• All Purchases made this month instantly go into the draw to win a USD $ 100.00 credit to your HoP account.
 

Forums > Social Discussion > Carbon dioxide: they call it pollution; we call it life Ad in USA

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 123456
Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted:US ads praise carbon dioxide By Deborah Zabarenko in Washington 18may06



A LITTLE girl blows away dandelion fluff as an announcer says, "Carbon dioxide: they call it pollution; we call it life", in an advertisement targeting global warming "alarmists", especially Al Gore.



Herald Sun Newspaper



Anyone know whats going on with this Competitive Enterprise Institute?????







confused


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete Topic

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted:People have some really strange ideas about climate change.

All I think is that the large changes effected by it will cause a large amount of suffering for many people. According to our most powerful models it will make the world a slightly less livable place on average for human beings. Personally my moral judgement is that this would be bad.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

polarity
SILVER Member since May 2005

polarity

veteran
Location: on the wrong planet

Total posts: 1228
Posted:I just find it rather amusing that human action is called un-natural.

Anything that exists/happens is entirely natural. You can't suddenly say at some point in something's development that it ceases to be a part of nature.

Global warming and other forms of environmental destruction are perfectly natural, except the average human doesn't like the viewpoint from which that observation becomes obvious.

If we take the world as the macrocosm, then a suitable alternative microcosm, that explains things suitably would be an apple, fallen from a tree.

If for the sake of argument the apple doesn't get eaten completely immediately, but gets to sit on the ground, it's skin chewed through by wasps and birds, then there's a pretty good chance that a yeast fungus will start to grow on the plentiful supplies of sugar. The yeast will grow at a considerable rate, until it either runs out of sugar, or poisons itself with alcohol.

Despite our oh so mighty intelligence we have just about as much choice in the matter of starving or poisoning as the lowly yeast.

It seems "Collective intelligence" should be followed by "Lowest common denominator".

biggrin


You aren't thinking or really existing unless you're willing to risk even your own sanity in the judgment of your existence.

Green peppers, lime pickle and whole-grain mustard = best sandwich filling.

Delete

Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005

Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee

Total posts: 607
Posted: Written by: dream



 Written by:

It is easy to say stop releasing CO2 because it is unnatural or stop releasing CO2 because it is a pollutant.



It is much harder to say stop releasing CO2 because CO2 will cause a greenhouse affect that might warm the planet an extra degree or two than it will warm naturally (minus the cooling affects of human activity), and that warming will eventually be bad for humanity.





So the first sentence is plainly ridiculous. While the second features spelling and grammer that would disgrace a twelve year old. I'm not sure what you're trying to say.









Point out the spelling errors and I will correct them. I made it intentionally incoherent for rhetorical reasons. My point was, of course, that it is hard to pack the information into a single sentence. By the way, we spell it grammar in the States.



 Written by: dream





As for



 Written by:

this argument is hard to make, since you have to reason backwards from an outcome.





??? Isn't this what most people do on a daily basis? You perceive things (outcomes of events) and then rationalise, or make sense of them.



Unless of course you begin by assuming say, that God exists, and then trying to make every outcome you subsequently encounter fit your preconceptions.



ubblol



sorry







My sentence is unclear, especially when out of context. Change it in your mind to read you have to reason backwards from a forecasted outcome and I am sure you will understand my meaning better.



It is my understanding that most of our daily decisions are made using heuristics.



Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Patriarch917, good to see you are "alive'.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "It is my understanding that most of our daily decisions are made using heuristics."


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

TheWibbler
GOLD Member since Apr 2003

old hand
Location: New Zealand

Total posts: 920
Posted:First off i don't hate americans, i hate 'dumb americans'. I used to live in america myself and have many american friends and realise that not all americans are dumb. I've had first hand experience of the manipulative US media and the general feeling in america that the rest of the world doesn't matter, that americans are somehow more important than anyone else. The kind of americans i refer to as 'dumb americans' are the kind that tend to be fooled by GWB, in many ways george w bush is the archetypal dumb american. Now it's pretty similar in the UK, i don't defend that place in the slightest, that's a big reason i don't live there any more.

