Man-made Global Warming proven to be a hoax

Page 14 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.


Water might not find it's own level, there may be regional discrepancies in it's level. Maybe they feel that the melting that is happening, and the resultant 0.7mm per year added to sea level, is not moderate to high yet. Also, the rise is for specifically the Greenland Ice Sheet, i.e. the melt from other ice sheets, glacier retreat and thermal expansion is not included in that figure. That may be where the extra sea level rise comes from.

I'm am sure that there are regional differences in sea level rise. For example - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NASA_sea_level_change_trend.jpg . This shows that there has been a sea level rise on the southern tip of Greenland, maybe the scientists predict that this sea level increase will spread southwards as more and more of the ice sheet melts. Or maybe they feel that the release in water from the ice sheet will push the Gulf stream towards the Northeast coast ('ocean circulation' shifting) causing it to 'bump' up against the coast and raise the sea level further. [EDIT: On further communications it appears that ocean circulation is to blame for the regional discrepancy described in the link describing a 12-20 inch rise in the coast of NE N.America.]
 
In the show on History channel is true, they show progressions of Florida going almost entirely under water, most of Mahattan Islamd, the eastern shore, all of bangledesh, and a few other areas.
I wonder what the entire square miles of of what they showed, plus what they didnt is, to include these rises?Besides the rest of the planets ocean surface?
If this were the case, as I pointed out earlier, at the time of the previous heatwave period, where the vikings had landed and subsisted on Greenland, wouldnt most of these areas they say are suceptable now alreadya at that time be under water then as well? And wouldnt there be corroborating evidence to this?
That would be the perfect example.
As we claim to know how these events were played out in the past, theres evidence of those events. As we claim to know what will happen now, we have prior models of temps supporting eventual results, and also evidence of them.
Thats what Id like to see. If its so certain as to the outcome, and since weve had similar outcomes, yet unexplained, the evidence of Florida, Bangledesh etc should be there.
I do know there was a city along the coastline of Vietnam?Thailand?, that region, which has been found under water, and when it was built escapes me, and was thought a sunami caused its destruction, but didnt go into why its currently under water.
So, point here is, if its currently under water, weve seen an ongoing heat increase since that time, and the oceans have already risen from that time, and when it was warmer than now, or similar to now, but on a longer period of time, the vikings etc on greenland, it would have to have been even greater then, just because of the length of time temps had increased, and the other threatened regions would show proofs.
 


Florida and Bangladesh are very susceptible to even small increases in sea level because a lot of their area is just a few feet above sea level – 'No point in the Everglades is more than 7 ft (2 m) above sea level.' ( http://www.city-data.com/states/Florida-Topography.html ). This means that even a 'small' increase in sea level would have a large effect on Florida. The same is true for Bangladesh, with a large part of the country merely a delta for the Ganges, Brahmaputra and Meghna Rivers - 'Although altitudes up to 105 meters above sea level occur in the northern part of the plain, most elevations are less than 10 meters above sea level; elevations decrease in the coastal south, where the terrain is generally at sea level.' ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Bangladesh#Physical_geography ). Manhattan is effected because it is low, but other areas of New York, such as Brooklyn, Staten Island and the Area around Jamaica Bay will likely be effected more severely. This is because the areas geography goes against it, with Staten Island and Brooklyn forming a right angle at the exit of Upper New York Bay. This naturally forces the water upwards, as the right angle channels it inwards.

Let's not forget that people still live on Greenland, it didn't just become an empty wasteland post-Viking. The rise in temperature in the modern era is more than with the Medieval Warm Period. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png . The MWP was warmer than surrounding centuries, but not only was the rise slower than today, it was also lower than temperatures have been in the last decade. If they weren't underwater then they probably won't be underwater now. In the future possibly, but not at present.

Can you link me the Southeast Asian sunken city? The New Scientist article I have doesn't mention one, and I can't find it on the internet. There are many reasons cities 'sink', a tsunami could cause it, by washing away underlying soil and then dragging it away when it retreats. Earthquakes are another reason cities sink. Port Royal in Jamaica being a prime warning of their power to destroy cities. The earthquake would liquefy the land beneath and the city would sink down into the soil, sometimes by 15 feet straight down. Flooding caused the sinking of two cities in ancient Egypt, when the Nile flooded catastrophically, possibly altering the geography of the area.
 
I cant find the link for the citie. It had a palace, certain stone carved items which stuck out and I think was washed away by the last terrible sunami, and thats how it was discovered, as there was old stories about it.. Hope that helps. It was a show i watched and have no links.

Thanks for your link, but could you explain it? On the left, it appears its a reference to something, but what? It shows the MWP as being zero, or a common temp? And gaged on what?

