Global Warming

[Rokerijdude11]

Roker, you might as well contact admin and ask nicely for your old account back, as it doesn't look like your going to stop making fake ones.

why would i do that when i am me?

 

[Koios]

Guys, get back on track.. you know the drill... Roker was given his account back since he promised to behave. Now please do so and you guys try not to provoke him either.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

you release CO2 into the atmosphere, it traps heat. that's global warming. the more you put up there the more heat it traps. simple enough

The problem with that line of logic is that it ignores all of the evidence we have ever gathered from ice cores. The evidence shows that rising CO2 levels lag behind rising temperatures by 5 or 6 hundred years indicating that rising CO2 levels are the result of warming, not the cause.

Right, but the statistics I've seen suggest something closer to an 800 year lag, but that's not really important.

The fact of the matter is that CO2 does not affect temperature. Sunspots affect the temperature and the temperature affects the C02 levels.

 

[palerider]

Right, but the statistics I've seen suggest something closer to an 800 year lag, but that's not really important.

The fact of the matter is that CO2 does not affect temperature. Sunspots affect the temperature and the temperature affects the C02 levels.

Another thing that the hand wringing hysterics don't address is the fact that there has been three times as much greenhouse gass in the atmosphere as would be required to cause the current greenhouse effect since we began to exit the ice age we are presently exiting. There has never been a need for manmade greenhouse gas to increase the potential for greenhouse warming because the atmosphere is already completely opaque in the relevant absorption bands . That is, there is already a "competition" between overabundant greehnouse gass molecules to reflect the available outbound infrared radiation (greenhouse effect) . For this reason alone, the hysterics generated by climate models that predict catastrophic global climate change are laughable. The models have been programmed only with positive feedbacks. That is, they predict even greater warming from trivial increase in absorber availability while real world potential actually works with negative feedback. You get progressively less warming per cc of greenhouse gas by adding more of them because there is simply not enough radiation from the sun to go around.

 

[Chip]

Whether the planet is warming or cooling in the process of our polluting it unto its demise is, of course, irrelevant.

What is important is to take the divertive focus off of the temperature and place it squarely where it belongs: on the damage we most certainly know we are causing.

 

[palerider]

Whether the planet is warming or cooling in the process of our polluting it unto its demise is, of course, irrelevant.

What is important is to take the divertive focus off of the temperature and place it squarely where it belongs: on the damage we most certainly know we are causing.

Hooray!!! Someone gets it. The earth has warmed and cooled over and over before we appeared on the scene. Glass bottles, heavy liquids, and plastic, however, didn't come along until we did.

I am all for cleaning up to the degree that we can do it without costing too many people thier jobs (which is a great deal of cleaning up), and fining people who pollute illegally very heavily for their first offense and prison for the second.

As to the warming, it has happened over and over and will continue to do so. We can look at the repeating pattern in history and have a pretty good idea what the future is going to look like climate wise. If money is to be spent on climate change, that money should be spent on the development of technology that will make our lives easier and more comfortable in the long summmer ahead.

 

[Chip]

I am all for cleaning up to the degree that we can do it without costing too many people thier jobs (which is a great deal of cleaning up)

I agree.

Cleaning up after ourselves and preventing ourselves from re-polluting shouldn't cost too many people their jobs -- hell, it shouldn't cost anyone their job.

But it should cost taxpayers some money ... and it should cost corporate owners some of their obscene profits and without owners converting their employees into compensative sacrificial lambs.

After all, the profit motive caused owners and government leaders to turn a blind eye to the damage they knew they were doing, so it is those who were so blindly seduced who should pay the price.

Still, I can't help but feel sorry even for those more rightly responsible -- after all, the seductions of the Money System are nearly impossible to resist.

Nevertheless, someone has to foot the bill for cleaning up this mess, and taxpayers and corporate owners (along with politicians who should be impeached!) are the rightly guilty ones in this situation, and they should be the ones to pay appropriately, without one single job lost.