Help me out on this one

Posted · Add Comment

We’ve got more global-warming scaremongering out today.

It has been 2,000 years and possibly much longer since Earth has run such a fever.

The National Academy of Sciences, reaching that conclusion in a broad review of scientific work requested by Congress, reported Thursday that the “recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia.”

“Several millennia” I suppose means 3,000 years. Maybe 4,000. I thought Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt on foot — apparently they were driving SUVs. Seriously, the only way these claims of mainly human-induced global warming are true is if we are at our hottest ever.

*UPDATE* Welcome to all our readers from Al Gore’s blog! That should explain some of the comments.

Let me make a few points:

  • The Earth is not the hottest it has ever been — nor is it likely to reach that point in this century.
  • Even if we instituted the economy-crippling measures necessary to meet the Kyoto protocols tomorrow, we would only slow global warming by less than 1 degree Celsius.
  • If the vast majority of global warming was a result of factors completely outside human control (read: the Sun), then would scientists be getting billions of dollars annually to figure out how to stop it?

Get back to me when one of your climate models can accurately replicate the past thirty years. Then I might consider what you have to say about the next 30.

*UPDATE 2* For those of you who are interested in taking the debate further, might I suggest these two subsequent posts: First, global warming is helping save the whales — which will you choose? Helping the whales or driving a Prius? Second, one of those underqualified MIT professors writes that there is no consensus on human-driven global warming alarmism.

0 Responses to "Help me out on this one"
  1. Monique says:

    You are in denial.

    Futher, you are rumor-mongering by being skeptical about what is SCIENTIFIC FACT.

    And the reference to Moses mean what? Your point is missing and you, fellah, are contributing to the problem, not a solution.

    Stop it and get the facts.

  2. Wonderful says:

    Most scientist disagree with you on this one. Michael Crichton is not a scientist.

  3. John says:

    Fact1: Its been warmer in the past before industys and SUV existed.
    Fact2: It got cooler again in the mean time
    Fact3: Its getting warmer again, most of which occured before the SUVs existed

    So either, A: Its part of the same cycle that has occured many, many, many times thru history
    Or B: Its something completely new, that for whatever reason looks exactly the same as A.

    Yep, got to keep the facts straight.

  4. Wonderful says:

    Is John a scientist? Maybe all the scientists that warn of global warning don’t understand John’s facts or maybe they are just stupid.

  5. John says:

    OK wonderful, which fact is wrong? or is it just facts that dispute your predetermined world view inherently stupid?

    byw, I’m am engineer; therefore reality based on historical evidence will always trump a grant-related computer model.

    Historically, many times thru out history scientists have been wrong; look up the scientific fact of light traveling thru aeither, of theory of combustion ala phlogiston. Or endless others see for yourself:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsolete_scientific_theory

    It doesn’t make them stupid, it just makes them wrong, and even if scientific conscience did exist (it does not) science does not bend itself to the opinion of the majority, it just exist as is, one person can be right, and million others wrong. Telling me something, which has happened in cycles historically, is occurring again for reasons which don’t correlate the other times the exact same thing has happened, with out explaining the previous events seems like a less than complete theory.

    In the 80s we were being told that by the year 2000, New York would be under water, well it didn’t happen, now were being told that over the next 150 years the earth may warm 1 degree, and that part of that warming may be caused by man, well gee, maybe I want a little actual evidence before I commit to the theory. In fact, here is an idea, tell me what caused the last Ice Age, and then tell me what caused that global warming, then tell me why were not in that cycle again. And even then, I still might not believe your theory, because a skeptical curiosity will always exist in the study of the universe, and when consensus driven dogma becomes the rule, true science is dead.

  6. Thinker says:

    Global Warming is real,but it’s effects on the environment seem to be exaggerated from what I’ve learned.The numbers being thrown out are intense. The rise of the entire sea level of the world due to the melting of sea ice is projected at much less than 20 feet, and the average sea temp has risen less than one degree in the last century.There’s another theory that the earth is going through a natural stage of warming, and we have only exacerbated it by the use of fossil fuels,subsequently causing the greenhouse effect. Yes, use of alternative fuels needs attention. But for many reasons,the environment,our health AND the economy. We need to fit the environment into our political agenda, but we will be dealing with this problem for a lot longer than 50 yrs before it really hits home. Destruction,just like evolution,takes time.