Also it says this:
This image is a comparison of 10 different published reconstructions of mean temperature changes during the last 2000 years. More recent reconstructions are plotted towards the front and in redder colors, older reconstructions appear towards the back and in bluer colors

Then this:
An instrumental history of temperature is also shown in black.

Now, I looked hard to find 2 black lines, and saw only 1. Since one method is different than the other, its a non apples to apples, and going by prior latest methods, or the red lines, the temp are just now reaching the MWP temps, and havnt had all the time it took previously toreach them, which would have their own unique effects as well wouldnt it?
And id point out, the major shift started earlier than this shows, for lack of the banding being so close as per years gone by, meaning, since 1920 these temps started shooting up, and not just within the last few years, which goes against common theory?

Or, for a better view/understanding of what Im saying
Fig_A4_lrg.gif


Further, if you look at your link/graph, going from approx 975 AD to 1100 AD, could be more or lesss time, we see a similar jump, just not as prolific, but not that far off from what we see today
 


The graph is based on temperature anomaly against time. The 0 point of the temperature anomaly is not given in the summary because it varies by data set. It shows that the temperature anomaly for the MWP was not as great as it is today according to most sets, and of near equal value for the minority (it's hard to decipher due to the bunching that occurs from 1900). All the curves agree that temperatures have increased since pre-industrialisation.

The data is probably zeroed for in or around the range of 1960-90 for most data sets (although that's a guess, since I've only been able to find this figure for one set).
 
Ya know, Ive seen some differing statements referring to this I think, now that I see it. I believe others have claimed this as well, as you cant use this coming off the mini ice age, but go by the means prior to it, which then appears more like what we see in the MWP.
 


There aren't two black lines, and it doesn't say that in the notes. Common theory has always held that temperatures over the 20th Century increased. Your graph merely agrees with the one I linked, with a large increase from 1900 onwards. If a jump is at a lower rate it's similarities are simply reduced to 'they both go up'. The increase in temperature for the MWP was gradual, taking a couple of centuries, rather than half that for this increase. The increase to the MWP was also from a level closer to the zero point, rather than well under it for this current rise.

The modern rise is a lot larger than the MWP rise, whose rise was about 0.5C, as you said, whereas this modern rise is closer to 0.9C and possibly a little more than that now (the top of the line was the 2004 level).

Your 'Ya know' post is a little confusing. Are you suggesting that the Little Ice Age should just be discounted from this? If that were the case then equally the MWP should be discounted as well.
 
Also, found this, which goes against the grain:
Moderate global warming started in the middle of the 19th century.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/308/5722/675
This comes from the Red line link, or latest testing.
I think this can be explained by using the Holocine Temp variations graph on your link, which shows temps going back 12000 yrs ago from the last glaciatic period.
Looking at the graph, its a conitnual rising and falling, or rollercoasting effect, which sees huge rises and drops of temps over a century of so period of time, and currently puts us in line with the temps of the MWP
 
Saying its .9C, thats from when to when? and by what nethods, as I pointed out, looking at both black lines, I was including the Halocene, and misinterpreted, under the notes.
If those methods being used for the last 30 years are instrumental, like the black line used in your link, its not an apples to apples comparison, is it?
The other methods during the same time show no such rises, and thats the ony reference we have to the older temps/times, and possibly instruments would have changed this?
 
My point here is, if you use instruments and find a huge disparity over older methods, you cant then say using the older methods to describe, say the MWP, that its the same?
This is just a continuation as it appears on the map of the holocene temp variations, and is to be expected, and the fact were coming off a mini ice age, as it shows weve done many times in that map, and that the rise coincides with the indutrial start means nothing at this point
 


The rise we have experienced post-industrialisation has been quicker and to a higher temperature than in the past 2000 years, according to the evidence we have gathered that is shown in the graph. There have been increases in the past, but within the past 2000 years none have been this rapid or caused such an increase.

The 0.9C figure (although I'll say now that I said 'closer to 0.9C') is from just past 1850 to 2004. I'll repeat - there is only ONE black line on the graph, representing records starting around the mid-1850s. On its own the black line represents a leap of about 0.8C from 1900 to 2004. The older records are the best we've got from the data we have, if you don't like that they are all over the shot, or don't suddenly converge at the start of the black line that's fine, but to say that the trends that they produce are worthless is foolhardy.

