Global warming is a crockFollow

my problem with the global warming theory is that we have only been recording global weather for the last 100 years. sure the tempature is rising in this century but we have no clue if thats normal or a problem. and any scientist who concludes with certainty that we are the cause of global warming based on 100 years of data recorded on a planet that is far older is not a good scientist.
people in general are very arrogant when it comes to Homosapiens place on the totem pole of life. maybe the ice ages in the past were caused by cavemen not burning enough wood.

Edited, Dec 2nd 2006 9:26am by bigfauster

On the other hand, we have regional weather tables going back hundreds of years which we can use to help extrapolate a larger picture as well as secondary "records" such as geology, plant/seed distribution, tree rings, written commentary, etc.

It's not as though we go back earlier than the year 1900 and then collectively shrug.Yeah, maybe

Real old school environmentalists actually still play their woodelf druids

<<<Tree hugger worshipper of Gaea.

I'll have to say I have to agree with Totes in this matter. Our involvement in ecological and environmental changes has been going on for, in greater or lesser degrees, a few thousand years or so. That still is a very short timespan in geological terms; major "natural" changes in the Earth's overall climates have come about in longer and shorter time frames. Volcanoes spewing gasses and dust into the atmosphere, massive earthquakes and landslides disrupting aquatic temperature patterns, meteors utterly destroying large sections of the Earth's surface - all these phenomena are integrated into the large-scale, overall pattern of the planet and can be self-corrected. This giant, floating ball of rock has been inhabitable for, what, almost a billion years, so I doubt there is any worry for survival.

What's the problem?

Worst case scenario it costs more to manufacture cars. A cost that manufacturers will pass on to consumers, so that they still make the same profit, or more.

Worst case scenario less people can afford cars. If less people can afford cars there are less cars on the road.

If there are less cars on the road there's less traffic for those of us who can still afford cars. Less traffic means less wear and tear on the road. Less wear and tear on the road means it's easier to maintain the highways, and less need to build more.

Less need to build more highways, and less maintanance need on the old ones, means less money needs to spent on them. Less money spent on highways means less tax dollars needed to fund them.


Don't you want to pay lower taxes?

there is no discrediting of the toxic effects of vehicle emmissions but there is discrediting of the long term effects of the emissions and there total impact on global tempatures.
------------------------------------------------------------

by who?

thats the whole point of my post. not by any science organization anywhere in the world that has not been financed by big bussiness, or the republican machine which is mearly the spokesman for big bussiness.

france, all of europe, latin america, every civilized nation in the world fully acknoledges the impact of emissions on global tempatures. every study done in the U.S....NOT financed by big bussiness or their lobbiest dollars.....also acknoledges it.

and their argument? well, they cant DISPROVE what is absolutly provable, so, like a good republican machine, they try to DISCREDIT the findings of the scientest with stupid crap like "and how much exactly has it raised our tempature", and " tempatures rise anyway, so how much faster has it accelerated because of these emissions"

in other words, not denying it is happening, just sowing seeds of doubt NOT for the sceitest, but for YOU IDIOTS so you dont go and do something stupid like forcing them to spend their hard earned dollars on something silly like protecting the planet. their whole agrument is FOR YOU, not for the scientest who already know the truth.

confusing the masses.

your ignorance, and your willingness to believe whatever YOUR SIDE wants you to believe is why we are in Iraq.

the whole "inconclusive" argument is not science, it is solely designed to sow seeds of doubt for the masses. YOU IDIOTS.

hussin "could" have weapons of mass destruction, sooo, lets go kill a couple hundred thousand human beings and get controll of the second largest supply of crude on the planet just to be sure.

greenhouse gasses are real. their effects on our atmosphere is a proven science. its ineviatable effect on our planet is happening right now.

our ability to reduse and possibly controll it is also a very real possibiity.

what is lacking is political will. so begines the advertising battle to controll public openion. not science, but political.

but like i pointed out. you idiots are going to believe what you want to believe, what you are told to believe IRREGUARDLESS of the science or the facts. just like the "iraq is a threat" political campaign.

sooo, no point in arguing with people who will hear what they want to hear, what they are told to believe, and who will not look past the politics to find the truth. no point in arguing with a bunch of mindless sheep.

