# Possible global cooling?



## Damn_Smooth (Jun 19, 2011)

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/06/14/6857473-solar-forecast-hints-at-a-big-chill









> The latest long-range space forecast predicts a prolonged drop in solar activity after the next peak — and scientists say that might cool down temperatures here on Earth, or at least slow down the warming trend a bit.



I find it kind of funny that scientists can never make up their mind on anything. I guess it might be a good thing if it happens though.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Jun 20, 2011)

Yeah anything that slows down polar melting and thus keeps sea levels down would be good. The cause really isn't the point or what's important. It's the effects.


----------



## twicksisted (Jun 20, 2011)

yeah personally im not that much into "global scaring" of the media.... if it gets cooler... then so be it... either way we have no control over it ... so be it


----------



## trickson (Jun 20, 2011)

Gore did not think of this now did he ? What a buffoon ! No way we will ever have any lasting or real impact on the globe or the temp of it .


----------



## twilyth (Jun 20, 2011)

Everyone really needs to read the article.  Bottom line:  solar cycles don't have that much of an impact on climate compared to greenhouse gases.  A period of low activity might, at most, temporarily obscure the effects of increase greenhouse gas levels.  Note in particular the last couple of paragraphs showing that even the Maunder Minimum (little ice age) was due only in part to a dearth of sunspot activity.



> Gavin Schmidt, a climatologist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and one of the founders of the RealClimate blog, said the effects of solar activity on climate over the past 30 years have been "at the margin of what we can detect."
> 
> "They are detectable in the high atmosphere, but when you get down to the surface, there is so much other stuff going on that it's been really hard to get a clean signal," he told me.
> 
> ...


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jun 20, 2011)

I think I've seen estimates showing about a 0.3 C drop in temperatures from this max. So what, at best we get a few years rewind on warming?


----------



## bucketface (Jun 20, 2011)

scientists have attributed an ice age that had all but the eqatorial regions encased in ice to having been caused by a single celled organism... i'm pretty sure we can have some effect if thats the case.


----------



## JTS (Jun 20, 2011)

Global warming vs Global cooling?

At least they can get the 'Global' part right


----------



## entropy13 (Jun 20, 2011)

JTS said:


> Global warming vs Global cooling?
> 
> At least they can get the 'Global' part right



No, it's Global warming vs. lesser solar activity that Global warming won't be that warm.



LAN_deRf_HA said:


> I think I've seen estimates showing about a 0.3 C drop in temperatures from this max. So what, at best we get a few years rewind on warming?



The Mt. Pinatubo eruption had a bigger effect than that 

Cooled down the Earth by 2C for 1992-1993.


----------



## slyfox2151 (Jun 20, 2011)

entropy13 said:


> No, it's Global warming vs. lesser solar activity that Global warming won't be that warm.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



oohh i did not know that 


wiki says your off by about 1.5c however, still 0.5c on a global scale is huge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pinatubo


----------



## W1zzard (Jun 20, 2011)

Wrigleyvillain said:


> that slows down polar melting and thus keeps sea levels down



sea levels rise due to thermal expansion of water heating up
floating ice melting has no significant impact
melting of glaciers or greenland ice might, but it will take a long long time



LAN_deRf_HA said:


> I think I've seen estimates showing about a 0.3 C drop in temperatures from this max. So what, at best we get a few years rewind on warming?



and when solar activity returns to normal levels it will hit us even worse


----------



## Jetster (Jun 20, 2011)

I don't buy it. They cant tell me if its going to rain next week


----------



## hat (Jun 20, 2011)

Jetster said:


> I don't buy it. They cant tell me if its going to rain next week



Yeah... another case of learning how to fly before you can crawl.


----------



## gumpty (Jun 20, 2011)

Climate ≠ weather

The reporting in some media circles of this weeks solar activity study has really annoyed me.

In the past lower solar activity has contributed to lower global temperatures; this is well known. What some media have done with this story is point out that fact, and then suggest that the scientists are saying the same will happen this time. It wont; the scientists have said as much.
As twilyth pointed out, even if we get another Maunder Minimum, it will not 'cool' the planet, but at best *slow the rate of warming*. It will continue to get warmer, just a slightly slower rate. And as W1zz pointed out, when the sun returns to normal - the warming will smack us hard.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Jun 20, 2011)

bucketface said:


> scientists have attributed an ice age that had all but the eqatorial regions encased in ice to having been caused by a single celled organism... i'm pretty sure we can have some effect if thats the case.



Yeah and we just released a new record 30 Gigatons of greenhouse gases into to the atmosphere last year. I'm no scientist but common sense dictates that would have an effect on the ecosystem.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 20, 2011)

W1zzard said:


> sea levels rise due to thermal expansion of water heating up
> floating ice melting has no significant impact
> melting of glaciers or greenland ice might, but it will take a long long time
> 
> ...




Why is the ice mass in Antarctica expanding then if its warming? To many contradictions in this science IMO.

Anyway I think we are egotistical to think we are effecting the Earth in a significant way in such a short time. I think this is a natural occurrence being used to force people into a "green energy" industry. Not that green energy is bad and we should be heading that way. I just dislike the scare tactics. I also think man is WAY out of his league when trying to guess what mother is doing.

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/sea_ice.html

Anyway thats how I feel.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Jun 20, 2011)

~Sigh~

In the 1980's it was global cooling, and we were headed into a new ice age.  The UN said there would be millions of climate refugees by 2010.

In the 1990's it was el nino, and the weather was not going to directly be within reason for a decade.

In the new milennium is was global warming.  The world was going to be destroyed in a decade, and everything was all humanity's fault.  Driving a car was like stabbing mother nature in the back.  Selective breeding (genetic manipulation being only possible in laoratories) was producing franken food.  The franken food would wipe out native plants, and eventually kill of oxygen producing plants (I have to choose the most insane idea to make my point).  


As a moderate, I believe that climate change is possible.  I believe that we can change the planet.  I do not believe that we understand climate, and these idiots are sensationalizing science or hiring biased scientists to perform their studies.  You can get one to state, unequivocally, that climate change is not happening.  Another states that climate change will doom us in a matter of years.  Two conflicting "facts" mean that someone is incapable of seeing the big picture.

Decreased solar activity is a hugely good thing.  It will lend credance, or proove obsolescence, to the idea that the activity of the sun significantly influence our climate.  Until some data is shown, this is all wild speculation by scientists that cannot hope to predict the future.  They are looking at a human's finger, trying to divine what the person is thinking.  Without a complete grasp of the system, they are guessing at what might happen.  That many qualifiers implies a profound lack of knowledge, and a deep inadequacy of understanding.



Wrigleyvillain said:


> Yeah and we just released a new record 30 Gigatons of greenhouse gases into to the atmosphere last year. I'm no scientist but common sense dictates that would have an effect on the ecosystem.



Exactly.  You are not a scientist, you do not have a grasp on the whole picture, and your assumptions are therefore not a fact.

Anecdotal evidence is not evidence.  I filled my car with gas yesterday (fuel gauge is broken), so I should have some left today.  Is this a good assumption?  No, I didn't tell you the whole problem.  Maybe I drove 300 miles yesterday, maybe my fuel tank is only 1 gallon large, maybe there is a leak in the tank.  Without the whole picture you are not performing science, you are divining with a wigi board that you've extricated from between you butt cheecks.

Show me the science, then I'll be willing to be scared.   Until then, all you're doing is sensationalizing a problem to make your news sound dire.


----------



## Sasqui (Jun 20, 2011)

Krakatoa Eruption of 1883 had some serious climate effects - all the way to 1888... 5 years!

"... _Global climate in the year following the eruption, average global temperatures fell by as much as 1.2 °C (2.2 °F). Weather patterns continued to be chaotic for years, and temperatures did not return to normal until 1888. The eruption injected an unusually large amount of sulfur dioxide (SO2) gas high into the stratosphere which was subsequently transported by high-level winds all over the planet. This led to a global increase in sulfurous acid (H2SO3) concentration in high-level cirrus clouds. The resulting increase in cloud reflectivity (or albedo) would reflect more incoming light from the sun than usual, and cool the entire planet until the suspended sulfur fell to the ground as acid precipitation._... "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1883_eruption_of_Krakatoa


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 20, 2011)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> Decreased solar activity is a hugely good thing.



And you know this how? How will it effect plant life and a million other things that rely on variants of UV?


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Jun 20, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> And you know this how? How will it effect plant life and a million other things that rely on variants of UV?



Read the rest of the comment.  I said it was good because it gives us a better picture of the whole system.  It is not "good because temperature will go down."  This is the only assumption that I can make, given that you obviously missed the intent (or simply missed in your hurry) of my words.


By the way, congrats on the new rig.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 20, 2011)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> Read the rest of the comment.  I said it was good because it gives us a better picture of the whole system.  It is not "good because temperature will go down."  This is the only assumption that I can make, given that you obviously missed the intent (or simply missed in your hurry) of my words.



No I misunderstood.


----------



## W1zzard (Jun 20, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Why is the ice mass in Antarctica expanding then if its warming?



the liquid ocean water is expanding


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 20, 2011)

W1zzard said:


> the liquid ocean water is expanding



Expanding and warming should cause water levels to rise and melt. Not freeze. Correct?


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 20, 2011)

surrender to your global masters! your own humanity is killing the environment you evolved into. your breath is slowly killing the planet and you must be euthanized. if you are rich enough you can pay your global masters for your life. pay no attention to his message. the revolution will not be televised.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 20, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> surrender to your global masters! your own humanity is killing the environment you evolved into. your breath is slowly killing the planet and you must be euthanized. if you are rich enough you can pay your global masters for your life. pay no attention to his message. the revolution will not be televised.



I already give all my money to my wife. Take it up with her.


----------



## gumpty (Jun 20, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Why is the ice mass in Antarctica expanding then if its warming?



Sea ice increasing, land ice decreasing.



TheMailMan78 said:


> Anyway I think we are egotistical to think we are effecting the Earth in a significant way in such a short time.



It is us.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 20, 2011)

gumpty said:


> Sea ice increasing, land ice decreasing.
> 
> 
> 
> It is us.



Thanks but thats somewhat of a biased site. I mean it even has a section of political views. Honestly I'm no science major so I couldn't argue anyway. I just look at it from a common sense view. I like to read from NASA and NOAA.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Jun 20, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I already give all my money to my wife. Take it up with her.



Ah so the new rig is hers then? 

And, again, I'm not really here to debate the cause and, yes, there planet goes through cycles but it sure seems somethings different lately and you really don't believe the presence of 7 billion+ people more and more of whom are industrialized has no real effect on the ecosystem as a whole? That's kind of ridiculous. What's more ridiculous is how this has become a political, right vs. left issue.

Small populated islands in the far reaches of the Pacific are disappearing under the sea for Christ's sake. 

But hey I live in the middle of North America I'm not having kids so what do I really care?


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 20, 2011)

How do global climate nazis account for tens of thousands of years of warming before humans existed on this planet?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 20, 2011)

Wrigleyvillain said:


> Ah so the new rig is hers then?
> 
> And, again, I'm not really here to debate the cause and, yes, there planet goes through cycles but it sure seems somethings different lately and you really don't believe the presence of 7 billion+ people more and more of whom are industrialized has no real effect on the ecosystem as a whole? That's kind of ridiculous. What's more ridiculous is how this has become a political, right vs. left issue.
> 
> ...



No of course it has an effect. I'm no denier. I just think its not as big an effect as some claim.



Easy Rhino said:


> How do global climate nazis account for tens of thousands of years of warming before humans existed on this planet?



They can't and thats kinda my point.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Jun 20, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> How do global climate nazis account for tens of thousands of years of warming before humans existed on this planet?



There's Godwin's Law. And from a mod. Please close thread.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 20, 2011)

Scientists have NO clue as to how the Earth naturally warms and cools. The Earth has existed for billions of years we are told and yet 100 years of actual data records kept by actual people is supposed to be enough to suggest humans are ruining the planet by creating societies that protect us from the elements.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 20, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> Scientists have NO clue as to how the Earth naturally warms and cools. The Earth has existed for billions of years we are told and yet 100 years of actual data records kept by actual people is supposed to be enough to suggest humans are ruining the planet by creating societies that protect us from the elements.



They have issues predicting ocean currents and yet they know why the Earth is warming.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 20, 2011)

Next they are going to say the science is settled, the dinosaurs were warming the earth too much which is why they went extinct! they drove too many SUVs!!


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Jun 20, 2011)

I'm still waiting for smoking and red meat to turn out to be good for you. And then I will laugh until I go in to my last coughing up blood fit and the cancer finally does me in. But that last laugh will be mine.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 20, 2011)

it is hard to take a lot of science "reports" seriously. im sure most of them mean well but every few years peer reviewed reports come out that are completely opposite of a prior report. 

i think the key to life is just to live and do what makes you happy so long as it doesnt negatively impact anyone else. if you live your life by following scientific trends you will go bananas and likely die from too much stress. granted, they don't release a report saying stress is now good for you!


----------



## m4gicfour (Jun 20, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> it is hard to take a lot of science "reports" seriously. im sure most of them mean well but every few years peer reviewed reports come out that are completely opposite of a prior report.
> 
> i think the key to life is just to live and do what makes you happy so long as it doesnt negatively impact anyone else. if you live your life by following scientific trends you will go bananas and likely die from too much stress. granted, they don't release a report saying stress is now good for you!



They already have. Scientists have found that small, manageable amounts of stress are actually a mood elevator. I.E. a rat placed in a maze, able to smell cheese, will be less "depressed" after accomplishing the goal (finding the cheese) than a rat of similar disposition placed directly in a box with the cheese. Sense of accomplishment I guess

I know I'm going to be asked for source but it was on a television program so I don't have it. I'd google for it but I'm eating lunch


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Jun 20, 2011)

And the evolutionary reason for feeling stress is to help keep your hunting and gathering ass alive.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 20, 2011)

well i know that SOME stress is good for you. i was being facetious.


----------



## m4gicfour (Jun 20, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> well i know that SOME stress is good for you. i was being facetious.



I know. Don't ask me how they test a rat's mood, either. I leave the psychic readings to the real scientists


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Jun 20, 2011)

Brain scans I guess but that was pretty funny!


----------



## W1zzard (Jun 20, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> Scientists have NO clue as to how the Earth naturally warms and cools



actually we have a pretty good high-level idea.






decent summary


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 20, 2011)

W1zzard said:


> actually we have a pretty good high-level idea.
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/110620/Capture2173.jpg
> decent summary



lol im talking about over the course of billions of years...


----------



## sneekypeet (Jun 20, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> lol im talking about over the course of billions of years...



I dont want to step in like I am trying to discredit your thoughts. With the model W1zz provided and core sampling, they get a good idea of the gasses present at that time, and the amounts of each. With what we know of most of those gases, we can make a pretty educated guess as to the climate and close to real life conditions at almost any moment in time. As with most science it is an educated guess until it can be physically proven as fact. Until we build a time machine, and educated guess is about as good as we are going to get


----------



## W1zzard (Jun 20, 2011)

you can start with a molten mass at time -X and run the simulation from there for X years to reach today's conditions


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 20, 2011)

sneekypeet said:


> I dont want to step in like I am trying to discredit your thoughts. With the model W1zz provided and core sampling, they get a good idea of the gasses present at that time, and the amounts of each. With what we know of most of those gases, we can make a pretty educated geuss as to the climate and close to real life conditions at almost any moment in time.



hrm...sure that chart works so long as you dont take into consideration an ever expanding universe.


----------



## W1zzard (Jun 20, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> hrm...sure that chart works so long as you dont take into consideration an ever expanding universe.



expansion of the universe is not significant for within galaxies which are bound by gravity

expansion of the universe does not increase distance between atoms in your body either


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 20, 2011)

you are saying surrounding galaxies have no impact on the gravitation pull of our sun?


----------



## W1zzard (Jun 20, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> you are saying surrounding galaxies have no impact on the gravitation pull of our sun?



simplified: since the universe is the same in any direction you look (homogenic and isotropic), the gravity from the rest of the universe outside our galaxy is the same from all directions, which cancels each other


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 20, 2011)

so the universe is NOT expanding?


----------



## W1zzard (Jun 20, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> so the universe is NOT expanding?



the universe: yes
you/me/earth/solar system/galaxy: no

space between galaxies is expanding


----------



## m4gicfour (Jun 20, 2011)

No, just the effect of the universe expanding on our galaxy is null


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 20, 2011)

Expanding into what?


----------



## trickson (Jun 20, 2011)

Some times I wish the sun would just explode !


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 20, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Expanding into what?



Antimatter.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 20, 2011)

trickson said:


> Some times I wish the sun would just explode !



Its does. Millions of times an hour.



cadaveca said:


> Antimatter.



Sounds like more quantum physics babble.


----------



## m4gicfour (Jun 20, 2011)

AND THE NEAREST GALAXY?  It's on Pluto


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 20, 2011)

over the course of billions of years the climate of earth has changed dramatically. none of which had anything to do with humanity. today we live in a very stable global climate environment relative to billions of years ago so to say that humans have any significant impact on that climate is pointless. if anything, since the introduction of humans to Earth, things have progressively gotten better!


----------



## W1zzard (Jun 20, 2011)

there is no "good" or "bad" for when the planet is concerned. evolution will adapt

there is only good or bad for us, short-term. our technology provides shelter from nature. it's not like any sort of climate change will kill all humans. life will just suck (even more) for some

need to define "significant impact", for example there is absolutely no doubt that we have increased global co2 levels, or caused the ozone hole depletion


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 20, 2011)

of course we have an impact on CO2 levels. but that's like saying whales have an impact on the ocean.  it is a pointless argument. meanwhile power hungry individuals across the globe are using "climate change" as a platform for 1 world governance and complete control over how you live your life.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 20, 2011)

W1zzard said:


> there is no "good" or "bad" for when the planet is concerned. evolution will adapt
> 
> there is only good or bad for us, short-term. our technology provides shelter from nature. it's not like any sort of climate change will kill all humans. life will just suck (even more) for some
> 
> need to define "significant impact", for example there is absolutely no doubt that we have increased global co2 levels, or caused the ozone hole depletion



co2 levels have increased but I think that has to do with a combination of things. Not so much cars but the fact that Brazil has cut down so much of the Earths filters (rainforest's) Its one thing I have never understood about the green movement. Everyone attacks the US for its consumption of fuel and its Co2 emissions but no one ever attacks Brazil for its gutting of the rainforest's and China for its unregulated coal plants.

I mean the 80's were eat up with "Save the Rain Forrest's" Now its ban Co2 emissions and drive a Volt. It wont matter if there are not enough trees left to filter out cow farts and Chicago Bears fans breathing.



Easy Rhino said:


> of course we have an impact on CO2 levels. but that's like saying whales have an impact on the ocean.  it is a pointless argument. meanwhile power hungry individuals across the globe are using "climate change" as a platform for 1 world governance and complete control over how you live your life.



Thats pretty much my point.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 20, 2011)

the amount of data used to come to the conclusion that humans are significantly negatively impacted the environment is like a grain of sand in a vast ocean. 100 years of data versus billions of years of existence.

edit: i would also like to point out that the main political proponents of carbon tax/regulation are all the worst polluters to our environment. don't trust them for 1 second. yes, im looking at you, al gore.

what's more, the whole global climate scare is tant amount to chicken little crying that the sky is falling. the said the same shit in the 70s about global cooling. and in 2000 they said our earth would be decimated by global warming ny 2010. we are still here.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jun 20, 2011)

I thought we were attributing most of the previous warming and cooling cycles to animal production vs bedrock/sediment co2 absorption rates. Animals can put out asinine amounts of greenhouse gases through farts and burps, just not quite as much we do, so the process takes more time. Eventually an ice age happens, many animals die off, co2 is very slowly reabsorbed into earth.