  7. MeanMr.Mustard says:

    Even so, why not start now? Why wait for something big to happen? What exactly needs to be big enough for us to start doing something about it? If global warming takes a long time to occur, how do you know melting glaciers aren’t the start of it? Seems to make more sense to try and do something about it than wait and see what happens. Then again, ignorance is bliss, huh?

  8. MeanMr.Mustard says:

    I just want to add: the people in denial about global warming are starting to sound like the people in denial about smoking causing cancer a few decades ago. The unfortunate difference is that it takes a lot longer for the Earth get cancer than for a human to get cancer. A human getting cancer can be observed in most or our lifetimes. The companies emitting carbon have time on their side. This is why they can get away with poisoning the planet. This is why people like John can continue to believe it’s “just a cycle”. Prove that it’s just a cycle. If you’re right, and we don’t do anything, everything’s A-Okay. If you’re wrong, and we don’t do anything, we’re doomed. Seriously, I’m not a scientist, but it doesn’t take one to look at a smokestack spewing forth black smoke and realise that just can’t be good for the environment.

  9. John says:

    OK Mustard, first lets point out that you also produce carbon dioxide, but I will digress with the idea that you should stop.

    Your asking me to prove that this warming is just the same cycle that HAS BEEN RECORDED occurring hundreds of times already, and is not part of some new theory, which isnt even backed up by its own data sets. Heres an alternate theory: THE GODS ARE MAD BECAUSE OF YOU, THAT WHY THE EARTH IS WARMING, granted its warmed exactly the same way many time before you were born, but this time its because of YOU. Please provide proof of your innocence.

    Really though, perhaps we should explain historical trends of the occurrence of exactly the same cycle prior to industrialization, BEFORE we start proposing new theories now.

  10. gringo says:

    What’s your point with Moses, huh?

    Is that a scientific argument? Why don’t you try it at the NAS if you are so sure? A Nobel prize is waiting for you.

    “Seriously, the only way these claims of mainly human-induced global warming are true is if we are at our hottest ever.”

    Seriously? This is a joke not a serious argument.
    You don’t make any sense.
    There were times when Earth was warmer than today. Noone said that
    only man-made GHG can raise global mean temperatures.
    The question is however whether the speed and scale of global warming over the last ~120 years could be caused by natural variation.
    And the answer to that is clearly no. If you know it better find a natural factor or two or three which explains why the over the past 30 years, the Earth has warmed by 0.6° C or 1.08° F and over the past 100 years, it has warmed by 0.8° C or 1.44° F.

    http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html

    Global warming over the last ~120 years is a fact. That it’s mostly due your and your fellow humans’ idiotic fossil-fuel consumption NOT natural factors is also a fact. (Before you’d jump in, I’m carbon neutral)
    Don’t like it? Fine. But that will not change it. Earth’s atmosphere and climate apparently doesn’t give a shit about your opinion.

  11. Glenn says:

    2 Things:

    1) I agree, that humans are not the only cause of global warming, and that this has happened on earth many times before.

    2) It seems like this time around, the changes have been very drastic and have occured in a much shorter time frame then in the past. Previously the warm-ups/ice-ages progressed over hundreds of years, where as this warm up is “off the charts” and happening in the span of 30-40 years.

    While I can’t dispute scienitific evidence, my eyes/ears/nose/etc. tell me that we inhabitants of this planet are in for a rough time ahead.

  12. idealismisnotfake says:

    Who ever has seen the movie, has heard Al say over and over that when it comes down to it, this is pretty much a moral issue. I think everyone is arguing the wrong point, regardless of when anyone thinks the world is gonna end, or if any catastrophic events will happen in your backyard, it all comes down to, ” Am I going to make a conscious effort to live in harmony with this planet or not?”

    I think deep down inside, people like John know that they are harming the environment, they just don’t care.

