|
Post by joe on Feb 8, 2007 12:34:19 GMT -5
If you have a glass of water, and the icecubes are above the waterline, when the ice melts the water level will rise. If the ice cubes are free-floating, than there will not be much of an effect.
Yeah I must agree Al Gore's wife was one of the most powerful fascists in our lifetimes. Remeber Rage against the Machine in Philadelphia...
|
|
|
Post by degijames on Feb 8, 2007 12:45:25 GMT -5
You mean 45 minutes of socks on cocks with feedback? yeah great show. thank you tipper
|
|
|
Post by DrCank on Feb 9, 2007 15:03:45 GMT -5
I have been out of town all week, but imagen my delight to see an actual enviro-political debate on this board.
James, what the hell are you yelling about. I don't see how the gores attack on the 1st amnedment has anything to do with the validity of global warming. Do yourself a favor and don't get stuck in the train of thought that "if someone was ever wrong, they are always wrong". even a broken clock is right twice a day.
and I know it is a bit odd that this message is coming from a politician, but hell it put people's asses in the seats, academia has been talking about a cataclysmic human-induced global climate change for years and very few people have actually listened. And say what you will about the politics of academic life, but I have studied under some of the most accredited individuals in this field (hell they even made up an award last year to give to one of my former professors). and these guys are honest people, don't forget these are people that have stuck the idea of finding answers to complicated questions for their entire lives. alot of us can't even stick with finding answers to simple questions for 6 months.
I am not an overly gulible person and I beleive changes must be made in this respect or we are all f***ed. don't forget the biggest mistake the hippies ever made was coining the term "save the planet", the planet will be just fine. A better term would be "save the human race".
The one thing I was a bit disappointed in, was I didn't see anwhere in this descussion in which global ocean currents where mentioned. I believe before we have to worry about the sea rising you have to worry about the currents shifting. this is why the europeans are becoming extremely proactive in the environmetal debate. ( England is at the same latitude as the hudson bay. campare the population densities of the to areas and then think about what will happen when the gulf stream stops).
|
|
|
Post by degijames on Feb 9, 2007 17:10:43 GMT -5
Kirk you've missed my point. (And only had comments on the least relevant of my 6. Your thoughts on the others?)
District Attorneys bring up multiple charges in the hopes that one might stick. That's exactly what I've done. I mention AL gore's involvement with censorship to solidify my case of him backing an opinion based, politically motivated horse in the past. Just as any trial lawyer would bring up relevant history on a defendant to persuade a jury toward their thinking I have done that with Mr gore.
Mr bush scares America with the thought of terrorism Mr gore does the same with global warming. Both are truths in some respect but both are also two Trojan horses for agendas I can't even imagine.
|
|
|
Post by degijames on Feb 10, 2007 3:47:19 GMT -5
Fossil evidence clearly demonstrates that Earths climate can shift gears within a decade, establishing new and different patterns that can persist for decades to centuries. In addition, these climate shifts do not necessarily have universal, global effects. They can generate a counterintuitive scenario: Even as the earth as a whole continues to warm gradually, large regions may experience a precipitous and disruptive shift into colder climates. Source: www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/viewArticle.do?id=9986www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/viewImage.do?id=19061&aid=9986
|
|
|
Post by al gore on Feb 11, 2007 11:36:23 GMT -5
Where does everyone get all this free time?
And isn't the larger point behind the global warming debate that human beings need to take responsibility for our actions on many levels, including environmental ones? Most animals know instinctively not to shit in their own nests; why do we humans have such a problem with this basic idea? Is it because the shit is floating in the air and the water etc. where it's not literally in sight? And as far as other comments blaming the corporations, well, unless you're living off the land in the middle of the woods, you are a direct consumer of all those corporations, so again, the blame lies with all of us who exist in this endless cycle and think all we have to do is post nasty remarks on the internet to prove ourselves above and beyond caring about anything. (remember in high school when it was cool not to give a shit? yeah, we're not in high school anymore.) and as for referencing 9/11 and airport screenings, that was a textbook move right out of a politician's playbook, so watch who you blame for capitalizing on emotional mind games
and by the way, yes, al gore is a total jackass who ran one of the blandest and faceless of all campaigns of any politician ever, which is saying a lot, and whose lack of inroads into the political power structure left him ball-less when the deal went down and he had an election stolen from him. but he still might have a point about global warming. and it was tipper's idea to go after censorship in music. what stupid shit have you done for pussy? oh, wait, we're talking about James...is he into chicks?
|
|
|
Post by DrCank on Feb 12, 2007 9:38:50 GMT -5
I ran into James this weekend, and he questioned me, “why had I not rebutted all of his 6 points on discrediting Al Gores movie?”. Well the answer is I didn’t really think there was really a need to. None of your arguments really hold any water. But, so there is no question on just how I feel about this subject we will go through them one by one. Lets get started:
point #1: James says, why would I listen to a politician they only use scare tactics to pass a personal agenda, they are all liars?
Dr Canks response: As hard as this may be to believe coming from me (the constant skeptic), not all politicians are liars. Some do have good intentions; that is why they got into politics to begin with. And don’t forget the fact that at least in respect to global warming, Al Gore has the vast majority of the scientific community standing behind him. G. Bush’s scare tactics can not be used as a corollary, due to the fact that most of the scientific and academic communities feel that his actions are driving us into a more unstable global condition and thus a less secure America.
point #2: James says, The melting of glaciers and ice caps would not lead to an increase in global sea level due to displacement laws. Ice cubes in the bath tub model
Dr Canks response: Even though I felt this was your most convincing argument about the farce that is global warming, I didn’t feel the need to respond to this point. If you reference Joe’s earlier post, you should see that you are 98 percent wrong in your logic. Granted some of our global ice is held up in icebergs, but the vast majority of Earth’s frozen water is ice-sheets. Don’t forget that both Greenland and Antarctica (5th largest continent) are land masses covered in ice. They fact that all of this ice sits on terra-firma means it is excluded from your displacement theory. Approximately 5,773,000 cubic miles of water are held up in Ice caps, glaciers and permanent snow *. ( Interesting fact , the shores of Maine are not sandy beeches, rather they are cliffs. This is due to the fact that without the massive glacier weight on the continent Northern North America rose in elevation after the last Ice Age.) It is projected that the oceans encroached 13 miles onto land after the Pleistocene ice age forming are current coast lines.
point #3: James says, Al Gore lead to increased censorship in the media, and pissed James’ buddy Dee Snyder off.
Dr Canks response: If we where in a court of law, and you brought this up I would only have to look at the judge and say three words, and this point would be dropped; “Your honor, Relevance?”
point #4: James says, Al Gore starts off by saying that this is not a political issue, and then talks about himself for half the movie
Dr Canks response: As I willingly stated before, I never saw this movie. Some of the choir chooses not to be preached to. However, my remarks are directed to questioning your reasoning of not believing in a human induced global climate shift (aka. Global Warming). This seems more like a stylistic complaint of the film rather than a reason not to buy into global warming.
point #5: James says, Farmers Almanac is 70-80% correct this should discredit Al Gore.
Dr Canks response: Well, you failed to mention where the farmer’s Almanac is not in agreement with Al Gore. You really didn’t put enough information in this point for anyone to draw a clear conclusion. What does the farmer’s Almanac say about long term global climate trends?
point #6: James says, Al Gore doesn’t mention what corporations should do to aid in the slowing of dramatic global climate changes, he only mentions what individuals can do. Plus he flies around in a jet to promote the movie, wasting fuel.
Dr Canks response: Well you, yourself are a pretty good public speaker so I figured you would have known the first rule to addressing a crowd. Know your audience, this movie was not made for corporations it was made for average citizens. I would say it would be a waste of time pointing fingers at what big-business does and doesn’t do, and how they should change. This is not a Michael Moore film, everyone is in at least partially responsible for their own condition. You can bitch and moan about how people with all the money don’t do enough, but sometimes you have to worry about the things you can do. Everyone can make a difference, but sometimes it does take a little work (maybe this was your problem with the film). As for the private jet remark; weak non-sequitous, personal attack that has very little to do with anything you are claiming here (but I assume you knew that when you wrote it). Not to mention, a gas bill for a jet would be a small cost if this movie does indeed cause people to think about their personal responsibilities in living in a dynamic environment.
I just want to reiterate, I am in no way defending this movie or Al Gore. I never saw it and I truly doubt I ever will. It just worries me when someone says that humans aren’t negatively impacting our environment. I look forward to your response.
*Source: Gleick, P. H., 1996: Water resources. In Encyclopedia of Climate and Weather, ed. by S. H. Schneider, Oxford University Press, New York, vol. 2, pp.817-823.
|
|
|
Post by JOE on Feb 12, 2007 12:00:02 GMT -5
DAMN!!! YOU GOT SNIPED! ************************ PUT ON YOUR BIG KID PANTS< SOMETHING VERY BIG BREWING!!! James, set aside 50$ from your royalty check. Maybe we all should start sending hatecrime posts to that magazines message board
|
|
|
Post by degijames on Feb 12, 2007 14:53:47 GMT -5
hate crimes might be cool in vermont but not here in a civilized setting such as philly.
|
|
|
Post by DrCank on Feb 12, 2007 15:13:19 GMT -5
yeah Joe only in a civilized setting like philly does someone leave a pile of human feces at the back door of the medina field office. I bet in vermont people are still digging holes and sh!tting in the woods. you barbarians
|
|
|
Post by Bill on Feb 12, 2007 16:53:57 GMT -5
;D LMAO!
|
|
|
Post by degijames on Feb 13, 2007 7:07:31 GMT -5
Environmentalists claim that the Earth’s atmosphere is getting hotter. They claim that the polar icecaps and glaciers will melt and sea levels will rise over two hundred feet, flooding most coastal cities. They claim that many areas of the Earth will turn into deserts. They make all these claims but cannot substantiate them with real scientific evidence. Parts of the polar icecap and glaciers are melting but other areas of the polar icecaps and glaciers are thickening. The environmentalists base their “proof” of the existence of global warming on the melting areas but are strangely silent, even militant to the point of violence, if anyone mentions the areas that are thickening, and those thickening areas are many.
In the past, there have been many times when the global mean temperatures were warmer, sometimes much warmer and colder, much colder than they are now. Global mean temperatures are cyclical with the seasons but also with other normal cycles, as they have been for the entire history of the Earth. Scientific data from ice cores, tree rings and other indicators of global mean temperatures prove this. Human activity has never been the cause of these global temperature swings as the “global warming” advocates claim. If human activity was the cause, where were the SUVs, the power plants and industries in our historical past? They did not exist. If human activity was not the cause of these global temperature swings, what was?
|
|
|
Post by degijames on Feb 13, 2007 7:09:20 GMT -5
Then there is the eruption of volcanoes, such as Mt. St. Helens, ejecting dust and ash into the Earth’s atmosphere. The amount of dust and ash in the atmosphere varies the amount of energy that can cause heating or cooling of the Earth’s atmosphere. Volcanoes also eject the kind of compounds that environmentalists call greenhouse gases. A single eruption the size of the Mt. St. Helens eruption released more of these gases, dust and ash into the atmosphere than all such emissions by human activity since the beginning of recorded human history. And there are numerous volcanic eruptions yearly.
The oceans are also a major source of greenhouse gases, as are trees. Trees and other vegetation take in carbon dioxide and give off other gases such as methane, a major greenhouse gas, and a host of other compounds, many of which are also greenhouse gases. Decaying vegetation also gives off methane gas. Studies of smog in the Los Angeles basin indicate that over 90% of the smog is generated by the vegetation in the area. To aid in perpetuating the hoax, however, environmentalists, aided by major news media outlets, censored and suppressed this study.
Studies have shown that greenhouse gases produced by human activity accounts for around 1 percent of the gases in the atmosphere. The total elimination of human generated greenhouse gases would have a negligible effect on Earth’s global mean atmospheric temperatures. The elimination of all U.S. gasoline powered vehicles would reduce worldwide “greenhouse” emissions by less than 0.2%.” What would be the effect on global mean temperatures? None. Doubling of manmade greenhouse emissions above current levels would increase the global mean temperature by one degree Centigrade, which is within the normal range of temperature swings.
|
|
|
Post by degijames on Feb 13, 2007 7:10:29 GMT -5
It is the fluctuations of the Earth’s orbit around the sun, volcanic eruptions, the emission of gases by oceans and trees, all natural occurrences, that cause rises and declines in global mean temperatures, i.e., “global warming” and “global cooling,” not human activity.
Satellite data taken over the past 25 years indicate no surface or atmospheric warming. If anything there has been a very slight cooling, on the order of 0.01 degree Centigrade.
Recently, astronomers have noticed a thinning of the polar icecaps on Mars.
Is this “global warming, Mars style” and do Martian SUVs, power plants, and industries cause it? Hardly, but the “environmentalists” think so. Some even blame it on us here on Earth.
Global warming IS a hoax. Those claiming that “global warming” is real have an agenda other than saving the planet from human activity.
Source sighted: Welcome to ChronWatch -- Striving for Balance in the News
|
|
|
Post by DrCank on Feb 13, 2007 11:18:24 GMT -5
OK buddy lets try this again. And by the way it is easier for my to rebut your statements when you itemize them, so I went ahead and did that for you. In your Reply #26 I found 4 main points: 1. Ice caps melt and will raise the sea level over 200 feet 2. Scientist claim areas of the earth are becoming desert with out proof 3. Ice caps are actually thickening in areas 4. There have been temp. fluctuations in the past. 1. Ice caps melting will raise the sea level over 200 feetHonestly, I have no idea about the estimated raise of global ocean levels. However, I am not truly concerned with what quantative values you place on amount change. A raise of only 4 feet would still not cause large areas of the northeastern metropolitan area to be submerged under water. Also, You have to remember what it will do to effect things like hurricane storm surges. Katrina’s storm surge is estimated at 18 – 22 feet (NOAA national hurricane center) if sea levels are already only four feet higher the storm surge would become come equivalent to a 22-26 foot surge, reaching much farther into land and causing a greater amount of economic damage, not even to mention the effect on human life. 2. Scientist claim areas of the earth are becoming desert with out proofThis statement (which I did paraphrase) is probably the most outrageous of all your statements. A simple Google search of “desertification” will render 3,480,000 hits(not very scientific, but effective). I thought you where a fan of Steinbeck, what do you think the Grapes of wrath was about. Desertification is perhaps one of the best understood principles of the human effect on the environment. Over farming, logging, and in particular over grazing, has shown to be one of the detrimental results of the human condition. Infact it is because of the economic implications of this plague that so much research has been funded into the field. Below I have provided an image courtesy of the USDA showing threatened areas. (also there is another side-effect of desertification, without biomass to restrain soils and sands from wind erosion, massive amounts of soils and sands are be deposited on glaciers and ice caps, making it easier for the sun energy to melt them. (drop some black sand in the middle of a sheet of ice, put it in the sun and which part of the ice melts first. The sand will retain the heat and in essence core down into the ice.)) 3. Sections of ice caps are thickeningAnother troubling James quote: “ The environmentalists base their “proof” of the existence of global warming on the melting areas but are strangely silent, even militant to the point of violence, if anyone mentions the areas that are thickening, and those thickening areas are many.”. I don’t know what crack-pot hippies you are getting your information from, but regionally thickening ice sheets fall completely within every global climate shift model I have seen. Again people get caught with the term “global warming”, though for all intensive purposes it is correct, it is also very misleading. Yes the planet as a whole is warming, but different regions are going to be effected differently by the change. We do know a warmer planet will increase the amount of water vapor in the air (more evaporation, with lower condensation values). So this increased water vapor in the air has to fall somewhere, so it is really no surprise that some areas will increase in precipitation (ice sheets come from falling snow). But this is still a bad sign. Things not changing = good, things changing quickly = bad. As for the “militant to the point of violence”, statements like that need to be cited; If you don’t cite them it kind of sounds like your talking out your ass. 4. There have been temp. fluctuations in the past.Yes James you are finally starting to put it together, there have been many temp fluctuations in the past. But don’t start puffing your chest out yet. Most in the scientific community agree with you 100%, there are so called, “natural cycles” to our planets temperature. It is theorized that heinrich cycles are responsible for the most dramatic changes, and yes things like continental orientation and volcanism, also play large roles in regulating our global climate. But as of yet no one has been able to contribute any of these “natural cycles” with the amount of global temperature change we have exhibited in the past century. That is a very important item that sometimes gets glazed over one century, there are few cycles that act in only 100 years. Volcanism can do it, but nothing out of the ordinary there, we actually have very good records of mountains exploding in the past hundred years. And to tell you the truth we live in a rather quite time for volcanoes. But what does volcanism place in the atmosphere which allows it change a climate so quickly, oh yeah CO2 (carbon-dioxide). Wait aren’t there other things that can increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, oh yeah Fossil Fuels. Fossil fuels have massive amount of carbon in them, infact they are derived from dead carbon based life-forms. I bet burning extremely large amounts of dead carbon based life-forms can put extra CO2 into the atmosphere. But if that really where the reason you would have to expect to see some kind of correlation between the timing of industrialization (when we really got into burning fossil fuels) and an increase in global temperature. And industrialization only really came into its own about one hundred years ago. Holy crap industrialization (burning of carbon based life-forms for energy) and global warming all started about the same time. Man I think we found some thing here. But James is right there have been a lot of dramatic climate changes in the past, and they always seemed to be accompanied by something. What was it that goes hand-in-hand with dramatic climate changes throughout the geologic record. Mass- somethings mass…, oh yeah, mass-extinction events. Also knowns as ELEs Extinction Level Events. This is the problem with all those jackasses out there saying global climate shift isn’t a problem, its natural. Shut-up and face the funkin’ music if the planet changes too quickly, we die. It’s as simple as that, so if indeed we are the cause of the planet changing quickly, we arepulling back the hammer on the revolver that is up against our head. It is well known a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere will make the climate shift really fast (the cretaceous shows us that) (remember: fast change = we die). So the audacity of people to sit back and run this gamble baffles me. Here’s the plan, we minimize our effect on the environment and hope for every man, woman, and child sake that we are indeed causing global warming. (that way we have atleast a chance of stopping it) and if we minimize our environmental effect and the global temperature still keeps rising I will admit defeat and take you out to lunch. But how can you actually gamble not to try. The most important factor that makes life, life. Is it’s striving to continue its own, as well as species existence. So that’s why I get a little pissy when people say there is no such thing as global warming it is a fact. Avoiding the truth doesn’t make it go away. Are we responsible, I would yes, but does it really matter?
|
|