An Inconvenient Truth

[boyando]

Please indulge me for a little while, while I tell you a little story that may not seem related to the topic of this thread.

About a week ago, I got a virus on my computer. I want to warn everybody, don't use your up and down buttons to read through your email. always go back to the inbox so you can see what you are opening.

Here is what this virus does. while you are working on anything, it will pop up a box, saying that you have a virus. When you click on the box, it takes you right too a website, to sell you anti virus soft ware. About every two minutes, another pop up.

I have got rid of most of this virus (no thanks to my security suite) but they still show up. These look like they come from Microsoft and if I bought every one, I would spend more than my computer cost, on new software.

How does this relate to global warming? Let see if we can switch the players around and still have the same sad story. Let me steal a line from another "right wing nut", Glen Beck. I am not a scientists, but I am a thinker.

Because I am a thinker, I know that some of the things that I am about to write, are going to make some good people mad. Heck, by the time I'm through, I just might make everyone mad at me. So let me start out by saying, I'm sorry.

I'm sorry, because the global warming movement is a virus. A virus, designed to zap you of your hard earned money.

And the pop ups we keep seeing, there the newspaper headlines, designed to make you buy the paper, or watch a news cast "special report". So many people profit from telling you that the sky is falling, that the rest of us, sit back and scratch our heads in unbelief.

So how can we "thinkers" ever figure out if man made global warming really does exist? I wish we could, but we cant. We cant because, just like my computer, garbage in, garbage out.

We can look at history and see if there is any proof that global warming will be the end of mans existence. Much is made of this "new weather pattern" that the alarmist say points to global warming. Amazing how they tell us that, when things cool down, it is because of global warming and when things warm up, it is because of global warming.

Even an old guy like me can remember, in elementary school, how Iceland is green and Greenland is ice. I wounder what caused that "new weather pattern", that confused those explorers, who named these Islands, by what they saw when they hit the beaches.

I could go on and on, about what the thinker in me sees and hears, about this subject. But I'm sure only about half of you have read this far down. I hope you will stick with me a little longer, even after I say unto you "oh be wise".

Don't buy your anti-virus software from the one's who gave you the virus and don't buy into a movie that will help Al Gore get more money for his next Presidential run.

Plant trees, because they enhance your life. Use the new light bulbs because they save you money. Buy the smallest vehicle, that fits your life style, so you can make longer road trips and see more of this wonderful world that our God has aloud us to visit.

Most of us who come to this website, want to be good stewards of this planet. And well we should be. lets all do what we can to clean up our world. But if we put all our money and energy into false gods, we will not be able to fix the real problems.

As always, looking forward too being proven wrong - allmosthumble

[Guest MrsS]

I agree with you Almost - I can't remember all of the places where I read that these weather "changes" are NOT global warming, that they are just changes that occur on a cycle. The weather is cycling, not the Globe warming.

[Dror]

Hi Traveler,

I am well aware of the effect of H20, having lived both in arid regions and humid ones. However, it is not the only greenhouse gas and not necessarily the one responsible for the demonstrable rise in global temperatures. (I emphasize the word 'global' because some people make a big deal of the fact that the weather seems cooler where they live. That may be, but the overall temperature of the planet, as a whole, is rising.)

I have also heard the theory that the global warming is the result not of man's activity, but natural cycles of warming and cooling. It sounds logical enough--after all, it has happened in the past. However, scientists are pretty well-informed. They know about the past ice ages and warming periods, too. Yet for some reason they think this time it's different.

Which brings us to your claim that the scientists who are on the ball and understand what is really going on are being ignored or silenced. I am going to assume that you are saying they are being ignored/silenced by their fellow scientists, as I cannot imagine the media could be so powerful or monolithic as to accomplish this feat.

Are you telling me that there exists a significant number of scientists who agree with you but with whom the powerful "establishment" scientists disagree, and that the ones in charge refuse to acknowledge what your scientists are saying? For example, that the peer-reviewed journals won't publish their work because they disagree? Admittedly this is possible. As you pointed out, this sort of thing has happened in the past, or even that the majority has been wrong.

It seems unlikely to me in this case, however, partly because it is such a hot topic, and such a potentially important one. The debate has been raging for years, even decades. There is lots of money and lots of people on both sides of the debate (especially in the U.S., it appears to me)--except among scientists. As far as I can tell, there's practically a consensus among scientists. Scientists are not so isolated in their ivory laboratories that they haven't noticed the debate and considered the possibility that different things may account for global warming. They can get funding from different places, including neutral parties as well as people on either side of the debate, so it's not as if they can't do their research or publish their work one way or another.

Assuming the majority of scientists are interested in quantifiable truth, not just saying what they're paid to say, why do most of them claim human activity affects the climate and contributes to global warming, and why do precious few of them claim otherwise? Maybe.... (drumroll) because it's what they honestly believe, based upon their studies.

Again, like I said, I can't believe that in this environment scientists on either side of the debate could not make their voices heard. And when I hear the majority of voices saying one thing, that's what I tend to believe.

In any case, even if they are wrong, would it kill us to reduce carbon emissions and other pollutants, not to mention our dependence on petroleum?

Dror

[boyando]

Dror,

Let me suggest a little experiment, next time that you are listening to the radio and the news come on, count how many times that you hear from a Democrat and how many times they just tell you what the Republicans are saying.

I know that your views lean more towards the Democrats, but if you are honest with yourself, you will be shocked at how little the conservative side has to say. Or is it they are just not heard because, reporters don't think they have anything to say.

May I also suggest that the artical that you gave a link to, makes it so bad for the oil company's to give 10,000 dollars to scientist who will refute man made global warming. And yet no one says a word about the billions given away in grant money, to study global warming.

Here is a dirty little secret - the reason the oil company's are so cheap, is because the less oil we produce in the United States and around the world, the more money they make. If the price per barrel goes up, they make more money per barrel.

Just some of the thought that I have on the subject - allmosthumble

[Traveler]

Hi Traveler,

Are you telling me that there exists a significant number of scientists who agree with you but with whom the powerful "establishment" scientists disagree, and that the ones in charge refuse to acknowledge what your scientists are saying? For example, that the peer-reviewed journals won't publish their work because they disagree? Admittedly this is possible. As you pointed out, this sort of thing has happened in the past, or even that the majority has been wrong.

It seems unlikely to me in this case, however, partly because it is such a hot topic, and such a potentially important one. The debate has been raging for years, even decades. There is lots of money and lots of people on both sides of the debate (especially in the U.S., it appears to me)--except among scientists. As far as I can tell, there's practically a consensus among scientists. Scientists are not so isolated in their ivory laboratories that they haven't noticed the debate and considered the possibility that different things may account for global warming. They can get funding from different places, including neutral parties as well as people on either side of the debate, so it's not as if they can't do their research or publish their work one way or another.

Assuming the majority of scientists are interested in quantifiable truth, not just saying what they're paid to say, why do most of them claim human activity affects the climate and contributes to global warming, and why do precious few of them claim otherwise? Maybe.... (drumroll) because it's what they honestly believe, based upon their studies.

Again, like I said, I can't believe that in this environment scientists on either side of the debate could not make their voices heard. And when I hear the majority of voices saying one thing, that's what I tend to believe.

In any case, even if they are wrong, would it kill us to reduce carbon emissions and other pollutants, not to mention our dependence on petroleum?

Dror

Again Dror there are interesting things that happen with politics. Almost all the funding for research is controlled by the government. If you want to get a little understanding what government funding does to research consider the affects of Title IX and student scholarships and research funding. Even private schools that do not have research projects or sports have crumbled because of government money that has nothing to do with sports and who gets a scholarship is withheld.

Because of a powerful tobacco lobby it took more than a generation (50 years) for major medical journals to publish the bad effects of tobacco. A while back I posted about irradiated foods and how all the research everywhere in the world allows it but the FDA in the US keeps saying there is not enough evidence. Yes there is enough evidence; it is just that there are not enough politics to push it through.

I had a friend at John Hopkins Univ. involved in a study of homogenized milk and the association with hart defects – but they were never allowed to publish and after 30 years it is still tied up in courts and they were never able to get funding to do another study.

It is interesting to me that the same year that DuPont’s patent ran out on Freon that the government suddenly decided that same year that Freon was harmful for the environment so every body would have to use a new product DuPont just invented and had a brand new patent.