I have produced a hand-drawn graph (bear with me, I know what you are thinking) based on the graph I linked, that shows 3 lines:
SCAN0020.jpg


(Yes, it's not too hot.) Line A show what I perceive to be the trend of the last 2000 years, where I mainly stuck to the centre of the curves/ bunches of curves. Line B shows the lower-end line, where I followed the troughs to create it. Line C is the higher-end line, where I followed the peaks to create it (it joins line A). All 3 show an upwards trend at the MWP, downwards for Mini-Ice Age, then an upwards for the recent past (starting about 1700 for A, 1600 for B and 1850s for C.) These are the trends I can see in the graph. Line A will be the most accurate (if this could be called accurate), the rise to the MWP on the curve starts around 700, peaking at just past 1000. The increase of about 0.3C happening over 3 centuries. The modern rise, starting 1700 at about -0.5C and has climbed towards 0.4C, a rise of 0.9C over the same period. If the trends are correct (a BIIIIIG if 😉 ) then the modern rise is three times as potent as the MWP rise.

The Holocene graph does show the rollercoaster effect you described, but note where 2004 levels are in relation to this 'rollercoaster effect', they are higher than they have ever been on the average curve, that is to say higher, to our current knowledge, than they have ever been in the last 12000 years. Note that the trend for the curve was downwards from about 8000 years BP, a trend we have pretty much reversed since industrialisation.
 
My point about how the info is collected and used stands. Using varying methods, with 1 method only dating back so far simply because of lack of instrumentation will give us different numbers, and we shouldnt draw our conclusions from them while we use the oldermethods, where we see the same temps wse had during the MWP, and only the black line shows higher, and cant be a apples to apples comparison.

If you look at the glacial era map, youll notice the biggest drop in temps in the tightest time frame is the mini ice age, and thats where part of these numbers come from in the differentiations come, and again, cant be blamed on industrialization. What caused such similar rises previously? Thos not as severe, they also werent as cold, so they only ever got so hot anyways.
Ive also noticed attempts to discredit tree ring infos and similar things, since we nowe have ,ore "accurate" ways to measure, but its funny they use this to prove how different things are as well.
The tree ring info Im talking about was again seen on some TV show, as all this is put under pressure, to change things, and coming off a mini ice age, this isnormal activity from what I can see.
One thing we can guess at, following assumptions and not truths are, the CO2 levels have risen, and what we find in the ice is exact science, with no assumptions. That being said, using no assumptions, and knowing that what comes from the ice as being perfect like math, then we need to know with certainty whatll happen next, and since other models have been discredited, such as volcanoes and meteors, we have no past models to draw infos from, and cant really draw any infos in certainty, and still have to revert towards assumption.
Now, Im fine with that to a point, but what theyre asking goes beyond what I'll accept based on assumption.
 
I guess what Im saying here is, they discover reefs 160 feet below the lowest reefs found in Austrailia, and find that these come from the last ice age, where 1/3 of the planet was frozen. Due to accumulations, the ice rose in our glaciers, and depleted the oceans, lowering them 160 feet, creating the land bridge between Alsaka and Russia, and also allowed for the mamoths to walk to their island.
So, we know that the sea level has already risen 160 feet, and the earth was 1/3 under ice.
Now, heres what Id like to know. Since 1/3 of the planet, covered in ice miles deep seems alot more than 20 times bigger than the ice found on Greenland, besides that which resides under sea level there, how can they say the rises will excede 20 feet, ot 12% of the total from the previous ice age? Especially, as I said, the more land it covers, the more water itll take to cover that land already newly underwater, which goes into the 1000's of sq miles?
So, evidently, we have 15-20% of the ice left from the last ice age peak? And that of course is not counting that which is already floating, as that ice wont raise the water levels
 


(This is also a response to the post aboe the one I quoted.)

Your point seems to imply that because of the differences in different methods to study past temperature, and the variation involved, the whole thing is pointless, and nothing can be drawn from the results. If that is the case all the arguments that it was hotter before, or the claim that it was warmer during the MWP, or that this is part of a natural cycles go out of the window, because if we have to rely on only instrumental records than it becomes clear that humanity has increased the temperatures due to massive release of CO2.

We don't know what caused the similar rises previously. We feel that temperatures have fluctuated, and from this very graph ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png ) we feel that they haven't been as high in the last 12,000 years as they are know. To be fair we don't know what caused the Mini-Ice Age, let alone fluctuations that occurred further back in time. But we do know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that we have released over 500,000Mt of it into the atmosphere, and that adding more CO2 to an atmosphere will warm it up. From this we can ascertain that we have caused this modern warming, over the last century.

I don't feel this is a normal rise resulting from flux. Never in the past 12,000 years have we seen this level of rise coming out of a trough. We have seen quick rises, but never one as quick or potent as this one we are currently undergoing. Tree rings are useful proxies for understanding the changes in temperature over the lifetime of the tree, I don't know why anyone would discredit it, but it's not as accurate as instruments and can depend as much on weather conditions as on temperature.