Stout said - "Now, from reading on this site I've noticed that Mr Wibbler somehow got himself from the U.K. down to N.Z. and Australia, presumably toured around a bit and is now planning on using global shipping to distribute plastic discs to further his own financial status.

I'd be interested in how Matt, and anyone else for that matter is willing to compromise their own lifestyles for the sake of the planet, because, quite obviously, complaining and pointing fingers isn't going to solve much of anything, now is it?

Who's willing to give up their car, or never get on a plane again for the sake of the planet? Anybody? I didn't think so. Really, it's a personal responsability issue and I for one would like to see those who are all bent out of shape about the state of the environment actually making the sacrifices they demand of all of us rather than simply bitching about who's fault it is.

Come on, SHOW us how it's done, we're tired of talk. "

Here's a little about me in the past 5 years or so. I moved to brighton, sold my car, have been riding a bike for the passed 5 years. Wanted to come to new zealand for 3 months to see my brother. However was not happy to come for such a short time BECAUSE OF THE POLLUTION THE FLIGHT WOULD CAUSE. I waited 18 months, quit my job, and my whole life in uk and moved to new zealand. I'm here for at least 2 years and have no plans to return to UK after that.

Cars do not have to run on fuels which cause this much pollution. Cars were originally intended to run on hemp oil, not petrol/diesel. You can still get better performance from a diesel car by using vegitable oil. The reason that we use the fuels we do is simply because the people who make money from it want to keep on making money from it. Hemp used to be the number 1 cash crop on the planet then the oil and cotton industries teamed up and produced an absurd propaganda campaign against hemp, slandering it with the effects of marijuana, which of course it doesn't cause because you can't get high from it.

Now as far as natural selection goes i'm hoping that the people who pollute the planet the most and don't give a damn about us all dieing out are the first people to die out. Then the people left will have a better chance of living. Now being a westerner myself i figure i should be one of the ones that goes too. IMO The world would be a much better place without the white man. However i do not think that it's fair for our industrial actions to kill off people who have never benefitted from our discraceful treatment of this planet, ie poor people who get nothing from the industrialised world.

I have found in the past that many fundamentalist christians don't care as much about the environment as i would expect them to. I'm not entirely sure why this is and my sincere apologies if you are one and you do care. But as i understand it the earth was given to us by god as a gift to use as we see fit. Or as we tend to interpret, to rape and pilage as we see fit. Also there is the problem that some funamentalists think it's the armageddon nd almost appear to be looking forward to it.

However assuming god gave us the planet, if we actively destroy the planet are we going to heaven or hell? Hmm, well it seems to me that anyone who doesn't care about gods greatest gift to us would be going staight to hell, but that's just my opinion.

Now it's increadibly difficult to live in the industrialised world and not pollute the earth. However i think it takes a particularly evil person to not give a damn about this. To not care about the vast number of species we've made extinct. To not care about the damage we've done. To not care about the immense greed we've shown in lining our pockets with money at the expense of all the other creatures we share this planet with.

Yes i agree that everything on this planet is natural, i can see the argument that cars are natural and GM food and all the other seemingly unnatural things. Since how could anything exist outside of nature? Yes CO2 is natural and it doesn't even matter whether or not you believe that we are causing global climate change. It could well be a perfectly natural phenomenon that would have occured without human intervention.

However, the problam i do have is people who say that Global Climate Change isn't happening. This is DUMB. It is a feeling that happens largely in USA because they are by far the most polluting nation and their feeble ecomonmy would crumble if they stopped polluting so much. The proof of global climate change is all around us. And the 'science' which disproves it is so blatantly a con funded by people who make the most money out of polluting.