  13. Brian says:

    That’s the whole point of rediculous comments by people like John. Their inherant selfishness comes screaming through whatever the have to say. “I’m an American and I’ve got every right to drive my 8mpg SUV (usually alone, of course) because I can afford to”, with none of the consequences of using as much of a finite supply of energy that could propel a family of 5 four times a greater distance. The “it’s all about me” people are unfortunately the ones who scream the loudest.

    And I am no scientist, or academician, but it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that if the population has grown from 2.5 billion at the end of WWII, is at 6.4 billion a mere 60 yrs. later, and conservative estimates are 9 billion in 2050, HELLO, can the natural resourses that we’ve grown accustomed to consuming at such a wasteful rate last forever? If to this point since the industrial revolution, a mere 150 or so years, we’ve cause glaciers that have been around since the last ice age to vanish at such an alarming rate, what is life gonna be like when 50% more people are putting pressure on this little blue dot we are the caretakers of?

    Go ahead John, you can say it. “Well I won’t be around to find out so why should I give a hoot?” It all comes down to morals, and unfortunately that seems to be in short supply in this society where capitalism has become more about not just personal succcess, but caring less about those who are on the losing end of the strive for things, stuff, the latest gizmos, and all the other trappings that don’t amount to much come the ultimate judgement day (if you believe in that sort of thing).

    Rant over, now it’s time to get on my bicycle, which gets 100 miles to the gallon of water, and go to work. Can’t accuse this tree hugger of being a hypocrite.

  14. John says:

    Yes, Yes people have only been claiming that over population would destroy the earth since the mid 1700’s, and while it would have pleased me to no end if your great grand parents had limited their procreation, well, I suppose if you never existed you wouldn’t care.

    Perhaps, you should separate your arguments, moral vs. scientific.

    First scientific, you do NOT get 100 miles to the gallon of water when you ride your bike, you consume food, convert it to energy, and expend that energy creating motion. The food you consumed was produced, refrigerated, packages and transported to the store where presumably you rode your bike to pick it up. To somehow assume that this process didn’t produce waste doesn’t make you a hypocrite, it makes you naiveté. To expand you scientific background, I will let you in on the secret that water has no caloric value, however judging your scientific knowledge based on your other claims, I see how this mistake could have been make.

    Second, if you want to argue morals, then fine argue morals, argue that it’s a good idea to consume less resources using some quazi-socialist future public good mantra, recognizing of course that this great world that has the infrastructure that builds and allows you to right your bike while drinking your filtered water was created by the people who consumed earths resources far less efficiently than we do today, so arguing about what kind of world we are leaving for future is tricky, creating a better world at some point requires the consumption of resources, and its not really the post industrialized countries you got to worry about, do people in developing countries deserve a higher standard of living, or must they go native to satisfy narcissistic post-colonial “guilt” at interfering in natural mans pristine state. It’s a very fun argument, do you allow people to die so that the wont consume your earth precious resources, who dies, who lives, and at what standard.

    I guess that what I’m saying is: separate your arguments because your scientific one lacks merit, and because there are plenty of learned studied men who believe that if I don’t follow their theories, I will be consumed by the fires of damnation, but at least they are honest enough to call their theories religious faith.

  15. MeanMr.Mustard says:

    I admit, I’m guilty just like everyone else. The difference between me and the average person, is I know what I’m doing and not doing. I don’t own a hybrid yet, but I’m getting there. Last year, I bought a Toyota Echo for 6,000. It only had 11,000 miles on it. It was a steal. I could not pass it up. It gets 35-40 mpg and that’s a lot more than most Americans’ cars. I already use efficient light bulbs, turn off water and lights when I’m not using them, recycle etc…and I have been doing that for over 10 years now. My girlfriend and I are talking about getting our house converted to solar power. I am interested in getting a compost toilet. I still want to get a hybrid car. My girlfriend is going to get a motorcycle instead of using her car to drive to work. Sure, there’s more we can do but it’s on the “to do” list and at least we are doing something it. At least we are aware of it. At least we are not afraid to make these small changes and later on the bigger changes. We are doing what EVERYONE needs to do. It’s just like someone said, too many people are obsessed with the “I’m an American and I can do whatever I want so don’t tell me how to live” lifestyle. I’m all for freedom, but in my opinion, that freedom should come with responsibility as well.

