Global Warming Do You Care?

[wilko]

The issues can't be separated - the problem is holistic in nature.

Edited November 13, 2007 by wilko

[nakhonsi sean]

Chloe82 seems to be well read on the subject. I would suggest people flaming here educate themselves by reading the literature from both sides, not the media reports but the academic papers. There is nothing that she has said that I have not read in scientific papers. If you have the time and do so you would see her arguments are valid and backed up by papers from eminent scientist at leading research centres/universities around the world.

All you do by flaming her is to show your ignorance of climate change science and the workings of science itself!

Edited November 13, 2007 by nakhonsi sean

[mrbojangles]

Climate Change is inevitable!!!

That was a bit deep, wasn't it!

Winter is coming soon.

Resistance is futile.

[jumnien]

Rampant world-wide obesity... people feel like it's getting warmer.... Coincidence; we think not!

From CNN - The American Public Health Association, which will highlight the health problems of global warming in April, is seeking to connect obesity and climate change solutions, said executive director Dr. Georges Benjamin.

"This may present the greatest public health opportunity that we've had in a century," said University of Wisconsin health sciences professor Dr. Jonathan Patz, president of the International Association for Ecology and Health.

Edited November 13, 2007 by sunrise07

[Chloe82]

Opinions are only respected if they have a basis in logical thought or deduction...nothing you have contributed to this web site would lead me to believe that you deserve anything but derision.

"There is not a shred of persuasive evidence that humans have been responsible for increasing global temperatures." - you really seem to be backing off from this a little

I stand by my words, i'm yet to be shown a shred of persuasive evidence that humans have been responsible for increasing global temperatures, maybe you could produce some of this elusive evidence for me?

Your time would be better served measuring sasquatch footprints rather than Carbon ones.

What warms the earth? It's solar activity not Carbon Dioxide.

"A science orientated person" - a WHAT??

Sorry i meant 'science oriented person'

[jumnien]

Try to stay clear of heated arguments. Cool down. Sit down in the shade. You'll feel better!

[wilko]

Join the F.E.S. here today!

[Chloe82]

Okey dokey, chloe,

Please be a real woman and show the scientific charts the proof the recent rapid increase in temperatures is in line with the trends you lean on to believe that mankind cannot impact the environment for good or bad with its huge population of consumers/polluters.

Look in the astrophysical journal, there is plenty of information for there.

Edit * Environmental pollution is not just rising global temperatures. There is no doubt that mankind has is effecting the environment through pollution, that is a no-brainer though i'm yet to be convinced that mankind is responsible for increasing global tempratures.

Edited November 13, 2007 by Chloe82

[wilko]

Most people certainly don’t have anywhere near the level of knowledge on the subject to say if global warming is real or not. It’s impossible to know for sure. Therefore, it’s easier for some people to call it a hoax so they can then use it as an excuse to carry on living in whatever ways they wish (gas guzzling cars etc...) Ignorance, arrogance and selfishness all seem to come into play here.

The weather and even more the climate is a very complicated and difficult thing to predict. Even the most powerful computers struggle to predict tomorrow's weather to more than 40% accuracy. So how on earth can these scientists predict the weather and the climate 30 or 40 years from now?

In the Seventies the Club of Rome predicted mass starvation, in the Eighties there was the Death of Forrests (Waldsterben), nothing of which actually happened. And now these scientists predict Global Warming and Climate catastrophe? Allow me to be skeptic.

While I have my doubts about the accuracy of the scientist's forecast, I certainly believe that we should drastically reduce the amount of exhaust gases from internal combustion engines. We breath in this stuff!

Oh dear how sad - what about East Africa and there are plenty of forests etc...look at Oz!

[Chloe82]

Oh dear how sad - what about East Africa and there are plenty of forests etc...look at Oz!

The East African Coastal Forests have a long history of climatic stability though the much of the eco-region is covered by nutrient-poor soils.

You realy must enjoy showing off your high levels of ignorance.

[mrbojangles]

Pepe' Posted Today, 2007-11-13 09:16:33

So then I gather that is the long version of the opinion that we should not respect and conserve natural resources... cool.gif

No, what ever side of the AGW argument you are on, the conservation of natural resources is important. This is a mistake that AGW proponents often make when talking about ''sceptics'', they assume we are not environmentally aware. I trained as an ecologist and am very concerned about the environment, I just think the Co2 - temperature link is seriously overstated.

I concur with this view. Good post nakhonsi sean

[plachon]

DirkGently Posted Today, 2007-11-13 15:16:43

To the people that DON'T CARE. I agree that climate change has not been proven and that change will continue due to forces of nature, but pollution has a very negative impact on our lives. Yours too!

The filth in the air that comes from burning plastic, dirty beaches, contaminated drinking water etc are really down to us. I know buying a cotton bag won't save dolphins or whatever, but it can't hurt.

Pollution is another topic. The AGW hypothesis is mainly concerned with Co2 which is not a pollutant. Of course pollution must be tackled as it is doing immense damage to the planet and peoples health but this is another issue often confused with AGW.

One reads that the oil industry has put vast sums of money into spreading misinformation and confusion through the media and various other channels, but looking back through this thread I hadn't realised just how successful it has been until now. And Nakhonsi Sean personify either the victims (or perhaps the perpertrators?) of this kind of misinformation. And it seems their daring has no limits.

"Pollution is another topic" - no it's not, it's one and the same.

"The AGW hypothesis is mainly concerned with CO2 which is not a pollutant" - of course it's a pollutant!!!!! You try going in a room filled with CO2 and see how long you last. (somebody needs to check a dictionary for basic definitions). Apart from CO2, we're also talking about other bi-products of fossil fuel combustion, all of which also happen to be greenhouse gases and contribute significantly to global warming, such as nitrogen oxides and sulphur oxides. There is solid, incontrovertible evidence (enough for the majority of the world's climate sceintists to agree on) to show that these gases have both risen in the atmosphere since the start of the Industrial Revolution (CO2 by 30 %) and are the primary causes of observed climate change anomalies against a background of natural change.

FACT: There is a strong economic motivation for the oil industry to delay legislation that would limit its activities (such as the Kyoto Protocol) and it has spawned a sub industry devoted solely to creating seeds of doubt about the causes and impacts of global warming (which is now so obvious worldwide, it is becoming almost impossible to deny). Right-wing think tanks and pseudo-scientists ready to plant misinfromation are favoured recipients of its largesse.

[Chloe82]

"The AGW hypothesis is mainly concerned with CO2 which is not a pollutant" - of course it's a pollutant!!!!! You try going in a room filled with CO2 and see how long you last. (somebody needs to check a dictionary for basic definitions).

That's funny, i had to read that twice just to make sure that you realy wrote what i had read.

It's a little more complex than the Merriam-Webster definition of a word.

[wilko]

try the horn! - nit! and if you read -I'm you can't I was referring to mass starvation - why am I posting on this vacuous thread?

I have to remind myself again and again - only a fool argues with a fool...

Edited November 13, 2007 by wilko

[plachon]

"The AGW hypothesis is mainly concerned with CO2 which is not a pollutant" - of course it's a pollutant!!!!! You try going in a room filled with CO2 and see how long you last. (somebody needs to check a dictionary for basic definitions).

That's funny, i had to read that twice just to make sure that you realy wrote what i had read.

It's a little more complex than the Merriam-Webster definition of a word.

It's a little more complex than the Bush-Cheney (re) definition of the word lovey.

Anyone care for some background info look here....

http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/env...balwarming.html

[Chloe82]

"The AGW hypothesis is mainly concerned with CO2 which is not a pollutant" - of course it's a pollutant!!!!! You try going in a room filled with CO2 and see how long you last. (somebody needs to check a dictionary for basic definitions).

That's funny, i had to read that twice just to make sure that you realy wrote what i had read.

It's a little more complex than the Merriam-Webster definition of a word.

It's a little more complex than the Bush-Cheney (re) definition of the word lovey.

Anyone care for some background info look here....

http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/env...balwarming.html

Link to a website aimed at middle american students, i don't see your point.

[trader1]

I am deeply concerned about the massive amounts of fictionalized propaganda being used by governments and individuals to create confusion among the masses for the sole purpose of increasing taxes and exerting more control over peoples' lives. The <deleted>' BBC and government agencies are increasingly rife with this nonsense.

My sentiments also.

[nakhonsi sean]

plachon Posted Today, 2007-11-13 16:51:51

"The AGW hypothesis is mainly concerned with CO2 which is not a pollutant" - of course it's a pollutant!!!!! You try going in a room filled with CO2 and see how long you last.

Also, if you can, try removing all the Co2 from the atmosphere and see how quickly everything on the planet dies! The American court case has already been ridiculed in the scientific press. At present Co2 concentrations in the atmosphere are around 380 ppm, they would have to go to 15,000-25,000 before we need to start to worry! Up to about 4000 ppm they are beneficial to the Earth's biomass.

Yes, there are other GHGs, however, the increase in Co2 is the main concern, the others forcing of the climate is minor in comparison. Even Co2 is logarithmic, we would need to put in vastly more than we are to achieve another 1 degree warming.

Right-wing think tanks and pseudo-scientists ready to plant misinfromation are favoured recipients of its largesse.

Are you implying MIT, Berkley, Woods Hole, Harvard Smithsonian, Cambridge, Oxford, Max Planck Institute, USC, University of London, Alabama Huntsville, Danish National Space Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, etc, are right wing think tanks and employ pseudo-scientists?

[Chloe82]

I have to remind myself again and again - only a fool argues with a fool...

That's fine, pleased we got you out of the way, i tend not to enjoy disscusing such matters of science with people who only scraped through on high school chemistry.

[Chloe82]

Are you implying MIT, Berkley, Woods Hole, Harvard Smithsonian, Cambridge, Oxford, Max Planck Institute, USC, University of London, Alabama Huntsville, Danish National Space Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, etc, are right wing think tanks and employ pseudo-scientists?

lol.

[Upcountry]

Does the Kyoto Protocol ring a bell? It is the single defining case of governments trying to mandate extraction of money from the citizenry to "combat global warming" as if governments are more powerful than mother nature. It is nothing more than deception and arrogance, at the expense of the taxpayer. Then there's carbon footprint taxation, the whole ethanol debacle raising the price of corn so high that people who use it as a basic food source are having trouble making ends meet, and so on. Entire governments have propagandized the whole thing and are complicit in the propaganda for sheer political motives. All one has to do is walk around London for a few days and watch the BBC.

Why hasn’t the US signed the protocol, my friend?

Because big business, etc., won’t have it. And politicians are afraid it will affect jobs, the economy. There is no political will to accept it, so they make excuses.

One thing I hope will happen is that the marketplace will come up with effective and profitable solutions that make energy savings attractive to even the biggest "Hummer Lovers" who don’t believe that humans can hurt the environment.

There is reason to hope:

Gore Teams Up with Investors on Green Businesses

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...toryId=16227362

I have to say that I’m surprised at how negative this thread has gotten. I apologize to those I’ve offended with my reaction to what they said (Chloe82, for example). Nothing to be gained from that.

It is interesting to see how big a percentage of the expat (or TV) community is actively against the notion that global warming is caused in a big way by human activity. I think a good percentage of people will continue to rant against man-caused warming even when the science and condition of the world makes it impossible to deny. That’s human nature.

But you know what? It really doesn’t matter. Even if we don’t think our actions have an impact on the global climate, doesn’t it still make sense to find ways to stop using fossil fuels, and get away from unnecessary use of ethanol, especially the way it is currently produced? What about all the other forms of pollution we produce that if nothing else causes disease and death in the human population and animal/plant extinction? Isn’t cutting down the right thing to do?

One really good thing about the global warming scare is that is will speed up the transition to a post-fossil fuel society around the world.

Oh, I can’t finish without commenting on Dupont’s comment that those of us who are concerned about global warming, and what we can do about it, are somehow not enjoying life! In many cases, we may consciously be enjoying life more, having respect for it. I hope he did not imply that “having the time of our lives” necessarily includes wasting energy without a care, though he does sound selfish. That would be sad.

[JetsetBkk]

I'm no math major or scientist, but trying to find out how much CO2 is spewed into the atmosphere by my auto, I read that using 100 gallons of gas will put 2000 lbs of CO2 into the atmosphere. Here is where I get math challenged. Gas weighs about the same or maybe a little less than water, hence 100 gallons is equal roughly 700 lbs, so how does the total byproduct of combustion (assume its all CO2, which I don't believe is true) gain roughly 3 times the weight of gas, post combustion.

Each atom of carbon (atomic weight 12) in your car's fuel combines with two atoms of oxygen (atomic weight 16) to produce one molecule of CO2 (molecular weight 44). So the weight does go up considerably (by a factor of 3.67).

But I can't calculate exactly how much weight of CO2 is produced by 100 gallons of car fuel as I don't know exactly what proportion of fuel is carbon - there is also a lot of hydrogen in there.

But the point is, using the weight change is just another over-dramatic way of describing combustion. The global warming advocates could've said "one atom of carbon produces one molecule of CO2" - but that's no where near as exciting or dramatic, is it?

[Upcountry]

BTW, I forgot to add that it's actually interesting to hear the different points of view expressed, with links included.

Whether my mind is changed by any of this, I do feel better informed.

JetsetBkk, interesting math and point of view. Yes, both sides look for the most effective PR to get their point across.

Not to harp on Gore again, but his first book was much drier and detail oriented. So, he ended up putting together a more simple and colorful picture oriented version that got his points across more easily to a larger population.

[Upcountry]

Oh, and you may get a kick out of this (you'll have to listen):

Leave the Lights on for Batman

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...toryId=16182640

[RoyalOrchid]

The <deleted>' BBC and government agencies are increasingly rife with this nonsense.

The climate change now is much more intense and fast than it was before due to humans activities. But even if it is not due to human impact on nature, does it mean that we can continue and pollute our planet (CO2, oil, gases etc)? And if you do not care about this issue, does it mean that you don't mind dying earlier (if that happened in your lifetime)?

[Chloe82]

I apologize to those I've offended with my reaction to what they said (Chloe82, for example). Nothing to be gained from that.

No need to apologize to me Upcountry, if i put my point of view on a public forum i expect my fair share of stick, it comes with the territory I have been enjoying reading others views on this subject and some have been set out very well, it's also very evident that many people have infact a real passion for this subject and it is nice to have a healthy disscusion about our individual beliefs.

The reason i joined up to the forum was because i saw this thread on my daily visit to the news section and have enjoyed the different take on things from others.

I also must add that nothing i have read here has made me even doubt in the slightest my conviction that this cycle of global warming and cooling has anything to do with what we as people are doing to the planet.

We are doing some awful things to the environment but i believe in my personal opinion that non of this is causing global warming.

[RoyalOrchid]

The <deleted>' BBC and government agencies are increasingly rife with this nonsense.

The climate change now is much more intense and fast than it was before due to humans activities. But even if it is not due to human impact on nature, does it mean that we can continue and pollute our planet (CO2, oil, gases etc)? And if you do not care about this issue, does it mean that you don't mind dying earlier (if that happened in your lifetime)?

[Chloe82]

The issues can't be separated - the problem is holistic in nature.

Would it not be of more value for you set out the issues here and then see if someone, or as a group we can seperate them? That would make more sense than an eleven word responce surely?

So here is your challenge, lay out what you believe are the issues that can't be seperated and we can see if we can seperate them.

Sound fair? I think so, but i expect only a flame in return.

*Edit: Comment snipped to avoid going way off topic.

Edited November 13, 2007 by Chloe82

[HS Mauberley]

What a depressing display of ignorant, ill-informed rubbish. The best that can be said for this trash is that at least it confirms the widely held view that ex-pats (and those in Thailand even more so than average) are the most boorish, prejudiced, loathsome oafs on the planet. Of course climate change is real and of course it's caused by our activities. However inconvenient it may be for the mediaeval peasants posting here, there is no significant argument about this within the scientific community (cue some gibbon posting a cut and pace from Lindzen printed in the Wall Street Journal 10 years ago). If you still have doubts about it read a book on the subject (there are any number of excellent introductions on the subject) or read some of the excellent blogs on climate change (I would suggest devoting some time to reading realclimate.org, where you can find extremely thorough debunkings of all the main objections to climate change theories - that crap about climate change on Mars, the rubbish produced by Michael Crichton, maybe even how the explanations of manmade climate change aren't entirely dependent on Al Gore's moral integrity, etc. etc.)

[JetsetBkk]

Oh, and you may get a kick out of this (you'll have to listen):

Leave the Lights on for Batman

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...toryId=16182640

That is funny! What a cheek by the producers - and what a waste of energy.