----------



## W1zzard (Jun 20, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Not so much cars



none of the educated people say that only cars are bad. i've seen the number +0.04°C from cars somewhere.

driving eco cars = feel good measure. they make you feel like you are doing something for the climate, so you can happily point your finger at others.



Easy Rhino said:


> in 2000 they said our earth would be decimated by global warming ny 2010



not even al gore makes such claims ^^
while his movie is full of bs he packages it so nicely that he does not lie once in the whole movie, he's just very good at spinning information


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 20, 2011)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> I thought we were attributing most of the previous warming and cooling cycles to animal production vs bedrock/sediment co2 absorption rates. Animals can put out asinine amounts of greenhouse gases through farts and burps, just not quite as much we do, so the process takes more time. Eventually an ice age happens, many animals die off, co2 is very slowly reabsorbed into earth.



...and time marches on.


----------



## Bjorn_Of_Iceland (Jun 20, 2011)

Id be more concerned when the year reaches 10000. Imagine the catastrophe in that one with all that infrastructure coding only being tested with 4 digit years XD.


----------



## qubit (Jun 20, 2011)

Yup, I knew this whole global warming crap was a con. 

The science of weather is so corrupted by big money and politics that I don't believe a word they say any more. The whole thing is a smokescreen to extract ever more taxes and introduce ever more draconian restrictions on daily life. And all in the name of the fucking 'green' movement.


----------



## W1zzard (Jun 20, 2011)

qubit said:


> Yup, I knew this whole global warming crap was a con.
> 
> The science of weather is so corrupted by big money and politics that I don't believe a word they say any more



ummm .. no ..

read: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

really, please do. ipcc are the consensus of scientists without any political agenda

edit: this course has great lectures about climate change http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_...d=2010-D-52040|2010-D-69342&semesterid=2010-D and lots of other info relevant to this forum (without any math or prerequisites)


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 20, 2011)

the ipcc certainly DOES have a political agenda. in fact it was created for that very reason.


----------



## W1zzard (Jun 20, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> the ipcc certainly DOES have a political agenda. in fact it was created for that very reason.



http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 20, 2011)

right, because they say they are free of political agenda makes them free of political agenda. come on...


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jun 20, 2011)

Naturally there's going to be some fluff here and there, some misinformation for various motivations by various groups and individuals. This is true of just about anything that involves spending and multiple perspectives. To disregard it all because of a few people is idiotic. You're just grasping at straws because for whatever reason you don't want to believe it. Perhaps you don't like "dem liberal hippie douchebags" who support it for instance, so you can't bring yourself to ever share their views on something. As someone who dislikes most people I can understand that, but it's hardly reasonable to force yourself into ignorance because of it.


----------



## qubit (Jun 20, 2011)

W1zzard said:


> ummm .. no ..
> 
> read: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf
> 
> really, please do. ipcc are the consensus of scientists without any political agenda



Ok, thanks for the link  and I'll have a look at it.

Now, while I have to confess that I hit rant and tin foil hat mode for that post (sorry, it's my sense of humour, lol) I don't really trust what I read and hear any more, as politics and money do corrupt. Climate science per se is totally legitimate, but we're not seeing true science here.

Look, even here we have disagreement over this:



Easy Rhino said:


> the ipcc certainly DOES have a political agenda. in fact it was created for that very reason.



See what I mean? I'm sure Easy has seen enough evidence to convince him of this.

It leaves one confused and not knowing what to believe, so I go with my gut instinct on this issue. I think that what's put out is partially correct (the weather _is_ changing, no doubt about it) but it's heavily slanted to justify higher taxes, useless wind power, anti-car policies etc etc.



Easy Rhino said:


> right, because they say they are free of political agenda makes them free of political agenda. come on...



YES!

Sorry, couldn't help it.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 20, 2011)

did you believe the people in the 70s who claimed we were headed for a global freeze that would devastate our planet? because these are essentially the same people now saying that global warming will happen and do the same thing...not to mention the past 10 years of warming has already been wiped out by the past two years of cooling...


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jun 20, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> did you believe the people in the 70s who claimed we were headed for a global freeze that would devastate our planet? because these are essentially the same people now saying that global warming will happen and do the same thing...not to mention the past 10 years of warming has already been wiped out by the past two years of cooling...



What exactly are you saying? Why would 40 years of it not happening have any bearing on whether or not it happens? Planetary events are slow and human lives are short.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 20, 2011)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> What exactly are you saying? Why would 40 years of it not happening have any bearing on whether or not it happens? Planetary events are slow and human lives are short.



so you would believe anything these people say then? because it might happen. do you also believe that paster that has wrongly predicted the end of the world because that might happen too


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jun 20, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> so you would believe anything these people say then? because it might happen. do you also believe that paster that has wrongly predicted the end of the world because that might happen too



No. That response doesn't even make sense. Wth man.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 20, 2011)

did you hear about the pastor who said the world was gonna end and was wrong? would you believe him a second time if he made the same claim? then why would you do the same thing with climatologists?


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jun 20, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> did you hear about the pastor who said the world was gonna end and was wrong? would you believe him a second time if he made the same claim? then why would you do the same thing with climatologists?



No no. I'm saying it doesn't make sense because it was idiotic and had nothing to do with anything being discussed, it seemed to just be a deflection. You should focus on defending your first statement or not say anything at all. By just saying random crap instead of defending your prior statement it makes your whole stance seem based on personal issues rather than logic.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 20, 2011)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> No no. I'm saying it doesn't make sense because it was idiotic and had nothing to do with anything being discussed, it seemed to just be a deflection. You should focus on defending your first statement or not say anything at all. By just saying random crap instead of defending your prior statement it makes your whole stance seem based on personal issues rather than logic.



I understood him just fine. Don't be mad because he attacked Al Gore lol


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jun 21, 2011)

It's hard to figure how serious you are. What I said was rather independent of a stance on the issue, it just flatly called out the shallowness of his statement with a rather flat logic. Causing you both to have extremely empty responses that belittle your entire stance on the issue. Say something substantive or stop digging yourselves into holes.

For the record, I find Al Gore a bit ridiculous.

My overall point here is that in the whole of this thread I’m not seeing anyone who knows Wtf they’re on about. Supporters who don’t understand everything involved who seem to be supporting it out of personal feelings, and people opposed who either don’t want to understand what’s involved or simple can’t, often, again, due to personal issues. Perhaps I’m being unreasonable, as I find the scientists themselves to be idiots. They’re too specialized, their information sources to narrow. They can’t see and comprehend all the factors at once, even when the information is out there for anyone to utilize.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 21, 2011)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> It's hard to figure how serious you are. What I said was rather independent of a stance on the issue, it just flatly called out the shallowness of his statement with a rather flat logic. Causing you both to have extremely empty responses that belittle your entire stance on the issue. Say something substantive or stop digging yourselves into holes.
> 
> For the record, I find Al Gore a bit ridiculous.
> 
> My overall point here is that in the whole of this thread I’m not seeing anyone who knows Wtf they’re on about. Supporters who don’t understand everything involved who seem to be supporting it out of personal feelings, and people opposed who either don’t want to understand what’s involved or simple can’t, often, again, due to personal issues. Perhaps I’m being unreasonable, as I find the scientists themselves to be idiots. They’re too specialized, their information sources to narrow. They can’t see and comprehend all the factors at once, even when the information is out there for anyone to utilize.



Unlike you who sees the big picture huh?


----------



## m4gicfour (Jun 21, 2011)

Oh holy hell. There's more than two perspectives. Quit being George Fucking W Bush. "You're either with us or against us". NO. I'm with you when you're right and deserve an ally. Attack Afghanistan, go after the SOB who brought down the towers. Fuck Yeah. I'm right there with you. Go attack Denmark and see how many people switch sides George.

Climate change IS an issue. The climate is changing. Is that because of us? Yes. Not completely, or perhaps even mostly, but we sure aren't helping. Does that give every company on the planet a reason to rape you on "green" products? No, but you can be sure they will. Of course every company that makes "green" products is playing it up all they can. Governments are too, because many people are too stupid to think for themselves and they just parrot the morons they see on TV. Governments, like it or not, are majority rule. That's money or people, depending on the specific member and how corrupt they are.

Assuming that the climate fluctuates to the degrees the scientists are worried they will (Regardless of whether that's natural or sparked by our actions... and who knows if they'll be right. I didn't do any empirical scientific studies, so I will refrain from passing judgement) IF they are right, we need to figure out what to do about it, or many people will die. Mass extinctions are bad. For all our technology we'd be fucked if the bottom 1/4 of the food chain dissapeared.



Does that mean I'm going to go out and buy a prius and tattoo al gore's face on my ass? No. I'm not going to waste a shitload of gas driving some piece of shit hummer though either. Mainly because it's ugly as sin and gas is expensive, but hey, if I can drive a cheap car that gets me from A to B and I don't have to listen to some idiot in the parking lot whining about greenhouse gasses, that'll be what I do. I'm not going to go pour oil down a storm drain so I can gloat when the world doesn't spontaneously explode. 


Oh and BTW, I don't really give a shit. Flame on if you must. This post wasn't directed at any particular person, just the attitude this thread is taking


----------



## qubit (Jun 21, 2011)

m4gicfour said:


> Climate change IS an issue. The climate is changing. Is that because of us? Yes. Not completely, or perhaps even mostly, but we sure aren't helping. Does that give every company on the planet a reason to rape you on "green" products? No, but you can be sure they will. Of course every company that makes "green" products is playing it up all they can. Governments are too, because many people are too stupid to think for themselves and they just parrot the morons they see on TV. Governments, like it or not, are majority rule. That's money or people, depending on the specific member and how corrupt they are.



Yup, what I said a few posts ago, but better.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 21, 2011)

here is the problem. al gore made climate science political. we know he is a flaming liberal who believes that HE should control wealth redistribution. meanwhile he owns a gigantic house which requires shit tons of energy to heat and keep cool. not to mention his entire fleet of vehicles he owns. most of the IPCC act the same way as well as big time liberal politicians. i will tell you what, the day i see the scientists and politicians who support man made climate change actually CHANGE their lifestyles FIRST then i will start taking it seriously. until then they are a bunch of fear mongering, self promoting opportunists.


----------



## twilyth (Jun 21, 2011)

From ancient ice core and other sources for prehistoric climate data, there doesn't seem to be much doubt that high levels of CO2 are tightly correlated with periods high mean temperatures globally.  And while that doesn't prove cause and effect, it's pretty damned close.

If we had no idea what the mechanism was by which such gases raise the temperature, then some skepticism might be warranted.  But we understand that certain gases reflect infrared radiation and the more of those gases you have, the more radiation gets trapped.

There might be some countervailing factors like the decrease in sun spot activity which might lessen the impact of high CO2 levels, at least temporarily, but that doesn't mean that Co2 is irrelevant.

The real question is how urgent is the problem.  And the reason you get a certain amount of hysteria there is because we don't really understand climate well enough to predict the effects of increasing CO2 levels.  For example it's possible that at some point the climate changes in a non-linear way in response to CO2 - the so-called tipping-point situation.  

The point is that the longer the problem is ignored, the more likely we are to see consequences as a result.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jun 21, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> i will tell you what, the day i see the scientists and politicians who support man made climate change actually CHANGE their lifestyles FIRST then i will start taking it seriously. until then they are a bunch of fear mongering, self promoting opportunists.



I'd be interested to see if you'd really hold true to that, or if you'd just make something else the focus of your argument.

Personally I dislike lifestyle change solutions. Food is bad for you? Engineer better food. I recall reading once about some reverse sugar or w/e that bacteria and your body couldn't absorb but that tasted and cooked the same. That alone would relieve a massive health burden for your gut and your teeth while maintaining "bad" eating habits. Climate change? Just force technological developments. Fusion is on the verge of being viable. Renewable energy can be cheaper in the long run for business. Gas mileage is going up considerably, even in pickups. Weather control is constantly advancing. Who needs to change? I agree we need to take some responsibility but we also need our vices...


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 21, 2011)

I'm not diverting my argument. if you believe something as important as climate change then you better adjust your own lifestyle first, not demand others do it for you. hypocrites! they are the wealthy that can actually afford the expensive green alternatives yet they dont buy them. they create ideas about carbon taxation which they can directly benefit from. i dont buy their shit for one second.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 21, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> they create ideas about carbon taxation which they can directly benefit from.



The problem is that removing cardon dioxide from the atmosphere, at 3 parts per million, isn't economical.

Carbon taxation is an effort to make it economical.

Branson offered millions to anyone who could come up with an idea that'd even be slightly in the black.

He paid nothing.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 21, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Carbon taxation is an effort to make it economical.



it won't make it economical, only profitable for politicians and corporatists.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 21, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> it won't make it economical, only profitable for politicians and corporatists.



Who are the ones running the companies and paying the contracts to businesses that employ the peons.

So what?

The tertiary point is job creation.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jun 21, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> I'm not diverting my argument. if you believe something as important as climate change then you better adjust your own lifestyle first, not demand others do it for you. hypocrites! they are the wealthy that can actually afford the expensive green alternatives yet they dont buy them. they create ideas about carbon taxation which they can directly benefit from. i dont buy their shit for one second.



Then forget about them and dig up every scrap of data you can and analyze it yourself. Don't bitch about al gore politicizing it when it has to bearing on it's merits. You don't buy it because you don't want to buy it, regardless of the messenger... or because of it, I'm not sure which. Neither seems logical to me.


----------



## Sir B. Fannybottom (Jun 21, 2011)

The way I see it, global cooling= better case temperatures...


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 21, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Who are the ones running the companies and paying the contracts to businesses that employ the peons.
> 
> So what?
> 
> The tertiary point is job creation.



Trickle down economics work only with a green economy now?



LAN_deRf_HA said:


> Then forget about them and dig up every scrap of data you can and analyze it yourself. Don't bitch about al gore politicizing it when it has to bearing on it's merits. You don't buy it because you don't want to buy it, regardless of the messenger... or because of it, I'm not sure which. Neither seems logical to me.



Easy is right. Until I see some of these elitist "walk the walk" Ill take the whole green economy thing with a grain of salt.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 21, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Expanding into what?


The rest of the universe.  There was likely an implosion before the big bang which created a gap in the universe.  The "known" universe is expanding at an increasing rate in order to fill the gap.  Light has a limited velocity so we simply can't see beyond about 14 billion light years in distance (or 28 billion light years on the assumption the rest of the universe is expanding towards the gap).  The gap could easily be 100s if not thousands of billions of light years across.  It is impossible to know.


All that is known is that the mean temperature of Earth has increased since the 1970s.  No concrete conclusions can be drawn from less than 40 years of data.  Hell, we can't even acurately predict if a storm will hit tomorrow, its location, it's direction, nor its intensity.  All we make is educated guesses and those educated guesses are based on hundreds of years of data.

One group of people claim it's warming, another group claims it's cooling, and I say there ain't enough information.


Virtually everything "green" is bullshit/marketing gimmick.  Hell, Jimmy Carter had solar panels installed on the White House and Ronald Reagan removed them seven years later because they were "not cost-effective."


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Jun 21, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> did you hear about the pastor who said the world was gonna end and was wrong? would you believe him a second time if he made the same claim? then why would you do the same thing with climatologists?



Actually, this last prediction was the guy's 3rd end of the world prediction and the same morons fell for it the first 2 times also.

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

His next one is October 21st, so make sure you're prepared.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 21, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> His next one is October 21st, so make sure you're prepared.


..for Halloween!


----------



## MilkyWay (Jun 21, 2011)

Whether or not you believe in human impact on climate change cutting CO2 emissions can only be a good thing. Also cars are a big problem in the world with congestion increasing and fuel consumption increasing while fuel is depleting. Saving energy and recycling has its benefits too a lot of which are not emissions related benefits.

Taxing businesses and consumers indirectly is stupid since people will not change they will just pay the increased taxes. What they really need to do is get these new technologies out the door instead of saying only another 5 years... only another 10 years. Wtf happened to hydrogen powered engines? and wtf happened to carbon capture?

Fusion is old news from decades ago and is still in development i hear about it every single year that its only x years away.

The only reason nothing changes is because the world is based on making a profit, that is why "green" is sold to us as products and commodities and not based on purely a humanitarian effort.

I don't understand as far as i can tell humans have increased "greenhouse" emissions since the industrial revolution, they take data from ice core samples btw. Also there is trapped methane under the ice and if the ice melts it will release. Some say trapped oxygen in the ice and water would cause a global ice age but other say it wont have an effect. Temps increase and decrease naturally but to what extent humans have effected that i have no idea, no ones given me strong enough evidence in either camp but cant hurt to cut emissions anyway since it has other benefits.

HA well Mailman is right about the cutting down of the Amazon but it was partially fuelled by American consumption, mining ore and logging, cheap cattle farming ect.

EDIT:





Damn_Smooth said:


> Actually, this last prediction was the guy's 3rd end of the world prediction and the same morons fell for it the first 2 times also.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Camping
> 
> His next one is October 21st, so make sure you're prepared.



Hes just like that burn a Qur'an day guy, out there for the attention i think.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 21, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Trickle down economics work only with a green economy now?



Not at all, however, creation of a new GLOBAL economic influencer is something that must not be overlooked.

I hold no opinion in the general subject, but I do think creation of jobs and such makes it almost excusable, if wrong.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 21, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Not at all, however, creation of a new GLOBAL economic influencer is something that must not be overlooked.
> 
> I hold no opinion in the general subject, but I do think creation of jobs and such makes it almost excusable, if wrong.



I personally will not buy anything unless I am sure it will drown polar bears.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 21, 2011)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> Then forget about them and dig up every scrap of data you can and analyze it yourself. Don't bitch about al gore politicizing it when it has to bearing on it's merits. You don't buy it because you don't want to buy it, regardless of the messenger... or because of it, I'm not sure which. Neither seems logical to me.



then you buy it because you want to buy it, regardless of the messenger or because of it, im not sure. neither seems logical to me. see, i can say the same thing. look how far we've gotten.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Jun 21, 2011)

So because Al Gore is a hypocritical dipshit that's an excuse for everyone else to act irresponsibly as well? But you did hit it on the head as to why this is such a political issue--the distribution of wealth and dictating of consumption and lifestyle and such. It's a complicated mess, that's for sure.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 21, 2011)

Wrigleyvillain said:


> So because Al Gore is a hypocritical dipshit that's an excuse for everyone else to act irresponsibly as well? But you did hit it on the head as to why this is such a political issue--the distribution of wealth and dictating of consumption and lifestyle and such. It's a complicated mess, that's for sure.



if a politician steps up the plate with a hand full of well respected and unbiased and unfunded (both corporate and government) scientists and shows me bullet proof evidence that humans are destroying the ecosystem on a global scale and that they will be the first to change their lifestyles AND they don't want create a massive global bureaucracy around it subjugating the US to shitty international regulation then i will admit that i was wrong about the entire thing.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 21, 2011)

Wrigleyvillain said:


> So because Al Gore is a hypocritical dipshit that's an excuse for everyone else to act irresponsibly as well? But you did hit it on the head as to why this is such a political issue--the distribution of wealth and dictating of consumption and lifestyle and such. It's a complicated mess, that's for sure.



No but the fact Al Gore is full of shit and his cronies are backed by "green" lobbyist makes any normal person question the whole movement.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 21, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I personally will not buy anything unless I am sure it will drown polar bears.



I understand your point of view. But sometimes you gotta do a little bad to get some good done. So let's let them build up in numbers, so more of 'em can drown!



TheMailMan78 said:


> No but the fact Al Gore is full of shit and his cronies are backed by "green" lobbyist makes any normal person question the whole movement.



Well, they are trying to create money out of nothing, which is kinda what money is nowadays, anyway...something has to attract the flies, and flies have jobs too, you know...


I think maybe taking the magnifying glass off of the picture, and looking at the full view, gives a different perspective. You can nitpick about any part of it you want, but the fact remains that with the money behond the marketing there continuously, eventually they might have some success. It's not as forward-thinking as bitcoins, for new currency, I think, but it's still an idea.

Be that as it may, who cares if it gets colder? Put on a jacket, maybe?


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 21, 2011)

warming is actually better for the planet than cooling. warm environments mean easier growing for farmers. a rise in 1-2 degrees would be better than a drop of 1-2 degrees.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jun 21, 2011)

Political debates like this should not be on this forum.

BTW we have had this discussion before in another thread. Lets see sources if this is an actual scientific debate we are trying to mediate here. There are many lies and bad sources regarding global warming passed around and funded by energy companies. Lets not let propanganda ruin what should be a scientific debate.

A computer forum is a horrible place for a scientific debate about global warming in the first place.


----------



## sneekypeet (Jun 21, 2011)

I was allowing the thread to continue. Disagreement and political views are bound to end up in the realm of science, and that isn't even touching on how religion can play into such matters. As long as sand isn't being thrown down anyone's panties I am gong to allow this to run its course


----------



## alexsubri (Jun 21, 2011)

Global Warming is just a lie created by Al Gore so that The New World Order can enslave us with their Carbon Tax

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFK-UTGH1Zw

ENUFF` SAID!


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Jun 21, 2011)

alexsubri said:


> Global Warming is just a lie created by Al Gore so that The New World Order can enslave us with their Carbon Tax
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFK-UTGH1Zw
> 
> ENUFF` SAID!


 
So now Al gore created global warming and the internet? Damn, that guy's a genius.


----------



## alexsubri (Jun 21, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I personally will not buy anything unless I am sure it will drown polar bears.



Al Gore will save your polar bears!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 21, 2011)

MilkyWay said:


> Whether or not you believe in human impact on climate change cutting CO2 emissions can only be a good thing.


Except for the trees, grass, algae, and everything else that lives off of CO2.


----------



## alexsubri (Jun 21, 2011)

Chemtrail`s isn't helping with the whole global warming either. It is a scientifically documented that Chemtrails contain high levels of aluminum oxide. Water quality tests in California have shown levels of aluminum oxide to be 60,000 ( sixty thousand) times the safe levels as established by the EPA. search "What In The World Are They Spraying" on youtube. Aluminum Oxide attaches to receptors in the brain permanently. Its' effect is cumalative. Alzheimers Disease, as well as some forms cancer are linked to Aluminum Oxide.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 21, 2011)

I call BS.  First, how do you "scientifically document" chemtrails when they are theoretically highly classified military operations?  Fly in an aircraft behind it and collect samples?  a) the aircraft releasing it would notice this and likely call in fighters and b) aircraft are made of aluminium so what's to say the aircraft itself didn't contaminiate the sample?

Water quality in California is bad because it is scarce except in the Napa Valley (it has to be transported long distances over/under land).  That aluminium oxide can easily be contributed to the water pipes, sepage of water into water pains, mixed sewage/storm drain systems, and inadequate filtration/water purification systems. 

There's more evidence to suggest metals (including aluminum) have nothing to do with Alzheimer's Disease than do


Now, to the point. I think if there is "global warming" due to CO2, aircraft are the primary cause.  Why?  They inject CO2 way up in the atmosphere where trees, grasses, and algae can't reach it to clean it up.  Additionally, as far as a green house effect is concerned, the CO2 is more effective the higher it is in the atmosphere.  Air is thin up there so the more O2 converted to CO2, the more effective the green house effect.


----------



## Peter1986C (Jun 21, 2011)

alexsubri said:


> Global Warming is just a lie created by Al Gore so that The New World Order can enslave us with their Carbon Tax



Don't talk silly please. Refering to a "new world order" is utter BS when mentioning a former US presidential candidate. We are not talking about hostile takeovers by Stalin or by fictional creatures from outerspace.

*Years* before Al Gore published his movie, I and fellow Dutch teens were already educated on geological periods, plate tectonics, weather & climate and indeed the thoughts about global warming.



FordGT90Concept said:


> Except for the trees, grass, algae, and everything else that lives off of CO2.


The point of those who believe in GW is that the *amount* of CO2 and CH4 is problematic. Like fat; a certain minimum of it is essential but too much of it is being regarded as problematic.


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Jun 21, 2011)

alexsubri said:


> Global Warming is just a lie created by Al Gore so that The New World Order can enslave us with their Carbon Tax





alexsubri said:


> "What In The World Are They Spraying" on youtube


Mentioning Alex Jones or anything on Alex Jones crackpot website on TPU S&T forum is worthy of a two week ban.  You have been warned . . .  

Seriously though.  Don't do it again. :shadedshu

Feel free to post your pseudoscience on GN.  Those kooks love it.


----------



## m4gicfour (Jun 21, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> if a politician steps up the plate with a hand full of well respected and unbiased and unfunded (both corporate and government) scientists and shows me bullet proof evidence that humans are destroying the ecosystem on a global scale and that they will be the first to change their lifestyles AND they don't want create a massive global bureaucracy around it subjugating the US to shitty international regulation then i will admit that i was wrong about the entire thing.



So you'd wait not only for bulletproof evidence - which was apparently researched with foodstamps, no less- but for the evidence - which we've already established is bulletproof- to come from a non-hypocritical politician? A politician who's going to change his life for no money should be easy to find after you find those scientists who can live and do research and pay off their student loans by thinking happy thoughts. Good plan, talk about self-fulfilling prophecy. That'll never happen, by design. It's a self contradictory statement. If you could live forever you'd be living on a planet that looks like mars with a lot more buildings long before you find that. 

I'll admit that 2+2=4 when you can prove 2+2=1
is a statement with about as much plausibility

Why does the fact that someone uses science for nefarious purposes suddenly make the science invalid? And why does science have to come from a politician? Examine the science. You don't like where the funding comes from for this study? Look like a conflict of interest? Fine, disregard it. Look for other science, for or against. Don't disregard an entire ideology or practice just because there are idiots who promote it. You wouldn't have a whole lot of activities left if you applied that practice to daily life. You could start with _breathing_ for instance. Not much'd matter after that one.

Here's how we get your proof, either way on the subject. Take the studies done, even just take the studies done before Al Gore was born if you feel like it. Form an opinion. Discuss. You may be wrong with this outdated information, but at least you're considering something other than politics. Fuck politics. If you're going to mindlessly argue, at least have something to back it up, even if you're blatantly wrong at least I can respect that. Otherwise you're just delivering the mail 


Al Gore is a jackass is not mutually exclusive to science exists supporting claims he's made.

For the record: I'm Canadian, and Al Gore is too boring to pay attention to. I don't even really know what his views are, and I don't care. I don't need to judge every politician in existance's stance on an issue to form an opinion. I tend to prefer facts, or in lieu of that, I just fuck off and play Meat Boy.


----------



## HammerON (Jun 21, 2011)

^^^^
Excellent post!!!


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jun 21, 2011)

Chevalr1c said:


> The point of those who believe in GW is that the *amount* of CO2 and CH4 is problematic. *Like fat; a certain minimum of it is essential but too much of it is being regarded as problematic*.



That is a funny analogy talking to Americans given our obesity rate. 

Are you warning us about GW and being too fat at the same time? 

Cutting out corn based sweeteners and trans fat would help us in that regard.


----------



## gumpty (Jun 21, 2011)

Jesus, I'm glad I went to bed when I did. This has really turned into a shitstorm.

Anyway, I can't respond to everything, so I'll pick one example of glaringly wrong information.



Easy Rhino said:


> did you believe the people in the 70s who claimed we were headed for a global freeze that would devastate our planet?



That is not true. The 70's Ice Age Prediction myth was predominantly media based - not science based. The vast majority of scientific papers in the 70s predicted global warming.

I agree with one thing though ... you should not trust any media organisation when they come out and report on a climate study. Go look at this most recent example that started this thread off - scientific study says the sun is going into a low-activity phase, media reports that the world is heading for an ice-age; precisely the opposite to what the scientists actually said. _Don't trust the mainstream media._



Easy Rhino said:


> not to mention the past 10 years of warming has already been wiped out by the past two years of cooling...



I don't know where you got this from, but 2010 was tied with 2005 as the hottest year on record. 2009 is about the 6th hottest year, with the rest of the last decade filling out the top 11 (1998 is the interloper at #3).


EDIT: For the record before this clusterfuck of politics continues: I don't give a fuck about Al Gore either. I've never watched the doco thing he did, nor do I care too. As m4gicfour said, fuck politics - let's stick to what the science actually says and ignore the bullshit that gets in the way of it.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 21, 2011)

How about when Greenpeace lies?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NC7bE9jopXE&feature=player_embedded

So much BS.

Anyway heres a neat little debate....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ulLrJK81Os&feature=related


----------



## gumpty (Jun 21, 2011)

I don't care much for Greenpeace. Damned hippies' hearts are in the right place, but they would collapse this world into chaos faster than global warming will if we let them run the place.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 21, 2011)

Oh noes! The world is ending again!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4347939...ding-mass-extinctions-experts-warn/?GT1=43001

I'm just going to go and burn some old weed eater gas and charcoal I have out back in honor of another Eco system dieing. lol


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 21, 2011)

I'd say that's true though.  There's too many damn people on this rock to be sustainable.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 21, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I'd say that's true though.  There's too many damn people on this rock to be sustainable.



Really?! Who's up for an euthanasia party!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 21, 2011)

Me! Me! Me! 

But yeah, WWIII is long overdue.  Wars are to humans as lions are to zebras.  The good news is that the inevitable famine that is approaching will no doubt trigger WWIII if some political matter doesn't trigger it first.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 21, 2011)

As long as it doesn't effect me in any shape or form let the games begin!


----------



## Peter1986C (Jun 21, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> But yeah, WWIII is long overdue.  Wars are to humans as lions are to zebras.  The good news is that the inevitable famine that is approaching will no doubt trigger WWIII if some political matter doesn't trigger it first.



I remember from school (history class) that after WWII, there was a so-called babyboom because of the people being so happy it was over (celebrating in that certain way I don't have to describe further, I'm sure you know what I mean). Behaving like rabbits made the pop getting up to the usual levels again within one or two decades.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 21, 2011)

Chevalr1c said:


> I remember from school (history class) that after WWII, there was a so-called babyboom because of the people being so happy it was over (celebrating in that certain way I don't have to describe further, I'm sure you know what I mean). Behaving like rabbits made the pop getting up to the usual levels again within one or two decades.



Yup the children are called "Babyboomers". Their children are called "Flower Children" and the kids of the "Flower Children" are called "Generation X". However I have no idea what the kids of "Generation X" are called other then "screwed". All I know is the "Babyboomers" and "Flower Children" have severely fucked this planet up to no end lol


----------



## Peter1986C (Jun 21, 2011)

What I meant to say is that killing each other or ourselves won't make an actual difference. Like most creatures, we are "programmed" to become rabbits once a "predator" (that is ourselves in this case) has been slaughtering us.
So if we want to slow down the growth of the global population, it is better to do birth control and make a maximum of two kids per parent. Though ironically does this imply a massive growth in wealth of the poor countries; so even though families will get smaller there (like happened here too once life got better) they will pollute more.
I am not saying that poverty should not be got rid of, of course it should disappear were possible. It will only not make things better for the planet, as the burden of the wealth equals out the population control advantage. Yet, for the people there it will be better if their economies are getting at a decent level.

So let's fight poverty first, and meanwhile simply try to avoid throwing stuff away that still works. 

And of course apply "the new driving", which basically means that one should get off the throttle pedal at a certain distance from stopping points like crossroads. This leads to less fuel consumption compared to the usual driving style, which relies much more on the brakes (and if you suddenly have to brake, you can still do so, so road security will remain the same). The "new driving" also saves your brakes and (I assume) tires and if you're lucky your kids in the back are less likely to puke (because of the more fluid driving style). Even Top Gear UK (while J. Clarkson does not believe in GW, AFAIK) advises the new fuel-saving style since roughly season 15 (I cannot exactly rember the episode in which this was discussed, it could also have been during season 16).


----------



## xBruce88x (Jun 21, 2011)

then again all the poor ppl getting wealthy would help contribute to developing cleaner ways of doing things. research in solar tech (sterling engine anyone?), alternate fuel (for example, the USA, which is one of the biggest users of gasoline, has a massive reserve of natural gas. we just need to start using it... but then politics steps in), reversing desertification, etc. the more global participation, the more good for all. sadly we may see WWIII (if you don't count the "war on terror") before that.


----------



## Peter1986C (Jun 21, 2011)

No matter their influence on alt. energy, it is better if they get richer. 



xBruce88x said:


> (for example, the USA, which is one of the biggest users of gasoline, has a massive reserve of natural gas. we just need to start using it...



That is actually not a real solution; "natural" does not mean "organic" or "renewable" or whatever in this case. It only implies it is naturally occurring in the same way as e.g. oil and coal do (in Minecraft terminology, "it can be found in your world without the need to craft it"). It is not renewable and it still creates CO2 that cannot be regarded as "carbon neutral" (unlike biogas from dead plants, fruit remains etc., maybe). It may be a good temporary solution though, at least for the USA (the European reserves are already shrinking, AFAIK).


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Jun 21, 2011)

The Oceans Are Dying


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 21, 2011)

ah yes, now the oceans are in decline rather than rising. lmfao.

edit: yes i know what the article intends, i am using a play on words. never believe the doomsayers. they are always wrong.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Jun 21, 2011)

Yeah maybe the religious nutcases and such are always wrong but a panel of experts convening at Oxford examining scientific data? I'm just not willing to take that bet. The signs are all there...believe what you want.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 21, 2011)

Wrigleyvillain said:


> Yeah maybe the religious nutcases and such are always wrong but a panel of experts convening at Oxford examining scientific data? I'm just not willing to take that bet. The signs are all there...believe what you want.



What of the scientists that argue against parts of the green movement?


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 21, 2011)

Wrigleyvillain said:


> Yeah maybe the religious nutcases and such are always wrong but a panel of experts convening at Oxford examining scientific data? I'm just not willing to take that bet. The signs are all there...believe what you want.



scientists never make up data to obtain notoriety or further funding for their projects... remember when they said the BP oil leak was going to cause massive havok? they were totally wrong. the ocean ate up all of the light crude in a matter of months. lmfao people will believe anyone with a PHD after their name.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Jun 21, 2011)

The oceans are in a state of collapse. Just ask a fisherman at how much his catch has decreased over the years.

Humans have over fished the oceans, and since there is a food chain, you can bet that many other animals are going to be fucked.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 21, 2011)

WhiteLotus said:


> The oceans are in a state of collapse. Just ask a fisherman at how much his catch has decreased over the years.
> 
> Humans have over fished the oceans, and since there is a food chain, you can bet that many other animals are going to be fucked.



the oceans are not dieing. one report does not make something true.


----------



## Peter1986C (Jun 21, 2011)

Only one report has been linked to, but I bet there are others too.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 21, 2011)

Chevalr1c said:


> Only one report has been linked to, but I bet there are others too.



no, this is the first report released by this group. notice no data has been included in the report yet so no 'skeptics' can examine it and make a quick rebuttal while the story is still running in the news cycle. this is the common pattern by the liberal media looking to turn us all into mindless zombies. there is no such thing as "settled" science. we are constantly learning about how are world works and how it changes. to create any sort of legislation over it is ludicrous at best and fascist at worst. especially when skeptic scientists, pouring over the actual data take issue and publish their own reports, are dismissed as nut jobs.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Jun 22, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> the oceans are not dieing. one report does not make something true.



Seriously? That's your argument.

That report stated the god-damn obvious. There is less fish in the ocean now than there was 100 years ago. 

And since the tiny bacteria and algae that are the food for many fish are very temperature sensitive, any change in the temperature of the oceans can cause the those bacterial/algae numbers to decline, which will cause the small krill to decline, which will cause the larger fish to decline, which we will fish to extinction.

I mean, can anyone really be that ignorant to ignore what is obvious. Screw what the scientists say, it's obvious that if you take away 100 fish (fishing) each year and only replace it with 90 fish (natural reproduction), you're going to get less and less. It's already being seen that it's getting harder and harder to find and fish Tuna. And it's not like they're small.

The same concept can be applied to CO2, if you increase the source of CO2 (burning fossil fuels, forest fires, volcanoes), and decrease the sink of CO2 (removal of algae, plant life) you are going to get more CO2. I sure as fuck don't want my kids having to walk to school wearing air filters because the quality of the air is so bad thanks to the ignorant jackasses of the world refusing to change.

This is all I can think of when I read some of these posts, I just hope that some of them are only being posted to keep the debate rolling and are not actually the real thoughts of the poster.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 22, 2011)

how is this report obvious to anyone but the people who actually wrote the report? do you know how they collected the data? do you know if they ran the models in a test lab? do you know what variables they used to forecast? no, because that information has not been made available in the new stories about it. to simply believe this report because you read it is asinine. wait until we find out about how the data was gathered, the methods used, etc before jumping on their bandwagon. you will believe anything. stop being so gullible.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Jun 22, 2011)

Stop being to oblivious to what is going on around you! You can't accept it, because then it would mean that you would have to be ripped out of your comfort zone and change!

I don't need a scientist to tell me how fucked this planet is. Just look around you and see for yourself.


----------



## twicksisted (Jun 22, 2011)

take the blue pill


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 22, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> how is this report obvious to anyone but the people who actually wrote the report? do you know how they collected the data? do you know if they ran the models in a test lab? do you know what variables they used to forecast? no, because that information has not been made available in the new stories about it. to simply believe this report because you read it is asinine. wait until we find out about how the data was gathered, the methods used, etc before jumping on their bandwagon. you will believe anything. stop being so gullible.



Because it fits the rhetoric they will follow anything. Both sides of the debate are guilty of this. I just follow the money and see were the BS begins. Liberal vs. Conservative politicians and the only difference is their corporate affiliation. They both have zombie followers who question nothing their media masters tell them and question everything from the other side. Long gone are the days of rational thought and common sense with working together.

MSNBC says Earth is doomed and have science to prove it.
Fox says the Earth is fine and have science to prove it.

Who to believe? Simple. Open up a history book and learn from the past. Its whats in the future.



WhiteLotus said:


> Stop being to oblivious to what is going on around you! You can't accept it, because then it would mean that you would have to be ripped out of your comfort zone and change!
> 
> I don't need a scientist to tell me how fucked this planet is. Just look around you and see for yourself.



Really? Changes are happening but science can't tell you with any certainty that it will rain tomorrow yet they know why the planets environment is changing? I agree things are happening. You would have to be a fool not to see it. However be very careful who you lemming after to "fix" the problem. Remember the Earth used to be flat.


----------



## Peter1986C (Jun 22, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> no, this is the first report released by this group. notice no data has been included in the report yet so no 'skeptics' can examine it and make a quick rebuttal while the story is still running in the news cycle. this is the common pattern by the liberal media looking to turn us all into mindless zombies. there is no such thing as "settled" science. we are constantly learning about how are world works and how it changes. to create any sort of legislation over it is ludicrous at best and fascist at worst. especially when skeptic scientists, pouring over the actual data take issue and publish their own reports, are dismissed as nut jobs.



What I meant is that they are not the first scientists looking at the state of the ocean. Else the Great Barrier Reef would have been long gone (parts have been declared to be protected areas years ago).



TheMailMan78 said:


> Remember the Earth used to be flat


Myth. The Greek new the earth was not flat, and AFAIK they even tried to calculate it's roundness.
During the Middle Ages people knew the world was not flat, as sea-men could see water "disappear" behind the horizon while still being fine a few days sailing later. And they needed accurate maps, too, for their journeys. Unlike many other maps that often had a religious touch (to depict cities like Rome and Jerusalem as being very important, they were put in the centre of certain maps while God was shown near it carrying a globe). See this documentary (get to playtime 16:00): http://www.56.com/u28/v_NjAyODQzMjk.html


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 22, 2011)

Heres an article that kinda shows what I am talking about. We know changes are happing. However IMO people are taking advantage of it and quilting you into a product or service. Kinda like the snake oil salesmen selling you elixir to stop the small pox......



> The Bell Tells for You
> The Climate Crisis Hoax
> Larry Bell, 01.05.11, 10:00 AM EST
> On this subject, there's very little to debate.
> ...



Source


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 22, 2011)

Chevalr1c said:


> I remember from school (history class) that after WWII, there was a so-called babyboom because of the people being so happy it was over (celebrating in that certain way I don't have to describe further, I'm sure you know what I mean). Behaving like rabbits made the pop getting up to the usual levels again within one or two decades.


But life was good during those decades--especially in countries that weren't war-ravaged.  "Life was good" for numerous reasons that most likely wouldn't repeat after WWIII.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 22, 2011)

Chevalr1c said:


> What I meant is that they are not the first scientists looking at the state of the ocean. Else the Great Barrier Reef would have been long gone (parts have been declared to be protected areas years ago).
> 
> 
> Myth. The Greek new the earth was not flat, and AFAIK they even tried to calculate it's roundness.
> During the Middle Ages people knew the world was not flat, as sea-men could see water "disappear" behind the horizon while still being fine a few days sailing later. And they needed accurate maps, too, for their journeys. Unlike many other maps that often had a religious touch (to depict cities like Rome and Jerusalem as being very important, they were put in the centre of certain maps while God was shown near it carrying a globe). See this documentary (get to playtime 16:00): http://www.56.com/u28/v_NjAyODQzMjk.html



The Greeks up until the classical period thought the Earth was flat. However you are correct on the religious overtone revitalizing the myth far after that. Even into the 20th century in some cases........however thats not the point. As I said up until the classical period the most advance culture on Earth at the time (Greece) thought the Earth was in fact flat.

Oh and I didn't watch your documentary. No need to. Took art history for years. 

Heres a neat little article on it.
http://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.com/2010/04/flat-earth-theory-ancient-greeks-debunk.html


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 22, 2011)

WhiteLotus said:


> I don't need a scientist to tell me how fucked this planet is. Just look around you and see for yourself.



actually you do because simple observation is not enough to prove anything. you walk down your street and you see garbage there. does that mean every street is filled with garbage. don't be so narrow minded. a scientific mind is an open mind. science means all theories get rigorously tested and retested and peer tested. consenting theories and data should be WELCOMED not immediately dismissed because they dont fit into YOUR world view.


----------



## alexsubri (Jun 22, 2011)

streetfighter 2 said:


> Mentioning Alex Jones or anything on Alex Jones crackpot website on TPU S&T forum is worthy of a two week ban.  You have been warned . . .
> 
> Seriously though.  Don't do it again. :shadedshu
> 
> Feel free to post your pseudoscience on GN.  Those kooks love it.



Excuse me, I *never* once mentioned Alex Jones on this thread or on TPU ever. Alex Jones didn't even create the movie "What In The World Are They Spraying." 

And, I have the right to throw in my 2 cent`s

I wouldn't mention Alex Jones anyway`s on TPU because this is a Technology website, not an Alternative News website



Chevalr1c said:


> Don't talk silly please. Refering to a "new world order" is utter BS when mentioning a former US presidential candidate. We are not talking about hostile takeovers by Stalin or by fictional creatures from outerspace.



Again, I am just going to say this, the NWO _does exsit._ It has been stated from Bush Senior, all the way through Henry Kissinger (ALL on LIVE TV) about forming a One World Government. But, again, I am refraining myself from going on. If you want I will PM you and we can debate it there.


----------



## m4gicfour (Jun 22, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> actually you do because simple observation is not enough to prove anything. you walk down your street and you see garbage there. does that mean every street is filled with garbage. don't be so narrow minded. a scientific mind is an open mind. science means all theories get rigorously tested and retested and peer tested. consenting theories and data should be WELCOMED not immediately dismissed because they dont fit into YOUR world view.



You realize that's the scientific method, right? Observation? Walk down your street, go to another street, watch TV, look online, see friend's vacation photos... 

The only thing lacking is control of variables, which in that example (and indeed, in actuality) is impossible. All variables that can be controlled must be controlled. For example, don't include garbage dumps and cities where the sanitation workers are on strike. Not all variables (such as the bias of the scientist) can be controlled. 

Simple observation, simple by design - making things as simplified and un-complex as possible, and observing the results of introducing X - is the definition of science. 

I know what you're saying, one data point does not a trend make, but really, there's a hell of a lot of data out there. I'll refrain from judgement on what that data actually indicates, however, as I am not doing a study.


----------



## Thatguy (Jun 22, 2011)

Wrigleyvillain said:


> Yeah anything that slows down polar melting and thus keeps sea levels down would be good. The cause really isn't the point or what's important. It's the effects.



If the ice is flaoting, why would the sea levels rise, you are familiar with displacement no ?


----------



## gumpty (Jun 22, 2011)

Sorry, again I don't have time to dive into everything.



TheMailMan78 said:


> Because it fits the rhetoric they will follow anything. Both sides of the debate are guilty of this.



That's just it ... take a look at 'both sides'. On one side you have the scientific community. On the other side you have bloggers, politicians, and 'interested' parties (I'm not claiming that there are no 'warmists' that are taking backhanders - but let's face it, they don't have the oil companies on their side).

97% of climate scientists agree that the climate is changing and that we are the cause. It's hard to argue that they are just saying that to get paid or get grants, when they would get paid and get grants anyway if it wasn't our fault, because research would still need to be done into the 'real' reasons and what we can do to mitigate the effects.

And go check what scientists get paid anyway; it's pathetically low.


----------------------

Regarding reducing the population, I've always been of the opinion that education is the key - not just wealth. Educate the third-world and we reduce the dependence they will have on us as they will be able to more ably help themselves out of poverty & large-family situations.

----------------------



Thatguy said:


> If the ice is flaoting, why would the sea levels rise, you are familiar with displacement no ?



Warmer oceans expand = sea levels rise. Also, not all of Antarctica's ice is floating.


----------



## W1zzard (Jun 22, 2011)

gumpty said:


> 97% of climate scientists agree that the climate is changing and that we are the cause. It's hard to argue that they are just saying that to get paid or get grants, when they would get paid and get grants anyway if it wasn't our fault, because research would still need to be done into the 'real' reasons and what we can do to mitigate the effects.



+1. also instant nobel prize if you can prove 97% of scientists wrong



Thatguy said:


> If the ice is flaoting, why would the sea levels rise, you are familiar with displacement no ?


antarctica ice shelf, greenland, glaciers


----------



## btarunr (Jun 22, 2011)

In your face, Al Gore and carbon tax.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Jun 22, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> actually you do because simple observation is not enough to prove anything. you walk down your street and you see garbage there. does that mean every street is filled with garbage. don't be so narrow minded. a scientific mind is an open mind. science means all theories get rigorously tested and retested and peer tested. consenting theories and data should be WELCOMED not immediately dismissed because they dont fit into YOUR world view.



So you think that the world is going to be fine and dandy in a few hundreds years to come. What with the population ever increasing, you think everything is going to be as it is now in a few hundred years??

Right... well I don't know what unicorn planet you live on, but I live on this planet called Earth.


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Jun 22, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> never believe the doomsayers. they are always wrong.





> Originally Spoken by *Douglas Adams*
> 
> 
> _This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for. We all know that at some point in the future the Universe will come to an end and at some other point, considerably in advance from that but still not immediately pressing, the sun will explode. We feel there's plenty of time to worry about that, but on the other hand that's a very dangerous thing to say. Look at what's supposed to be going to happen on the 1st of January 2000 - let's not pretend that we didn't have a warning that the century was going to end! I think that we need to take a larger perspective on who we are and what we are doing here if we are going to survive in the long term._


Also I'm sure you're familiar with the Holocene extinction.  I'm not saying it's doomsday or anything quite as nuts as that but we've got to be careful about getting ourselves (humans) into a tight spot.  We're watching the canaries die and we're pretty indifferent to it.

Not that I care really.  I figure if you tell somebody a few times and they don't listen then it's not important to them. 


Easy Rhino said:


> you walk down your street and you see garbage there. does that mean every street is filled with garbage?


Sure, if it's Italy. 


alexsubri said:


> Excuse me, I *never* once mentioned Alex Jones on this thread or on TPU ever. Alex Jones didn't even create the movie "What In The World Are They Spraying."
> 
> And, I have the right to throw in my 2 cent`s


You linked a youtube video that is sourced from infowars.com (Alex Jones' website).  Furthermore "What In The World Are They Spraying" is sold on Alex Jones website, which violates the separation of stupid shit and the TPU S&T forum. 

You absolutely have the right to throw in your two cents.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 22, 2011)

gumpty said:


> Sorry, again I don't have time to dive into everything.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



See thats the issue. A lot of the scientific community that has reviewed the IPCC findings (main source for all climate change panic) has called bullshit on them. However the people who do are spin off as nut jobs even if before they were highly respected. The other side has a lot of evidence of this. So like I said. Open your mind to both sides and take the middle road.

Follow the money and power.



streetfighter 2 said:


> Also I'm sure you're familiar with the Holocene extinction.  I'm not saying it's doomsday or anything quite as nuts as that but we've got to be careful about getting ourselves (humans) into a tight spot.  We're watching the canaries die and we're pretty indifferent to it.
> 
> Not that I care really.  I figure if you tell somebody a few times and they don't listen then it's not important to them.
> 
> ...



What I love about the Holocene extinction is this.....







Yeah that was WELL before the industrial revolution. So man had to many camp fires then too?


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Jun 22, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Yeah that was WELL before the industrial revolution. So man had to many camp fires then too?


I only made mention of the current ongoing extinction event in light of the contemporary global view of threat to the prosperity of the human species.  I did not previously indicate the cause of the Holocene extinction, though I believe it is multifaceted and climate change is only a piece which has become particularly apparent in the recent era.

Also (I did NOT check the sources on this so I'm presenting it as is, without my standard rigor ):


> _Three hypotheses have been proposed to explain the extinction of megafauna in the late Pleistocene. Of these, only two have much scientific credibility. Although Ross McPhee proposed that a hyper-disease may have been the cause of the extinction, the study by Lyons et al., demonstrated conclusively that a hyperdisease was unlikely to have caused the extinction. The two main theories to the extinction are climate change and human hunting. The climate change theory has suggested that a change in climate near the end of the late Pleistocene stressed the megafauna to the point of extinction. Although this theory still has some vocal proponents, increasingly fewer scientists favor it. The best supported theory suggests early human hunting and their associated ecological impact caused the rapid extinction of the megafauna in the late Pleistocene._


I believe this is the paper that explains that it wasn't [anthropogenic] climate change but human hunting that played a major causal role in the start of the Holocene.  (I didn't read it.  I may later if I get some free time.)

Furthermore (though the source is an invalid link . . .),


> _Some of the human causes of the current extinctions include deforestation, hunting, pollution, climate change, and the introduction of non-native species._





TheMailMan78 said:


> Anything that blames man is going to be favored because man as a whole has a very large ego and thinks it has the power to do most anything including changing Earths weather......big mistake when mother comes knocking on the door. Most science points to any major extinction as a result of climate changing.......well before man even walked upright.


Though it's true that man's propensity to blame man is a common attribution error, if we're not careful about calling wolf then we will disregard human causal factors offhandedly.  That is a dark path for science.

Also I'm not familiar with the "Any" epoch .  The Holocene seems to have some data behind it and indicates that climate is but a piece of the current puzzle.

EDIT:  I skimmed that paper I mentioned earlier.  Interesting stuff.  Here's one of the last paragraphs (for reference):


> _We do not intend to suggest that changes in climate and vegetation at the end of the
> Pleistocene did not play some role in the extinction of the megafauna in North America,
> South America and perhaps other landmasses. We do suggest that any such effect was minor
> and secondary compared with anthropogenic factors such as the selective hunting of large
> ...


----------



## bucketface (Jun 22, 2011)

the temperature of the earth during the dionsaur era was supposedly much warmer than it is today, hence the prevalence or reptilian life during that period. then something caused temperatures to plumet into an ice age. wouldn't sicientists be able to extrapolate a fairly accurate estimate of the temprtures we'd experience with similar levels of certain gasses. 
also we are most cartainly having an impact on the environment, we are primarily responible for many recent extinctions and are likely headed to a mass extinction. massive deforrestation must have some impact on climate just as large rain-forrests impact the climate. to say we have nothing to do with the climate is wrong but just what exactly the results will be are unclear.
just a personal opinion but i belive that we should target about 4bn humans as a reasonably sustainable level for everyone to have a high quality of life. the resources to sustain 12bn humans by 2050 with ever increasing demands will be staggering. a universal 2 child policy would be the easiest way to ease population pressures if it were implimented now. but hey maybe one of our largely incompetent governments will be able to devise a workable soluton...


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 22, 2011)

streetfighter 2 said:


> I only made mention of the current ongoing extinction event in light of the contemporary global view of threat to the prosperity of the human species.
> 
> Also (I did NOT check the sources on this so I'm presenting it as is, without my standard rigor ):
> 
> ...



Anything that blames man is going to be favored because man as a whole has a very large ego and thinks it has the power to do most anything including changing Earths weather......big mistake when mother comes knocking on the door. Most science points to any major extinction as a result of climate changing.......well before man even walked upright.



streetfighter 2 said:


> I only made mention of the current ongoing extinction event in light of the contemporary global view of threat to the prosperity of the human species.  I did not previously indicate the cause of the Holocene extinction, though I believe it is multifaceted and climate change is only a piece which has become particularly apparent in the recent era.
> 
> Also (I did NOT check the sources on this so I'm presenting it as is, without my standard rigor ):
> 
> ...



I love selective science. Today man is warming the Earth and causing extinction. However when the Earth warmed naturally to a higher point then it is now thousands of years ago man is STILL blamed due to hunting yet the warmer climate had no effect. Why is warmer climate not the cause back then when we had no "control" but now they are? Really?


----------



## gumpty (Jun 22, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> See thats the issue. A lot of the scientific community that has reviewed the IPCC findings (main source for all climate change panic) has called bullshit on them. However the people who do are spin off as nut jobs even if before they were highly respected. The other side has a lot of evidence of this. So like I said. Open your mind to both sides and take the middle road.



Conspiracy! Exactly the same crap that creationists peddle.





Doran 2009

So take out the climatologists that are active publishers - the ones that would profit from silencing dissent - and you still have like, 85-90%.



TheMailMan78 said:


> Follow the money and power.



Yeah, cause the warmists have all those rich and powerful corporations on their side ... oh wait ... no they don't. Big Nuclear would have an interest in spreading 'warmist propaganda'; I haven't checked but I'd hazard a guess that their annual revenue isn't a scratch in the navel of what fossil fuels brings in.
Political interests? Yeah, cause raising taxes is really popular and likely to win votes in the next election.



TheMailMan78 said:


> What I love about the Holocene extinction is this.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You realise that is reconstruction of just northern hemisphere temps, right? The thing about those shifts of temperature during the Holocene, science know's with a fair amount of certainty what caused them - and yet those forces have been all but ruled out for the warming we're getting now.


Late edit:

This video is pretty.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 22, 2011)

gumpty said:


> Conspiracy! Exactly the same crap that creationists peddle.
> 
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/poll_scientists.gif
> Doran 2009
> ...


Conspiracy? No just facts. A lot of people have called bullshit and proved it. All I am saying is sample all the Kool Aid. Never settle for one flavor but hey who am I to get in the way of your Indoctrination? 



gumpty said:


> Yeah, cause the warmists have all those rich and powerful corporations on their side ... oh wait ... no they don't. Big Nuclear would have an interest in spreading 'warmist propaganda'; I haven't checked but I'd hazard a guess that their annual revenue isn't a scratch in the navel of what fossil fuels brings in.
> Political interests? Yeah, cause raising taxes is really popular and likely to win votes in the next election.


 Obviously you have no idea how big the green industry is. Ever heard of GE and the like? They are creating a whole new dependency industry with scare tactics. Need to raise taxes? Yup its for the children. 



gumpty said:


> You realise that is reconstruction of just northern hemisphere temps, right? The thing about those shifts of temperature during the Holocene, science know's with a fair amount of certainty what caused them - and yet those forces have been all but ruled out for the warming we're getting now.


 With certainty? Face it the science has been making excuses and adjusting its "certainty" for 40 years now trying to sell this crap. We went from a new ice age, to global warming, to climate change, to global weirding etc. They don't know WTF is going on but they "all agree" that its mans fault.....well some don't but we wont listen to them will we?


----------



## bostonbuddy (Jun 22, 2011)

When it comes down to any paleoclimateologist will admit that any theories on climate change and how humans could be effecting the climate are in the very early stages right now.  In other words all BS.  Thats not to say it isn't any area where continued research could lead to a better understanding.  But with the climates record of having very slow and rapid changes, 100years is probaby the minimum amount of time before any real findings can be made.  Any less then that and you aren't dealing w/ climate trends, your dealing with weather.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jun 22, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Heres an article that kinda shows what I am talking about. We know changes are happing. However IMO people are taking advantage of it and quilting you into a product or service. Kinda like the snake oil salesmen selling you elixir to stop the small pox......
> 
> 
> 
> Source




You don't think a columnist for Forbes has a conflict of interest? Surely he wouldn't just support big business.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 22, 2011)

bostonbuddy said:


> When it comes down to any paleoclimateologist will admit that any theories on climate change and how humans could be effecting the climate are in the very early stages right now.  In other words all BS.  Thats not to say it isn't any area where continued research could lead to a better understanding.  But with the climates record of having very slow and rapid changes, 100years is probaby the minimum amount of time before any real findings can be made.  Any less then that and you aren't dealing w/ climate trends, your dealing with weather.



Exactly. Its way to early to be making judgment calls.



DaedalusHelios said:


> You don't think a columnist for Forbes has a conflict of interest? Surely he wouldn't just support big business.



Thats just one of many. I love how you make the Green movement out to be heros......they are out to make a buck like everyone else.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jun 22, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Thats just one of many. I love how you make the Green movement out to be heros......they are out to make a buck like everyone else.



The goal of many was to get big business interested in making money doing good things. They tried to create a market to sell "green" products. Its not like you can get people interested in just changing there own lifestyle to help future generations without the promise of a possible reward. Just look at runaway government spending in the US. If people would simply care about future generations national debt without the fear of the government collapsing we wouldn't have built up this much debt to begin with.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 22, 2011)

DaedalusHelios said:


> The goal of many was to get big business interested in making money doing good things. They tried to create a market to sell "green" products. Its not like you can get people interested in just changing there own lifestyle to help future generations without the promise of a possible reward. Just look at runaway government spending in the US. If people would simply care about future generations national debt without the fear of the government collapsing we wouldn't have built up this much debt to begin with.



DaedalusHelios with much respect to you man lets not talk about the US debt in this thread. It will get MASSIVELY derailed in a hurry and I honestly do not want it to close. I am enjoying the different points of view.


----------



## W1zzard (Jun 22, 2011)

i really can't believe the ignorance and the statements some people are making here.. you guys should read the latest ipcc report (not the executive summary this time). these people are careful with their words, the data is there, you can look it up.

i guess some people here still believe in creationism?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 22, 2011)

W1zzard said:


> i really can't believe the ignorance and the statements some people are making here.. you guys should read the latest ipcc report (not the executive summary this time). these people are careful with their words, the data is there, you can look it up.
> 
> i guess some people here still believe in creationism?



IPCC? lol No. Talk about having an agenda.

Here is a list of respected scientists who disagree with IPCC....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

FYI I am no denier. I just question everything.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Jun 22, 2011)

See you just write off the whole report based on some other bullshit or a general opinion of the group. That's reckless. You're willing to take that chance with your children's and their children's future? And what agenda would that be anyway?

Fucking Al Gore and carbon taxes blah blah have done more damage as opposed to helping at all because now there's this "liberal", socialistic stigma attached to this _scientific_ issue.



W1zzard said:


> i really can't believe the ignorance and the statements some people are making here.. you guys should read the latest ipcc report (not the executive summary this time). these people are careful with their words, the data is there, you can look it up.
> 
> i guess some people here still believe in creationism?



Oh thank you. At least the man in charge has some damn sense.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 22, 2011)

Wrigleyvillain said:


> See you just write off the whole report based on some other bullshit or a general opinion of the group. That's reckless. And what agenda would that be anyway?
> 
> Fucking Al Gore and carbon taxes blah blah have done more damage as opposed to helping at all because now there's this "liberal", socialistic stigma attached to this _scientific_ issue.



Here look at this....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming



Wrigleyvillain said:


> Oh thank you. At least the man in charge has some damn sense.



I wouldn't go that far......He made Mussles a mod.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 22, 2011)

Ignorance is believing the IPCC. A political group designed to push bad science. Ignorance is dismissing scientists with real data that shows gaping holes in climate models used by the warmers as crackpots. These dissenters publish peer reviewed reports as well but they are but ignored by the mainstream media across the globe. 15 years ago the template was set but thankfully people are finally coming around to seeing that global warming is a giant scam. There is no warming caused by humans that impacts the planet in a negative way and there is no proof over the course of our existence that we are causing it. What's more, all models that forecast warming done over the past 15 years have been dead wrong. But keep thinking that skeptics and scientists who show opposing data are ignorant.


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Jun 22, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I love selective science. Today man is warming the Earth and causing extinction.


That's just one of several causes of the current extinction epoch (as I mentioned earlier).  It sounds to me like you're the one being selective. 


TheMailMan78 said:


> However when the Earth warmed naturally to a higher point then it is now thousands of years ago man is STILL blamed due to hunting yet the warmer climate had no effect.


That last quote I included in my previous post said this, 
_There were more than 20 glacial-interglacial cycles
during the ~1.6 million years of the Pleistocene, but only in the last one, and only in North
and South America, were these climatic changes associated with wholesale extinctions
of large mammals.​_


TheMailMan78 said:


> Why is warmer climate not the cause back then when we had no "control" but now they are? Really?


I'd imagine that there are a number of contributory factors:
-global warming isn't uniform or linear
-global warming isn't the only/principal cause of the current era of the Holocene extinction
-human caused destruction of habitats breaks natural climate regulation mechanisms
-additional mechanisms (feedback)

I'm no climate expert though.  I just like snowboarding.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 22, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> Ignorance is believing the IPCC. A political group designed to push bad science. Ignorance is dismissing scientists with real data that shows gaping holes in climate models used by the warmers as crackpots. These dissenters publish peer reviewed reports as well but they are but ignored by the mainstream media across the globe. 15 years ago the template was set but thankfully people are finally coming around to seeing that global warming is a giant scam. There is no warming caused by humans that impacts the planet in a negative way and there is no proof over the course of our existence that we are causing it. What's more, all models that forecast warming done over the past 15 years have been dead wrong. But keep thinking that skeptics and scientists who show opposing data are ignorant.



I agree. We should be careful and avoid knee jerk reactions from ether camp. Its just way to early to tell who is right.



Wrigleyvillain said:


> Fucking Al Gore and carbon taxes blah blah have done more damage as opposed to helping at all because now there's this "liberal", socialistic stigma attached to this _scientific_ issue.



I agree. Politics should stay out of everything but politics.


----------



## W1zzard (Jun 22, 2011)

read what those sceptics say at the wikipedia page .. it's not like they say nothing is happening and everything is fine and humans dont have any effect at all


----------



## bucketface (Jun 22, 2011)

W1zzard said:


> i really can't believe the ignorance and the statements some people are making here.. you guys should read the latest ipcc report (not the executive summary this time). these people are careful with their words, the data is there, you can look it up.
> 
> i guess some people here still believe in creationism?



that definitely needs its own thread for discussion.
all i have to say is i'm not entirely satisfied with any of the theories concering the beginning of the universe. personally i'm inclined to belive that the "big bang" was the beginning of our galaxy and not the entire universe and that the universe itself is much older than 14bn years. im also skeptical on the whole expanding universe thing. i find it difficult to belive that in a universe where none of these bodies are sationary, that not one is moving in our general direction. plus how accurately can they determine our planets routation around the sun, the solarsystems rotation around the milkyway and it's relative movement in relation to other galaxies to determine this. 
getting way off top here 

on topic:
what we know is that co2 levels are higher than ever before, in recorded history. temperature levels will likely rise, on an average global level, about a few degrees over the next few decades. what we don't know is how exactly this will affect the climate on a global scale other than it being warmer. 
if that video that was linked earlier is anything to go by, then co2 levels of no lower than 200ppm and no higher than 300ppm should be our target.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 22, 2011)

Yeah, the IPCC is looking for funding and nothing generates more funding in science than fear.


I say be smart about what you are doing.  For example, if you have the option to not drive somewhere, don't.  If you have the option to buy a more fuel efficient vehicle, get it.  If you don't need a light on, turn it off.  If you are comfortable at a lower/higher temperature, adjust your thermostat.  If you are feeling really ambitious, plant a tree and take care of it.  If you are handling toxic materials, dispose of them properly.  The list goes on.  In the end, these things are ultimately good for the enviornment, regardless of "global" anything.  If the planet is going to warm, there's little any of us can do about it.


----------



## W1zzard (Jun 22, 2011)

bucketface said:


> that the "big bang" was the beginning of our galaxy



how does that explain the cosmic microwave background?



> the universe itself is much older than 14bn years


not according to the more or less arbitrary definition of "universe"



> that not one is moving in our general direction


andromeda is moving toward our galaxy



> how accurately can they determine our planets routation around the sun


365.256363004 days. i'm sure much more accurate numbers are around, the rest with surprising accuracy. cosmic microwave background again for the relative motion of the earth in the cosmic mb reference frame == universe reference frame

new thread to discuss any of these


----------



## W1zzard (Jun 22, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> the IPCC is looking for funding



13 million from the us in 2012 and the house of representatives voted that this money shouldnt be spent anymore.

if climate change comes and hits us (which it may or may not) cost in the 13 trillion $ range is not unrealistic


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 22, 2011)

W1zzard said:


> read what those sceptics say at the wikipedia page .. it's not like they say nothing is happening and everything is fine and humans dont have any effect at all



I'm not saying that ether. I'm sure man has some effect but not to the extent we could make much of a difference one way or another. Like I said I am no denier I just question things.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 22, 2011)

W1zzard said:


> 13 million from the us in 2012 and the house of representatives voted that this money shouldnt be spent anymore.


Yup, the cash-cow milking recently ended.  That doesn't mean they didn't get a lot of money between about 1996-2010.  Al Gore is proof of that.




W1zzard said:


> if climate change comes and hits us (which it may or may not) cost in the 13 trillion $ range is not unrealistic


And what's to say it wasn't inevitable?  Building next to water has proven to be a blessing (water supply and an efficient means of transportation) but also a curse (all structures built close to water risk flooding on an annual basis).

Simply put, we have to deal with what happens, as it happens, be it earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, tornadoes, flooding, wild fires, volcanoes, etc.  We live on a hostile rock and that hostility is never going away.  It is simply a fact of life.  If you focus all your attention into "global warming" then what of the other hazards we know, without a doubt, are going to happen.  Like Yellowstone's caldera erupting or eventually getting hit by an asteroid.  These things have a vastly greater effect on the planet than "global warming" and the threat they pose is very real.  Are we even remotely prepared for a global drop of 5C over decades caldera volcanoes have proven to induce?  Nope.


----------



## W1zzard (Jun 22, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> we have to deal with what happens, as it happens



based on current measures against climate change that's exactly what will happen.

the key issue here is that "dealing with it" will be [most probably] more expensive than "avoiding it". but since only their current and next term in office matters for decision makers, nobody is going to do anything about it

look at results from Stockholm, Kyoto, Copenhagen, Cancun .. nobody wants their economy to take a hit


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 22, 2011)

W1zzard said:


> based on current measures against climate change that's exactly what will happen.
> 
> the key issue here is that "dealing with it" will be [most probably] more expensive than "avoiding it". but since only their current and next term in office matters for decision makers, nobody is going to do anything about it



Glad to see corruption in politics isn't exclusive to the US.

So what you are saying W1zz is the biggest threat to the environment of Earth is politicians and their "hot air"?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 22, 2011)

How do you propose we avoid it?  There's 6-7 billion people on this rock and every single one of them is converting oxygen into carbon dioxide.  They all also have energy requirements that are best fulfilled by burning carbons.  Unless there is a mass extinction of the human race, it is going to happen assuming they are correct.  There is no averting it--only delaying the inevitable.

I'll tell you: they want us to put trillions of dollars into select international corporations to "fix it."  That sounds a lot like the bank and auto bailouts of 2009, no?  What did that get us?  Deeper in debt and that's about it.  Don't believe their bull.  They can't do jack shit about it either--they just want to paint a pretty picture and take your money.

Desperatation drives innovation.  I say let the $13 trillion "hit" to the economy come.  Once people undeniably see the threat, either they'll innovate or die, correcting the issue either way.  That's how nature works.


----------



## W1zzard (Jun 22, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> here's 6-7 billion people on this rock and every single one of them is converting oxygen into carbon dioxide.



1 kg per person per day = 6 million tonnes per year 2190 million tonnes per year

world co2 emissions 2007 = 29321 million tonnes per year


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 22, 2011)

W1zzard said:


> 1 kg per person per day = 6 million tonnes per year
> 
> world co2 emissions 2007 = 29321 million tonnes per year



I wonder how much of an increase has been made since the "War on Terror" started with all the transport thats been going on.


----------



## W1zzard (Jun 22, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I wonder how much of an increase has been made since the "War on Terror" started with all the transport thats been going on.



400,000 barrels per day for the us military @ 400 kg co2 per barrel = 160 million kg per day = 160,000 tonnes per day = 58.4 million tonnes per year, as much as 60 billion people


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 22, 2011)

W1zzard said:


> 400,000 barrels per day for the us military @ 400 kg co2 per barrel = 160 million kg per day = 160,000 tonnes per day = 58.4 million tonnes per year, as much as 60 billion people



Thank you 

Yet another reason to end this bullshit.


----------



## bucketface (Jun 22, 2011)

W1zzard said:


> 365.256363004 days. i'm sure much more accurate numbers are around, the rest with surprising accuracy. cosmic microwave background again for the relative motion of the earth in the cosmic mb reference frame == universe reference frame
> 
> new thread to discuss any of these



yeah agreed,
but first i don't think i expressed my self as clearly as i would have liked. 
just the above quote. i meant taking in all these relative motions together when everything is in motion would make it rather difficult to determine whether or not the universe is generally expanding. not to mention that our sample of the universe is rather limited considering it is infinite (potentially many more galaxies beyond our capabilities to detect) and our relatively brief existence. all i was trying to say is that it would be more accurate to say the universe is in motion rather than expanding. 

again on topic:
i think that over population and apparently whats happening to the sea might end up being bigger concerns for us than global warming and the comming years.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2078840,00.html
http://www.longislandpress.com/2011/06/21/worlds-oceans-in-big-trouble/
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/oceans-on-brink-of-catastrophe-2300272.html
i think this might be a better reason to reduce carbon emmitions and just generally "green" up.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 22, 2011)

W1zzard said:


> 1 kg per person per day = 6 million tonnes per year
> 
> world co2 emissions 2007 = 29321 million tonnes per year


Human breathing accounts for about 9% of world emissions based on 0.9 kg of CO2 released a year.  But that is also beside the point.  Those people need food, transportation, shelter, clothing, and there is a growing need for electricity even in developing nations.  Not every individual's needs result in the same amount of CO2 emmissions but every individual contributes to it.

If you halve the world population, for example, you could expect the amount of CO2 emissions to be approximately halved as well.  If there were less than a million people on Earth, do you think "global warming" would be a concern to them?  Nope.  It is a consequence of over population.




TheMailMan78 said:


> Thank you
> 
> Yet another reason to end this bullshit.


If they weren't using that oil to blow up another country, they'd be using it for "training."  Might as well get something done in the process.


----------



## W1zzard (Jun 22, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Yet another reason to end this bullshit.



oil reserves in iraq: 143,000,000,000 barrels+



FordGT90Concept said:


> Human breathing accounts for about 9% of world emissions based on 0.9 kg of CO2 released a year



source? math?



bucketface said:


> whether or not the universe is generally expanding



galaxy red shift



bucketface said:


> it would be more accurate to say the universe is *in motion *rather than expanding.


since we can't observe the universe from outside to determine a reference frame to compare to we can't say anything about the movement of the universe itself.
the contents of the universe are in motion? yes of course -> static universe, disproven


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 22, 2011)

ahh, the good old population control debate is now about to pop up.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 22, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> ahh, the good old population control debate is now about to pop up.



Yup. After our next act will be gun control.



FordGT90Concept said:


> If they weren't using that oil to blow up another country, they'd be using it for "training."  Might as well get something done in the process.



Bullshit. They don't transport the 101st every damn other month.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 22, 2011)

remember, people need to be controlled, so long as we are the ones doing the controlling!!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 22, 2011)

W1zzard said:


> source? math?


http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/03/27/math-how-much-co2-is-emitted-by-human-on-earth-annually/

It's a blog but the only source I've seen that actually did the math.




TheMailMan78 said:


> Bullshit. They don't transport the 101st every damn other month.


The merchant marine ships that do the transporting are almost always in motion.  They only sit in port when being resupplied, retrofited, or repaired.  The 101st doesn't have to be on them for them to be moving goods. 

The same goes for aircraft carrier strike groups.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 22, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The merchant marine ships that do the transporting are almost always in motion.  They only sit in port when being resupplied, retrofited, or repaired.  The 101st doesn't have to be on them for them to be moving goods.
> 
> The same goes for aircraft carrier strike groups.



I don't think you know exactly how military mobilization works. There is a reason they call it that ya know?


----------



## W1zzard (Jun 22, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/03/27/math-how-much-co2-is-emitted-by-human-on-earth-annually/
> 
> It's a blog but the only source I've seen that actually did the math.



thanks, i forgot to x 365 my daily number

anyone know if human co2 is considered co2 neutral since it's based on biofuel?

edit found something: http://www.skepticalscience.com/does-breathing-contribute-to-co2-buildup-in-the-atmosphere.html


----------



## bucketface (Jun 22, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> ahh, the good old population control debate is now about to pop up.
> Yup. After our next act will be gun control.





Easy Rhino said:


> remember, people need to be controlled, so long as we are the ones doing the controlling!!



we are controlled.. 
well how do you propose that population be managed?

you don't need gun control, you need bullet control. remember guns don't kill people bullets kill people.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 22, 2011)

W1zzard said:


> thanks, i forgot to x 365 my daily number
> 
> anyone know if human co2 is considered co2 neutral since it's based on biofuel?



I think it would be tough to tell unless you could measure the exact isotopes from humans.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 22, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I don't think you know exactly how military mobilization works. There is a reason they call it that ya know?


They call it logistics.  All the bases around the world need to be supplied regardless if there is war.  You can't buy an Apache tail rotor at your local hardware store, ya know, and you can't exactly trust UPS to get it there either (customs and all).




W1zzard said:


> anyone know if human co2 is considered co2 neutral since it's based on biofuel?
> 
> edit found something: http://www.skepticalscience.com/does-breathing-contribute-to-co2-buildup-in-the-atmosphere.html


They "exclude" it from emissions total because it is supposed to be neutral.  The fact is, any CO2 emission, no matter the source, is only neutral if plant life either put it in the dirt or released it as O2 back into the air.  I'm not convinced this is happening so it is wrong to exclude it from totals.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 22, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> They call it logistics.  All the bases around the world need to be supplied regardless if there is war.  You can't buy an Apache tail rotor at your local hardware store, ya know, and you can't exactly trust UPS to get it there either (customs and all).



Yeah I know about logistics and Apaches don't operate near as much during peace time as they do during war so the tail rotor doesn't need to be replaced near as often hence LESS TRANSPORT = LESS co2.


----------



## W1zzard (Jun 22, 2011)

we eat plants or we eat meat, meat eats plants, plants eat co2.

anything wrong with my assumption?


----------



## bucketface (Jun 22, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> They "exclude" it from emissions total because it is supposed to be neutral. The fact is, any CO2 emission, no matter the source, is only neutral if plant life either put it in the dirt or released it as O2 back into the air. I'm not convinced this is happening so it is wrong to exclude it from totals.



then you'd have to take into account all co2 from all life and that is rather difficult to determine. easier to just quote all "artificial" co2 emissions.



W1zzard said:


> we eat plants or we eat meat, meat eats plants, plants eat co2.
> 
> anything wrong with my assumption?



yeah thats about as simply as you can put it. 
plants absorb and release co2 and all at varying rates. cows apparently release significant quantities of methane which has supposedly 10x the effect of co2.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 22, 2011)

W1zzard said:


> we eat plants or we eat meat, meat eats plants, plants eat co2.
> 
> anything wrong with my assumption?



Define "eat".


----------



## W1zzard (Jun 22, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Define "eat".



our only source of body mass and energy is plants + o2


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 22, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Yeah I know about logistics and Apaches don't operate near as much during peace time as they do during war so the tail rotor doesn't need to be replaced near as often hence LESS TRANSPORT = LESS co2.


Sure they do.  Even in peace, the DoD still gets some $400+ billion/year.  The only difference between our operations in the Middle East and training the states is the wear and tear the sand puts on the equipment.




W1zzard said:


> we eat plants or we eat meat, meat eats plants, plants eat co2.
> 
> anything wrong with my assumption?


This is true for the corpse but speaks nothing to respiration.  That is to say, a single plant can process more air in its lifetime than any given animal produces in its lifetime.

Oxygen in the atmopshere decreasing...
http://blogcritics.org/scitech/article/atmospheric-oxygen-levels-fall-as-carbon/
http://www.rsbs.anu.edu.au/o2/O2_2_Atmosphere.htm




bucketface said:


> then you'd have to take into account all co2 from all life and that is rather difficult to determine. easier to just quote all "artificial" co2 emissions.


Exactly why there is a massive margin of error here (often goes unmentioned)--especially when you weigh in algael blooms which may suck tons of CO2 out of the air rapidly.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 22, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Sure they do.  Even in peace, the DoD still gets some *$600+ billion/year.*  The only difference between our operations in the Middle East and training the states is the wear and tear the sand puts on the equipment.



I made a small adjustment to you number. Also they do NOT operate near as much in peace time Ford.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 22, 2011)

I said $400+ billion as reference to the 1990s where there was relatively peace.  The $200+ billion increase in the decade since is largely blamed on the weakening dollar.  Adjust for inflation as well and we've been spending approximately the same amount in the 1990s as we are today.


----------



## W1zzard (Jun 22, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> That is to say, a single plant can process more air in its lifetime than any given animal produces in its lifetime.



in order to grow 1 kg of food you need 1 (milk) - 20 (beef) kg of plants


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 22, 2011)

It's silly to dispute that we have some sort of impact on the environment. The real question, is how do we reverse those effects, and if we did, would it prevent any "warming" or "cooling"?


I mean, I see alot of talk. Not just in this thread, but in general. Lots of talk, and no action.


Do you know how much in fossil fuels I burn each year?

ZERO.

Ok, sure, I use "natural gas" for heat. No way around that as I am currently renting the home I live in.

But, in the past 16 months, I've spent not a single penny on gas, and I do everything I gotta do to survive, like getting groceries, getting kids back and forth to school, etc.

Sadly, I'm probably the only one here that can say that.

I'm doing more than my part...are you?

Arguing about policies and such is jsut that, arguing. The energy is better spent actualyl doing something, no matter how small.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 22, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I said $400+ billion as reference to the 1990s where there was relatively peace.  The $200+ billion increase in the decade since is largely blamed on the weakening dollar.  Adjust for inflation as well and we've been spending approximately the same amount in the 1990s as we are today.



And the 1990's saw a massive downsize in base count also.



cadaveca said:


> It's silly to dispute that we have some sort of impact on the environment. The real question, is how do we reverse those effects, and if we did, would it prevent any "warming" or "cooling"?
> 
> 
> I mean, I see alot of talk. Not just in this thread, but in general. Lots of talk, and no action.
> ...



How do you do all that without driving?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 22, 2011)

W1zzard said:


> in order to grow 1 kg of food you need 1 (milk) - 20 (beef) kg of plants


Not all plants produce food though (in fact, most don't).  Additionally, a vegetarian diet produces far less CO2 than a high-protein/-fat diet.  There's a lot of variables here...


My point is that the most effective way to deal with carbon dioxide is to plant more trees, grasses, and bushes and halt deforestation and the creation of concrete jungles.  No matter the source of the carbon dioxide, they put it in the dirt more efficiently than any other known method and produce O2 to boot.


----------



## W1zzard (Jun 22, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Do you know how much in fossil fuels I burn each year?
> 
> ZERO.
> 
> ...



+1 for making an effort. if everybody did that we'd have much less to worry about


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 22, 2011)

W1zzard said:


> +1 for making an effort. if everybody did that we'd have much less to worry about



I wanna know how he does this without gas.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 22, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> But, in the past 16 months, I've spent not a single penny on gas, and I do everything I gotta do to survive, like getting groceries, getting kids back and forth to school, etc.


How do you think the "groceries" get to the store so that you have access to them?  A huge chain of CO2 dependent industries from the farms, to the processors, to the transportation.

If you don't live like the Amish, you got a substantial CO2 footprint.  Even the Amish have to burn something (most likely wood) for heat in the winter so they're not entirely free of guilt either.


----------



## W1zzard (Jun 22, 2011)

if you burn wood you're co2 neutral, you just release the co2 back in the atmosphere that the tree took up during its lifetime, which is about 2.6 tons per acre of trees per year


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Jun 22, 2011)

Frankly, I am most concerned about mass extinctions (and of course I don't just mean animals and fish and such) and the effect on the whole ecosystem, especially insofar as the oceans are concerned. It's such a toxic mix of negative factors and I see only see signs of it worsening as simply too many people on the planet more and more of whom become heavily industrialized. And that's even if everyone agreed and even cared so much more.

Yeah the point should be use as little as possible; at least be conscious of it. Ahhh crap I gotta get back to actual work. Good discussion.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 22, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> How do you do all that without driving?



I don't? I have a cart like you see old people use that i lug back and forth to the mall. A few trips a week is all it takes. But at the same time, other than my shoulder, I'm in fantastic shape, as I definitely get my share of exercise. It's 2.2 kilometers to the mall, so bare minimum, I walk about 6 kilometers each time, with tripping around the mall.



FordGT90Concept said:


> How do you think the "groceries" get to the store so that you have access to them?  A huge chain of CO2 dependent industries from the farms, to the processors, to the transportation.
> 
> If you don't live like the Amish, you got a substantial CO2 footprint.  Even the Amish have to burn something for heat in the winter so they're not entirely free of guilt either.



You are right, but I personally can't do much about that. I'm doing what I can. I live in a city of 1.2 million, with good access to everything. My wife uses public transportation to get back and forth from work, and it takes about 20 minutes. I go to local "farmer's markets" when I can, not only to conserve on gas, but because it's also much cheaper.

It's not perfect, but at least it's something. you don't find me taking much of an active role in arguing who's right or wrong, do you?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 22, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> I don't? I have a cart like you see old people use that i lug back and forth to the mall. A fwe trips a week is all it takes. But at the same time, other than my shoulder, I'm in fantastic shape, as I definitely get my share of exercise.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I live 21 miles one way to the nearest grocery store. 10 miles one way to my little ones school....cart my ass.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 22, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I live 21 miles one way to the nearest grocery store. 10 miles one way to my little ones school....cart my ass.



Oh well. I moved into a home where it was possible. I make no excuses.

It's also why i can afford all the toys I do. Priorities are very much in a different place for me, in general.

If society, on a whole, was organized that such was possible for everyone, things would be much different. Perhaps the approach to identifying the problem is wrong, not the problem itself.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 22, 2011)

Priorities are my children. Best school I could find is why we live here.

Anyway kudos to you for making an "effort" and you are right arguing policy makes no difference......however when laws are passed from the arguing that effects me thats when I get pissed. You get "good" intentions based off of bad science and special interests. So yeah do your part just leave "your part" out of my life.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 22, 2011)

I don't make any claims as to who is right or wrong. The fact of the matter is that I very purposefully have arranged my life so as to have minimal impact on the environment, and to live in-expensively. I'm relatively powerless, yet I was successful in reaching that goal.

Society has alot of peple driving an hour or two, just so they can work. Um, why?

The wrong policies are being changed, period, I think we will agree on that as a whole. Legislation or whatever that leads to restrictions aren't the answer...to me, the answer lies in making the restrictions themselves unnessecary. It's not possible immediately..would take a generation or two.

But of course, like mentioned, those that influence policy aren't really there long enough to actually do anything. So those that do care, do what they can. Whiel the reasoning for what they do may not be clear now, you really need to keep in mind the big picture, and think of what severe policy now, can turn into in the future.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 22, 2011)

> The wrong policies are being changed, period, I think we will agree on that as a whole. Legislation or whatever that leads to restrictions aren't the answer...to me, the answer lies in making the restrictions themselves unnessecary. It's not possible immediately..would take a generation or two.


 But exactly would take a "generation or two"?


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 22, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> But exactly would take a "generation or two"?



Um, it's foolish to think signifigant changes can be made in any other fashion, period. Rather than say "It won't affect me; I don't care", I personally say "It might affect me negatively, but sometimes sacrifices must be made for the greater good."


Do you think i really like walking all over the place? NO! But rather than waste time thinking about doing something, I just do it.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 22, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Um, it's foolish to think signifigant changes can be made in any other fashion, period. Rather than say "It won't affect me; I don't care", I personally say "It might affect me negatively, but sometimes sacrifices must be made for the greater good."
> 
> 
> Do you think i really like walking all over the place? NO! But rather than waste time thinking about doing something, I just do it.



Good but what about when laws are passed that take away peoples ability to even afford food due to the "greater good"?

Personally I am not in that situation but a lot of people are.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jun 22, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> Quote:
> The latest long-range space forecast predicts a prolonged drop in solar activity after the next peak %u2014 and scientists say that might cool down temperatures here on Earth, or at least slow down the warming trend a bit.
> 
> I find it kind of funny that scientists can never make up their mind on anything. I guess it might be a good thing if it happens though.




 lmao 

wake up sheeples the sun hits its peak solar activity then calms and scientists have only just realized the coralation between it and global warming$$$$$$

i may be cleverer then them yet my grammar etc tells a different tale as i havent yet bought the big green swindle and i allways knew humanitys true insignificance to the earth verses the suns natural cycle, there are a gr8 many reasons man worshipped the sun before any other


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 22, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Good but what about when laws are passed that take away peoples ability to even afford food due to the "greater good"?
> 
> Personally I am not in that situation but a lot of people are.


Don't get me wrong. I agree with you on alot of things, but, at the same time, I think it's a bit hypocritical to denouce giving money to corporations who do things I don't approve of, when I line thier pockets every day, just doing the things I do each day.

I'm not saying that what I do is the only way, but, can can readily stand up and say "This is not right", when what I say is what I do.

I don't want the oil and gas industry to have any of my money, so I go out of my way to give them any. Yeah, it makes life a bit more difficult. But I can't say I'm doing anything wrong, either.

A big problem with the cost of food is that the majority of it isn't sourced locally. You wanna fix the cost of food? Make it so it's not shipped from overseas, etc, don't buy stuff from other countries, etc.

Of course it's not just that simple. It's hard work, for sure. But society's organization over the years, and it's development over the years, made it what it is today. I could go to Walmart and buy my groceries, as they are cheaper, but instead, I walk further, to spend more.

Seems foolish, right?

But I'm not a hypocrit.

Liek really, all I can say is "Oh well". Quite literally, people with your attitude, as it's posted here, is what lead to these problems in the first place.

I don't deal with "What if". I don't have time to worry about it; I'm too busy working to make things different.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 22, 2011)

W1zzard said:


> if you burn wood you're co2 neutral, you just release the co2 back in the atmosphere that the tree took up during its lifetime, which is about 2.6 tons per acre of trees per year


The same could be said about fossil fuels.  Oil, coal, etc. were created by mass extinctions of plants and animals hundreds of thousands of years ago or more.  The entire Earth is a closed system so everything everything that is burned today ultimately ends up in the dirt.

By extracting the oil and coal, we are merely accelerating a natural process.


----------



## Peter1986C (Jun 23, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> By extracting the oil and coal, we are merely *accelerating* a natural process.



Isn't the acceleration supposed to be the core of the GW problem? It's going so fast that nature and humans lack time to adapt to it, resulting in extinction of plants and animals, the melting of glaciers and turning Bangladesh into a wetland?


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jun 23, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> remember, people need to be controlled, so long as we are the ones doing the controlling!!



That line is said best when coming from lobbyists for massive corporations in the US which have 3 lobbyists per lawmaker. I just thought that was funny coming from a free market capitalist in a country where the government is bought and manipulated by big business every day.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 23, 2011)

DaedalusHelios said:


> That line is said best when coming from lobbyists for massive corporations in the US which have 3 lobbyists per lawmaker. I just thought that was funny coming from a free market capitalist in a country where the government is bought and manipulated by big business every day.



i am a free market capitalist. you are describing corporatism which is an entirely different thing.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jun 23, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> i am a free market capitalist. you are describing corporatism which is an entirely different thing.



I thought you were a Libertarian. Libertarianism is all about lowering the governments function and the removal of all mediation of markets. Libertarianism lends itself to corporatism. The only thing stopping the market from overstepping its bounds into violating personal freedoms and controling by force with monopolies and oligopolies is the government's balanced regulation of the market. Nothing is perfect but I think we are better with regulation than completely without it. Some regulation is bad and some is good much like the varying behavior of a large police force. Our regulation is so weak in the US it fails to function properly. But that is what happens when we have 3 lobbyists per lawmaker. ~ That is what I was getting at. Not that Libertarians intend on that occuring. I just see that as the end result of the actions of those following that ideology.

Carbon tax is not the answer. Environmental regulation is. I could even see the government providing certain methods to help clean up many industries like filters on smoke stacks and ways to eliminate dumping hazardous chemicals into our water supply. Thanks to coal we have horrible acid rain in my area. If your car doesn't have the proper protective coat on the paint here it starts to peel in a few years. You can tell who bought cars before they moved here rather easily.


----------



## Funtoss (Jun 23, 2011)

scientists!! Y U NO START PREPARING?


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 23, 2011)

DaedalusHelios said:


> I thought you were a Libertarian. Libertarianism is all about lowering the governments function and the removal of all mediation of markets. Libertarianism lends itself to corporatism.



huh? libertarians are free market capitalists. think mises and hayek. corporatism ONLY exists in societies that allow governments to regulate industry.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 23, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> huh? libertarians are free market capitalists. think mises and hayek. corporatism ONLY exists in societies that allow governments to regulate industry.



Here is government regulation at its finest!



> Light bulb factory closes; End of era for U.S. means more jobs overseas.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/07/AR2010090706933.html

Thats right the EPA just cost a couple 1000 American jobs. 200 in that plant alone.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jun 23, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Here is government regulation at its finest!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



LED lighting is the future. Did you really think we would keep the few plants making updated lighting when:



> Consisting of glass tubes twisted into a spiral, they require more hand labor, which is cheaper there. So though they were first developed by American engineers in the 1970s, none of the major brands make CFLs in the United States.



The "Green" thing to use are LEDs which are stamped out by machines and could easily be done in a country that has many engineers. We need more engineers like myself to rebuild our manufacturing sector through automation. We just have the wealthy choosing to put those factories overseas because they don't want to invest in America and pay non-sweatshop wages. If we used protectionist policies like Europe we wouldn't be in this mess and it would work better here because we have many states like mine that are practically union free. So it would be a large market operating like Europe with protectionism yet not so many strikes triggered by reasons that are uncontrollable.

Many "Green" markets are using more advanced technology. If we had an education system that was more like Finland's we would have more engineers and a more educated working force in general. Automation is the only way we do better at manufacturing than the cheap labor forces of the developing world. When balancing a budget the first thing we cut in America is education and social programs. How do we develop a strong working class when a good portion is financially crippled with poor education and no healthcare? Simply put, the powers that be don't care about the poor having social mobility or the opportunity to achieve greater than the generation that spawned them.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 23, 2011)

DaedalusHelios said:


> LED lighting is the future. Did you really think we would keep the few plants making updated lighting when:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well thanks to the EPA and the "green" movement they don't have jobs ether. Who gonna pay for all those fancy entitlement programs if no one is working?


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 23, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Well thanks to the EPA and the "green" movement they don't have jobs ether.



Um, no. Thanks to the company's executives, who decided to move production elsewhere, rather than invest in thier own workers, are those people out of work.

you could also blame the international trade agreements that give companies access to cheap manufacturing overseas. But the EPA and the "green movement" have nothing to do with that, at all.


It's all about profits.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 23, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Um, no. Thanks to the company's executives, who decided to move production elsewhere, rather than invest in thier own workers, are those people out of work.
> 
> you could also blame the international trade agreements that give companies access to cheap manufacturing overseas. But the EPA and the "green movement" have nothing to do with that, at all.
> 
> ...



Oh and GE made no campaign contributions to anyone ether? Gee there couldn't be a conflict of interest could there? 

Don't even get me started on the BP spill.

Bottom line is there was nothing WRONG with regular bulbs. They just want to create a market with forced customers via massive regulation and cheap overseas labor. Thanks to the EPA they got their wish.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 23, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Oh and GE made no campaign contributions to anyone ether? Gee there couldn't be a conflict of interest could there?
> 
> Don't even get me started on the BP spill.
> 
> Bottom line is there was nothing WRONG with regular bulbs. They just want to create a market with forced customers via massive regulation and cheap overseas labor. Thanks to the EPA they got their wish.



Uh, I have a different perspective than you do.

Regular bulbs use more power, give off poor light, and are severely inefficient.

At the same time, they do seem to have a much longer lifespan, based on my own personal usage. I have only 2 "old-style" bulbs left in my house, 2x60w, and one single 23W compact flourescent puts out better light thatn both 60W combined. That's a 23W bulb working better than 120W of old bulb. Saves me near 100W.

That said, manufacturing has moved overseas so companies can save a dollar on costs, plain and simple, even with shipping costs rolled in. Perhaps if exectutives weren't makeing 100's of 1000's, or even millions++ a year in wages, this would not be an issue.


See, I know you're a smart guy, Mailman, so I'm just gonna call it like I see it...you's a troll here, and not a very good one, either. Try placing blame in the right place...executive greed. Of coruse execs support the gov..the gov makes sure the execs get to earn those grossly overhigh wages.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 23, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Um, no. Thanks to the company's executives, who decided to move production elsewhere, rather than invest in thier own workers, are those people out of work.



you can thank over regulation, unions and high taxes. that is why corporations move jobs overseas. to maintain profits they seek cheap labor. business 101. you want to bring jobs back to your country you lower taxes and deregulate industries.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jun 23, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Well thanks to the EPA and the "green" movement they don't have jobs ether. Who gonna pay for all those fancy entitlement programs if no one is working?



I figured that you would point out that LEDs are pretty old tech too. 

_But the latest LEDs _output more light than traditional CCFLs with a tenth of the power consumption and can have their colors adjusted via IC on the fly. The "green" movement is behind LED tech and not CCFL currently. The EPA passed that initiative for more efficient lighting that LEDs satisfy by far. They could reopen that plant with higher revenue than before if they wanted to but they prefer paying workers below american minimum wage. It is always easier to blame the government though.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 23, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> you can thank over regulation, unions and high taxes. that is why corporations move jobs overseas. to maintain profits they seek cheap labor. business 101. you want to bring jobs back to your country you lower taxes and deregulate industries.



I do not agree. Again, as a business owner/operator, I'm naturally going to have a different perspective.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 23, 2011)

DaedalusHelios said:


> I figured that you would point out that LEDs are pretty old tech too.
> 
> _But the latest LEDs _output more light than traditional CCFLs with a tenth of the power consumption and can have their colors adjusted via IC on the fly. The "green" movement is behind LED tech and not CCFL currently. The EPA passed that initiative for more efficient lighting that LEDs satisfy by far. They could reopen that plant with higher revenue than before if they wanted to but they prefer paying workers below american minimum wage. It is always easier to blame the government though.



What about the people who cannot pay their mortgage thanks to government regulation? Who gives a shit about better light output when you can't feed your family?


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jun 23, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> you can thank over regulation, unions and high taxes. that is why corporations move jobs overseas. to maintain profits they seek cheap labor. business 101. you want to bring jobs back to your country you lower taxes and deregulate industries.



Or if you have engineers you just automate the manufacturing and make the cost lower per unit lower than paying third world people small portions of rice while they grind their fingers down. Business 401. 




TheMailMan78 said:


> What about the people who cannot pay their mortgage thanks to government regulation? Who gives a shit about better light output when you can't feed your family?



If you are refering to the GE plant that they were going to shut down anyway thanks to:



> Consisting of glass tubes twisted into a spiral, they require more hand labor, which is cheaper there. So though they were first developed by American engineers in the 1970s, none of the major brands make CFLs in the United States.



That means unless you have educated workers to automate the plant you will lose that factory thanks to the inability to compete through skilled labor. You get skilled labor through elevating you underclass into skilled labor status. That equals lower cost per unit thanks to a machine making the same amount as a whole line of workers. Made plant too efficient and need less workers? Make another plant designed by your engineers to fulfill another need/product to sell. It is simple but it takes work and investing in your fellow man to do it right.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 23, 2011)

DaedalusHelios said:


> Or if you have engineers you just automate the manufacturing and make the cost lower per unit lower than paying third world people small portions of rice while they grind their fingers down. Business 401.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> What made the plant here vulnerable is, in part, a 2007 energy conservation measure passed by Congress that set standards essentially banning ordinary incandescents by 2014. The law will force millions of American households to switch to more efficient bulbs.





> "Everybody's jumping on the green bandwagon," said Pat Doyle, 54, who has worked at the plant for 26 years. But "we've been sold out. First sold out by the government. Then sold out by GE. "



The plants were going no where until the feds stepped in.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 23, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> The plants were going no where until the feds stepped in.



they stepped in to reduce overall power consumption, and dependancy on other markets, like the Canadian market, for power generation.

Lower household power consumption leads to less power needed, = less overload on the exisiting systems= money saved, both for the public, and for corporations.

Silly mailman.

77% of Canadian power generation produces no carbon emissions. Meanwhile 86% of US power generation uses fossil fuels.



> If implemented by all states, the plan could lower energy demand across the country by 50%, achieve more than $500 billion in net savings over the next 20 years, and reduce annual greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to those from 90 million vehicles. The report, which was released under the National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency initiative, was produced by more than 60 energy, environmental, and state policy leaders from across the country. The updated action plan encourages investment in low-cost energy efficiency programs and shows the progress that the states are making toward their goals, while identifying areas for additional progress



http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/news_detail.cfm/news_id=12109


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jun 23, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> they stepped in to reduce overall power consumption, and dependancy on other markets, like the Canadian market, for power generation.
> 
> Lower household power consumption leads to less power needed, = less overload on the exisiting systems= money saved, both for the public, and for corporations.
> 
> Silly mailman.



Not only that but changing the plant over to better technology like LEDs would have saved it. GE wanted an excuse to hire less unskilled labor in the US. Because high labor units like CCFLs are cheaper to make in the developing world.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 23, 2011)

DaedalusHelios said:


> Not only that but changing the plant over to better technology like LEDs would have saved it. GE wanted an excuse to hire less unskilled labor in the US. Because high labor units like CCFLs are cheaper to make in the developing world.



I wonder who gave them that excuse?



cadaveca said:


> they stepped in to reduce overall power consumption, and dependancy on other markets, like the Canadian market, for power generation.
> 
> Lower household power consumption leads to less power needed, = less overload on the exisiting systems= money saved, both for the public, and for corporations.
> 
> ...



None in Florida. Cant speak for other states.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 23, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> None in Florida. Cant speak for other states.



Ok, so you're admitting that you are speaking from a closed perspective. On the other hand, I typically look at things from a global perspective, rather than local.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 23, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Ok, so you're admitting that you are speaking from a closed perspective. On the other hand, I typically look at things from a global perspective, rather than local.



How many nations have you been to? Ill bet you ten to one I have seen more of this world then you.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jun 23, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> 1. I wonder who gave them that excuse?
> 
> 
> 
> 2. None in Florida. Cant speak for other states.



1. Trade agreements with China for cheap labor to market here for free.

2. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Category:Existing_coal_plants_in_Florida Coal is a fossil fuel.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 23, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> How many nations have you been to? Ill bet you ten to one I have seen more of this world then you.



Um, what does that have to do with anything? I haven't been to a few countries in europe, india, south america, nor russia or austrailia. You don't need to travel to a country to speak to people there, thanks to the internet, so i fail to see your point. You've never seen snow, even, as you've said before.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 23, 2011)

DaedalusHelios said:


> 1. Trade agreements with China for cheap labor to market here for free.
> 
> 2. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Category:Existing_coal_plants_in_Florida



1. Who keeps passing this trade agreements forcing jobs over seas? Who keeps regulating things to FORCE companies to move over seas?

2. Thanks for the link. I didn't realize that many were still open. Still most of those plants are closing as this is mostly a nuclear state.



> In December 2008, Progress Energy Florida announced it will close two of the state's worst polluting coal-fired generators when its new Levy County nuclear plant is up and running in 2020


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 23, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Who keeps regulating things to FORCE companies to move over seas?



The execs, to protect thier high-paying jobs? they could take less in pay, and let that money be invested in local options, but greed prevents such. Oh well.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 23, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> The execs, to protect thier high-paying jobs? they could take less in pay, and let that money be invested in local options, but greed prevents such. Oh well.



Who protects their money by allowing open trade to third world nations?

Why can you not admit a federal regulation caused the loss of American jobs?


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jun 23, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> 1. Who keeps passing this trade agreements forcing jobs over seas? Who keeps regulating things to FORCE companies to move over seas?
> 
> 2. Thanks for the link. I didn't realize that many were still open. Still most of those plants are closing as this is mostly a nuclear state.



1. Trade agreements come from free market supporters. Regulation doesn't force markets overseas. Regulation is used as the scape goat for companies looking for cheap labor. Making a more efficient production facility needing higher skilled labor to create would keep the jobs here. What we have here is the wealthy not choosing to reinvest in the American people. Those with the money and power make those decisions. 

2. I like nuclear power more. But we should allow the rods to be reprocessed so we don't create as much nuclear waste.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 23, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Who protects their money by allowing open trade to third world nations?
> 
> Why can you not admit a federal regulation caused the loss of American jobs?



Let me put it this way.

American dependance on fossil fuels is the real problem. 86% of US electrical power is dependant on fossil fuels, and fossil fuels are of limited supply. Those regulations you complain here about are the ones that just might ensure you have power @ your home in the future, as without creating a situation where "green" alternatives are invested in, you'd have no power to use your PC with.


Like why the hell is our electrical systems tied together? In 89 we had an icerain storm in Ontario that wiped out power generation for the majority of the eastern seaboard.

Regulations didn't build things that way...saving money did.

You're blaming problems in the present, that are really results of the past, rather then looknig to what led to those problems in the first place, which is why i say you are using a limited perspective, and on purpose.

Are the things you mentioned having issues with the right options? No, probably not, but there's very little other alternatives, plain and simple.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jun 23, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> 3. Who protects their money by allowing open trade to third world nations?
> 
> 4. Why can you not admit a federal regulation caused the loss of American jobs?



3. Free market legislation.

4. Regulation was passed to reduce our dependency on fossil fuel burning plants. Decreased cost and consumption of/by lighting results in cleaner air from decreased load on the given power plants. GE sees legislation and chooses to let the plant close rather than changing it to a more efficient, lower cost, and higher profiting plant in LEDs because it would take reinvestment in the American people. That is the answer. We are the US. Our innovation created the tech for the plant in 1970 yet we cannot put forth the money to simply switch what the plant makes to save a few jobs now. The reason is that they were just looking for a scape goat to pay lower than minimum wage for the same product rather than actually work and change the plants here to save the jobs.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 23, 2011)

DaedalusHelios said:


> 3. Free market legislation.
> 
> 4. Regulation was passed to reduce our dependency on fossil fuel burning plants. Decreased cost and consumption of/by lighting results in cleaner air from decreased load on the given power plants. GE sees legislation and chooses to let the plant close rather than changing it to a more efficient, lower cost, and higher profiting plant in LEDs because it would take reinvestment in the American people. That is the answer. We are the US. Our innovation created the tech for the plant in 1970 yet we cannot put forth the money to simply switch what the plant makes to save a few jobs now. The reason is that they were just looking for a scape goat to pay lower than minimum wage for the same product rather than actually work and change the plants here to save the jobs.



But wasn't that the whole point of Obamas "green industry" agenda? To create jobs at home? Yet all the regulation is doing is driving the jobs over seas. As I said almost all the issues we are now having are because of the federal government sticking its nose in the private sector. Real estate is a PRIME EXAMPLE of the feds doing something they shouldn't. Why are they doing this? Because we have lobbyist that have bought and paid for our presidents and congress.

The people at the GE plant do not care where the power comes from or if its clean. All they know is a law was passed that gave the company they worked for a reason to close the plant. Why was that law passed? Because GE paid for it to be passed. I mean its pretty damn simple if you ask me.

They will keep passing "green" regulation and such to move everything off shore and never address trade. Lots of people will say "Oh they are saving the planet" as they pass our jobs off to unregulated industries like China. But its good for the planet right? Who cares about the people.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 23, 2011)

What happened to the BUY AMERICAN thing?

That'd be the regulation you are looknig for, but boohoo, this would lower exec pay. "Green" regulations are NOT there to move jobs elsewhere...regardless of what you think. That is jsut the OUTCOME of these regulations, due to EXECUTIVE decisions, based on increasing profits, so thier pay increases. Troll fail!


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 23, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> What happened to the BUY AMERICAN thing?
> 
> That'd be the regulation you are looknig for, but boohoo, this would lower exec pay. "Green" regulations are NOT there to move jobs elsewhere...regardless of what you think. That is jsut the OUTCOME of these regulations, due to EXECUTIVE decisions, based on increasing profits, so thier pay increases. Troll fail!



The plants were open before regulation. Plants are closed after regulation. "Green Regulation" fail.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jun 23, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> But wasn't that the whole point of Obamas "green industry" agenda? To create jobs at home? Yet all the regulation is doing is driving the jobs over seas. As I said almost all the issues we are now having are because of the federal government sticking its nose in the private sector. Real estate is a PRIME EXAMPLE of the feds doing something they shouldn't. Why are they doing this? Because we have lobbyist that have bought and paid for our presidents and congress.
> 
> The people at the GE plant do not care where the power comes from or if its clean. All they know is a law was passed that gave the company they worked for a reason to close the plant. Why was that law passed? Because GE paid for it to be passed. I mean its pretty damn simple if you ask me.
> 
> They will keep passing "green" regulation and such to move everything off shore and never address trade. Lots of people will say "Oh they are saving the planet" as they pass our jobs off to unregulated industries like China. But its good for the planet right? Who cares about the people.



You are not answering what I said. You are just doing that whole "Obama didn't save the world!" crap. A president that came to power in a recession that we are recovering from under his rule is bad because a plant closed somewhere. Seriously? 

I explained the solution in my previous post that you haven't addressed. You just answered with rhetoric that had nothing to do with my explaination.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 23, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> The plants were open before regulation. Plants are closed after regulation. "Green Regulation" fail.



OK, Mr Troll. you and I both know that's all you're doing here. However, I don't think you considered how you will be portrayed after such comments.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jun 23, 2011)

Why are yall gettin so off topic and a mods ere too, is this now just a chat room

On topic i give it 3 months before these scientists get hung by the scientific and political comunity as idiots who know nowt, that despite them finally observing the truth (their not singing from the big green GW song sheet though are they)

imho the GW swindle is a marketing plan to sell more stuff simples it worked, and though i dont doubt the world has warmed i neither doubt its abillity to go colder just as quick 

I work  with scientists though im an engineer and they are not all useless but often v confused, i had one tell me electronics is bollox and we wont be needin it in a few years due to advances in chemistry the tit.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 23, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> I do not agree. Again, as a business owner/operator, I'm naturally going to have a different perspective.



huh? so high taxes, unions and regulation DONT drive jobs overseas? this is so off topic...


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 23, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> huh? so high taxes, unions and regulation DONT drive jobs overseas? this is so off topic...



No, it's on topic. Specifically, the way Mailman presents it, as he blames "green" regulations which ties into the global cool/warming side of it.


And no, I do not beleive so. It's 100% executive choices to use cheaper labour to increase profits..the regulations simply enable them, but do not make the choice for them.

So, I tie it that these green regulations are there to lower US dependance on fossil fuel technologies(lowering CO2 emmisions, further to the "global warming agenda"), not ship work off continent.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jun 23, 2011)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> Why are yall gettin so off topic and a mods ere too, is this now just a chat room
> 
> On topic i give it 3 months before these scientists get hung by the scientific and political comunity as idiots who know nowt, that despite them finally observing the truth (their not singing from the big green GW song sheet though are they)
> 
> ...



What engineering school did you go to? Did they have a strong emphasis on English or Science?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 23, 2011)

DaedalusHelios said:


> 3. Free market legislation.
> 
> 4. Regulation was passed to reduce our dependency on fossil fuel burning plants. Decreased cost and consumption of/by lighting results in cleaner air from decreased load on the given power plants. GE sees legislation and chooses to let the plant close rather than changing it to a more efficient, lower cost, and higher profiting plant in LEDs because it would take reinvestment in the American people. That is the answer. We are the US. Our innovation created the tech for the plant in 1970 yet we cannot put forth the money to simply switch what the plant makes to save a few jobs now. The reason is that they were just looking for a scape goat to pay lower than minimum wage for the same product rather than actually work and change the plants here to save the jobs.



3. What free market legislation? All trade is one way with NAFTA and the other agreements. 

4. So the government didn't anticipate companies moving over seas by making it more expensive for them to operate here in the US? Ether they are in the pockets of said corporations or they are as stupid as the day is long. Its simple economics. Also fossil fuel to generate the power in the US is home grown. So you want to end dependency on fossil fuels? Thats ending self dependency. We are not talking petroleum. We are talking coal and we don't import that. No this is about "protecting" the planet by moving to better power while ignoring the human factor. Again its stupid and naive to think the federal government didn't know EXACTLY what it was doing regulating. The feds DO NOTHING their corporate masters do not tell them too.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 23, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> No, it's on topic. Specifically, the way Mailman presents it, as he blames "green" regulations which ties into the global cool/warming side of it.
> 
> 
> And no, I do not beleive so. It's 100% executive choices to use cheaper labour to increase profits..the regulations simply enable them, but do not make the choice for them.
> ...



the job of any business is to MAXIMIZE profits. shipping jobs overseas is a must to continue to MAXIMIZE profits. we compete on a global scale for sales therefore to remain competitive in an anti-business environment reducing the costs of labor first makes the most sense. blaming executives for MAXIMIZING profits is like blaming fish for breathing under water. instead, deregulate industries and lower taxes and you will see less of a push overseas. it really is that simple. green regulations are failures all around as they are not in correlation to market demand. government bodies across the globe are pushing a societal agenda using legislation. it fails EVERY time it is tried.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 23, 2011)

Sure, but lowering executive pay to <100k/year would increase profits just as much as moving stuff overseas. It's not like they really save that much..they just use the extra savings to justify wage increases for themselves.

I will not provide any excuse for further increases to executive pay. Noone really need 100K a year to live comfortably..I ahve 4 kids, and live quite comfortably offf of far less than that.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 23, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Sure, but lowering executive pay to <100k/year would increase profits just as much as moving stuff overseas. It's not like they really save that much..they just use the extra savings to justify wage increases for themselves.



Oh yeah......I forgot its the CEO's fault for making all that money. How dare they make money!


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 23, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Oh yeah......I forgot its the CEO's fault for making all that money. How dare they make money!



It is, 100%. When they pay workers $12 an hour, but take $1200 an hour for themselves...you bet it's thier fault. they could take less cash, and employ another 50 people, easy, and still pocket a huge amount. Any exec getting millions a year does NOT deserve it.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 23, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> It is, 100%. When they pay workers $12 an hour, but take $1200 an hour for themselves...you bet it's thier fault.



So not only do you want to regulate the light I see by but you want to regulate what a private company pays its CEO?

How about the air I breath? Should I be taxed how many times I exhale into the air?





Thats it I am burning your house down in Minecraft!


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 23, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> So not only do you want to regulate the light I see by but you want to regulate what a private company pays its CEO?
> 
> How about the air I breath? Should I be taxed how many times I exhale into the air?



Regulations don't translate to taxes. Sometimes, sure. Your example is very poor, BTW, not worth me saying much more than that. 

And yes, I do tend to lean on the communist side of things, altohugh I'd prefer a better blance of pay equality to all workers, from exec to peons, and lowering of profits too. In fact, I'd like to see 80% of any company profit re-invested into local economy, and no overseas manufacturing.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 23, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Regulations don't translate to taxes. Sometimes, sure. Your example is very poor, BTW, not worth me saying much more than that.



I am going to blow up your house in Minecraft.


Anyway I agree. We will just go in circles. I am going to bow out and agree to disagree with you and DaedalusHelios. I have respect for both of ya!


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 23, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I am going to blow up your house in Minecraft.



Just like the troll you are. Not surprising. Can't get your way, so you go on a killing spree. How civilized.

I mean, I'm the one sitting on my ass all day long, without need to find work. Meanwhile, you are trying to get all the work you can. That says my perspective wins.


LoL. And of course we respect each other, you 'tard. Bros before Hoes!


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 23, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Just like the troll you are. Not surprising. Can't get your way, so you go on a killing spree. How civilized.
> 
> I mean, I'm the one sitting on my ass all day long, without need to find work. Meanwhile, you are trying to get all the work you can. that says my perspective wins.
> 
> ...



Its called integrity. Try it sometime!


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 23, 2011)

Hard to have integrity with panties on your head. What are you talking about? All I can see/hear is those panties on your head.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Jun 23, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> I mean, I'm the one sitting on my ass all day long, without need to find work. Meanwhile, you are trying to get all the work you can. that says my perspective wins.



Yeah how the _hell_ do you _do_ that exactly? I tried a couple times and let's just say I didn't have a nice house in the mountains and a roomful of Gibson guitars! 

(I mean without growing weed in said house, of course? Either way I gotta move to Canada!)


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 23, 2011)

Nope, I'm 100% legit. Good financial investments in property, and a fantastic wife, with some hard work, is all it takes.

Oh, and my perspective on things helps, too.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 23, 2011)

Wrigleyvillain said:


> Yeah how the _hell_ do you _do_ that exactly? I tried a couple times and let's just say I didn't have a nice house in the mountains and a roomful of Gibson guitars!
> 
> (I mean without growing weed in said house, of course? Either way I gotta move to Canada!)



Oh yeah! Socialism or close to it is great!.........until the bill comes due.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jun 23, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> 3. What free market legislation? All trade is one way with NAFTA and the other agreements.
> 
> 4. So the government didn't anticipate companies moving over seas by making it more expensive for them to operate here in the US? Ether they are in the pockets of said corporations or they are as stupid as the day is long. Its simple economics. Also fossil fuel to generate the power in the US is home grown. So you want to end dependency on fossil fuels? Thats ending self dependency. We are not talking petroleum. We are talking coal and we don't import that. No this is about "protecting" the planet by moving to better power while ignoring the human factor. Again its stupid and naive to think the federal government didn't know EXACTLY what it was doing regulating. The feds DO NOTHING their corporate masters do not tell them too.



3. You are refering to needing reciprocal trade. That is different than "Free Market" legislation. I believe in reciprocal trade. Reciprocal trade means any tariffs imposed on our goods is imposed on theirs in our market. That would be great for the US actually. That isn't what free market legislation results in though. I guess you could say that is a purist subset of the free trade ideology. We would dominate the European car market and/or our own if that was put in place for various reasons.

4. The "simple economics" would say there is a bill in Congress which will take a long time to pass that could endanger our already obsolete few factories making CCFLs. Perhaps we should switch the factory over to another lighting production that makes more money per unit and costs less to produce and is better on the environment. Fossil fuels are not sustainable so getting away from relying on them is always good. We need sustainable power and reducing the consumption on a limited supply of energy until we find a permanent solution only makes sense. BTW if you are worried that we won't use the coal if we don't burn it don't worry. We will always have uses for massive amounts of carbon deposits like coal mining gives us. The future of C60 and compressed carbon composites will always need sources like that even if we stop burning coal for the power grid.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 23, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Sure, but lowering executive pay to <100k/year would increase profits just as much as moving stuff overseas. It's not like they really save that much..they just use the extra savings to justify wage increases for themselves.
> 
> I will not provide any excuse for further increases to executive pay. Noone really need 100K a year to live comfortably..I ahve 4 kids, and live quite comfortably offf of far less than that.



huh? lowering executive pay will not make any difference. you are paid on what you bring to the table and successful executives time and time again prove that they earn their keep.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jun 23, 2011)

DaedalusHelios said:


> What engineering school did you go to? Did they have a strong emphasis on English or Science?



i  went to a mancunian school in old trafford an an engineering college in the same country of said mancunia and hence forth do not regard grammar or englaise to be my prime area of interest, twat! wind ya toffe speakin mouth in, I speak how and what the F i want to at all times and with no little regard for others but im allways honest and truthfull if ineliquent by choice

as for science i love it m8 all the glassware Gr8 effin gr8 lol u dont know me mr judge


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 23, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> huh? lowering executive pay will not make any difference. you are paid on what you bring to the table and successful executives time and time again prove that they earn their keep.



Um, like Hector Ruiz did? 

How about those bank execs?

:shadedshu

and sure, they deserve a bit more, but not 100x the avg wage, or more. I tend to live/work in the exec world..most really don't do much to earn that pay, IMHO.

Anyway, I'm outta ways to tie this back to global cooling or global warming, I'm out.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 23, 2011)

DaedalusHelios said:


> 3. You are refering to needing reciprocal trade. That is different than "Free Market" legislation. I believe in reciprocal trade. Reciprocal trade means any tariffs imposed on our goods is imposed on theirs in our market. That would be great for the US actually. That isn't what free market legislation results in though. I guess you could say that is a purist subset of the free trade ideology. We would dominate the European car market and/or our own if that was put in place for various reasons.
> 
> 4. The "simple economics" would say there is a bill in Congress which will take a long time to pass that could endanger our already obsolete few factories making CCFLs. Perhaps we should switch the factory over to another lighting production that makes more money per unit and costs less to produce and is better on the environment. Fossil fuels are not sustainable so getting away from relying on them is always good. We need sustainable power and reducing the consumption on a limited supply of energy until we find a permanent solution only makes sense. BTW if you are worried that we won't use the coal if we don't burn it don't worry. We will always have uses for massive amounts of carbon deposits like coal mining gives us. The future of C60 and compressed carbon composites will always need sources like that even if we stop burning coal for the power grid.



DaedalusHelios I agree with a lot of points there and dissagree with some. But honestly I don't wish to debate anymore on this lol. Its like 10+ pages of the piracy thread all over again. We will just go in circles. I'm gonna bow out and leave you with this....


----------



## MilkyWay (Jun 23, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> huh? lowering executive pay will not make any difference. you are paid on what you bring to the table and successful executives time and time again prove that they earn their keep.



I dont even care if im out right spamming, what you are talking about isnt always the case. Take the UK as an example, ALL of the banks top dogs are on MILLIONS of pounds of bonuses and yet many of those banks had to be bailed out by the taxpayer. I dont see how failure to secure their banks = they can still get millions in bonuses. There was no accountability for financial risk, that is exactly how the banks crashed. Partly in fault due to the bursting of the USA housing market bubble.

Regulation doesn't mean taxes it means watching over things with rules and regulations, you'd still have child workers and discrimination without types of regulation. Infact lets have big business do what they want without repercussions, like anarchy


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jun 23, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> huh? lowering executive pay will not make any difference. you are paid on what you bring to the table and successful executives time and time again prove that they earn their keep.



I could care less what executives make personally. But I don't think all of them deserve their pay either. Some have run companies into the ground while collecting record bonuses. It is a social club within the super elite and nothing you can do will change it. 

The only thing that matters is providing for your fellow man one way or another and making the world a better place. Making efficient environmentally friendly plants that fufill a need for the world is making it a better place too. Regulation to keep things clean globally/locally and reward the people that help make it possible. That includes super high pay for those willing to take on the duty of managing a large company and do it well. 

The problem is that many companies are run by lazy people with short careers downsizing and only focusing on short term profits and creating long term losses in their country and industry as a whole. We cannot change that with regulation. But we can require cleaner methods of production and protect our industries by enforcing real reciprocal trade. The idiots in power aren't just in the government, they run massive corporations too.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 23, 2011)

I agree, executives that suck should not be paid a ton of money. but remember, people are awarded the role of CEO because of their past work experience. they are paid on what they did before they got to be CEO. that is the way it works in the executive world.

regardless, id rather not limit the pay of private citizens through any sort of legislation. we already have very high taxes for the rich and it always hurts the middle class who are aspiring to become executives themselves. the key is to get government out of industry and banks completely. until then you will always have crony capitalism and corporatism polluting our economy. the green movement has been hijacked by these very people looking to push products on the entire globe and limit competition through legislation. these very people work the damn printing presses in the USA. they need to be stopped first before me see any real demand for green products.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 23, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> I agree, executives that suck should not be paid a ton of money. but remember, people are awarded the role of CEO because of their past work experience. they are paid on what they did before they got to be CEO. that is the way it works in the executive world.
> 
> regardless, id rather not limit the pay of private citizens through any sort of legislation. we already have very high taxes for the rich and it always hurts the middle class who are aspiring to become executives themselves. the key is to get government out of industry and banks completely. until then you will always have crony capitalism and corporatism polluting our economy. the green movement has been hijacked by these very people looking to push products on the entire globe and limit competition through legislation. these very people work the damn printing presses in the USA. they need to be stopped first before me see any real demand for green products.



Amen!


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 23, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> they are paid on what they did before they got to be CEO. that is the way it works in the executive world.



Doesn't make it right though. They way I see it, they are ripping off the common worker...so executive pay should be a set exponent of the avg worker wage....raise the worker wage, and execs get an increase too. If worker's don't get any incresae, then exec should not either. Firing people, so they can continue to pay high wages to execs, is not an option, IMHO, but it happens quite often..


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 23, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Doesn't make it right though. They way I see it, they are ripping off the common worker...so executive pay should be a set exponent of the avg worker wage....raise the worker wage, and execs get an increase too. If worker's don't get any incresae, then exec should not either. Firing people, so they can continue to pay high wages to execs, is not an option, IMHO, but it happens quite often..



true, but that behavior does not last. if you have to keep firing people to keep up executive wages then that corporation will produce less over time. not to mention, executives in public companies are paid in stock, so if the corporation performs well then they get paid well.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 23, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> if you have to keep firing people to keep up executive wages then that corporation will produce less over time



Unless, of course, they take the work overseas...so that they produce the same work, but don't have to fire anyone any more...they simply find workers who will take less.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jun 23, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> I agree, executives that suck should not be paid a ton of money. but remember, people are awarded the role of CEO because of their past work experience. they are paid on what they did before they got to be CEO. that is the way it works in the executive world.
> 
> regardless, id rather not limit the pay of private citizens through any sort of legislation. we already have very high taxes for the rich and it always hurts the middle class who are aspiring to become executives themselves. the key is to get government out of industry and banks completely. until then you will always have crony capitalism and corporatism polluting our economy. the green movement has been hijacked by these very people looking to push products on the entire globe and limit competition through legislation. these very people work the damn printing presses in the USA. they need to be stopped first before me see any real demand for green products.



No we do not have high taxes for the wealthy. Any wealthy citizen with tax skills or help beyond H&R block can deduct down to the AMT. Alternative Minimum Tax. High taxes on the wealthy in the US is simply a myth.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 23, 2011)

DaedalusHelios said:


> No we do not have high taxes for the wealthy. Any wealthy citizen with tax skills or help beyond H&R block can deduct down to the AMT. Alternative Minimum Tax. High taxes on the wealthy in the US is simply a myth.



Yeah and raising taxes while not removing loopholes will do even less. FYI we have one of the highest corporate taxes in the world.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 23, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Unless, of course, they take the work overseas...so that they produce the same work, but don't have to fire anyone any more...they simply find workers who will take less.



they move jobs overseas to keep profits up so that the share price stays up. if they dont then they will lose out to corporations already overseas from other nations benefiting from that cheap labor.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 23, 2011)

US Corperate taxes.

United States
Combined Corporate Income Tax Rate: 39.21% 
Current rate in place since: 2008 
2010 forecasted GDP growth: +3.3% 

Recent Rate Changes 
Rates have fluctuated within the narrow range of 39.25% and 39.44% since 1998. The largest year-over-year changes since 1981 were 1986-1987 (49.8% to 44.2%) and 1987-1988 (44.2% to 38.6%).

The only one that has a higher tax is Japan.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Jun 23, 2011)

Wait wait *WHAT ABOUT POSSIBLE GLOBAL COOLING?*

And why does Mailman have panties on his head?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 23, 2011)

Wrigleyvillain said:


> Wait wait *WHAT ABOUT POSSIBLE GLOBAL COOLING?*
> 
> And why does Mailman have panties on his head?



Because I expose people to magic and forget about them tomorrow.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 23, 2011)

Wrigleyvillain said:


> Wait wait *WHAT ABOUT POSSIBLE GLOBAL COOLING?*



we've been told by many on this forum that there is no global cooling, only warming. from there we have gone on to debate the merits of global warming which has inevitably lead to a debate about the role of government in banking and industry.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 23, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> if they dont then they will lose out to corporations already overseas from other nations benefiting from that cheap labor.



Oh? So how does that tie into "green" legislation? 

Seems to me, as you've nicely pointed out, that the problem is not in legislation, but in fact, is part of the "free and open" market.

Perhaps those cheaper alternatives should not be allowed as imports?

I mean, I understand that this has been discussed years over, and largely inflates the previous societal impression that "Cheap" products suck, and have lower quality?

But of course, then it really has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, and points out the fallacy in mailman's arguements against "green" regulation.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 23, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> we've been told by many on this forum that there is no global cooling, only warming. from there we have gone on to debate the merits of global warming which has inevitably lead to a debate about the role of government in banking and industry.





cadaveca said:


> Oh? So how does that tie into "green" legislation?
> 
> Seems to me, as you've nicely pointed out, that the problem is not in legislation, but in fact, is part of the "free and open" market.
> 
> ...





No its more of how global warming is a BS excuse for the green movement and how government is using regulation to force us to adapt to a movement based off of fear so they can profit.


----------



## MilkyWay (Jun 23, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> I agree, executives that suck should not be paid a ton of money. but remember, people are awarded the role of CEO because of their past work experience. they are paid on what they did before they got to be CEO. that is the way it works in the executive world.
> 
> regardless, id rather not limit the pay of private citizens through any sort of legislation. we already have very high taxes for the rich and it always hurts the middle class who are aspiring to become executives themselves. the key is to get government out of industry and banks completely. until then you will always have crony capitalism and corporatism polluting our economy. the green movement has been hijacked by these very people looking to push products on the entire globe and limit competition through legislation. these very people work the damn printing presses in the USA. they need to be stopped first before me see any real demand for green products.



The whole reason the economy in the world CRASHED is because banks have ZERO regulation. Also a lot of top executives are not appointed solely on what previous experience they have. There is no ratio for pay for executives because they themselves decided what they should be paid, its not based on markets or a common sense approach to how much value they add to a company and how much work they do. Think of footballers (soccer players) some get over £100,000 a week some even £300,000 a week? because of price and payment saturation, clearly they do not deserve it yet they are still paid that anyway. I think top board members are scummy modern day aristocrats with little abandon for anything. You need some form of independent regulation otherwise who stands up to these people? You would have them do as they wish yes because it fits in with your political views?

Like i said in another post the worlds green movement is based on marketing a product for consumers, its not solely based on a humanitarian effort.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Jun 23, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> we've been told by many on this forum that there is no global cooling, only warming. from there we have gone on to debate the merits of global warming which has inevitably lead to a debate about the role of government in banking and industry.



Oh...but of course. Silly me.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 23, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> No its more of how global warming is a BS excuse for the green movement and how government is using regulation to force us to adapt to a movement based off of fear so they can profit.



I don't blame global warming camps for those legislations, though.

Like I said, 87% of US power production is based on fossil fuels, and this dependancy on fossil fuels is what drove those legislations, not simply a money grab.

Of course, making money is part of it, but I see the carbon credits as the cash grab, and nothing else, but I see carbon credits as a GLOBAL cash grab, while at the same time, trying to develop a new economic factor that can influence the market.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jun 23, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Yeah and raising taxes while not removing loopholes will do even less. FYI we have one of the highest corporate taxes in the world.



We have no AMT on corporate taxes so they can deduct down to zero. Zero isn't that high. 

We have more deductions allowed than all countries in the first world last time I checked.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 23, 2011)

MilkyWay said:


> The whole reason the economy in the world CRASHED is because banks have ZERO regulation. Also a lot of top executives are not appointed solely on what previous experience they have. There is no ratio for pay for executives because they themselves decided what they should be paid, its not based on markets or a common sense approach to how much value they add to a company and how much work they do. Think of footballers (soccer players) some get over £100,000 a week some even £300,000 a week? because of price and payment saturation, clearly they do not deserve it yet they are still paid that anyway. I think top board members are scummy modern day aristocrats with little abandon for anything. You need some form of independent regulation otherwise who stands up to these people? You would have them do as they wish yes because it fits in with your political views?
> 
> Like i said in another post the worlds green movement is based on marketing a product for consumers, its not solely based on a humanitarian effort.



No the market crashed because the goverment got into making sure "everyone had a home" and forced banks to give loans they normally would not give.

Example
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkAtUq0OJ68


----------



## MilkyWay (Jun 23, 2011)

I think its fair to note each country has its own political systems.

Some of the agreements on the environment the member countries are falling well short of targets set.

What im now interested in is that after this global cooling what kind of trend will happen afterwords, i know there was a little ice age in the middle ages and that but seems like the current trend was way above normal.



TheMailMan78 said:


> No the market crashed because the goverment got into making sure "everyone had a home" and forced banks to give loans they normally would not give.
> 
> Example
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkAtUq0OJ68



That doesn't explain how markets crashed in other countries. The global crisis was based on risky banking investment. PARTLY fuelled by investment in the US marketing bubble. Had there been sufficient regulation of the banking sector here in the UK we could have been less effected by a global downturn. Much like how Germany escaped.

Also shows how easily tied to the US market and financial sector the world is.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 23, 2011)

MilkyWay said:


> I think its fair to note each country has its own political systems.
> 
> Some of the agreements on the environment the member countries are falling well short of targets set.
> 
> What im now interested in is that after this global cooling what kind of trend will happen afterwords, i know there was a little ice age in the middle ages and that but seems like the current trend was way above normal.



No its a normal bump if you look at the historical data. Its been way warmer before. The whole global warming thing is because they tie Co2 to the increase in temperature. Thats were the debate is.



MilkyWay said:


> That doesn't explain how markets crashed in other countries. The global crisis was based on risky banking investment. PARTLY fuelled by investment in the US marketing bubble. Had there been sufficient regulation of the banking sector here in the UK we could have been less effected by a global downturn. Much like how Germany escaped.
> 
> Also shows how easily tied to the US market and financial sector the world is.



Welcome to globalization. Worst thing you guys could do is form the EU.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Jun 23, 2011)

Yeah and now they gotta deal with Greece.


----------



## MilkyWay (Jun 24, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> No its a normal bump if you look at the historical data. Its been way warmer before. The whole global warming thing is because they tie Co2 to the increase in temperature. Thats were the debate is.
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to globalization. Worst thing you guys could do is form the EU.



I actually advocate the EU but it think takes to much money from its member states for its job. Its done alot like introduced WEEE and it deals with crisis in the EU. Also there is now freedom of movement and trade barriers are cut in Europe.

Each member state is a sovereign nation with elected members of European Parliament. The system is based on treaties. It has its own central bank for the Euro Zone and has its own Court and legislative bodies.

There are 2 Legislation parts of the EU.
Firstly the Council of the European Union (Council of Ministers) which is the upper house, each member state has its own chosen minister and the office of president of this rotates between members every 6 months.
Secondly is the European Parliament the lower house . It is elected by us the citizens in the EU member states. It too has its own president who is elected by the MEPs in the parliament.

The weakening of the dollar is hurting the world economy, some propose moving away from the dollar as an international monetary base unit to a new international currency. IDK the ins and outs. Countries moved away from gold standards years ago and started to pin their money to other currencies as its reserve. The US Dollar is still the de facto currency used in international markets because it had a strong monetary value. Lots of countries have dollar reserves but a lot also now have euros or have pinned against the euro.

I no way am i advocating anything but other countries moving away from the US Dollar as an international base unit is only a good thing since your so strongly tied to the US market conditions and currency value. The yen was touted as an alternative in the 80s but Japan crashed in the 90s.

Greece is not in crisis because of the eurozone it would have happened anyway, their government is not very efficient and its debts have been increasing well past its economy size, the economy was and is shrinking in Greece. The point some make is that it would be able to better handle the situation if it could manage inflation with its own currency and handle monetary policy at a domestic level the eurozone cant allow them to do since its shared. The Greek situation is of its own doing and people are unwilling to accept deep austerity measures. The EU is scared that if Greece defaults on its debts it will cause a domino effect with places like Ireland and Portugal.

HOW does one know if current temperatures are a normal trend compared to the little ice age? How can anyone know anything? My point is if you looks at graphs it shows temps rising above the averages of the last 1000 years. Scientists are suggesting it isn't just a natural rise in temperatures. Now i wonder if temps in the planet have ever been stable?
I still wonder what will happen after this cooling period or how long it will last.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 24, 2011)

MilkyWay said:


> HOW does one know if current temperatures are a normal trend compared to the little ice age? How can anyone know anything? My point is if you looks at graphs it shows temps rising above the averages of the last 1000 years. Scientists are suggesting it isn't just a natural rise in temperatures. Now i wonder if temps in the planet have ever been stable?
> I still wonder what will happen after this cooling period or how long it will last.



I am not sure how they have predicted this data, but let me say this:

This is NOT new news.

This is actually, possibly 4 years old.

The guys that frequent the TS server will have heard me mention, many times, that random hardware failures and stability issues might be caused by the sun.

I saw this, because I do check out what's going on out on the surface of the sun, on a many-times-a-day basis.

So, back in MARCH, 2007, the "Solar Cycle 24 Predicition Panel" already decided that this solar cycle we are in, obviously, number "24", by whatever metric they use, would be a period of low solar activity.

Now, since most the heat energy we get is from the sun, quite clearly, if you can predict the sun's behavior, you can predict, partially, the effect it will have on the planet.

So, this was done, and presented, I guess, a bit over 4 years ago. In 2009, a consensus was reached within the group responsible for such predictions. We are currently in a "low" solar cycle.



> The Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Panel has reached a consensus decision on the prediction of the next solar cycle (Cycle 24). First, the panel has agreed that solar minimum occurred in December, 2008. This still qualifies as a prediction since the smoothed sunspot number is only valid through September, 2008. The panel has decided that the next solar cycle will be below average in intensity, with a maximum sunspot number of 90. Given the predicted date of solar minimum and the predicted maximum intensity, solar maximum is now expected to occur in May, 2013. Note, this is a consensus opinion, not a unanimous decision. A supermajority of the panel did agree to this prediction.



Of course, this info has been available to the public for some time now, here:

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/index.html

And if you go to this site:

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/index.html

It even lists up to the minute conditions, as well as providing the most recent image of the sun, which updates quite often.

Anywway, they can't fully predict the effects of sunspots, as thier magnetic orientation and design isn't somthing we fully understand as of yet, but at the same time, thier frequency has been predicted within acceptable margins.

So, because this "news" is so old, but presented as recent data, I tell you what:


IT'S F.U.D.



Of course, I've known this all along, but the conversation has been quite interesting. 

All that said, because we haven't reached the peak yet, I bet we hear from the author in a few years, when temps start to decline, that he predicted this. Yeah, right.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jun 24, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> No the market crashed because the goverment got into making sure "everyone had a home" and forced banks to give loans they normally would not give.
> 
> Example
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkAtUq0OJ68



Nope it was predatory lending with ARM loans on homes and credit cards. Followed by credit card debt bundled and sold as AAA rating to people looking for retirement investments when they knew those practices would destroy people's retirements. Then the US bailed out the rich that engineered the bubble. Its socialism for the rich, and capitalism for the poor.


----------



## Jetster (Jun 24, 2011)

DaedalusHelios said:


> Nope it was predatory lending with ARM loans on homes and credit cards. Followed by credit card debt bundled and sold as AAA rating to people looking for retirement investments when they knew those practices would destroy people's retirements. Then the US bailed out the rich that engineered the bubble. Its socialism for the rich, and capitalism for the poor.



Somebody watched "The inside job"  great documentary


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Jun 24, 2011)

global warming & global cooling is so missleading its ridiculous. in Physics class we had an entire unit on global environment issues and "global warming". People will go hey its not warm here, and say global warming is hoax. When really its Global Climate Change and its happening all the time. Its normal, but it can get out of hand. We all just need to take care of the only planet we know of right now that we can live on. Its all we got, so take care of it. Thats how i see it. All this sun acitivity thats being talked about is normal through a stars life time.


----------



## gumpty (Jun 24, 2011)




----------



## The_Ish (Jun 25, 2011)

Yesterday was midsummer eve (holiday) in Sweden. We had herring with potatoes outside in the incredible warmth of <15 celsius most of the day..
Global warming does not scare me, idiot politicians who thinks this is the most important global question is however..


----------



## m4gicfour (Jun 26, 2011)

The_Ish said:


> Yesterday was midsummer eve (holiday) in Sweden. We had herring with potatoes outside in the incredible warmth of <15 celsius most of the day..
> Global warming does not scare me, idiot politicians who thinks this is the most important global question is however..



Global warming shouldn't scare you. It should scare your grand-children, at which point it's too late.


----------



## The_Ish (Jun 26, 2011)

The planet will be fine, the people are fucked though.
Besides, we have more pressing matters at our door step. What happens after all the fossilized fules are gone? OT, but yeah,.


----------



## MilkyWay (Jun 28, 2011)




----------

