The Global Warming Diversion

Last link. Deacon, let me know if this info sheds any light on the subject for you. <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/national-post-defending-the-insensible">DeSmogBlog - zany article and good rebuttals</a> I don't like to let this stuff go. When I run into someone who is still denying climate change, or still denying that humans have anything to do with it, or still denying that we can lessen the problem, or still denying that the scientists know more than they do, I feel obligated to try to help them understand. --- "The world will not evolve past its current state of crisis by using the same thinking that created the situation." 
- Albert Einstein

A worldwide unified effort is required, yes.

A world where each lives with less and pays more to help out, provided that amount is FAIR, is required, yes.

So far I'm not seeing any downside.

---
“The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous, the essential act of warfare is the destruction of the produce of human labour”

Your correct, however, the current economic model is not substainable, and will require being destroyed and rebuilt. This will be a painful time. Current industry will NOT get stronger, as their entire structure is built around maintaining massive profit and growth and increasing share value. This is not substainable and will collapse.

There are a few companies who have grasped the concept, but they are small (my nature of the new paradigm, MUST be small) and far between at the moment. They minimize profit and pass on the excess to employee wages and improving their product, and coming up with new ways to use environmentally friendly ingredients and materials. These are the future of business and industry.

---
“The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous, the essential act of warfare is the destruction of the produce of human labour”

I'm sure you are a highly esteemed scientist with years of research behind your belt, I'd like to read some of your papers, Deacon.

The Earth is not flat, gravity is real, we have been to the moon, evolution is real.

An overwhelming majority of climatologists and other field experts (as opposed to laymen spouting denial on web boards) have concluded that human civilization has finally reached a point where it's activities are now directly impacting and affecting the Earth, on many many levels.

Denial ain't in Egypt, Deacon.

---
“The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous, the essential act of warfare is the destruction of the produce of human labour”

My family has increased our recycling, started composting, started our own food gardens, replaced all high output bulbs with flourescents (I would prefer LED but the price isn't there yet) I ride my bike to work, I use the bus, I use my truck very sparingly for weekend family outings only now. We replaced our lawnmower with a push-mower. It's great exercise and it cuts nicer. I have hooked all my power leeching devices to power bars, and do a full system SHUT OFF every night. My heating is still electric, but uses a digital thermostat programmed to reduce heat when I'm at work and when I'm sleeping.

By doing all these things, our family has reduced our yearly carbon output from 4.5 tons to 2.7 tons. I'm only stating all this to encourage everyone on this board to follow suit and look at every aspect of their home and how they can help.

I'd like to hear what you would do, Deacon. Because what I can see right now is that you are spreading disinformation and lies on the Internet to promote the idea the global warming is a conspiracy theory.

That to me is someone who is part of the problem, not the solution. I'm betting your half-baked simplifications of climate science wouldn't last 5 minutes in a room of actual experts.

---
“The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous, the essential act of warfare is the destruction of the produce of human labour”

Cam & Sgt , thanks for your replys in this thread, saved me a lot of typing! As you say it is upsetting when folks close their minds to even the posibility that scientists world wide might actualy know what they are talking about.
It is never a waste of time and effort to try to improve the way in which we do things no matter what area of endevour we are refering to.

---
When you are up to your ass in alligators it is difficult to remember that the initial objective was to drain the swamp

I have visited the links was less than impressed with what I saw on one of them: 
 
"Objection: Correlation is not proof of causation. There is no proof that CO2 is the cause of current warming. 
 
Answer: There is no "proof" in science -- that is a property of mathematics..." 
 
What kind of doublespeak baloney is that? 
 
Proof, the first 8 definitions from Dictionary.com, please note the first SIX definitions. 
 
Proof: noun: 
 
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth. 
 
2. anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have? 
 
3. the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof. 
 
4. the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration. 
 
5. Law. (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight. 
 
6. the effect of evidence in convincing the mind. 
 
7. an arithmetical operation serving to check the correctness of a calculation. 
 
8. Mathematics, Logic. a sequence of steps, statements, or demonstrations that leads to a valid conclusion. 
 
 
 
The remainder of the 28 definitions can be found at this link: 
 
<a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proof">http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proof</a> 
 
 
 
I am just a normal guy who happens to be a science geek and a stickler for details. 
 
I will not be bulldozed by symantic trickery, and that one example was enough for me. 
 
Nothing personal but you really should do better research. 
 
Just for the record, I own a small fuel efficient car, recycle as much as I can, and don't waste my own resources on junk I don't need.--- The two most common things in the universe are apparently Hydrogen and stupidity.

See my reply above.

---
The two most common things in the universe are apparently Hydrogen and stupidity.

You assume wrong when you say people like myself have closed minds.

Being a lifelong science geek, I am perhaps more aware of the fact that scientists, like people in any other profession, are also subject to the whims what trendiness and what is popular at any given time than most.

In fact, in science, it is sadly the trendier theories that get the most funding more often than not.

"It is never a waste of time and effort to try to improve the way in which we do things no matter what area of endeavour we are referring to."

I can agree with that, provisionally.

The provision being this: that the endeavour in question be examined and studied with a completely apolitical and unbiased eye to what the ENTIRETY of the evidence says, and not just with an eye to what is popular, trendy, or will make the best soundbyte on the 6 o'clock news.

The "carbon only" theory does not meet that standard, and I cannot in good conscience buy into something I suspect as being a big lie at worst, and politicized science at the very least.

What I see currently is stampede science at best, and as such ALL it's claims must be taken with considerable salt.

Whether or not you agree changes nothing.

Maybe some of you should do more detailed research for yourselves and stop buying what you see on the television at face value.

If you have time to type on this site, you also have time to research BOTH (* and ignoring the propaganda being dished out both by big oil and it's detractors) points of view concerning what the real cause of global warming is.

I for one don't think we're being told the full story.

What you believe is your own responsibility.

---
The two most common things in the universe are apparently Hydrogen and stupidity.

Sarge, I am trying to respectful.

One doesn't need published papers in volumes enough to use as toilet paper to be either a science geek, or a scientist.

In fact, some of the greatest discoveries in science have been by amateurs, so spare me your disdain.

In fact I now rather doubt you even have any idea what the phrase "Scientific Method" even means.

As for denial, you go ahead and buy into whatever trendy theory suits your current emotional needs.

I'll investigate and go in whatever direction the entirety of the evidence takes me, even if that means pissing people like you off.

You don't like it, well TFB for you.

---
The two most common things in the universe are apparently Hydrogen and stupidity.

Spoken like true drone.

Congratulation's on being unable to examine things yourself with an unbiased and critical eye.

For the rest of my comments concerning your skills, read my comments below.

I for one am tired of trying to make the brainwashed think for themselves.

Go forth, and continue your wallowing in ignorance.

---
The two most common things in the universe are apparently Hydrogen and stupidity.

As for what I'm doing, I'm doing the same things I've been doing for the last 25 years.

driving a small car

walking when it's close by

turning the thermostat down at night

turning off the lights in rooms that don't currently need them lit

producing as little waste as possible

recycling when I can

And I've been doing that since 1982, so shove your condescending attitude where the sun doesn't shine.

---
The two most common things in the universe are apparently Hydrogen and stupidity.

You've got it backwards. The brainwashing that has been going on for years is that economics requires constant growth, the environment is a bottomless pit of plenty, and the earth is just to big and powerful for us to affect.

Finally the voices from the wilderness are getting airtime, although the skeptics like yourself continue to harp away from invalid arguments that cannot stand against concrete evidence and scientific consensus.

By conditioning yourself to believe that anything the MSM hypes is a lie, you have deafened yourself when the truth has finally emerged.

If you have some actual meat to your arguments, I would love to put you in touch with Dr. David Suzuki, who would be able to respond to your questions.

---
“The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous, the essential act of warfare is the destruction of the produce of human labour”

I will explain but not apologize. I am very passionate about this topic, I view it as a crossroads in our civilization, a great turning point. If we do not take the right exit, we are dead, dead perhaps not as a species, but definitely as a civilization. Therefore those who would choose to argue against the fact that massive change is required NOW are part of the problem, not the solution. They are more than that to me, THEY ARE THE ENEMY.

Perhaps I am wrong about you, perhaps you are a stickler for details and you are concentrating on carbon dioxide concentrations and demand the science that proves to you it is trapping the heat and warming our planet. Once this has been proven to you, then you will agree and continue and perhaps increase your steps to live substainably.

---
“The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous, the essential act of warfare is the destruction of the produce of human labour”

I agree, to a point. I personally believe that science has become the new religion, and that many follow it blindly. This is different. I commend your efforts to find answers, but arguing on web boards with laymen like me ain't doin' it. Go off now and talk to the experts, and let us know what they said. 
 
I am convinced by what I have already seen. But I would appreciate a very detailed explanation of why a 30% increase in carbon dioxide in the last 200 years has started a warming trend that spells disaster. 
 
Here's what the David Suzuki Foundation says, and I admit, it's light on the science details: 
 
Science - Greenhouse Gases 
----------------------------- 
<a href="http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/Science/Greenhouse_Gases.asp">http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/Science/Greenhouse_Gases.asp</a> 
 
Much like the glass of a greenhouse, gases in our atmosphere sustain life on earth by trapping the sun’s heat. These gases allow the sun’s rays to pass through and warm the earth, but prevent this warmth from escaping our atmosphere into space. Without naturally-occurring, heat-trapping gases - mainly water vapour, carbon dioxide and methane - Earth would be too cold to sustain life as we know it. 
 
The danger lies in the rapid increase of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that intensify this natural greenhouse effect. For thousands of years, the global carbon supply was essentially stable as natural processes removed as much carbon as they released. Modern human activity - burning fossil fuels, deforestation, intensive agriculture - has added huge quantities of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. 
 
Today's atmosphere contains 32 per cent more carbon dioxide than it did at the start of the industrial era. Levels of methane and carbon dioxide are the highest they have been in nearly half a million years. 
 
The Kyoto Protocol covers six greenhouse gases - carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride. Of these six gases, three are of primary concern because they are closely associated to human activities. 
 
* 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.--- “The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous, the essential act of warfare is the destruction of the produce of human labour”