Global Warming, Man Made versus Sun Made
Jaime_Souviens @ Wed Dec 07, 2005 5:21 pm
Avro Avro:
Good enough for me, I have said in the past that I am leary of this whole man made global warming buisness so we are on the same page Bort. How could anybody deny this.....?Sure, I will.
Is it pollution, or is it humidity?
Can't tell by looking at a photo of a hazy city what the haze is composed of.
Jaime_Souviens @ Wed Dec 07, 2005 5:30 pm
Avro Avro:
Do we now have someone denying pollution exsists? Or is it just an issue with the picture?
What about the following didn't make sense to you?
Jaime Souviens Jaime Souviens:
Can't tell by looking at a photo of a hazy city what the haze is composed of.
Jaime_Souviens @ Wed Dec 07, 2005 5:45 pm
Avro Avro:
Just making sure that's all. Don't get you're fundies in a bind masturbator.
Been drinking again?
Zipperfish @ Fri Dec 09, 2005 4:24 pm
Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
This year's number of hurricanes has nothing to do with global warming.
Pointing to any single hurricane, or season of hurricanes, and ascribing it to clmiate change would be like pointing to one partiucalr smoke and saying that it is the one that gave the smoker cancer.
That's exactly what people, even in this thread, are doing.
Yes they are, but I don't think they can clad their claims with a very convincing statistical argument. Besides, the nastier effects of global warming, if the IPCC is correct, won't kick in until after 2020.
Jaime_Souviens @ Fri Dec 09, 2005 4:58 pm
We just don't know...
Istanbul @ Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:15 pm
Toro Toro:
Rev_Blair Rev_Blair:
It is silly, Avro. If the overwhelming number of scientists are wrong and there is no such thing as global warming, we end up with cleaner air by listening to them. If the miniscule number of global warmer deniers is wrong and we listen to them, we bring on global catastrophe.
The economic argument against reducing emissions is a non-starter. Reducing emissions requires the development of technology. Throughout our existence, technology has created wealth, not lessened it.
The costs that will incurred by global warming include damage done by extreme weather events. We've already seen what these events look like, whether you belive they were caused by global warming or not. Floods, droughts, hurricanes, tornados, blizzards, hot spells, and even cold spells, are all predicted to be more severe and more common as climate change worsens. The economic impact of that is huge.
We use oil to make all kinds of things. Once the oil is burned, it is no longer available to us. What we are doing is the equivalent of living in a tent while burning the lumber we could have built a house with. Only idiots would promote such a course of action.
The economic argument against reducing emissions is a non-starter. Reducing emissions requires the development of technology. Throughout our existence, technology has created wealth, not lessened it.
The costs that will incurred by global warming include damage done by extreme weather events. We've already seen what these events look like, whether you belive they were caused by global warming or not. Floods, droughts, hurricanes, tornados, blizzards, hot spells, and even cold spells, are all predicted to be more severe and more common as climate change worsens. The economic impact of that is huge.
We use oil to make all kinds of things. Once the oil is burned, it is no longer available to us. What we are doing is the equivalent of living in a tent while burning the lumber we could have built a house with. Only idiots would promote such a course of action.
This is incorrect. Kyoto certainly would reduce economic growth.
An economic analysis done by Global Insight published by The International Council for Capital Formation.
$1:
2. OVERVIEW The analysis, which was prepared by Global Insight Inc. an international economic modelling firm, assumes that the cost of emission allowances under Kyoto would be passed along to consumers in the form of higher energy prices and ultimately high prices for all goods and services. Consumers’ purchasing power would be reduced by the higher cost of using energy, reducing real disposable income.
Output and employment losses would also be expected because:
• energy-using equipment and vehicles would be made prematurely obsolete
• consumers would be rattled by rapid increases in living costs
• financial ministers concerned over possible inflation would most likely need to target more slack in the economy to deflate non-energy prices and thus stabilize the overall price environment.
Consumption and residential fixed investment would be the hardest hit components of real GDP because of the direct loss in real disposable income.
Output and employment losses would also be expected because:
• energy-using equipment and vehicles would be made prematurely obsolete
• consumers would be rattled by rapid increases in living costs
• financial ministers concerned over possible inflation would most likely need to target more slack in the economy to deflate non-energy prices and thus stabilize the overall price environment.
Consumption and residential fixed investment would be the hardest hit components of real GDP because of the direct loss in real disposable income.
The effects on Germany, Italy, Spain and The UK. Kyoto would cost 200,000 jobs in Italy, 300,000 jobs in both Germany and the UK, and 700,000 jobs in Spain by 2010. GDP would be sliced by about 1% in the UK and Germany, 2% in Italy, and 3.5% in Spain.
Interesting. Bang on in fact.
----------------------------------
We need population control. Free saltpeter for those who do not want to be radiated. Too many people, too much hot gas.
Zipperfish @ Sat Dec 10, 2005 4:16 pm
Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:
We just don't know...
We don't know anytyhing. That doesn't mean that we can't make a decision based on the available evidence.
Toro @ Sat Dec 10, 2005 4:29 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
We don't know anytyhing. That doesn't mean that we can't make a decision based on the available evidence.
This is true.
The question then becomes what kind of decisions do we make? Our response should be based on our level of certainty. Since we do not know for certain, we should not act with certainty. However, since we know some, then we should do some. In other words, we hedge our bets.
Jaime_Souviens @ Sat Dec 10, 2005 4:34 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Jaime Souviens Jaime Souviens:
We just don't know...
We don't know anytyhing. That doesn't mean that we can't make a decision based on the available evidence.
That's like saying when you're lost driving in an car, and you don't know where you are, you should still keep on driving.
Have you ever thought of
a) evaluating the evidence you've got,
b) getting more and better evidence?
Zipperfish @ Sat Dec 10, 2005 6:48 pm
$1:
That's like saying when you're lost driving in an car, and you don't know where you are, you should still keep on driving.
Have you ever thought of
a) evaluating the evidence you've got,
b) getting more and better evidence?
Have you ever thought of
a) evaluating the evidence you've got,
b) getting more and better evidence?
Well, a better analogy for climate change would be you're driving and totally lost. There is some indication that there may be a cliff up ahead, but instead you say "Fuck it" and hit the gas.
It doesn't matter how much evidence you get, there is always doubt, and skillful politicians and pundits to exploit that doubt. (Take a look at the history of the smoking/cancer debate for example).
But you do make progress over time. A few years ago, most of those who disparaged the idea of climate change refused to even believe that the planet's atmosphere was heating up. At least we've got most of them to admit that now, albeit grudgingly.
But you still get a vast number of people who think that the entire debate is some kind of scientific conspiracy to get grant money--a patently illogical claim, but that does not seem to detract from its popularity. It is also commonly referred to as "junk science" despite thousands upon thousands of peer-reviewed papers in virtually every scientific discipline.
Jaime_Souviens @ Sat Dec 10, 2005 7:42 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
$1:
That's like saying when you're lost driving in an car, and you don't know where you are, you should still keep on driving.
Have you ever thought of
a) evaluating the evidence you've got,
b) getting more and better evidence?
Have you ever thought of
a) evaluating the evidence you've got,
b) getting more and better evidence?
Well, a better analogy for climate change would be you're driving and totally lost. There is some indication that there may be a cliff up ahead, but instead you say "Fuck it" and hit the gas.
It doesn't matter how much evidence you get, there is always doubt, and skillful politicians and pundits to exploit that doubt. (Take a look at the history of the smoking/cancer debate for example).
But you do make progress over time. A few years ago, most of those who disparaged the idea of climate change refused to even believe that the planet's atmosphere was heating up. At least we've got most of them to admit that now, albeit grudgingly.
But you still get a vast number of people who think that the entire debate is some kind of scientific conspiracy to get grant money--a patently illogical claim, but that does not seem to detract from its popularity. It is also commonly referred to as "junk science" despite thousands upon thousands of peer-reviewed papers in virtually every scientific discipline.
Like geosynclinal theory.
This debate cannot be solved by analogy. For every example you find, I'll give you a counter until we exhaust the annals of the history of science.
Jaime_Souviens @ Sat Dec 10, 2005 7:44 pm
Scientific American, Vol. XCIV, No. 2, January 13, 1905, Page 40 Scientific American, Vol. XCIV, No. 2, January 13, 1905, Page 40:
[Article verbatim and in full]
The Wright Aeroplane and its Fabled Performance
A Parisian automobile paper recently published a letter from the Wright brothers to Capt. Ferber of the French army, in which statements are made that certainly need some public substantiation from the Wright brothers. In the letter in question it is alleged that on September 26, the Wright motor-driven aeroplane covered a distance of 17.961 kilometers in 18 minutes and 9 seconds, and that its further progress was stopped by lack of gasoline. On September 29 a distance of 19.57 kilometers was covered in 19 minutes and 55 seconds, the gasoline supply again having been exhausted. On September 30 the machine traveled 16 kilometers in 17 minutes and 15 seconds; this time a hot bearing prevented further remarkable progress. Then came some eye-opening records. Here they are:
October 3: 24.535 kilometers in 25 minutes and 5 seconds. (Cause of Stoppage, hot bearing.)
October 4: 33.456 kilometers in 33 minutes and 17 seconds. (Cause of stoppage, hot bearing.)
October 5: 38.956 kilometers in 33 minutes and 3 seconds. (Cause of stoppage, exhaustion of gasoline supply.)
It seems that these alleged experiments were made at Dayton, Ohio, a fairly large town, and that the newspapers of the United States, alert as they are, allowed these sensational performances to escape their notice. When it is considered that Langley never even successfully launched his man-carrying machine, that Langley's experimental model never flew more than a mile, and that Wright's mysterious aeroplane covered a reputed distance of 38 kilometers at the rate of one kilometer a minute, we have the right to exact further information before we place reliance on these French reports. Unfortunately, the Wright brothers are hardly disposed to publish any substantiation or to make public experiments, for reasons best known to themselves. If such sensational and tremendously important experiments are being conducted in a not very remote part of the country, on a subject in which almost everybody feels the most profound interest, is it possible to believe that the enterprising American reporter, who, it is well known, comes down the chimney when the door is locked in his face--even if he has to scale a fifteen-story sky-scraper to do so-- would not have ascertained all about them and published them broadcast long ago? Why particularly, as it is further alleged, should the Wrights desire to sell their invention to the French government for a "million" francs. Surely their own is the first to which they would be likely to apply.
We certainly want more light on the subject.
PluggyRug @ Sat Dec 10, 2005 7:57 pm
Aeroplanes can't fly the planets to hot.
The only greenhouse gas is methane, 'cause I always fart in my greenhouse. The ozone hole in my greenhouse is really large, someone tossed a rock at it.
Sorry guys I know it isn't funny but I could not resist 