When all is said and done, I have personally changed some of the things in my life in order to leave a smaller 'footprint'. I know many people who have done the same. When you think about it, as outdoorsmen, we are ALL on the same side, just with different opinions.

Environmental awarness is at an all-time high in the public eye, and governments, business, and individuals world wide are starting to at least try to be cleaner. We may never solve the argument, but if that is the side effect of rhetoric and propaganda and questionable science, then we are all better for it!

rugatika

03-19-2007, 04:03 PM

Well here is why AGW alarmists won't debate deniers. They lose.

Check out the before and after debate results.

ker-plunk.blogspot.com/se...e%20Change (http://ker-plunk.blogspot.com/search/label/Climate%20Change)

Oh and it's a pretty interesting blog this guy has from the land "Down Under". Feel free to read some of his other articles.

And you have to read this interview! It is hilarious.
ker-plunk.blogspot.com/20...ience.html (http://ker-plunk.blogspot.com/2007/02/art-of-climate-science.html)

Shedcrazy

03-19-2007, 06:09 PM

Just don't want it to end do you?

Even the US is moving on....it might be time you do...

www.enn.com/today.html?id=12411 (http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=12411)

I am glad countries and scientist are looking at ideas to counter the economy is crashing folks.....

Here you go Tree Guy...some people are looking at the Sun and Ocean...You prefer these ideas than cutting down greenhouse gases for your economy???

www.enn.com/today.html?id=12414 (http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=12414)

rugatika

03-19-2007, 06:38 PM

Just sharing some amusing articles with a bunch of friends sitting around the fire Shed. Errr, I mean sitting around the solar powered lantern shaped like a campfire.

Shedcrazy

03-19-2007, 06:45 PM

it has been enjoyable!

Very interesting anyways....

Tree Guy

03-19-2007, 09:18 PM

Hey Shed, I was pretty much debated out, but I just finished reading that link you posted for me! Do you remember my last post where I said smarter people than we, were working on this? Now I'm not so sure!:eek I'm hoping you posted that for some comic relief?:lol

Shedcrazy

03-19-2007, 09:22 PM

Yes I thought you might enjoy it with all your other Sun and Ocean talk.....You going to start making your own sun shade???:rollin

Your the one that wanted to work on other ideas and ther you go....be careful what you wish for!!! I think I will stick with trying to reduce grenhouse gases.....Even I would have a hard time debating huge sun shades!!!

If you can't laugh at your side you are in trouble....

Tree Guy

03-19-2007, 09:54 PM

Thanks Shed!

That was almost as amusing as talking openly about my now pregnant sister (she's doing well and says hi)!:rollin

All kidding aside, I've been in a greenhouse in the day, and I've been in a greenhouse at night. It's warmer in the day!:p

What I'm saying is, that you can put as many 'greenhouse' gasses into the atmosphere as you want, (and the gas we are talking about constitutes about 0.038% of our atmosphere) but without the sun there is no heat. Our sun is the single most pivotal influence in the global temperature of our planet, and to not study how it effects us is pure folly!:eek

Shedcrazy

03-19-2007, 10:05 PM

Maybe they turned off the heat!

As stated before....and maybe more. I would think that there are scientist studying the sun. The point is we have no control over it but we do have control over emissions.

It's like defensive driving....You can't control the road conditions, you can't control the weather (I know bad example considering the topic) and you can't control other drivers....BUT you do your best to control your own driving.

Tree Guy

03-19-2007, 10:31 PM

Shed,

I agree 100%. However, if your house was too hot, would you open one window in your basement, or would you just turn down your thermostat?

What warms your house, closed windows, or a furnace?;)

101sonny

03-19-2007, 10:33 PM

:rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :lol :lol I think the three of you need email.:rollin :rollin :rollin

Tree Guy

03-19-2007, 10:40 PM

Hey sonny101,

We are here to both amuse and educate. I am not an expert by any means but have learned alot from this thread! We are doing this to try to educate more than just ourselves, and that's why we 'keep on keeping on'.

This has been a great thread, sonny, and if (maybe you have) you take the time to read it front to back (including links), there has been some good information posted here.