I'm gonna spend ten minutes on google finding some information about global climate change:

some graphs from the bbc:



Non-Https Image Link





Non-Https Image Link





Non-Https Image Link





Non-Https Image Link





Non-Https Image Link




from colorado.edu we see the melting of glaciers in greenland

Non-Https Image Link





from ecobridge.org

Non-Https Image Link





Non-Https Image Link




ok, that actually took 12 minutes, but it's pretty easy to find information about it. If you are finding it hard to find this information try turning your AOL safe content filter off wink

So whether or not humans are to blame is neither here nor there. The biggest problem humanity currently faces is that a hell of a lot of evidence suggests our planet will be far less inhabiable wihtin what 1000 years? 500 years maybe, less?

There's a lot of scientists that believe we've passed the point of no return, that the climate has already snapped. The gulf stream seems to be stuttering, which is extremely serious for europe and america. Not causing warming in europe but a big freeze.

Now i can excuse people for polluting the environment, i have polluted it a great deal myself. But to ignore the warnings, to not care about the earth one bit, to not care about the slow-genocide we are commiting is in my opinion unforgivable. No god would forgive this kind of evil selfishness.

If the white man wants to wipe himself out then that's fine by me. But taking every other species with us is not acceptable.


Spherculism ~:~ The Act of becoming Spherculish.

Delete

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted: Written by: TheWibbler

Who's willing to give up their car, or never get on a plane again for the sake of the planet? Anybody? I didn't think so. Really, it's a personal responsability issue and I for one would like to see those who are all bent out of shape about the state of the environment actually making the sacrifices they demand of all of us rather than simply bitching about who's fault it is.


Not to be self rightious but...I don't own a car, don't fly and endevour to buy local. It can be done.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

ickleMatt


ickleMatt

enthusiast
Location: L.O.N.D.O.N.

Total posts: 242
Posted: Written by: polarity



I just find it rather amusing that human action is called un-natural.







I took my definition of natural from a dictionary, admittedly there are more than one definition of natural. Such as natural human behavior, but this is very different to what was being discussed. I gave this one definition to contrast with Patriarch's idea that it is natural to burn oil and drive around in cars - which anyway you look at it is rather strange.



Yes humans are an integral part of nature, and without us who would there be to say what is natural and what isn't (note the diference between nature and natural). Cars, petrol and plastics are not natural. This is in no way saying that un-natural is bad (by paraphrasing that I am is exposing your prejudices), I'm a great believer in technology (Im using computers aren't I?). To say that such things are natural not only devalues the idea of natural, but more importantly, limits our ability to think of alternatives.



 Written by: Patriarch917

No doubt the rabbits consider the wolves to be not acting naturally, since they probably define "natural" as eating plants. No doubt the plants see the rabbits as unnatural, and consider it natural to simply grow in the dirt. An outside observer would see all of these as part of the "nature" of this planet.





Rabbits not being sentient beings have no concept of natural. Yes an outside observer would see all of the earth as natural, but they are merely an observer, we on the other hand are inside the system and have a more subjective view: what we have created within the system and what we have not, this is the definition of natural.



Being sentient beings and inside the system of earth I believe we have a responsibility to ensure that biodiversity is maintained. I also believe that the earth is a very complex system and therefore the maintenance of biodiversity is the best way of promoting human interests - for example, we have no idea what impact, say the destruction of the amazonian rain forest will have on the rest of the planet, not to mention the potential medicines that may have been lost.



If this means you have to reason backwards from a forecasted outcome so what? This a the foundation of modern science (please correct me if I'm wrong) - you perceive an outcome, come up with potential reasons for this outcome and test them. This is better then blazing ahead like a bull in a china shop.



Dream: My sentence regarding weather was ill thought out as an addition to my first thoughts: I did mean climate. And for concrete read irreversible change.


Delete

coleman
SILVER Member since Aug 2002

coleman

big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay

Total posts: 7330
Posted: Written by: Patriarch917



To say that we have a duty to return the earth to some non-human state because human activity is not natural seems to be a very odd view to have.





not at all.



the concept of natural law is well-established and when discussing topics such as this one of how governments (and individuals) should act faced with the strong possibility of imminent climate change, exacerbated pollution and greenhouse gas production, it is highly relevent.



those that are pushing strongly for a reduction in the production of greenhouse gasses by the western world are implying that the massive levels of co2 produced and released into the atmosphere by these industrialised nations is a violation of natural law.