When was the last time you saw a study on the effects that caffeine soft drinks have on children under the age of 12?

Here is another. 30 years ago the environmentalist succeeded in getting legislation passed because the ill effects of old technology in use at refineries. Then they set new standards for building new refineries. The result is that in 30 years no new refineries have been built and so we are polluting unnecessarily with the refineries we have and cannot use the latest technologies. Most of the oil is refined outside the US which has increased our dependence on foreign oil. We have more than enough oil in the US but we cannot refine it and therefore still have to rely on foreign oil. How stupid is that? And our wonderful political parties do nothing more than blame the other party.

Water vapor has been the #1 cause of global warming for billions of years. There are natural cycles and there is no evidence that what we are seeing now is outside of past parameters. Now I agree we should do more. I have ridden a bicycle to work for 40 years and told people not only can you help the environment by riding a bicycle but is 20% of the population would ride a bicycle to work it would cause an economic boom the likes we have never see in the history of the world. But it would also cause a great fall in taxes at the state and federal levels.

An inventor named Nicola Tesla (the inventor of alternating current) built a car 60 years ago that run on the electricity transmitted by the sun. There has never been government funding to study how he did it. Westinghouse now owns the patents but they will not allow anyone to even look at the private papers that defined what Tesla did.

The Traveler

[CrimsonKairos]

I'm rusty on Chem so I could be wrong. When ice freezes...

I think you meant when water freezes. :)

...the hydrogen bonds align so that the H2O is spread out more as oppose to a liquid state were the molecules can freely move.

I don't know about bonds. All I'm saying is that when water freezes, it expands and takes up more space then when its just a liquid.

1. In a glass of ice water when the ice melts the volume does not change.

Doesn't matter what the volume is. I'm talking about how much space the water takes up. Even though a cup of water is still a cup of water when it's frozen, it takes up more volume than one liquid cup.

2. You have a greater amount of volume and water that is not effecting the oceans current level i.e. the ice that is on land and the tops of the polar caps. If that was melted you just added a significant volume increase from sources that did not previously affect the tidal volume.

I disagree, but hey, that's fine.

[Outshined]

HERE is an interesting link to check out. It contains a petition that reads in part:

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

So far it has been signed by over 15,000 scientists...

More: http://www.sitewave.net/news

[StrawberryFields]

I just noticed that the program The Inconvenient Truth will be on Cable in my area today. If you are interested you might want to check your local listings :)

[StrawberryFields]

I just checked again and it is on PPV

[john doe]

I was reading an article yesterday at work by a Canadian scientist who happens to be one of the foremost scientists in Canada about climatology. He can't figure out why, when he claims that there are no conclusive evidences for man's impact on global warming, nobody will pay any attention to him. He says he has even received threats from of ruination from others who are on the man=global warming bandwagon. I'll see if I can find the article, it was interesting to me, at least. Maybe Winnie will give it more than a cursory 'thumbs'down' if it is by a top Canadian scientist.

[boyando]

I was reading an article yesterday at work by a Canadian scientist who happens to be one of the foremost scientists in Canada about climatology. He can't figure out why, when he claims that there are no conclusive evidences for man's impact on global warming, nobody will pay any attention to him. He says he has even received threats from of ruination from others who are on the man=global warming bandwagon. I'll see if I can find the article, it was interesting to me, at least. Maybe Winnie will give it more than a cursory 'thumbs'down' if it is by a top Canadian scientist.

I heard about the same report on a talk radio program. He mentions at the end of his report, that he cant get funding for real environmental concerns because all the money seems to be going to global warming.

[EricM]

I saw this movie during Sundance last year, after which Al Gore and the director came and did a Q & A. All I can say is that this movie was quite an eye-opener, and has ultimately led to me to decide to go into an environment-related major in college.

I've also heard that some think it's just political nonsense spread by the democrats. I think that such an accusation is political nonsense in and of itself, as the evidence of the effects of global warming are quite obvious if you look in the right places (melting ice caps on some peaks, for example).

[Outshined]

As with any issue, there are two sides to it. As the link I provided shows, many scientists disagree about global warming.

[boyando]

I saw this movie during Sundance last year, after which Al Gore and the director came and did a Q & A. All I can say is that this movie was quite an eye-opener, and has ultimately led to me to decide to go into an environment-related major in college.

I've also heard that some think it's just political nonsense spread by the democrats. I think that such an accusation is political nonsense in and of itself, as the evidence of the effects of global warming are quite obvious if you look in the right places (melting ice caps on some peaks, for example).

EricM,

You may want to read the hole post before you devote your whole life to fixing a problem that is not there.

Your friend - allmosthuble

[BenRaines]

I saw a movie once where a giant comet was coming towards the earth and if it wasn't blown up it would kill us all on earth.

I am willing to go up in a space shuttle and land on it and help blow it up to save the rest of the world.

Ben Raines

Oh yeah I forgot. Saw another movie where a volcano came up out of the streets of Los Angeles. For that reason I won't go to LA anymore.

Ben Raines

[boyando]

I saw a movie once where a giant comet was coming towards the earth and if it wasn't blown up it would kill us all on earth.

I am willing to go up in a space shuttle and land on it and help blow it up to save the rest of the world.

Ben Raines

Oh yeah I forgot. Saw another movie where a volcano came up out of the streets of Los Angeles. For that reason I won't go to LA anymore.

Ben Raines

I used to live next to LA. So I'm an expert on LA. Were is my grant money to study volcanoes?

[Dr T]

From that movie, "valcano," you would be studying the La Brea Tar Pits-that would be fun.

http://www.tarpits.org/

[john doe]

I found the article I was talking about the other day. It can be found here in its entirety. Tim Ball is the first Canadian to get a Ph.d in Climatology, and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnepeg. After studying, the climate for decades, he is convinced that Global Warming is not caused by man. He points out that 30 years ago, the big 'scientific' conclusion that was generally accepted by scientists, was that Global Cooling was upon us.The problem, as he sees it, is that conclusions are reached by people with agendas looking for funding, without any actual scientific research being done.

I tend to agree with him. I agree that the earth has recently gone through both cooling and warming trends, but there has yet to be presented any credible, unbiased research that shows that man has caused those trends. I tend to believe that these trends are entirely naturally-occurring events.

Al Gore is not in any way a scientist. He's a politician, looking for some way to be taken serious. So far, he's found his niche, and it looks as though he has found a way to be relevent. Hopefully, someday, real science will take on the case and real answers will be found. In the meantime, they appear to me to be modern-day Chicken-Littles.

[BenRaines]

I believe it was in this forum early on I said "Put in your search engine Mini Ice Age" There is a lot of information there on climate changes.

Mini Ice Age

Ben Raines

[BenRaines]

Humans and the "Little Ice Age"

By Roger Ebert

From: Jack Leyhane, Chicago, IL:

I know the Al Gore movie has got you revved up on the perils of global warming -- but bear with me for a moment.

The world may well be getting warmer -- but the idea that the planet is warming because of human activity -- industrial and auto pollution, deforestation, etc. -- and that curtailing these activities or ceasing particular activities altogether (let's all go back to caves and live off the land!) will somehow stop global warming strikes me as hubristic, and potentially dangerous, nonsense. The History Channel has recently been running a program entitled "Little Ice Age: Big Chill," about a 550-year global cold snap that changed European history -- and prompted the beginning of American history as we now know it.

The ad copy for the DVD of the program states: "Scientists call it the Little Ice Age--but its impact was anything but small. From 1300 to 1850, a period of cataclysmic cold caused havoc. It froze Viking colonists in Greenland, accelerated the Black Death in Europe, decimated the Spanish Armada, and helped trigger the French Revolution. The Little Ice Age reshaped the world in ways that now seem the stuff of fantasy--New York Harbor froze and people walked from Manhattan to Staten Island, Eskimos sailed kayaks as far south as Scotland, and 'the year without a summer' saw two feet of snow fell on New England one June and July."

The people who warn about global warming are presumably unaware of the fate of the Viking colonists of Greenland.

During the warm centuries that preceded the Little Ice Age (the Medieval Warm Period), Vikings journeyed to Greenland, Iceland, and to the shores of North America. Calling the island "Greenland" was always a bit of hyperbole on the part of its Viking promoters, but the early colonists there did have grazing land for sheep and were able to maintain flocks.

The Little Ice Age changed this -- and the Vikings ultimately starved.

Now Greenland is apparently warming again -- but is it yet as warm as it was before the Little Ice Age? And why was it so warm then? If that episode of "global warming" was not caused by medieval knights, then why is mankind responsible for the current episode?

The world changes. It has changed before. It will change again. This is part of the natural order of things. Humankind must have some influence, particularly in localized areas -- urban heat islands, for example -- but what is it about the human ego that makes some people feel as if the human race is responsible for everything, good or bad, that happens in, or to, the world?

I agree we need to study how best to adapt to climate changes that may be coming. We should try and figure out how human activity retards or accelerates climate change. But neither good science nor good public policy can be constructed on an assumption that "global warming" is caused by human activity.

[Gabelma]

I personally believe in taking care of the planet and doing my bit to reduce waste not because of global warming but because I want my children to know I love my Heavenly Father and want to do as much as I can to care for the creation he gave us. For me doing my best includes things like not picking a flower unless it encourages the bush to grow, being careful not to harm an animal

It makes common sense to conserve water doesn't take much to share a bath, spend less time in the shower, turn the tap off whilst you clean your teeth, use the water in the bath to wash the car or water a garden.

Lemon juice and vinegar make better cleaners than most chemicals we use anyway - kill as many bugs and much less scrubbing involved.

We can reduce waste by using cloth nappies (modern cloth nappies are very easy) or infant potty training. Eco-balls are better in your washing machine and get your clothes cleaner at lower temperatures than detergent anyway - you can hang your clothes out to dry or using dryer balls can cut down the time we need. Where possible buying local products or second hand furniture and clothes cuts down on waste and airmiles etc

For me its a crucial part of worshipping my Heavenly Father and loving and appreciating what he has given us

Charley

[john doe]

I personally believe in taking care of the planet and doing my bit to reduce waste not because of global warming but because I want my children to know I love my Heavenly Father and want to do as much as I can to care for the creation he gave us. For me doing my best includes things like not picking a flower unless it encourages the bush to grow, being careful not to harm an animal

It makes common sense to conserve water doesn't take much to share a bath, spend less time in the shower, turn the tap off whilst you clean your teeth, use the water in the bath to wash the car or water a garden.

Lemon juice and vinegar make better cleaners than most chemicals we use anyway - kill as many bugs and much less scrubbing involved.

We can reduce waste by using cloth nappies (modern cloth nappies are very easy) or infant potty training. Eco-balls are better in your washing machine and get your clothes cleaner at lower temperatures than detergent anyway - you can hang your clothes out to dry or using dryer balls can cut down the time we need. Where possible buying local products or second hand furniture and clothes cuts down on waste and airmiles etc

For me its a crucial part of worshipping my Heavenly Father and loving and appreciating what he has given us

Charley

I agree that we should be good stewards of the earth we have been given to live on. A couple questions, though. How do you get the water from the bathtub all the way out to the car without spilling? Also, as much as I like the idea of showering together in order to save energy, how can I convince my wife that God wants us to do that? If we could get an Apostle or the Prophet of the church to pronounce this truth in General Conference it would carry a lot more weight in the argument. Third, are you the only woman in the world who doesn't want a man to buy her cut flowers?

[Guest MrsS]

Third, are you the only woman in the world who doesn't want a man to buy her cut flowers?

I would prefer a potted house plant to cut flowers anyday. Or get me a bouquet of silk flowers.

[Fiannan]

You know, the trend today is for women to shave all their body hair off (legs, underarms, uh...lower abdominal area, etc.). This is usually done while showering. Now this trend has been promoted through the fashion industry (i.e. intimate apparel doesn't generally go well with ample body hair) so maybe the fashion industry should start featuring undergarmet and regular dressed models who don't shave?

Just think of the savings in warm water.

[Guest Yediyd]

<div class='quotemain'>

Third, are you the only woman in the world who doesn't want a man to buy her cut flowers?

I would prefer a potted house plant to cut flowers anyday. Or get me a bouquet of silk flowers.

I just got some cut flowers for my b-day (6/10) My thought was, " Awww, now their gonna die!"

But I enjoyed them while I could. :)