Thread: More global warming shown to be false!

Very patiently put and well said.

Wildtim, if it makes you feel better, being a white male in an industrialized country probably puts you lower on the list of polluters than if you were not. Congrats! I think that deserves a beer. I've got mine, hope you enjoy yours!

John, I did not intend to make you look bad, you obviously no more than the large portion of the world about Relativity. And, no it doesn't have anything to do with this topic, but we are all buddies standin' 'round shootin' the sh!t, so I just wanted to interject that little tidbit for the sake of benefiting anyones brain that happens upon it.

Also, the whole deal with exceeding the speed of light is that it only occurs when the light is traveling through some dense medium that impedes its movement. The speed of light in a vaccuum is the one that can never be exceeded.

You make a good point about fact checking and skepticism in general for that matter. Both will serve you well in life, if they have not already.

I fully admit that I have accepted some facts and explanations on this issue that you all and others have not. But I contend that I have reasons for my acceptance, and that if I were given other reasons and evidence, then I would be willing to abandon the beliefs that I currently accept. Innuendo against politicians and guilt by association against scientists are not among those reasons. I require evidence and argument that actually has something to do with the subject the subject at hand, namely, whether the globe is warming and whether the ever increasing human emission of CO2 has anything to do with it.

I know full well that the increase of CO2 concentrations, which have nearly doubled since the turn of the last century, do not account for the entirety of the warming that is observed. This is because global warming is what is known as a virtuous cycle, as would global cooling be. As the globe warms, more boggy tundra in Canada, Russia and northern Europe thaws every year, releasing greater amounts of methane, which is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. The increase in atmospheric methane since the turn of the last century has more than doubled. Water vapor has an effect too, for as the globe warms, more water is added to the atmosphere. Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas. But it is the increase in the concentrations of CO2 which gets this whole process started, which is why we can say the activities of mankind that release ever more quantities of CO2 are the cause of this occurrence.

Furthermore, there are some political solutions to this problem that I would not be willing to countenance. The government could just outlaw automobiles, or restrict the availability of electricity to certain times of the day. I would absolutely be against those proposals. But I don't see the problem with requiring that automakers produce vehicles that are biofuel ready by a certain date, or implement the taxation and incentive program that I outlined above. I don't see a problem with tax breaks for installing solar power cells on your roof or for using geo-thermal heating and cooling in your house. These technologies have a high up-front cost, and such incentives make them more available. I also don't see how they limit personal freedom, which is always my highest value when it comes to judging pubic policies. While I admit that they must be paid for, typically through taxation, and that taxation can limit freedom, I don't see how we can avoid taxation, and I believe that targeting taxation can reduce this limitation to a high degree, and make sure that the limitation is shared fairly.


JMS, please post specifically what you believe to be a slap in the face in the post you reference.

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

But I don't see the problem with requiring that automakers produce vehicles that are biofuel ready by a certain date,

Of course you don't. But biofuels have the same or greater environmental cost than petrol and wouldn't even be a viable alternative if you took away the government subsidies that ultimately come out of my pocket. Subsidies that are another example of the government leaping before looking, there are some truly viable alternatives to petrol but they are still a ways off and the money that could help them is being spent to prop up the biofuel industry.

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

I don't see a problem with tax breaks for installing solar power cells on your roof or for using geo-thermal heating and cooling in your house. These technologies have a high up-front cost, and such incentives make them more available.

neither is very viable in this area, Florida where you are it is far different story.
Since the set-up cost of these systems is still about the cost of forty years of normal electrical power, those had better be some huge tax breaks.

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

While I admit that they must be paid for, typically through taxation, and that taxation can limit freedom, I don't see how we can avoid taxation, and I believe that targeting taxation can reduce this limitation to a high degree, and make sure that the limitation is shared fairly.

Oh I see you will give me a rebate for my solar cells, then tax it out of me later. Typical.

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

I require evidence and argument that actually has something to do with the subject the subject at hand, namely, whether the globe is warming and whether the ever increasing human emission of CO2 has anything to do with it.

KP, I'm onto you. You are stirring the pot and the rest of us up just for the fun of it, by practicing what you yourself preach against.....not that I don't enjoy learning about relativity theory. You also ask for facts, but will only consider ones you yourself have blessed...doesn't make them wrong, necessarily, but unless you personally are going out and taking measurements, you really have no way of discrediting any of the scientists who like me are skeptics any more than I can say you fabricated your data.

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

I know full well that the increase of CO2 concentrations, which have nearly doubled since the turn of the last century, do not account for the entirety of the warming that is observed.

While I would agree that perhaps man-made CO2 output has doubled, do you have anything backing up that atmospheric CO2 has doubled? Everything I am able to find on this subject states we contribute less than 15% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere, and CO2 constitutes less than 5% of total greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This isn't the same thing as saying the amount of atmospheric CO2 has doubled, only that man-made contributions to it have. This would mean, to me, that we've went from a whopping 0.0035% of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to 0.07%....or speaking strictly of CO2, from 7 % to 14% [of the *total* amount of atmospheric CO2].

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

This is because global warming is what is known as a virtuous cycle, as would global cooling be. As the globe warms, more boggy tundra in Canada, Russia and northern Europe thaws every year, releasing greater amounts of methane, which is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. The increase in atmospheric methane since the turn of the last century has more than doubled.

And yet, we are still dealing with less than 5% of the atmosphere's "greenhouse gases". 95% is the accepted number I've found in most sources I could find, attributed to simple water vapor. Methane, CO2, etc. combined amount to the other 5%....

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

Water vapor has an effect too, for as the globe warms, more water is added to the atmosphere. Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas. But it is the increase in the concentrations of CO2 which gets this whole process started, which is why we can say the activities of mankind that release ever more quantities of CO2 are the cause of this occurrence.

Here, I differ with you, as the math simply does not add up to support the conclusion reached. The beginning portion seems believable enough, but to affect a change of even 1% of water vapor would require total CO2 to approximately double. We've added 7% over the last 100 years. Is it possible to double total CO2? perhaps, but we have a long way to go before we are even close. If anything, it has went the other way (reference the 1 degree drop in global temperature last year]. I also think the planetary precession folks have some good ideas as well. A fraction of one percent does not a freight train make...

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

....But I don't see the problem with requiring that automakers produce vehicles that are biofuel ready by a certain date, or implement the taxation and incentive program that I outlined above. I don't see a problem with tax breaks for installing solar power cells on your roof or for using geo-thermal heating and cooling in your house. These technologies have a high up-front cost, and such incentives make them more available. I also don't see how they limit personal freedom, which is always my highest value when it comes to judging pubic policies. While I admit that they must be paid for, typically through taxation, and that taxation can limit freedom, I don't see how we can avoid taxation, and I believe that targeting taxation can reduce this limitation to a high degree, and make sure that the limitation is shared fairly.

While I think your heart is in the right place with this, unfortunately it has been found that per gallon, biofuels (so far) cost more emissions and fossil fuels per mile than simply using the fossil fuels themselves; this is a result of high energy usage in their creation, and their (overall) lack of efficiency, causing more to be used to gain the same results, eg. MPG.
It also bears pointing out that tax credits are essentially the government demonstrating its self-claimed power to let us keep our OWN money. I support solar and anything else I can get to keep the bills down, but keep the government out of it, thank you...no government solution to common sense problems best left to individual households has EVER been beneficial in the long run to the citizens, even if there was a short-term gain.

Night folks,

John P.

I've given the evidence that supports my beliefs by posting a link and excerpts from among the most prestigious climate science organizations in the world. I await your evidence that either the Earth is not warming, or evidence that carbon dioxide is not playing the initiating causal role. Let me explain the concept of an initial or primary cause again for you. You know those domino designs that people with too much time on their hand set up and then knock down? The primary, or initial cause of all those dominoes falling down is knocking down that first domino. Increasing human emissions of carbon dioxide is that first domino. Even an increase in average global temperatures of 0.1 degrees centigrade is enough to thaw more of the arctic tundra and release methane, melt more snow which would have reflected more heat back into space, and evaporate more water which is also a greenhouse gas.

But I'm not going to address your skepticism any longer for the simple reason that doubt must be justified as well as belief. It is no more reasonable to go around doubting things just because you can than it is to go around believing things just because you can. You have to have reasons for all of it. Your skepticism about the warming power of carbon dioxide is the closest thing you have to a legitimate reason to doubt, and since, as you admit, you are not a climate scientist, and likely not a chemist either, I'll take the word of those who know. I don't have to go out and verify their results for myself, only look at whether their predictions turn out to be true. So far, they have. Those scientists who manufacture your doubt for you have been repeatedly shown to be in the pockets of oil and coal producers, and their methods and conclusions have been repeatedly shown to be faulty.

In fact, I'm done with this thread entirely. I'm tired of your, and other's accusations that all I'm interested in is provoking controversy. I present my beliefs and the reasons for them. I defend myself from your spurious attacks on my and other's credibility and integrity. And yet, somehow, I'm in the wrong here. Whatever.

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

In fact, I'm done with this thread entirely. I'm tired of your, and other's accusations that all I'm interested in is provoking controversy. I present my beliefs and the reasons for them. I defend myself from your spurious attacks on my and other's credibility and integrity. And yet, somehow, I'm in the wrong here. Whatever.

This is a shaving forum, and this specific place is where people can discuss anything non shaving related. And we do.
But don't use this place as a soapbox to try and bring others to your cause.
You have every right to have your point of view, but so do others.

A discussion means that several parties explain their arguments, and respond to other people's arguments.

Trying to forcibly change peoples minds and having them admit that they are wrong is turning it into religious conversion.
So if you want to discuss global warming feel free to do so, but accept that people disagree and leave them to their opinion, just as you are entitled to yours.

. . . it was a great program! It did not address how many whiskers are cut off in a male American's life, however!

RalphS

Originally Posted by kerryman71

I agree, things have changed in both parties over the years, so much
so that Democrats of yesteryear may be Republicans by todays standards
and vice versa. I know what far right is, trust me. I work with a guy
who leans that way, but for all the wrong reasons. He is so closed
minded about everything and really sounds like an idiot when he tries getting his point across. I don't bother talking with him about things
because he doesn't know how to discuss things like a gentleman. If people don't agree with him he starts screaming and acting like a moron.
There's one guy who keeps trying to have a normal conversation with
him, but I really don't know why because it always ends up the same way.

I don't lean either way and really try to see both sides of the story.

John

Do you work with Bill O'Reilly?