101sonny

03-19-2007, 10:43 PM

This has been a great thread, sonny, and if (maybe you have) you take the time to read it front to back (including links), there has been some good information posted here. You dum ass i have read the hole tread front to back I stand by my post use email its getting old .That hill your standing on isnt so big .PS thats 101 sonny to you .:rolleyes

Tree Guy

03-20-2007, 12:29 AM

Well I guess I should congratulate you on managing to live to be 101!:rollin

My only question is, if you have read the 'hole' thread back to front, why is it that the best post you can add to it is calling me a 'dum ass'? If it's getting old to you, stop reading it!

As I have said before, contribute or don't.:rolleyes

rugatika

03-20-2007, 09:04 AM

Check it!

www.coxandforkum.com/arch...01066.html (http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/001066.html)

GoonBag

03-20-2007, 11:17 AM

If it's getting old to you, stop reading it!

Still making friends wherever he goes............why don't you stop telling people what to do and maybe we'll all stop calling you a "dum ass"

xsniper

03-21-2007, 08:51 AM

Well! Rug And Tree it looks like they finally run out of amunition. I was wondering when Sonny was going to show up!These two guys are two fine examples of why lower forms of animals eat their baby's. I for one would like to thank almost all who participated. I will follow Shed's advice and conserve wherever possible, but I refuse to follow a pair of Eco-Con men on their way to fleecing the sheep of the planet. I for one have seen petrified logs in the dessert that were there long before we had any effect on anything, and there are enough examples out there that show me that major climate changes have been going on throughout the life of this dust ball we sit on,so sorry Mr Suzuki, I am not convinced.Oh! Goon Bag and Sonny To BAAAAAAAAAD you couldn't contribute a little something but it is good to see that evolution is still happening, if you two guys keep on your present path I am sure that natural selection will take care of the unwanted gene pools amoungst us.

GoonBag

03-21-2007, 11:21 AM

Ahh, lil sniper. I'm just glad to see you have added so much to this topic. Bit of a whiny little hypocrite aren't you? Like children, you are so easily duped that it is amusing. Now go eat some of those babies you like so much.

xsniper

03-21-2007, 11:50 AM

Sometimes you contribute more by just absorbing the information and keeping your gums clamped, too BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD you havn't figured this out being the intelectual that you are. Of course it may have caused a brain cramp, but then you need a few more than two brain cells to rub togethe for that to happen so you've already proved that you are probably safe in that departement.ANYWAY YOU HAVE A REAL NICE DAY. And again thanx for the excellant debate, obviously the science is not all in on this matter.

rugatika

03-21-2007, 11:51 AM

Check it!

epw.senate.gov/public/ind...975CBB96CB (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=7E60E3FA-802A-23AD-4291-E3975CBB96CB)

There is getting to be so much evidence against greenhouse gas global warming that I'm having a hard time reading it all.

On the other side of things...I'm getting sick of reading "The IPCC says so!", or "2500 scientists can't be wrong.", or "Mother Earth is mad at us", or "I smoke it for medicinal purposes." These are not scientific arguments.

Good to know Harper won't be taxing our trucks. YeeHaw!

I can't remember which famous philosopher it was or perhaps I read it in the Bible but wiser words have never been spoken than..."Don't believe the smelly hippies."

101sonny

03-21-2007, 05:13 PM

:rollin :rollin :lol :lol Goonbag i wouldnt of given x-snip the Satisfaction of a reply.Someone ate his ?or her? baby whatever.:rolleyes

Shedcrazy

03-21-2007, 06:04 PM

www.enn.com/globe.html?id=1536 (http://www.enn.com/globe.html?id=1536)

Even big business has changed....

You did mention that there is so much "evidence" against global warming but I have yet to see a single scientific report yet...it all webpages, blogs, silly polls and media reports......There is tons on bigfoot and alien probes.....believe them too????

Rut don't believe what your employer (Oil and gas) is telling you..... If anyone is working the media it is your side.....

seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/124642_warming02.html (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/124642_warming02.html)

www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/GlobalWarming/story?id=1770428&page=1 (http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/GlobalWarming/story?id=1770428&page=1)

So who is the Con man???? Who has the most to gain......????

rugatika

03-21-2007, 08:04 PM

My employer is me. And I believe everything he tells me cause he's hardly ever wrong.

All of the info I gave you is scientific fact. Vostock ice core data, carboniferous climate trends and CO2 levels. This is not stuff that some ex vice president or an aging hippie geneticist is making up. These are hard core, true blue, scientific FACTS. None of it is based on climate models that have had severe problems in predicting historical climate let alone future climate. It is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. If there is something you would like clarified I would be glad to try and accomodate you.

Shedcrazy

03-21-2007, 09:26 PM

How about research or journals that show the work not just on a website....Then if you can find it please provide who funded the project.

rugatika

03-21-2007, 09:49 PM

Vostock ice core data from: Petit, J.R., J. Jouzel, D. Raynaud, N.I. Barkov, J.-M. Barnola, I. Basile, M. Benders, J. Chappellaz, M. Davis, G. Delayque, M. Delmotte, V.M. Kotlyakov, M. Legrand, V.Y. Lipenkov, C. Lorius, L. Pépin, C. Ritz, E. Saltzman, and M. Stievenard. 1999. Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature 399: 429-436.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/i...ostok.html (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok.html)

This link lists a large number of papers discussing the data as well. I'm assuming the project was funded by NOAA, World Data Center for Paleoclimatology, and National Snow and Ice data center as they have their crests at the top of the page. It was a joint project involving scientists from USA, Russia, and France.

Shedcrazy

03-21-2007, 09:58 PM

www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/what.html (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/what.html)

Nice data....and interesting what NOAA thinks about Global warming...your site!

rugatika

03-21-2007, 10:08 PM

www.john-daly.com/forcing...arrett.htm (http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/hug-barrett.htm)

Here's a paper by Dr. Heinz Hug and Jack Barrett submitted for open review. Basically showing how the IPCC overstates the effect of CO2 on the greenhouse effect by ignoring that the amount of absorption that takes place with even a doubling of CO2 concentration in the presence of water vapour is negligible.

Not sure who sponsored that experiment. But they have posted all scientific arguments to their paper.

rugatika

03-21-2007, 10:19 PM

Here's a paper regarding the extent of North American glaciation during the last ice age.

A.S. Dyke and V.K. Prest
1987, Late Wisconsinan and Holocene history of the Laurentide ice sheet. Geographie Physique et Quaternaire, 41: 237-264.

Shedcrazy

03-21-2007, 10:22 PM

Can you please explain your first post about NOAA and using the data that you posted they believe that humans have increased global warming....

I am very confussed that if is so clear cut that it's not greenhouse gases that NOAA doesn't state that....

rugatika

03-21-2007, 10:26 PM

What NOAA fails to notice is that changes in CO2 levels have very little effect on the amount of radiative absorption. From the Hug, Barrett experiment cited earlier.

Just because they can fetch data doesn't mean they can interpret it or that they are not susceptible to political pressure.

"Given what we know about the ability of greenhouse gases to warm the Earth's surface, it is reasonable to expect that as concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere rise above natural levels, the Earth's surface will become increasingly warm. Many scientists have now concluded that global warming can be explained by a human-caused enhancement of the greenhouse effect." from NOAA

"...it is reasonable to expect..." where is the scientific study to back this up?? Sounds like they are just assuming that a rise in CO2 will result in a linear increase in global temperature. Fine...but show me how it works. I've seen the data from experiments that show this is not true. (Hug and Barrett, 2001)

Shedcrazy

03-21-2007, 10:32 PM

LOL....

I think they used the data and I feel that they know what to do with that data better than us...

rugatika

03-21-2007, 10:48 PM

The vostock ice core data shows CO2 levels lagging 800yrs behind increases in global temperatures. ie:global warming causes increases in CO2 levels.

Believers attribute this to positive feedback loops etc.

rugatika

03-21-2007, 10:53 PM

I just want to see an experiment that shows an increase in CO2 levels leads to an associated increase in temperature. I wonder why we haven't seen one? Should be fairly easy to demonstrate that an increase in CO2 leads to an increase in temperature.

Shedcrazy

03-21-2007, 10:58 PM

Now your just arguing with your own data and sites....

It was a nice dream......

rugatika

03-21-2007, 11:15 PM

Sorry Shed. I don't have to agree with the "opinions" from NOAA just because I agree with the data that they have posted on their website.

Being a catholic doesn't mean you endorse priests raping altar boys.

Nice try though.

Re: Shed

03-22-2007, 12:51 AM

Even big business has changed.... There is nothing like a bunch of investors looking for Government to force spending on something they can make money on. Takes the guesswork out of it.

I am not taking sides on this, but the fact that some investors see an opportunity to make dollars by lobbying the gov't to force the hand on a sector of business is hardly proof that global warming exists or that the business folks have acknowledged its existance. They are simply opportunists.

rugatika

03-22-2007, 01:10 AM

Here is an engineers take on the whole matter. This guy knows his stuff and has researched the science with references.

pubs.acs.org/subscribe/jo...point.html (http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/ci/31/special/may01_viewpoint.html)

He provides an excellent explanation of why CO2 is not the driver of climate change.

rugatika

03-22-2007, 01:38 AM

"Even big business has changed...."

``By itself, I don't know that global warming is a viable investment theme,'' said Malcolm Polley, who oversees $1 billion at Stewart Capital Advisors LLC in Indiana, Pennsylvania. ``It's largely Wall Street's answer of trying to create something where there really isn't anything that exists.'' - from - www.bloomberg.com/apps/ne...refer=home (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aqBr9N4m4Rko&refer=home)

I tend to agree with shooter that business will make money where they can make money regardless of what the facts are. If they can make money off of people's emotions they will. Hallmark cards does a bang up business.

rugatika

03-22-2007, 11:39 AM

For those that wish to alleviate your guilt of releasing CO2 into the atmosphere...this fine gentleman has kindly decided to auction off the lives of some of his trees on ebay. BEtter save them now or he will release their CO2 into the atmosphere.

cgi.ebay.com/Save-a-tree-...dZViewItem (http://cgi.ebay.com/Save-a-tree-and-offset-carbon_W0QQitemZ200089599886QQcategoryZ1469QQssPag eNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem)

See also:timblair.net/ee/index.php...hreatened/ (http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/hostage_threatened/)

GoonBag

03-22-2007, 01:40 PM

xsniper wrote:

intelectual

The proper spelling is intellectual you dullard.

excellant I'm assuming that you meant excellent.

But thanks for showing us all that you don't have two brain cells to rub togethe

What a 'tard.

Chung

03-22-2007, 01:47 PM

Check this one out! This shmuck is serious!

cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI...osi_widget (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=290095452547&ssPageName=MERCOSI_VI_ROSI_PR4_PCN_BIX&refitem=200089599886&itemcount=4&refwidgetloc=closed_view_item&refwidgettype=osi_widget)

Here is one from Alberta with the right idea!

cgi.ebay.ca/Alberta-Carbo...dZViewItem (http://cgi.ebay.ca/Alberta-Carbon-Credit_W0QQitemZ130092297647QQcategoryZ19272QQssPa geNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem)

rugatika

03-22-2007, 03:29 PM

WOW!! I'm very impressed Goon Bag. You are an excellent speller! I think there should be an award for people that can point out spelling errors on the board.

Maybe you should be appointed official spell checker for Alberta Outdoorsman? Do you spell check professionally? Or is it just a fun hobby for you?

rugatika

03-22-2007, 03:42 PM

Just caught something about a poll that says that 77% of Cdn's believe AGW. The pollsters go on to say that educated people with high incomes are less likely to believe in AGW. The pollsters postulate this is because these people have the most to lose (ie: SUV's, big houses etc). I wonder if it might have something to do with the fact that they are more educated and successful?? Just a thought.

Would less educated and successful people want to believe in AGW because it would punish successful people? Blame them for "destroying" the planet?

Anyway, interesting poll in that it ties levels of education and income to what they think about AGW. Haven't seen the poll myself so probably not fair for me to comment too much on it. Just thinking out loud.