And Leon's getting larger, the ice caps are getting thicker, and scientific experiments like ice in a glass of water are far far subpar to best 7th grade volcanos on the resume.

As most of you know, I live in vancouver, WA. We regulrily get the smog cloud from mainland china and russia drifting overhead. It's annoying, and no arguing that it is toxic as hell. But i'm not convinced we know enough about the complex and inherently chaotic climate system of this planet to be making any definitive statements one way or the other. For every fact and figure one side offers as definitive proof, there is another unexplained exception case to explain away. It's a fact, 99.9% of all statistics are made up.

My problem with the whole global warming debate, is that neither side has a ******* clue what they are doing. The scientists that are spouting doom and gloom climate change these days are the same idiots that pushed through the reccomendation to replace all CFC (Chlorofluorocarbons) refrigerants and propellants with HCFC (Hydrochlorofluorocarbons), then thought of as an environmentally friendly alternative. Unfortunatly, they also tend to chemically react with the other crap already in the atmosphere and end up as an insulator 1500 times more effective at creating the greenhouse effect than CFC's ever could be. Thanks to those scientists, our climate is worse off than it was, and if you have an older car you paid an extra $300 when you had your Air conditioner converted over to support it. So yeah, emissions are probably bad, but one shouldn't automatically treat everything the enviro-activists say as gosple.

There is a bigger, permanent climate alteration that in my oppinion is much more responsable for urban climate change: Mass paving. Asphalt and to a lesser extent concrete acts as a heat battery, storeing the energy of the sun during the day, and radiating it during the night. As teh ratio of paved surface area to plant covered area decreases near densly populated areas, the average temperature in the area becomes less subject to fluctuations since weather changes are offset by the temperature buffer of the pavement. This has a tendancy to minimize wind currents, which let smog build up, raising the temperature. If you look at climate data for at least Washington state, overall temperatures have increased by a degree or two near Seattle, vancouver, spokane, but they have tended to decrease overall at the monitoring stations in the national forest reserves. Conclusive? of course not. but it is intriguing to me.

Another thing that I find interesting, is that no matter what you think of the auto manufacturers, Industry, etc. They are more eco-friendly these days than they were previously. Cars today, even the much hated SUV's are much more fuel efficient than their 1970's counterparts. They still release CO2, but it is in amounts hundreds of times lower than the 70's cars. And while there are more cars on the road these days, there really aren't that many more.

Well Kao, we know that man is the leading force behind current trends of global warming. On that the science is pretty much unanimous.

The actual problem is that environmentalism has been hijacked by political and economic causes and this has muddied the water. Thus stupid ***** like CFC/HCFC happens.

People need to a)Don't Panic. b) Realize that we are having an effect on the environment both regionally and globablly and approach the problem rationally rather than knee jerk reactions. It is also important that we don't allow the *** backward yokels to try to argue that since the problem is not 100% understood that it must therefore not exist at all. That is the same kind of hair brained argument they try on Evolution afterall.

The beauty of the filter system is that I know Monx replied but since he is not 'decent or better' he doesn't appear on my page.

I wouldn't call The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Academy of Sciences, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration and other such agencies and institutions "enviro-activists". If they are, I have to wonder who does count as a scientific institution qualified to make these conclusions.

The heavy reliance on "exception cases" reminds me of the evolution vs. creationism debate. For every bank of evidence in support of evolution, someone says "Yeah, but once they found a fish fossil in THIS layer of bedrock so the entire theory of evolution has to be FALSE!" As the Science article I linked to shows, the concensus among the scientific community overwhelmingly in support of a human factor in global warming. It's not some 50/50 mix or a countervoice for every voice -- the major bodies of scientists investigating this agree that there's a human factor at work here.