 Written by: Patriarch917



Rather than labeling CO2 emissions as pollutants or unnatural, I think that it is far more helpful to frame the argument in terms of what is best for our species. If we are truly destroying our ability to survive and thrive, then we should limit our output to acceptable levels.





i agree completely.



what you describe there is called 'dumbing down' and it seems it is employed a lot in america by the media and the government with regards to politics, especially with respect to global issues.



i personally have not heard co2 being referred to as a 'pollutant' or as 'unnatural' apart from in this thread, but it seems to me from this reading discussion that you have heard people repeatedly using these (misleading) terms and are not happy about it.





for the record, co2 is a greenhouse gas - if anyone here is unfamiliar or does not understand this term, LOOK IT UP.



the greenhouse effect is natural and is required for life to exist on earth.



however, the evidence suggests that the massive level of co2 production since the industrial revolution is rapidly amplifying this warming mechanism.



the worrying thing is that we are just seeing the beginning of global warming: "even if all greenhouse gas emissions were stopped today, the effects from past activities will persist for many centuries, due to the long life of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the long time required for transfer of heat from the atmosphere to the deep oceans."





 Written by: Patriarch917



Of course, this argument is hard to make, since you have to reason backwards from an outcome.







this is where i disagree.



this argument is not hard to make: knowing how the greenhouse effect works and coupling this with measurements of the levels of co2 in the atmosphere, it is a simple extrapolation.





 Written by: Patriarch917



It is easy to say stop releasing CO2 because it is unnatural or stop releasing CO2 because it is a pollutant.



It is much harder to say stop releasing CO2 because CO2 will cause a greenhouse affect that might warm the planet an extra degree or two than it will warm naturally (minus the cooling affects of human activity), and that warming will eventually be bad for humanity.







no, this is again an oversimplification and a slight misrepresentation too.



co2 does not solely cause global warming.



releasing massive amounts of co2 into the atmosphere will increase the greenhouse effect and, combined with deforestation, changes in land use and the type of pollution we produce, will result in global warming.



we have already seen the beginning of this accelerated warming taking place, as can be seen from the correlation between the rise in co2 released into the atmosphere with the average global temperature rise over that time.



the main point is that this change to the whole world is being caused by a very small fraction of the population.



when the leaders of these industrialised nations refuse to accept their part in the effect they mey be having on the planet's atmosphere and its natural processes, it is an insult of the highest order to those others that they share the planet with.





 Written by: Patriarch917



All of that reasoning may be true, which is why I have advocated in this thread that we should decrease their energy consumption.





amen smile





 Written by: Patriarch917



However, I admit that much of the things we hear about global warming is speculative, including the idea that it is a bad thing. Even though, it is far more compelling than merely calling CO2 pollution or unnatural.





calling carbon dioxide 'pollution' or 'unnatural' is indeed incorrect.



global warming is a hypothesis and as such, is speculative, though the amount of evidence supporting the theory increases with each passing year.



as such, referring to the massive production of co2 by the western world as 'unnatura'l or 'pollution ' is wholly acceptable imho.





cole. x



p.s. jeff - that was stout's quote, not matt wibbler's.


"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood

Delete

tartanfairy
BRONZE Member since Sep 2005

tartanfairy

newbie
Location: London

Total posts: 22
Posted:This might be of interest to the continuing debate....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5006970.stm
br>
E x


**I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by.**

Douglas Adams

**There is no pleasure in having nothing to do; the fun is in having lots to do and not doing it.**

Mary Wilson Little

Delete

ickleMatt


ickleMatt

enthusiast
Location: L.O.N.D.O.N.

Total posts: 242
Posted:Also see:

The Guardian


Delete

Sethis
BRONZE Member since May 2005

Sethis

Pooh-Bah
Location: York University

Total posts: 1762
Posted: Written by: Patriarch917


I made it intentionally incoherent for rhetorical reasons.




Taking a leaf out of GWs book? umm

Why anyone at all would want to be deliberately incoherent for the purposes of clarifying their argument is beyond me. Why not just say what you mean and leave it at that?


After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Delete

dream
SILVER Member since Jul 2003

dream

currently mending
Location: Bristol

Total posts: 493
Posted:apparently Patriarch was making a point of saying it's much harder to say something that does not make sense than it is to say something else that doesn not make sense.

In doing so he deliberately made no sense, so as to create formal reflexivity of the content of his post.

I think it's either a cryptic neo-Nietzschian critique of rationality which has gone way over everyone's head, or he's an idiot.

Given that Pat's an avid supporter of the Nietzschian maxim 'God is Dead' I'm going with the first option.

wink


He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

Nietzsche

Delete

Stout
SILVER Member since May 2004

Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada

Total posts: 1872
Posted:MrWibbler, five years no car, a flight to N.Z. with the intent to stay for two years. Jeff no car? That's the stuff I was hoping to hear.

IckleMatt the pointing fingers comment came after reading MrWibblers post which I read as "blaming" Americans for global warming, along with years of hearing people slagging things like SUVs while driving around in some 1970's beater that actually puts out MORE smog. I could go on and on and on, but I think you get the gist. We need more actions, less words, and hopefully we won't have to resort to legislation to address this issue.


Interestingly, yachts seem to sail under environmentalist radar, I wonder why?

I'm no saint myself, but I do try. ( I just bought a push type lawnmower ) go me smile


Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin

Total posts: 3556
Posted:first if i mispoke i apologize but windfarms DO affect wind patterns if misbuilt and so do cities and this affects weather patterns whether or not it affects climate i suppose remains to be seen
sorry your so jaded with dumb americans sorry you think gwb has control of everything and not his cabinet
the information that wibbler put out is stuff that my environmental statistics profesors laughed at in uni
why is it that you needed to take off the safety controls to do a search for that info?
weather and climate change, one volcano does more damage than we do, and cow farts and burps
and you can be critical of our media, because it is generally considered that british media are just rags anyways, and that there are few legitimate news sources that aren't out for a splash. in my rhetoric class we had to be careful what we quoted for sources...bbc maybe most everything else no


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

dream
SILVER Member since Jul 2003

dream

currently mending
Location: Bristol

Total posts: 493
Posted: Written by:

first if i mispoke i apologize but windfarms DO affect wind patterns if misbuilt and so do cities and this affects weather pattern



Mispoke??? that isn't a word. And as stated earlier everything effects the environment. The question should be does it have a detrimental effect on the environment's ability to sustain (ours or other) life forms.

 Written by:

the information that wibbler put out is stuff that my environmental statistics profesors laughed at in uni



Your professor laughed at the statistics lifted from the Intergovermental panel for Cilmate Change's 1000 page report? Bearing in mind this is a piece of work created by a collaboration of the World's leading Climatologists I find your statement a truly disturbing indictment of the US academia - one that is incongruent with my personal experiences of American Academics and also with surveys which suggest the overwhelming majority of US climatologists believe that climate change is largely human influenced.

 Written by:

why is it that you needed to take off the safety controls to do a search for that info?
weather and climate change, one volcano does more damage than we do, and cow farts and burps
and you can be critical of our media because it is generally considered that british media are just rags anyways



its writing like this which perpetuates the notion that most Americans are idiots. Which is a shame because there are also a lot of very intelligent people who live in the States.


He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

Nietzsche

Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin

Total posts: 3556
Posted:sorry not divine, i made a spelling error-- misspoke

misspeak ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ms-spk)
v. misspoke, (-spk) misspoken, (-spkn) misspeaking, misspeaks
v. tr.
To speak or pronounce incorrectly: The lead actor misspoke his lines.

v. intr.
To speak mistakenly, inappropriately, or rashly.

and it's too bad that you feel that way because it is symptomatic of the problems of the world today...yeah my geology and statistics and my water management and forestry management and land management and a climatologist from britian all said that this information is not as conclusive as some would like us to believe. is it telling yes, is it cause for concern, probably...is it definitive, far from it


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

ickleMatt


ickleMatt

enthusiast
Location: L.O.N.D.O.N.

Total posts: 242
Posted:"cause for concern" - a euphemism if ever I've heard one!

What is more worth our extreme concern and action than the irreversible change in climate cause by human actions?

Do your teachers have reason to doubt the study? Do they believe that the people writing the report have vested interests in the results? Well of course they have vested interests; life.

Are the studies that bring doubt on climate change conclusive? No, you bet they aren't. Do people who poo-pooh climate change have vested interest in the results of studies that say so? You bet they do; financial interests generally.


Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin

Total posts: 3556
Posted:vested interest does go both ways

Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

dream
SILVER Member since Jul 2003

dream

currently mending
Location: Bristol

Total posts: 493
Posted: Written by:

the information that wibbler put out is stuff that my environmental statistics profesors laughed at in uni




 Written by:

this information is not as conclusive as some would like us to believe. is it telling yes, is it cause for concern, probably...is it definitive, far from it



so the IPCC's data is laughable - ie a joke, not to be taken seriously - in your your first quote, and telling and probably cause for concern in your second quote.

I love your consistency of thought.

ubblove


He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

Nietzsche

Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin

Total posts: 3556
Posted:those statistics in particular are just that
remember 93% of all statistics are numerical manipulation


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

Drudwyn


Drudwyn

Forget puppy power, Scrappy's just gay
Location: Southampton Uni

Total posts: 632
Posted:Counter proof requested Faith, if its laughable and not conclusive, is there any counter proof?

Spin, bounce, be one with the world, because it is yours to enjoy...

Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin

Total posts: 3556
Posted:sadly, no longer in my possession, and so i leave it that i have no proof and what i say is solely opinion, and will not be taken seriously-just a stupid american anyways
the defensiveness of all this is lol
i mean, come on, mispoke-misspoke lol


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

Drudwyn


Drudwyn

Forget puppy power, Scrappy's just gay
Location: Southampton Uni

Total posts: 632
Posted:I'm trying to take your counter claims without bias to your nation, and never refered to anyone on here as stupid american, or for that matter stupid at all

I'm quite happy to accept your claim that it's not conclusive and we certainly don't have an accurate picture of what will happen. But we do have an accurate reading that CO2 levels are increasing at a faster rate than we can find anywhere in history. and are indeed higher than at any time in records. Temperatures are also climbing faster than anywhere in history. Although the link between the 2 is far from certain, as Patriarch and yourself have said (and I hope I'm not putting words into your mouths), its cause for concern.

If you're concerned about it, surely it'll be better to be safe than sorry? Cutting down your own "carbon footprint" is a good step, doesn't cost you anything, will in fact save you money in the long run (if not the short run too), and does make a small difference to the output of CO2.


Spin, bounce, be one with the world, because it is yours to enjoy...

Delete

Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005

Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee

Total posts: 607
Posted:Your not putting words in my mouth. I understand that the causal link between higher CO2 and a slight increase in temperature is far from certain. As one of my earlier links pointed out, we aren't even sure that a warming of the globe wouldn't be better for life on earth.

However, I'm the cautious, risk averse sort of person who likes the status quo, I suppose. Which is why I'm willing to take steps to avoid changing the atmosphere.


Delete

TheBovrilMonkey
SILVER Member since Sep 2001

TheBovrilMonkey

Liquid Cow
Location: High Wycombe, England

Total posts: 2629
Posted:Occasionaly, after watching adverts like those made by the CEI, I wonder just how closer we'd be to renewable fuel systems that worked well enough to replace fossil fuels, if all the effort that went into keeping us spending money on those fossils went into developing alternative ways of collecting and using energy.



I also wonder if those that keep saying 'We don't know what's happening with climate change, so we don't need to do anything about it' wear seatbelts when they drive. Do their cars have airbags? If a gun was pointed at them, would they wait until it fired to discover if it was loaded, or would they try to get away before it fired?



With something as potentially critical as global climate change, it just seems rather stupid to me that people refuse to do anything about it - what happens if the people who say it's all going horribly wrong are actually right this time?


But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.

Delete

dream
SILVER Member since Jul 2003

dream

currently mending
Location: Bristol

Total posts: 493
Posted: Written by:

so the IPCC's data is laughable - ie a joke, not to be taken seriously - in your your first quote, and telling and probably cause for concern in your second quote.



 Written by:

those statistics in particular are just that



??? are you trying to tell me you think both???

 Written by:

Counter proof requested Faith



Proof suggests a finality and totality of understanding that we don't have. There is proof that the climate is changing - but as a dynamic system in a state of stable disequilibrium this is to be expected. What we don't have proof of is the causes of the current climactic shift - there is however evidence.

your claim that this proof is

 Written by:

sadly, no longer in my possession, and so i leave it that i have no proof and what i say is solely opinion, and will not be taken seriously



makes you either; unaware of the meaning of the word proof, a liar, or a genius who has conducted research into the global climate which shames an international group of leading climatologists who have millions of dollars of research funding. Your inability to communicate in coherent sentences makes me doubt the last option is correct. You may have had evidence which casts doubt on the accuracy of their statistics - or more likely have evidence which casts doubts on their intepretation of their data. This however is NOT proof.

All anyone has done on this thread is express opinions. That you have failed to present any evidence (i'm not counting 'yeah my geology and statistics and my water management and forestry management and land management and a climatologist from britian all said that this information is not as conclusive as some would like us to believe.' as evidence... it barely counts as a sentence) to support your opinion is why it isn't being taken seriously.

 Written by:

remember 93% of all statistics are numerical manipulation



what's really comical is that the statistics aren't really questioned - even by the Bush Administration... What they contest is the INTERPRETATION of the data - the conclusion that human activity is the primary cause of the current changes in climate.

then again...

in George's own words

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/03/20010329.html
br> Written by:

In terms of the CO2 issue, I will explain as clearly as I can today and every other chance I get that we will not do anything that harms our economy.



He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

Nietzsche

Delete

mo-seph


mo-seph

enthusiast
Location: Edinburgh, UK

Total posts: 524
Posted:Disclaimer: I'm not denying climate change. I belive in it, and am taking action to help reduce it's effects. I just hate dodgy statistics.

Most of these graphs shouldn't be taken at face value


Non-Https Image Link


OK for what it covers, but it's a relatively short timespan in geological terms; I agree, it doesn't look good, but it's not really evidence on its own.



Non-Https Image Link

Without an indication of how it's estimated, or what it is a difference from, it doesn't tell you much. Maybe it's a derivative of the graph above? If so, the units are wrong.



Non-Https Image Link

Unforgivable. Gives no indication that it is estimated - which bits are real data, and which are made up? There's not even a marking for *now*



Non-Https Image Link

Again short time span. Highly disingenuous graphing technique - by starting the axis at 10M km^2 it looks like there's almost nothing left. If you maximise the size of your curve, you'll always get an impressive looking curve, even with poor data



Non-Https Image Link

Fine, but there's no context as to what that level of emission means. How does it compare with the current amount in the atmosphere, or maximum/minimums? How about relative to geological effects such as volcanoes?


Non-Https Image Link


I think if you plotted a graph of total value it would look similar; are the figures adjusted for inflation?


I don't want to dispute the overall train of thought - I agree that climate change is a) happening and b) bad. I do want to encourage people to think critcally, and be cautious of "scare statistics" like this, as they can be propaganda for either side, and muddy discussion considerably.

(I'm also quite open to the idea that in their original settings the graphs were better contextualised - although axis munging and mixing real and estimated data are still bad news.)


monkeys ate my brain

Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin

Total posts: 3556
Posted:drudwyn: My comment about being called a stupid American was not directed at you, but someone from an earlier post, I apologize because I did not state that clearly. I do try to reduce my impact, but will admit to not being as vigilant as I should.

To dream: I am none of those things...I am someone who studied resource management, conservation, and restoration in college. I no longer have all my notes. If you note, I said I couldnt back it up with the studies, so why are you still arguing the point?

You are right

What they contest is the INTERPRETATION of the data - the conclusion that human activity is the primary cause of the current changes in climate"

I do know that other statistics point in other directions from other studies that of course I am lying about because I can't lay my hands on them 4 years after I studied them

You need to calm down and stop attacking the person; it doesn't affect me and poorly reflects on you.

If you need me to pull out my professional communication skills to lend credence to what I say, then I will. However, I have my suspicions that I could write perfectly and it would make no difference.

mo-seph: well said and analyzed



Some reading: offering alternative thought processes

http://www.policynetwork.net/uploaded/pdf/yandle_buck_ch_9.pdf
br>
http://www.eckerd.edu/aspec/swisspage/Scientific%20Papers.htm
br>
http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521861799
br>
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/12/22/proving-science-bias/
br>
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/01/18/not-as-bad-as-we-thought/
br>
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index....ble-distortion/
br>
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/05/27/antarctic-ice-a-global-warming-snow-job/
br>
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/Testimony/Senate2001.pdf
br>
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA194.html
br>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Fear_%28novel%29
br>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ratio_of_GDP_to_carbon_dioxide_emissions
br>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

dream
SILVER Member since Jul 2003

dream

currently mending
Location: Bristol

Total posts: 493
Posted: Written by:

If you need me to pull out my professional communication skills to lend credence to what I say, then I will.



yes. if you can clearly communicate your ideas then kindly do so.

 Written by:

You are right
What they contest is the INTERPRETATION of the data - the conclusion that human activity is the primary cause of the current changes in climate"



I know I'm right. It's why I contested your claim that you used to have PROOF that the DATA the IPCC published was laughable.

You now appear to have retracted that statement (which you did earlier - before repeating your intial claim) and instead agree with me that there is no definative proof - only evidence. Though you then go on to say

 Written by:

I do know that other statistics point in other directions from other studies that of course I am lying about because I can't lay my hands on them 4 years after I studied them



Which suggests that I claimed there are no studies which claim climate change is not influenced by human activity. Which is nonsense. There are still a (dwindling minority of) scientists, even climatologists who claim that climate change is not a result of human actions. While some of these people are funded by the oil industry (www.guardian.co.uk/life/science/story/0,12996,1399585,00.html - 35k -) some of them are not so obviously biased.

It may be worth considering that substantial numbers climatologists have changed their mind over the role of human activity in climate change in the time since you've studied, as there has been a substantial increase in the number of empirical studies suggesting that the current climate change is not within normal fluctuations.


 Written by:

You need to calm down and stop attacking the person; it doesn't affect me and poorly reflects on you.



I'm perfectly calm. I'm sorry that you've been upset by the fact that I've challenged statements you have made which have been demonstrably ridiculous.

Maybe thinking a bit harder before you post, and proof reading posts to check that they make sense in future might be a good idea.


He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

Nietzsche

Delete

NOn


activist for HoPper liberation.
Location: ffidrac

Total posts: 1643
Posted:hmmm... i read something earlier in the metro about global warming, and how positive feedback will increase the amount of greenhouse gases being released into the atmosphere, so i was trying to find a link, but i found this one instead, apparently they have a use for our spare greenhouse gases on Mars...

http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?in_article_id=7207&in_page_id=2
br>
would love to know how the hell they're planning to do that, so if anyone's got any further technical information i'd be glad to hear it...

As for the point of the thread. No, i don't think Carbon Dioxide should be labelled as a pollutant, what good would that really do? I DO think that people should take care to decrease the unnecessary use of machinery that produces carbon dioxide as a byproduct, and that cutting back on the desire to over-industrialise every action and every spot of green land and forest might enhance our quality of life as well as beginning to find a balance between the production of excess carbon dioxide and the use of it. I hereby propose more trees and slower living...

Hmmm... maybe i should make a Slow topic, it could be quite interesting...


Aurinko freedom agreement reached 10th Sept 2006

if it makes no sense that's because it's NOn-sense.

Delete

Page: 123456