The reason volcanism and meteor impacts have been 'discredited' as causes of this modern rise is that there simple haven't been any large enough to produce a long term impact of the climate of the planet. Krakatoa is the only volcanic eruption that had a impact that lasted more than a year, with temperatures only returning to pre-eruption level 5 years later (Pinotubos' effect on temperature only lasted a year). Has there been a meteorite impact on Earth recently? Didn't think so. I'll say now that the reason things are 'assumed' in science is because this is the best we can produce with the knowledge we have and if better evidence comes forth the 'assumption' changes. Some things we know. We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know that we have released more than 500,000Mt into the atmosphere since 1750. We know that global temperatures have increased over the last century. Add these facts together and you can clearly see the cause.

What science asks is beyond what you will accept? Yet from previous discussion it came to light that you were Christian. You are happy to live by the laws of the bible, which is a book that not only wasn't written at the time of 'Jesus' it wasn't even written soon after his 'death'. Yet when you are presented with facts, data which shows an increase, you say that the assumptions are too great? I'm not knocking your beliefs, and I understand the devout Christians relationship with 'God', but you'd put your life in the hands of scholars writing hundreds of years after the events occurred, and follow the rules laid down by them, which are based on huge assumptions, assumptions like 'what they are writing really took place' and these assumptions are not based on fact, and yet when presented with assumptions based on fact you discard them? It sounds a tad hypocritical from here.

I'm going to have to disagree with you about your claim that the a third of the earth was under ice sheets. These maps show the level of ice coverage for the Northern and Southern hemispheres - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Iceage_north-intergl_glac_hg.png and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Iceage_south-intergl_glac_hg.png .These show that the level of ice advancement were a lot less than a third, and probably even less than a fifth (I've calculated about an eighth). Even so, this is still a lot larger than the Greenland Ice sheet, maybe 10 times that. But take away sea ice coverage, as it displaces it's own weight so won't effect sea level rises, and the figure I get is 10% ice coverage of Earth. Greenland cover 0.42% of the Earths surface and by my calculations the Ice sheet coverage covered about 10%. The result is about a twenty-fourth of ice sheets coverage. As such the disparity seems large. But these are really rough calculations on my part, and more importantly the ice sheet on Greenland is likely to be thicker than the ice sheet of many areas that were covered with ice, it's mean altitude being 2,135m. Remember that is altitude, and doesn't include the bedrock being forced down by the weight of the sheet. So there is 2.85 million cubic km of ice on the Greenland Ice sheet. If this release were equivalent to an eighth of the sea level decrease encountered at the last glacial maximum, then there was (2.85 million cubic km) x 8 ice on the surface of the globe. Divide this by the area covered to get the thickness, 10% of the Earth being 51,007,200 squre km. From this we get a figure of average coverage well within the realm of possibility of 447m of ice. The ice sheets weren't as thick over the entire area as they are for Greenland.

We have probably retained a bit more than 40% of the ice sheets that existed a the last glacial maximum (going on sea level here – 61.1(Antarctica melts) + 7.2m (Greenland melts) = 68.3m vs 160m)
 
It's definately hotter this Christmas in Australia.

Please post us some more ice ... perhaps lemon or orange flavour if you can spare some.

I am guessing China and the UK have plenty to spare.

Can't see the North pole melting any time soon ...
 


This is the problem. Not only will cutting back on the use of fossil fuels do little to nothing to stop GW (ie. by the Kyoto standards), it will only slow the process marginally during the next century.

What's more, a drastic reduction of fossil fuel usage at present would have dire consequences for the world's population in the short term. From increased war over resources, to increased food shortages and starvation (and disease) to widespread economic stagnation (thus compounding the aforesaid).

THe problem is that there are no alternatives. Nuclear power is viable for electricity generation on the large scale, but the problems with waste change from CO2 to radioactive waste and potential for meltdown/catastrophe. Methods of solar and wind powered electricity generation are cost inefficient and would require extremely massive land areas devoted exclusively to power generation in order to replace existing fossil fuel generators (let alone that which shall be needed to meet the future energy demands of developing economies).

But apart from generation of electricity, we are not living in a world which has it primary mode of transportation capable of running on electricity. The amount of autos capable of running on electricity is quite small (and the carbon footprint generated by developing the storage batteries needed for the operation of a subcompact electric car exceed that of a gas-guzzling SUV over the lifetime of vehicle use). Beyond that, I've seen few trucks capable of running on electricty (the primary mode of overland shipping in many parts of the world). So, while a switch to electric-based cars/trucks seems like an answer, until the carbon footprint of storage battery production can be reduced, such a switch would actually be counterproductive to the reduction of atmospheric CO2.

Further, natural gas and/or heating oil is the primary fashion for providing residential heating in may parts of the developed world. There is no efficient replacement for this technology as yet. Electric powered heat is not nearly as efficient an energy source for this purpose.

Inefficent sources of power necessitate higher prices. In the developed world, most of the population can absorb some of this burden (at the expense of jobs and standard of living), but in the developing world this will only lead to increased deforestation as people turn to more cost-effective solutions (ie. lumber).

Factors such as I have listed are a large part of why the push for reducing/eliminating the use of fossil fuels are steadfastly resisted throughout much of the world.

The carrot/stick analogy works well here. People will resist being forced to adhere to something that negatively affects them, however if people can be incentivized to pursure the same path voluntarily, the probability of achieving that outcome substantially rises.

Instead of wasting billions of global dollars attempting to force-feed fossil fuel restrictions upon the world, this money (or savings) would better be allowcated to encouraging people to follow the same (tax breaks/subsidies/etc) and toward the development of cost-efficient alternative energy sources.

Until that happens, I would not expect to see much, if any, success in the overall reduction of man-made CO2 emissions (let alone even slowing the year-toyear increase in output).
 


From your first sentence you seem to be suggesting that because we can't stop it we should do nothing to reduce its effects. That sounds highly defeatist.

A reduction in fossil fuel will likely have a short term negative effect, but the long term effect for inactive far outweigh the short-term effects. Food shortages, starvation and preventable diseases already occur in enormous scales in the third world, one of the reasons for Copenhagen was to try to introduce some communication between the rich countries and the poor countries to change while reducing these or at the least maintaining them, but if nothing is done then the food shortages, starvation and disease will increase.

There are alternatives. If you want to shut you eyes to alternatives that's fine, but don't say they aren't out there. Nuclear power is an option, but you are right to point out its failings regarding waste disposal. Solar and wind are inefficient at the moment, but lets not forget that fossil fuel based power generation wasn't exactly a model in efficiency, the point is that these are in relatively early stages of development. Large tracts of land would be required for these technologies, but an area of the Sahara Desert could easily power Asia, Africa and Europe, with Australia powered by its desert regions and the Americas powered by an area of Utah (or Utah for N. America and the Atacama for S. America)(for solar power). You have failed to mention tidal energy, which is in large abundance for many nations, and it's a possibility that the Gulf Stream could deliver power to not only countries supplied by it but for the whole world, as it transports 1.4 petawatts of heat, 100 times the world energy demand. Hydroelectric power is another possibility, but the ecological impact of a dam would have to be carefully measured and assessed.

The primary transportation of is fossil fuel based, but two centuries ago it was equine based. The world changes and we have stagnated as a race in the respect of energy production. I have seen the misconception that a hybrid is less environmentally friendly than a car, but Toyota feel different (they would though) and the motoring press I've read feel that a more efficient car always outweighs the CO2 released by producing it. I doubt that a electric vehicle is costlier than an SUV throughout its lifetime, but if you have any links that would prove otherwise please share them. The train networks in most European countries are electrified, and reduce freight journeys on road networks would ease congestion which would mean less time for an engine to be doing nothing.

Deforestation is a key point in this debate. Not only will a natural sink be lost but the lumber will inevitable be shipped or burnt, releasing yet more CO2. Copenhagen should have outlined a scheme to aid countries to stop deforestation.
 
Shoulda coulda woulda.
Guess who the deforestation is targeting? Guess why it wasnt done? Ive read lower returns than gains as well, and I find this sceptical, and us not trying hard enough, tho again, if incentives were built in, and not taken away, with award not sacrifice, this always works, or, just look to the large farms here in the states whereas the family farm has taken huge hits in ownership.

When you have frontrunners (all those living near Marthas Vineyard) saying not in my backyard, and theyre the sympathetic end to the carbon footprint carbon credit movement, its saying someghing
Ive said all along, man is greedy, sinful and arrogant. This hasnt changed, but if he sees profit, he will do it.
Thus, the ultimate uselessness of communism, which in the form being laid out here by the GW side, wont work, no matter what. And to assume that people has always died, well yes, but the current ones living want it to stay that way, and unless theres something in it for them, just as for the richest on this planet, it simply wont work, and is pie in the sky.
The poor are no different than the rich. Being a realist by saying its too late, and then looking at people saying theres no other alternatives than ours, and thats full in, and knowing people as they are, it wont work, even if its viable.
The difference here is, I do have my faith, and if thats my placebo effect to you, thats fine, but I do believe thangs can and will work, but not as you say, nor am I sure its what you think it is, and yes, Im sure its a force, a positive otr whatever name someones stuck on it, that man is helping in raising the temps, but it in n ways is anything large as a contributor, and a natural cycle is taking place, and yes, we may be adding to it, but we simply dont know.
We had an equine based form of transportation, which was terrible for the ecology back in the day, and its contribution was felt as well Im sure, no matter how small it was.
I just wish people would quite treating man as a virus on this planet, and towards each other, as this gets us no wheres, just like doing nothing on GW.
Yes, we are the stewards here, but whos stewardship is it for the stewards? And dont say we are the limit, as evolution itself denies this. The least we can do is to look after each other, and not let what I said way back happen, by forcing, which is the correct way of using this word, people to suffer for an idea, which may or may not either be enough, or important at all in the bigger picture.
So, to me, incentives it is, and ignore those who panick, and say we all must suffer, cause it aint happennen
 


Deforestation schemes were targeting poorer countries, which may turn to lumber as pointed out by rnalvine. It wasn't done due the greed and ineptitude of the attending leaders, on all sides, because they are still viewing this as a national issue rather than an international issue. 'The family farm has taken huge hits in ownership' – well that's capitalism for you.

We have people like that in the UK they are called NIMBYs. They are absolutely useless, and I'll say now that not everybody is against this change in the area you describe.

Really? Communism? Do you have any idea what the principles of communism actually are? Or have you just assumed that it's what the Soviet Union was? Because there has never been a communist state. Never. There was always someone making more money than the others. This instantly meant that it wasn't communism. The poor man has nothing to fear from true communism, but lets look at this recent crisis. The world allowed the markets to rule, governments slackened regulation and where did we end up? The system collapsed, and governments had to intervene to prop the system up. No communist system is being laid out before you by the pro-CC side and to say so is just to show ignorance at matters in hand.

The poor are different from the rich. By their nature they are, the experiences they've had, their sufferings, the struggles encountered, all vastly different from the rich. Are they the same in that they are greedy? Quite likely, and in economics definitely, but does that mean that they should instantly be dismissed as the same as the rich.

'If there is hope anywhere, it lies with the proles.'

We don't know if we are causing this if you look at it without the facts, but we know the facts and there is a large certainty that we are causing this, based on the evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we've released a lot of it in the past two and a half centuries and wouldn't you know, the temperatures have gone up far more quickly and to a higher level than they have not only in the last 2000 years, but the last 12000 years.

Don't forget the horses digestive system is markedly different from that of a ruminant, and so there releases of greenhouse gases will be lower or more likely non-existent. Logging can be done more efficiently with horses than vehicles, with less environmental impact. Can you produce links to show equine activities was terrible for ecology? Apart from the excrement produced, which in itself was merely food for insects, I can't see how horses were terrible for ecology.

Humanity is a virus on this planet. If I could die tomorrow knowing that I'd take every human with me to the grave then I would be give my life for this planet. But going forward, our conscience identifying ourselves as a bad thing for the planet can be used to help change the people of this world against fossil fuels.

We aren't the limit and I was not even for a moment going to suggest such. If we died the world would continue, if our civilisation crumbles the world continues. People are already forced to suffer through ideas, and the long-term implications of man-made warming is far greater in sufferance than all before it.
 
When people see graphs like this, its hard to say weve changed things in their eyes
ice.jpg

As for the poor, the blood diamonds, the rosewood thats no longer legal etc etc, when we put these restrictions on, we deny them of any alternative ability to make monies, or, a sense of communism, as the state knows whats best for you, even if it means more squalor.
Id asked earlier if youd go to war over oil, you answered no, but I tell you now, since WW2 its happened, and will happen again. The Japanese wanted more territory to preserve their oil for future expansion, current wealth and independence.
The poor will go to war over being able to use their natural resources as well, and not just oil. If the economies are stressed by such a GW proposal, the poor are hit the worst, or your prior words of the rich being so different from the poor carry no weight.
This being the case, having highly valued natural resources surrounding you, while you live in squalor, and someone telling you you cant use them to better yourself, well, you better bring guns, as someone once said, the revolutions only a few meals away.

Seing humanity as a virus is where you and I differ. Your virus is my sin. Knowledge wont save the day here, and even the philosophy some embrace are finally coming to that fact, a fact Ive known in faith for a long time already.


For their numbers, a horse does tremendous damage to grasses and soil. E=MC squared, and Ive yet to se a cow or whatever keep up with a horse.
Much like carp, they tear away at the soils and ruin the underlying plants.

As far as 2000 or 12000 trs ago, I again point to my graph. Would you say looking at it, it has a certain pattern, and that the average person sees this as well?
GW is micromanaging something we simply dont know about, and asking what theyre asking without those certain proofs, say, making for a drastically altered graph over time, say again, where this pattern didnt fit, but was something new, then yes, itd carry even more weight, as most dont deny it is getting warmer, but by many can be explained thru a simple graph.
Now, the poor can see this graph, and can grasp its understanding, just like the rich, saying that both has to suffer a lil more after seeing this, where do your arguments lay with them? On dead ears?
Since most have belief systems where man isnt thought of as a virus, youll find this to be most likely, once they know where most of the belief system lies within these same ideas, including the added suffering.
So, again, why do people insist we are viruses? A virus is driven by that which it cant deny, its own livelyhood, and so to is man, but admitting this as a belief system doesnt allow for change, whereas faith does, and some faiths reside within the virus theory, where most others do not.
And, Id point out, needing faith in either is unscientific at its origin, thus the condemnation of the "virus" approach, and most will see it this way, not my doing, Im wise enough to know my own shortcomings, and recognize them in others as well.
Like I said, be prepared to fight over oil, whether you still dont think its worth it or not
To many, and listen well here, as some will see, oil is a rarity, only getting rarer, so we must save the oil, or spare it,and working all day just to bring home the daily bread, and we must also spare the greenery, the old growth, the vine so to speak,this is what it is, and wont change, and only get worse
 


The poor are already denied opportunities to improve their lives, and if it were true communism it wouldn't result in more squalor for the poor of the world but quite the opposite.

Are you saying the poor and the rich are equal? That say, a Kenyan living in a slum is actually the same as a billionaire living in a huge mansion? If so maybe you should be sectioned for your own protection. Would economies be stressed by proposals to combat global warming? Yes, but would the stress be a significant amount greater than the stresses they've survived in the past two years? Probably not. We change and the economies take some stress, or we don't and humanity crumbles for future generations to deal with. But wait, you couldn't care less about the future effects of this because 'you won't be around'. How noble of you.

We do differ here. But the effect we've had on this Earth, the changes to the landscape produced even disregarding climate change, has scarred this planet, in the same way that a virus would scar the body. 'Knowledge won't save the day'. So what will? Faith? Do you think 'God' will swoop down and save anyone? If he does exist, and all this creation was by his hand, then he's probably cheesed off about all the hard-work creating this we've undone. He would want to start again. “WTH Homo sapiens? I worked really hard on the Stellar's Sea Cow. And the Great Auk. Not the tigers as well, man I love tigers”.

Faith will get you nowhere new, knowledge will, and there are members of every religion that are willing to gain knowledge, but there are some like you who just point blank refuse to. And it's a shame, because there is so much information out there, so much knowledge to be gained, new experiences to be had, people to meet, for you to sit within your faith out of fear. Fear that you can't look at your own beliefs and see there failings. Don't get me wrong, I know some really smart Christians, and I know really smart Muslims, but here, now, with you, I feel I am not talking to one of them.

So the co-existence between horses and plants for millions of years means nothing? And what the heck has a physics equation like E=m*(c*c) got to do with ecology? A horse weighs 400kg so will create 3.6 times ten to the seventeen Joules of energy if destroyed? I'm pretty sure that ruminants CO2 and Methane emissions means they are far more destructive then horses.

It did have a certain pattern. But the latest peak doesn't fit the pattern of the others and I already know about and indeed linked this graph in this thread. The three peaks before this one were all sharp, rising quickly then stopping and reducing again in a short space of time. This one hasn't, we know that human warming didn't effect this 10,000 years ago, but then we know that the temperatures today are higher than they have been in the last 12,000 years - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png . This means that we are at the reversing the gradual decline, and never in the preceding peaks has it risen to a peak, dropped a little before continuing upwards.

Climate change is something we know about, if you would open your eyes to the opportunities before you you would see that.

The sufferance of the poor will be far greater than the sufferance of the rich. I don't know where my arguments lie with them, but from the acute interest that third world countries are taking interest in the GW debate then this information certainly does not fall on deaf ears. Developing countries have realised that they are going to take some of the largest hits regarding climate change, and it must be infuriating for them to see developed countries, whose emissions far outweigh there own, do nothing but bicker with each other. As I have said before, developed countries need to set the example for the world to follow.

I believe that you view that the belief that humanity has become a virus upon this world means that change cannot be made is unfounded. Nobody wants to be compared to a source of sickness, so people will change there habits to re-address this. Faith doesn't allow for change in the way that knowledge does. With faith you are within your own cocoon of beliefs.

Oil is a rarity, I'm glad you accept that, but war? To take someone's life for some organic compound? It sounds messed up. I am not prepared to fight over oil, one day it will be gone, and no-one will have it, so fighting for it will have gained nothing. Violence only begets more violence, and being violent to get oil will annoy a lot of people who will seek vengeance for it.
 
Where did I say I didnt care. Ive alluded we dcant change it is not equal to me not caring. Not in a real way, but I did make a flippant remark along with croc.
But I have family, so no, I care, I care outside of that as well, so please dont judge here, it doesnt fit, and shouldnt be expounded upon, and should just be let go

As for the rich not wanting to sacrifice, yes, theyre exactly like the poor here, except they may not take up arms, but help the poor to prevent this from happening, as the poor will be baring the arms.

You have to have faith in knowledge, and thats to my point, and so far knowledge hasnt saved us here, and already certain eople are saying its too late. As for God, it wont be a lamb next time, so yes, I agree.

Ive said all along TY for your links, as theyve enlightened me in many things, and Ive learned along the way, and will continue to.
Again heres where we differ, I fear only what youve already said, and Im sure Hes not happy, other than that, yes, its our job as stewards, as I alluded to. But in doing so, finding us not a virus but more, yet denying other things as well, means the same, does it not? And since my solution ends much the same as yours, and yet Im willing to try, and to take on my responsibilities, which also include not accepting certain thoughts,ideas,theories and terms, but enbracing that which is right, and acting upon them, seems Ive got more than most. And less fear.

The horse reference was to its impact on the soils. In the same numbers, they have a greater impact, especially in lighter/thinner soils, such as old growth forests, especially like S. America, where horses are still used by the poor there.

No, faith requires to be only blind that which incorporates faith itself, much like your faith in knowledge.
In other words, outside of faith, there is knowledge, in many or all directions, and are encouraged, or at least everywhere Ive been, and those whom I listen to, whther they embrace my faith or not. So, a cocoon isnt a proper discription, and like Ive pointed several times here, imagine it as your faith in knowledge, would you consider that a cocoon? If so, then you have yourself here, even tho you try to put me there, and this isnt constructive.
Ive also said, if I dont challenge my faith, then it isnt worthy, so I embrace change as a vital part of my faith, and so too, Ive tried to get you to challenge yours also, and somehow we can learn together. Yes, Im critical, but only because I think its worth the effort to be so, otherwise, I wouldnt be talking and learning more about this, which again, Im thankful for. Maybe these last few words of mine will help you to have a greater knowledge of faith as it pertains to most "smart" Christians and Muslims, as i believe none of this knowledge eliminates God in their eyes, or threatens His existence, as I find it doesnt for me as well.

As for people changing their habits, I point out, eating is seen as more important, so is staying warm, having means, such as money etc to survive on. How long do we go on this way, as the poor have certainly suffered more from the current economy in larger part than most, and to propose to continue this wont be met with smiling faces back at home, no matter what the leaders of poorer countries want. Is this a good thing? No, its not, but youve offered no alternatives here, with all the knowledge we have, and Malvine offers a few things thats not enough, pointing only to the fact itll take awhile before many of these hopeful changes can even work any time soon, and meanwhile, we have to go all in, and the rich with their business, will have to see longer times of low/no profits, and no, most arent into new business startup models here, the vast vast majority of them arent, the vast majority of them are good at only of what they do, and these proposals threaten that, and thus, makes them very much like the poor.

As for Oil and war, it didnt stop the Japanese, Hussein etc, and whoevers next, and the less we have, the greater the likelyhood of it happening again. Man is evil, not a virus, but within him he has something a virus doesnt, goodness, that goes beyond what a virus can do, as man can do something by his own will like changing the world he lives on, and for the better. A virus may have similar changes acting out in its surroundings, but thats only within the limited thoughts of evolution, and nothing more.

So yes, I think we need to do more, its the what thats important, and this includes the knowledge of the larger picture, and what to expect from others as we make our plans. My references to communism is as practised, not as dreamed, and since weve only experienced that which we know, its where my application lies. So I avoid its tendencies, and instead choose a scenario like what Ive laid above, with consideration of all things, which also includes scepticism and challenging that which we appear to "know"
 
Watching Hot Planet on the science channel for instance.
Here, they go on about our ice loss, and rising sea levels.
They take soil samples, which were some 10 feet in the ground.
Along the length of the sample showed layers of sand, deposited there by hurricames that actually reach NY city.
So, they say 1 every 150 years or so hits NY city, as the sample shows.
Then they go on and say, since the sea levels will be higher, so too will the strom surge from the hurricane be worse. My problem with that is, NY city was built upon lands thatd already risen above sea levels of the previous hurricanes, as theyre buried into the ground by several feet of earth.
Then they go on and say, what would happen to NY city, with the raised sea levels. Now, since we see impact of where it was then, and its inland impact on a lower sea level, whats changed as the land itself is higher than it was?
Then they go on to say, we could have a hurricane every decade, some 15 times greater in occurence than any record in history.
Again, a few more examples of where Im coming from, and how these "facts" arent adding up
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom