An Interesting Series of Articles on Global Warming Science

[LTS TRN 2]

Gee, 88, perhaps you're unaware that Canada holds the largest amount of oil shale--and thus stands to become the number one oil producer in the world....if only the fact of the extraordinarily high degree of pollution incurred in processing oil shale into functional crude wasn't so...distressing in its obvious portent of destroying the ecosystem and all life as we've ever known.

But guess what, 88? The Chinese just don't care. And this Wegman fuckstain sellout piece of shit doesn't either.

Get it?

WW

[Dinsdale]

Oh and BTW, we are the ones with all the oil shale.

Nothing like reading a "take" from the resident alarmist about oil shale, yet the person offering this insight doesn't know which country has the largest petroleum reserves on earth.


PSSST!!! Hey Crisco --...there's more oil in The American Rockies than the entire Middle East combined.

[Dinsdale]

The "debate" is getting funnier here in Oregon. Our thinly-disguised-socialist governor, Teddy The Spender Kulongoski, wants to go scorched-earth on greenhouse gasses. But, there's a catch -- for the last 15 years or so, we've had an official state-climatologist(same gu6y the whole time. On a side note -- a witch doctor could do as well or better at that job, in this part of the world). Well, the state climatologist isn't exactly sold on the idea of human-caused climate change, and matter of fact, he tends to fall on the "natural cycle" side of the fence.

And therein lies the rub -- this just isn't fitting in with the governor's political goals(not sure what they are, but I think he wants to be "cutting edge"). So, the guv basically wants to fire the guy...well, more accurately, he wants the guy disassociated with the state. The climatoligist works out of Oregon State University(so he probably fucks sheep), and the guv now wants to make him the "official Oregon State University Climatologist."

Hmmm...while I may have my own opinions on the subject, as do most people, as far as politicizing the issue...give it a rest. I wonder who I'm more inclined to believe on the subject -- a guy who has been the state climatologist for 15+ years, or a fucking idiot who doesn't seem to be able to read through the Oregon Constitution and come away with comprehension of anything he's read?


Hmmm....

[Tom In VA]

Nice take Dinsdale.

I've heard so much on this issue. Crap I did a paper on the "Greenhouse Effect" in 1987, and it's getting to the point of saturation for me.

What ARE the facts. Unpoliticized facts.


That's only half the battle though the next information I'd like .... once again totally objective without politics ....

Is what the hell can we realistically do about it.

[Dinsdale]

What ARE the facts. Unpoliticized facts.

Werd.

While I'm not entirely convinced either way, it's certainly not outside of the realm of possibility that 6,000,000,000 people spending every waking hour generating heat, and converting the earth's crust to kinetic energy could æffect the climatic conditions "inside a bubble," nor am I convinced that the sun itself isn't fluctuating temperatures(the sucker "burns" at unfathomable temperatures, and a few degrees fluctuation would be a flea on an elephant for such an energy ball as the sun)...


Somebody give me some freaking statistics already. Therms, tonnes of C)2...you know...relevant stuff, that wasn't pulled out of someone's ass to make their point. I realize with the size and scope of the system in question, it's about impossible to lay out any sort of accurate numbers on such things...hence the inability to form an educated opinion. And there's where I differ from many -- I KNOW I don't have enough information to form any sort of reasonable opinion....and I don't think anyone else has enough data to do so, either.

But if excessive CO2 is our Impending Doom...how come (as Radio Fan alluded to recently) there's little-to-no discussion of cleaning up the oceans, which has been the "eater-of-CO2" for millions of years? The oceanic habitat is being trashed, making the ecosystem nonconducive to phytoplankton, and other order of CO2-suckers.

Oh, wait...if we start looking to the oceans as the problem, it makes it much harder to place the entire blame on the United States, since the third-worlders are worse offenders of trashing the oceans than the USA. And if you've reviewed the Kyoto Treaty, you'll find that it does nothing to reduce CO2, as many would have you believe, it merely charges the US money for being the most developed nation, and aims to redistribute American wealth throughout the third-world. The disingenuousness of the deal is quite transparent to those who avoid politicizing the matter. Maybe if someone would come up with a little more comprehensive plan than "We'll have the USA give everyone else their money, and that will solve the problem," it might not be so laughable.

Clean up the oceans, you third-world scumbags. Don't burn all of your flora faster than it can grow, too...that would help. Ask any marijuana grower what happens when normal atmoshepic CO2 levels are increased...it results in a massive increase in growth rates. The idea that the same thing isn't happening in the unregulated atmosphere of earth would tend to indicate there's something wrong with the scenario.


There's plenty of (entertaining, at least) debating to be done. But I'd rather it be based on real science, rather than an "Us vs. Them" mentality, and alarmist posturing for political gain.

I won't bash Al Gore for his views -- he at least thinks there's a big problem, and used his celebrity to make a stand. He isn't really seeking wealth or political/power gains by championing his cause. To each their own, and at least he believes in something, which is rare for people of his poilitical experience. It's the douchebags like our governor, and the thieves at the UN that I have an issue with.


And my guilty admission -- I've really been enjoying the improved weather the U&L has since the climate change really started kicking in. I'll deal with the long-term consequences when the "long-term" rolls around, or at minimum, when there's some real data to go on.

[warren]

What ARE the facts. Unpoliticized facts.

Werd.

While I'm not entirely convinced either way, it's certainly not outside of the realm of possibility that 6,000,000,000 people spending every waking hour generating heat, and converting the earth's crust to kinetic energy could æffect the climatic conditions "inside a bubble," nor am I convinced that the sun itself isn't fluctuating temperatures(the sucker "burns" at unfathomable temperatures, and a few degrees fluctuation would be a flea on an elephant for such an energy ball as the sun)...


Somebody give me some freaking statistics already. Therms, tonnes of C)2...you know...relevant stuff, that wasn't pulled out of someone's ass to make their point. I realize with the size and scope of the system in question, it's about impossible to lay out any sort of accurate numbers on such things...hence the inability to form an educated opinion. And there's where I differ from many -- I KNOW I don't have enough information to form any sort of reasonable opinion....and I don't think anyone else has enough data to do so, either.

But if excessive CO2 is our Impending Doom...how come (as Radio Fan alluded to recently) there's little-to-no discussion of cleaning up the oceans, which has been the "eater-of-CO2" for millions of years? The oceanic habitat is being trashed, making the ecosystem nonconducive to phytoplankton, and other order of CO2-suckers.

Oh, wait...if we start looking to the oceans as the problem, it makes it much harder to place the entire blame on the United States, since the third-worlders are worse offenders of trashing the oceans than the USA. And if you've reviewed the Kyoto Treaty, you'll find that it does nothing to reduce CO2, as many would have you believe, it merely charges the US money for being the most developed nation, and aims to redistribute American wealth throughout the third-world. The disingenuousness of the deal is quite transparent to those who avoid politicizing the matter. Maybe if someone would come up with a little more comprehensive plan than "We'll have the USA give everyone else their money, and that will solve the problem," it might not be so laughable.

Clean up the oceans, you third-world scumbags. Don't burn all of your flora faster than it can grow, too...that would help. Ask any marijuana grower what happens when normal atmoshepic CO2 levels are increased...it results in a massive increase in growth rates. The idea that the same thing isn't happening in the unregulated atmosphere of earth would tend to indicate there's something wrong with the scenario.


There's plenty of (entertaining, at least) debating to be done. But I'd rather it be based on real science, rather than an "Us vs. Them" mentality, and alarmist posturing for political gain.

I won't bash Al Gore for his views -- he at least thinks there's a big problem, and used his celebrity to make a stand. He isn't really seeking wealth or political/power gains by championing his cause. To each their own, and at least he believes in something, which is rare for people of his poilitical experience. It's the douchebags like our governor, and the thieves at the UN that I have an issue with.


And my guilty admission -- I've really been enjoying the improved weather the U&L has since the climate change really started kicking in. I'll deal with the long-term consequences when the "long-term" rolls around, or at minimum, when there's some real data to go on.

I think if you'd quit spraying carburator cleaner on a towel and inhaling the fumes everything will come around for you. That is, if it's not too late.

Oh, and by the way, if a politician believes in the Easter bunny does that make him a good man? I mean at least he has convictions and is ready to make a stand.

[Dinsdale]

I think if you'd quit spraying carburator cleaner on a towel and inhaling the fumes everything will come around for you.

Interesting. I'll give that a try.

Thanks for the heads-up.

Oh, and by the way, if a politician believes in the Easter bunny does that make him a good man? I mean at least he has convictions and is ready to make a stand.

First, I believe most republicans do believe in the Easter Bunny. Second, Gore is a retired politician. If he throws his hat in the ring again, then I'll have all sorts of nasty shit to say about the guy. He has every right to spout his propaganda as he sees fit(that whole Bill of Rights thingy). I take issue when and if he uses it for political gain. Until then, I merely see him as someone who is trying to promote environmental awareness, since he truly believes in its importance. While his methods may be a bit...over the top...his message appears fairly altruistic.


But at the end of the day, I don't need Al Gore telling me how to think. And I sure as hell don't need the UN or a retard-masquerading-as-governor telling me, either.

[Tom In VA]

It is called perpetrating a fraud.

I ain't hesitatin', so don't be perpetratin'
a fraud yo'
Sucker MC's gots to go, joe

kick it


wiki wiki wiki

What's my DeeJay's name ?

[Moving Sale]

We should use less Oil for lots of reasons that have nothing to do with Golbal Warming you stupid silly fucks.

That simple enough for ya?

[warren]

I think if you'd quit spraying carburator cleaner on a towel and inhaling the fumes everything will come around for you.

Interesting. I'll give that a try.

Thanks for the heads-up.

Oh, and by the way, if a politician believes in the Easter bunny does that make him a good man? I mean at least he has convictions and is ready to make a stand.

First, I believe most republicans do believe in the Easter Bunny. Second, Gore is a retired politician. If he throws his hat in the ring again, then I'll have all sorts of nasty shit to say about the guy. He has every right to spout his propaganda as he sees fit(that whole Bill of Rights thingy). I take issue when and if he uses it for political gain. Until then, I merely see him as someone who is trying to promote environmental awareness, since he truly believes in its importance. While his methods may be a bit...over the top...his message appears fairly altruistic.


But at the end of the day, I don't need Al Gore telling me how to think. And I sure as hell don't need the UN or a retard-masquerading-as-governor telling me, either.

You stated that you respected algore because "at least he believes in something." I know you're at best a moron and at worst suffering from wet brain due to cheap vodka and exhorbinate consumption of malt liquor so I'll take it really slow for you.

You wrote that you respected algore for the simple fact that he believed in something, I equated this to admiration for someone who might believe in a fable such as the Easter bunny because they, at least, believe in "something," even though it's not based on reality.

If you are capable of following your ill concieved logic to it's fruition than you now must admire "most Republicans" because, as you have so cleverly stated, they believe in the Easter bunny. Well, at least they believe in "something."

As for the rest of your' incoherent conclusions, I'll just let them stand right there on their own.

I suppose I'll never get these two minutes back, damn I'm glad I'm going back to work tomorrow.

[Dinsdale]

You wrote that you respected algore

Uhm...you wanna go ahead and link that up?

Thought not.

I believe I said something to the æffect of "I won't bash on Al Gore." A few posts up...check it out.

I think it's your not-quite-functional brain that made the leap from "I won't bash him" to "I respect him."

Wow, this debate shit sure becomes easier when you just make shit up and attribute it to someone else, eh?

I "respect" Gore in as much as I do any other American -- he's got a right to his opinions just like you and I. On the other hand, when a person throws their hat into the political arena, I believe they are now held to a higher standard of honesty and integrity, since their words now might have an æffect on my life. As a private citizen, his words can be either embraced or ignored by me or anyone else, since they have little-to-no bearing on my day to day doings. It's when governmental policy is based on the words of a few pundits that I take issue.


Why is that such a hard concept for you to wrap your brain around?

[Y2K]

Our thinly-disguised-socialist governor, Teddy The Spender Kulongoski, wants to go scorched-earth on greenhouse gasses.

Rack Him!

Someone must protect the quality of the Willemette Valley Hops & Grains............

For all that is holy.

Save our Brew!

[smackaholic]

Ask any marijuana grower what happens when normal atmoshepic CO2 levels are increased...it results in a massive increase in growth rates. The idea that the same thing isn't happening in the unregulated atmosphere of earth would tend to indicate there's something wrong with the scenario.

wow, ya think? are you saying that that whack theory called photosynthesis might have something to it? More CO2 in the air means more of it to turn into oxygen and dope?

As for why it doesn't happen in the unregulated atmosphere, I would say it does. It's just that the raise in the level is so damn paltry compared to that in dinsdale's closet.

[Dinsdale]

As for why it doesn't happen in the unregulated atmosphere, I would say it does. It's just that the raise in the level is so damn paltry compared to that in dinsdale's closet.

Closet?

You think small, Jackson.


I'm retired-btw.


As a general rule in that area of horticulture(and I would assume it's similar in other facets of horticulture, as well), an increase of normal atmosheric CO2(which "normal atmosheric CO2 has changed fairly dramatically over the last 10-15 years) by a factor of 5 times the concentration generally results in plants doubling their growth rate.

Any increases in CO2 concentration produce notable gains. A cheap bottle of CO2 is a very good thing. The problem being, that jacking up CO2 concentrations, and engaging in reasonable odor-control are almost mutually exclusive.


Or so I've HEARD.

[Çì®åŠ DêMïgòD]

The atmosphere surrounding Mars is 95% CO2 yet I heard somewhere that the heat trapping capability of all this carbon dioxide is only about 5ºC. This is just one aspect of the global warming debate that makes me wonder. Why isn't the Mars atmosphere 80º year round if CO2 is so efficient at storing heat? If human CO2 output is really around .2% of all heat storing/trapping material in the atmosphere then our influence on Earth's temperature would be somewhere around .01ºC. I don't know if we have the instrumentation to measure that level of temperature change on a global scale.

Like most free thinking individuals the jury is still out with me. I'm not a scientist or a Meteorologist but I still control my own thoughts and I think we need more evaluation and less panic. The idea that we only have one decade to turn global warming around is utter bullcrap. There was a scientist in the 70's who said the same thing. Putting timeframes on something as theoretical as climate change is an asinine cry for attention. The scientific community seems to play a Chicken Little version of Name That Tune whenever unprovable frightening scenarios gain public attention.
"A metor will strike the earth in... 15 years!"
"The polar ice caps will melt in...12 years!"
"Acid rain will eat the skin off your children by the end of the week!"
The media wants to be on the cutting edge so they take science's most panicky prediction and gobble it up like Ron Jeremy's codpiece. Makes me sick listening to all the hype and hysteria.

Some years ago I took a Statistics course from a retired meteorologist. It's frightening how easy a person can manipulate statistical data. Mathematical prediction of climate is an incredibly enormous pile of utter bullcrap. I could come up with a perfectly logical, numerically based prediction for almost anything I wanted. Just look at the freaks who "decoded" the bible by reading every 8th letter or whatever. They came up with some compelling bullcrap and convinced thousands of people to believe it. Put a thousand monkeys in a room with a thousand typewriters and create an algorithm to decipher their ramblings and I could come up with Jesus' home address and blood type -thousands of people would believe me. If I could get a few high powered politicians and the people at the Weather Channel to believe it I could change society. Just like what's happening now.

All this being said, smog sucks. Less gray guck in the air is a good thing. I'm staunchly pro low emissions. At the same time I'm not a blind sheep and you shouldn't be either.

[Dinsdale]

It's frightening how easy a person can manipulate statistical data.

You mean like this?

(which "normal atmosheric CO2 has changed fairly dramatically over the last 10-15 years)

Except that it hasn't. It's still much less than one percent of the atmosphere.

He uses the figure "less than 1%," I say "10-15% increase over the last couple of decades" -- which meets the criteria for "dramatic."

Even with an increase of 500%(which would be "dramatic in ANYONE'S book), it's still under 1%.(When you get to the 1000-1500PPM range, that's when the flora really goes crazy).


Just like people say "the global mean temp has only gone up one half of a degree." Makes it sound minimal. When you consider the entire operating range of the global temperature is only about 1.5 degrees, we can also say "it's increased around 33%."

Just depends on what point you're trying to make, as to which figures you use, if you're looking to minimize or maximize æffect.

There's 3 kinds of lies...

-Lies

-Damn lies

-Statistics


Stats don't always change, but the ways they can be presented are near-infinite.

[Dinsdale]

Excellent argument...except for the fact it's not.

If it's "inconsequential," then it would have no æffect on flora. But an increase that still keep the concentration under the 1% figure YOU cite results in a DOUBLING of growth rates of at least one genus of plants.

OK, so for the reeeallllly slow kids....


Is a DRAMATIC (a doubling of the growth rate of anything shatters any and all standards of "dramatic") increase in groth as a direct result of an atmosheric change a "consequence"?

Now, before you answer, mv, you might wanna check out that ol' dictionary, and look up the definition of "consequence."

Put in context: "IF you increase atmosheric CO2 concentrations by a factor of 5, THEN growth rates will approximately double."

See, mv, this is what is known as a "consequence." An "if/then" scenario is the very definition of a "consequence." "Inconsequential," for your edification, means something has no consequences. In this example, there very clearly ARE consequences.


You made false statements to support your (false) statements.

Stop.

Take a deep breath, and use words that actually make sense, and don't contradict the very argument you're trying to make just by using them.

In other words, take the marbles out of your mouth. Maybe write out a rough draft of what you're trying to say. Look through it for the absolutely glaring errors in logic or terminology, and then you might be able to avoid foot-in-mouth syndrome, which is a "consequence" of idiotic statements.