    It really does boil down to a moral issue. You either care, or you don’t care. Money is not everything. Money really is the root of all evil. Money drives the big companies. Money drives people’s decisions. Everyone knows they are going to die someday so we might as well make as much money as wel can so we can buy all the crap we don’t need just to make us happy in the hear-and-now, which is totally insignificant in the grand scale of things. The people of the future hate our guts. They are cursing us for causing them to wear oxygen masks, for giving them cancer. Basically, we are shooting the middle finger at the future and saying “tough luck! that’s what you get for not being born in my time!” How arrogant we are, to piss and shit all over this planet.

  16. John says:

    Mustard,
    First, your view of money is foolish; money is merely a conduit though which resources flow. You work, and this is your resource and you exchange it for money, you then exchange that money for other resources including the labor of others. Some people buy plasma screen televisions, you buy a compost toilet. Personally, I think that a poor use of resources, since economy of scale dictates that central reprocessing is a far more efficient method, but hey, think what you want to cause I believe that, well, in your own words “I’m an American and I can do whatever I want so don’t tell me how to live” so I wont, I just choose not to follow your asinine lifestyle.

    At the end of the day, you really need to understand that money is just a storage conduit for resource transfer; it has neither feelings nor motives. It is, on a daily basis, converted into food, water, shelter, and security, and those are the things that drive people.

    btw, ECHO was a great car, driving a SCION now, just couldn’t bring myself to buy a YARIS.

  17. MeanMr.Mustard says:

    I noticed a few spelling errors I made. I attributed that to my fast typing. Looking over everyone’s posts, I can see that almost everyone has made typos as well. Do we all have crappy keyboards or is this message board just too slow at handling our typing? I’ve noticed that with some message boards. There seems to be a very slight delay, just enough to cause us to make typos and not notice it while typing.

    Anyway, I have a few questions for John.

    1. What will too much carbon in the atmosphere do?

    2. When do you feel too much carbon will have an effect, if any?

    3. When do you think the time for alternative efficient energy companies should be to emerge?

    4. Do you think fossil burning companies will do anything to try and stop alternative energy companies from succeeding?

    5. Do you think if global warming was real and was really going on, that everyone would suddenly feel the obvious thing to do is to switch over to alternative energy sources and give up their gas guzzling vehicles for better effecient vehicles or suddenly instantly know the sensible thing to do is ride bikes, take public transportation, car pool etc…?

    6. Do you think it’s possible that a political party could lie and say global warming is not happening and even produce so-called scientists to give so-called evidence to oppose global warming? Do you think it’s possible this political party is more interested in money than doing anything to save the environment?

    7. If global warming was happening, do you think the majority of people would have absolutely no problem at all making the necessary switches to better, more efficient choices in their lives and would be able to leave their egos, pride and image behind?

    8. If you are so skeptical, why do you believe what you do about global warming? Why are you more likely to believe the so-called scientists who say it’s not happening and this is just a natural cycle and instead refuse to believe the majority of scientists who are saying there is overwhelming evidence to support that global warming is happening? Why are you not skeptical about the people who say “it’s all just scaremongering, nothing more, go back to your driving your SUVs, keep shopping, there’s nothing to worry about.” Wouldn’t a true skeptic be more skeptical about someone aligned with a political party, whose party’s main concerns are the economy, taxes, jobs etc…(all of which are insignificant in comparison to the grand scale of things related to protecting the Earth) and are less concerned about wildlife, nature, the environment, conservation etc…(all of which are significant in the grand scale of things related to protecting the Earth) who comes along and says global warming is not happening?

    9. Does the Earth need protection? If so, what needs to be done to protect it? What are some ways to harm the Earth?

    10. Do you think the Earth is just way too huge for humans, no matter how many of them and how much damage they cause, to have any kind of impact? If not, how many people need to exist and how much damage must be done to impact the Earth?

  18. MeanMr.Mustard says:

    You have a certain way of dodging questions, John. Do you honestly think I believe money is an entity? Do you think I invented the phrase “money is the root of all evil”? Do you think Brian up there truly believes that each and every time he rides his bike, he gets 100 miles to the gallon of water? These are just figures of speech. Obviously, you know that. Obviously, you are forgetting what is true. Many times, greed can override a person’s reasoning ability.

    What do you think of tobacco companies? What do you think of the people in charge of these companies? Why should tobacco companies continue to be allowed to exist? Why are more and more restaurants, bars, and other public places banning smoking?

    Should smoking be banned completely? If so,why? If not, why?

  19. MeanMr.Mustard says:

    What’s so asinine about trying to use less water in my house? What’s asinine about using a car that has little or zero carbon emissions?

    If that is considered asinine, then obviously, in your opinion, you must think the opposite is better in some way. What is better about driving a Cadillac Escalade or Hummer? What’s better about being absent minded about water, such as leaving it running while brushing your teeth? What’s better about using a dryer instead of a clothesline?

    As intelligent as you are, John, you’re starting to sound like an idiot. All your knowledge about economics hasn’t taught you a damn thing about common sense. That’s an area you severly lack. But, hey, you admit yourself, you can live your life the way you want and no one should tell you how to live. That’s your right.

    I also have the right to try and stop you if your way of life is going to affect mine in a negative way. A smoker wants to fight for their right to smoke. I can fight for my right to breathe clean air. It may be my opinion, but I believe my right is more important than their’s.

  20. Jon says:

    You don’t get it!!?? Then read the article you have linked. There is nothing “scaremongering” about this. The National Science Foundation is mandated by Congress to give them advice. Even Bush’s appointed scientists are coming back saying there is a human cause to global warming. Just so you don’t have to go too far here is a quote from a republican no less. I guess some people do hide their heads in the sand.

    “The report was requested in November by the chairman of the House Science Committee, Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-New York, to address naysayers who question whether global warming is a major threat.

    Last year, when the House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, launched an investigation of three climate scientists, Boehlert said Barton should try to learn from scientists, not intimidate them.

    Boehlert said Thursday the report shows the value of having scientists advise Congress.

    “There is nothing in this report that should raise any doubts about the broad scientific consensus on global climate change,” he said.”

  21. Brian says:

    Well John, if you ever got off your fat ass and tore yourself away from your hate spewing terminal you’d realize there’s a cost to everything. Some of us chose to use what we’ve been given wisely, others like you care to carry on like nothing external effects them.

    For your information when I ride to work and around town on my zero-carbon emission mode of transportation I don’t stop at McBurgers to make up for the 500 calories I burn. It’s a little bonus called getting healthy, although it’s probably negated by your rediculously wasteful and polluting Hummer.

    Did you live in the 16th century to have conversations about overpopulation with people whose life expectancy was somewhere in the 30 year range? Please, I think we can all agree we’ve alot more knowledge about how things work than those who thought slavery was an excepted form of commerce. I take it you don’t even believe our own navy that’s documented the extensive shrinking of the polar ice cap in the last few years. From what I remember from school the natural cycles you like to use as an excuse for what’s happening with melting glaciers and rising temperatures use to take 10’s of thousands of years. Now we have the technology to see that it’s happening in our lifetimes. If you can’t bring yourself to listen to the many voices of reason for something as silly as your politcal leanings than just look at the photographic evidence. Snows disappearing from so many areas of the earth in just the last 5 or 10 years is not a natural cycle in anyone’s mind. Well maybe your little one.

    MeanMr.Mustard, good luck. You’ll never get through to people like John. He may be intelligent but his ignorance as evidenced by the venom he spews to anyone who doesn’t agree with him seems to be his overriding personality trait. Just be thankful that you didn’t have any children like him.

  22. MeanMr.Mustard says:

    My children are already learning about global warming and the importance of turning off lights, recycling etc…

    When they get older, I’ll teach them about Republicans and their love for money and concern for taxes and wars instead of saving the only planet they can currently live on.

    I was talking to my girlfriend today about how space exploration doesn’t get the attention it deserves. We were talking about global warming and how conservatives believe that “humans always find a way out of a problem”. You can bet that as soon as Earth starts to become unlivable, space exploration is going to be the number one concern. We’ll have to find another planet to live on since we used up the Earth and polluted the air to the point where we can’t even breathe it.

    Scaremongering my ass. John, why don’t you actually do some research on global warming instead of reciting that same old Republican radio bullshit I hear all day. Try reading some non-Right websites for a change.

  23. John says:

    Mustard, why are you having children, your destroying the earth. And as for space exploration, global warming is also occurring on Mars, so where are we going to go? As to avoiding questions, see earlier post:

    Your asking me to prove that this warming is just the same cycle that HAS BEEN RECORDED occurring hundreds of times already, and is not part of some new theory, which isnt even backed up by its own data sets. Heres an alternate theory: THE GODS ARE MAD BECAUSE OF YOU, THAT WHY THE EARTH IS WARMING, granted its warmed exactly the same way many time before you were born, but this time its because of YOU. Please provide proof of your innocence.

    You never did provide proof of you innocence? So really who is avoiding questions? 🙂

    Well I love pain so I will attempt to answer you questions

    1. What will too much carbon in the atmosphere do?
    Coal, Diamonds, too much, HMM, how about: what will more carbon dioxide do? Well it will aid plant respiration, and lead to additions accelerated plant growth, no doubt leading to huge deposits of coal being formed, which will be burned in the next industrial age, producing more carbon dioxide, thus starting the cycle all over again.

    2. When do you feel too much carbon will have an effect, if any? HMM I believe carbon dioxide it becomes toxic to humans at about 5% of the atmosphere, so assuming current levels of production, and extrapolating growth, assuming no human acclimation or increase in plant respiration (i.e. in higher CO2 environments plants respire at greater rates) I think we have roughly 679 years until the issue starts to become a problem.

    3. When do you think the time for alternative efficient energy companies should be to emerge? See earlier post about money being a measure of resources, hence when it is finically reasonable, i.e. they don’t need subsidies to turn a profit (measure of resource savings vs. alternative cost (existing methods of production)

    4. Do you think fossil burning companies will do anything to try and stop alternative energy companies from succeeding? Possibly, But you might want to take a less US nationalistic point of view, (I love people who believe advancement in technology can only come from the United States) Do you think nations like Japan can’t develop this technology, and if its cheaper, mass produce it, adopt it nationally first, and then export internationally.

    5. Do you think if global warming was real and was really going on, that everyone would suddenly feel the obvious thing to do is to switch over to alternative energy sources and give up their gas guzzling vehicles for better efficient vehicles or suddenly instantly know the sensible thing to do is ride bikes, take public transportation, car pool etc…?
    It depends on the actual consequences of global warming, half a degree in the next 200 years, and 30 billion in property damage, vs. 100 trillion infrastructure change, give me the heat. You buy insurance? Would you by fire insurance if the cost of the policy was 10 times the homes value?

    6. Do you think it’s possible that a political party could lie and say global warming is not happening and even produce so-called scientists to give so-called evidence to oppose global warming? Do you think it’s possible this political party is more interested in money than doing anything to save the environment?
    Political parties are comprised of individuals, so please don’t assign motives to them. I’ve noticed that historically its far more likely that a political party will over hype a problem as a way to gain political power, and even produce so-called scientists to give so-called evidence to advance

    7. If global warming was happening, do you think the majority of people would have absolutely no problem at all making the necessary switches to better, more efficient choices in their lives and would be able to leave their egos, pride and image behind?
    Kind of a rephrase of question 5.

    8. If you are so skeptical, why do you believe what you do about global warming? Why are you more likely to believe the so-called scientists who say it’s not happening and this is just a natural cycle and instead refuse to believe the majority of scientists who are saying there is overwhelming evidence to support that global warming is happening? Why are you not skeptical about the people who say “it’s all just scaremongering, nothing more, go back to your driving your SUVs, keep shopping, there’s nothing to worry about.” …

    See first post
    Fact1: Its been warmer in the past before industries and SUV existed.
    Fact2: It got cooler again in the mean time
    Fact3: Its getting warmer again, most of which occurred before the SUVs existed

    So either, A: Its part of the same cycle that has occurred many, many, many times thru history
    Or B: Its something completely new, that for whatever reason looks exactly the same as A.
    Orrcomds(sp) Razor: The simplest explanation is normally the correct one.

    9. Does the Earth need protection? If so, what needs to be done to protect it? What are some ways to harm the Earth? Not really, individual habits could need protection, but not the “earth” the earth will extinguish all human life if we become a problem, other species tend to be much hardier than us.

    10. Do you think the Earth is just way too huge for humans, no matter how many of them and how much damage they cause, to have any kind of impact? If not, how many people need to exist and how much damage must be done to impact the Earth? Huh? Every action has an effect, more humans mean more human diseases, antibiotics mean stronger human diseases, predator-prey models, the earth thru starvation, disease, pestilence and war will decide the number of humans on the plant, small man, not your opinion.

    Brian, you are breathing while you ride your bide, zero carbon emission my ass. Additionally, I can summarize your last post: “Yes they said this in the past, but THIS time I’m correct” and btw it doesn’t take tens of thousands of years for climate change, it occurs relatively in geological terms of only centuries, it occurred tens of thousands of years ago.

    Both of you: Nitrogen is 80% of the atmosphere, Oxygen is maybe 18-19%, Argon is maybe 1%, and CO2 is maybe 300 ppm (parts per million) (BTY quit referring to it as carbon in the atmosphere, it make you sound stupid).

  24. Brian says:

    John, your rediculous posture takes on new levels to compare my exalations with the effects of the internal combustion engine and industrial emissions. I’m sure there’s a shrub somewhere in my travels that’s more than happy to breathe my CO2. Not so sure that the foliage that lines my local highways is pleased with the onslaught of summer traffic jams on the weekends.

    I know that we are affecting this planet because I’m in the fishing industry. I see the direct consequenses of overfishing as the boats get bigger and the fish get smaller, not to mention the mercury levels that are a direct result of coal burning. That is NOT in doubt. These are facts. This is what happens if our behavior goes unchecked. Think of that the next time you crack open a can of tuna.

  25. John says:

    Brian, I was simply correct you ignorance, your silly believe that somehow your bike was a perpetual motion machine that required no energy, and that your use of it produced no CO2.

    Now your telling me that you somehow believe that the CO2 you exhale is different from the CO2 of a car (can we say ego), well bud, my CO2 is better than your CO2.

    So, your supplying me with mercury laced tuna? OK, I’ll bite:

    Point one: Carbon from coal was at one time living plant life.
    Point two: The imbedded mercury in the coal must have either been absorbed by that living plant 1000’s of years ago, or was absorbed into the coal from the surrounding bog during the years conversion. No nuclear reaction occurred, the mercury did not appear as the result of decay of heavier elements.

    Conclusion: The mercury existed in nature, and further, while the tuna may ingest and concentrate the mercury, the over all levels of mercury in the environment haven’t changed. Since mercury levels are really only of concern during developmental stages, just don’t let pregnant women and young children eat it, the same way you encourage then to avoid alcohol.

    Personally, I like mixing tuna with mayonnaise, and putting it on bread. Feel free to advertise the health risk, that will drive down demand, thus driving down fishing, and therefore leading to bigger fish once again swimming the seas.

  26. Brian says:

    Well, by your “12 year old” logic, since uranium occurs naturally then you wouldn’t mind if my local power plant dropped their waste next door to you, right? Everything on planet earth exists in nature by the very fact that it is here. It’s how we relocate and use and abuse and change it, like burning the coal that was safely buried many miles underground where the mercury in it was safely contained. Burn it, into the atmosphere it goes, coming down in the rain and depositing in the ocean bottom where it’s taken in by plant life. Which in turn is eaten by the little fish, who are eaten by bigger ones. and so on.

    And by the way, mercury toxicity effects some adults if they are reactive to elevated levels. So wouldn’t you agree that it would be better if it wasn’t there to begin with?

    But I’m not gonna argue environmental concerns with you because you just don’t think anything affects you. It must be nice living in your ivory tower (or is it your mom’s basement?). Ask poor people who get stuck living next to refineries or chemical plants how great their quality of life is with higher cancer rates and such. Sure, all those chemicals and crude occured in nature but when we do the things we do to them it ain’t that wonderful to live around. Not to say I also enjoy the fruits of these processes. The difference is I try to make up for it in what ever small way I can. That’s the responsible thing to do.

    So there.

  27. MeanMr.Mustard says:

    John, I’m surprised you knew anything about the parts per million. By the way, the number of CO2 (carbon dioxide…there, happy?) ppm is around 370-380, not 300. The normal ppm should be around 280. If humans have not added more CO2 to the atmosphere, then it would be around 280. Since it’s in the high 300s and since this correlates with the start of the industrial revolution, it’s safe to assume it’s mostly from human action and not something otherwise natural. In the past, during these warming and cooling cycles, whenever the PPM was up in the 300s, it took hundreds, even thousands of years to occur. The PPM has gone up from 280 to 380 in just 150 years. That is not “natural”. This is what the scientists are talking about. This is proof that global warming is happening and a major cause of it is from humans. This is the “hockey stick” or big spike you see in some graphs that show the CO2 levels and temperatures from the last 160,000 years. To deny the overwhelming evidence measured around the world from many different independent studies and published in reputable scientific journals is to admit your ignorance and stupidity. Like I said, turn off your Right radio crap and pick up a science book.

  28. John says:

    Brian, To answer your question: Yes, if the uranium was not placed in a reactor creating highly radioactive isotopes that DONT exist in nature, then all it is a very dense low level alpha producing metal, don’t eat it, and don’t powder it and breath it in large quantities then its fine. Go ahead and bury it in my back yard, I dont care.

    BTY, which is better for the “poor” an elevated rate of cancer or no job and therefore no food, clothing, or shelter, and poverty which will kills them in much greater numbers. Again, no free lunch. And you accuse ME of living in an ivory tower?

    Mustard, you don’t have proof, you don’t even have good correlation, and the hockey stick model is a future prediction of temp levels due to CO2 input, not a graph of current levels of CO2, interesting that the people who produced that code will not open it up for peer review. However, you take any number near zero and double it, it’s still near zero. There has also been plenty of counter evidence published of other causes, but since that didn’t fit your predetermined conclusion you must have just disregarded it. If you want to get into the diffusing if CO2 thru ice core samples, well we can do that, 280 ppm is not “natural” its the close to the mean (not average) of the last 1000 or so years (oddly enough been lower during warmer periods, and higher during cooler periods), the CO2 now being released into the atmosphere has existed there before, but if you want to use less, then good for you.

  29. Brian says:

    Done with you. How bout you Mustard? Had enough yet? Let John live in his dream world. Without the 2 of us he won’t have anyone to argue his fantasies with. Karma will catch with him in the end.

  30. MeanMr.Mustard says:

    I agree. I’m done with him. The CO2 levels right now are around 380 ppm. That is not a prediction for the future. The prediction for the future, if CO2 emissions are not controlled, are much higher, twice as much ppm. I can’t believe the ignorance of some of these people, even when the scientific facts are thrown in their face. It’s also funny that you think this research is not opened up for peer review when anything reported by scientists is open for peer review. Nothing is “made up”. A scientist would lose all respect if they just went around spreading lies. That’s the beauty of science. What you report can and most likely will be examined down to the tiny detail. The reason we are even talking about global warming is because the overwhelming evidence has been examined down to the tiny detail. The NAS, appointed by Congress, says global warming is going on. People like John ignore it and chalk it up to democrat lies. NASA says global warming is going on and people like John chalk it up to democrat lies. The Supreme Court is going to examine it and determine whether CO2 emissions should be regulated and people like John chalk it all up to just plain old democrat lies. What a moron.

    On a related side note: the Discovery Channel (must be run by democrats huh?) is having a 2 hour documentary on global warming in mid-July. It’s hosted by Tom Brokaw. The website has a ton of information. After reading it all, I didn’t notice any political spin at all on the information. It’s a good site and I recommend it to anyone. http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/globalwarming/about/about.html?clik=fanmain_leftnav

    Also, a message board with a great discussion on global warming is part of Sean Hannity’s site. http://www.hannity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=74213
    Pay attention to Dark Energy’s posts.

Comments are closed.

 
 
%d bloggers like this: