Large Scale Central

2008 - 10th consecutive year of no global warming

General Discussion
#101
mike omalley said:
I've never seen the Al Gore movie. I've seen endless charges that he's a hypocrite and endless rebuttals saying he's not. I don't really care. I don't actually care about the personal life or personal choices of someone who presents me with an idea, I care about the idea. For example, I don't care if a using is a drug user and deadbeat, I only care about his music. I think he lives like a wealthy guy, but try to minimize his energy usage. But then again I don't really care about Al Gore
I find this statement...enlightening. Is this disconnect why some people do drugs then are surprised when their KID gets arrested?
mike omalley said:
I guess you want action with no study at all?
No, I'd rather considered action over kneejerk re-action and political CYA... Bit much to ask from a modern society that thinks in 15 second sound bytes.
mike omalley said:
I've never heard of this about the patent--freon started being cited as a problem in the 80s. Are you suggesting that DuPont faked research to suggest that its product caused harm, and then produced a new product? Do you have some evidence for this you can point me to?
Where to start? I COULD play you and just say "look it up", but here is a nice quote --

"Lewis du Pont Smith, in an April 27, 1994, open letter to shareholders on DuPont’s CFC Policy, warns that DuPont Corporation will be destroyed when a consumer backlash demands a Congressional investigation “regarding the science behind the ozone depletion fraud and the economic forces that pushed for the CFC ban.”

This direct descendant of the company’s founder, accuses Edgar Bronfman, Charles Bronfman, and Charles Bronfman Jr, Canadians who own 25% of DuPont, as having led the whole international campaign, including the Montreal Protocol, to phase out CFCs.

Lewis du Pont Smith calls this CFC policy “the most massive consumer fraud of this century.” "

IMO the main reason that the backlash mostly didn’t happen is because the public bought the media hype, because it was to both DuPont’s and the green agenda’s profit to make sure they did.

#102
mike omalley said:
Steve, steve steve

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/

I’ll spell it out so that even a guy --never mind, edited out in the interests of highmindednes.

It’s only three years of data from mars, it’s only one guy’s theory, and it’s not at all clear that it’s a global phenomenon, it ignores the effect of dust storms–which our does not have planet is mostly water and covered with life and has a different atmosphere and etc.

But I don’t really have an ideology in this–if it turns out that global warming is caused by sunspots, or natural cycles, well good, I’ll be happy. My argument as always been simply that there is good evidence to suggest that humans are having an effect. There’s lots of evidence to suggest it. a lot of the hostility to global warming around here seems to be mostly about hostility to some kinds of people. I’m not really here to insult anyone, but you seem obliged to lay it out “so even a historian can understand it.” Why is that necessary?

But I’ll keep tabs on the Mars thing.


Mike, mike, mike

Did you think that I was talking about you?

I was talking about myself. Remember, I took my undergraduate degree in history.

But, if you want to own it… :stuck_out_tongue:

How does that song go?

BTW, I’m not hostile to the idea of global warming, just those like Algore who want to shove pseudoscience down my throat so he can make a buck. Or two.

#103

Wee, this is fun!

#104
Steve Featherkile said:
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B7bVD_DkM4&feature=related]How does that song go?[/url]
Naw, I think THIS ONE works better, lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgfpJWUYgbg

#105

Now, now, Mik, be nice. :smiley:

#106

I got it, mankind IS creating global climate change. So let’s put the government in charge of fixing it. Yeah, that’ll work.

#107
David Hill said:
I got it, mankind IS creating global climate change. So let's put the government in charge of fixing it. Yeah, that'll work.
Not a bad idea. It will ensure that nothing gets done, and it costs us a fortune.
#108
mike omalley said:
But Ralph, everybody already knows there will be another ice age. It's not in dispute. Everybody--and I mean everybody--agrees that the earth has warmed and cooled on its own over millenia. No doubt about it.

It seems pretty clear that they are rising faster now than they ever have, and that the amount of “greenhouse gasses” put in the air by people is increasing at a rate never before seen. Is there a connection? I think there is. You think there’s not.

Why does Al Gore keep getting dragged into it? Like I said, I never saw the movie. I never particularly liked Al Gore. But it seems like a lot of the hostility people express towards the idea of global warming is actually hostility to “that smarty pants hypocrite Al Gore.”


I’m not trying to argue here but what about all the volcanoes erupting on Earth (like 400 plus each day)? Look at the amount of emissions each one spews out every time they burp. Talk about greenhouse gases! A while ago I read an article that said each eruption pretty much adds more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere than mankind has over our entire recorded history. I wish I could find that again. It was on some volcanism site…

I think Al Gore gets reamed by default. The “I created the internet” thing, not being able to spell potato and suddenly he’s an expert on global warming? Ya, right. Plus, just about every scientist quoted in his movie has pretty much gone on the record saying their statements were taken out of context and used in the movie to reflect an opinion they really didn’t have etc.

Jon.

#109
TonyWalsham said:
Jon, You may very well be right.

However, climate change due to Global warming is a global thing. It is not just a phenomena in the USA.

Most of the worst pollution in the World is occurring in countries the USA, and the rest of the Western World moved the production to, because it was less costly.
If you consume, you pollute one way or another.


Good points. I was only pointing out the tree thing in the US because I honestly don’t know about the rest of the world. I do know the US has more trees because of the regulations for logging and laws in effect etc.

On a side note, when I was a kid and young teenager the DNR would sell trees to the public for almost nothing so you could plant them in your yard etc. At one point when I was a teenager we were thinking about buying enough pine trees to replant 640 acres that we hunted. It was too much for two teens to spend so we never did it. But in the decades that have passed we’ve seen the forest do it’s own regrowth. We’ve even hardwooded most of the land twice and a local paper company has done clear cuts at least twice now too. The open areas get seeded with clover but the ferns take over in one season and the trees are back in force by the second season.

Jon.

#110
Mark Verbrugge said:
I am not a "global warming" rable rouser, nor do I dismiss it entirely as BS...but if you read the theory it is not simply a matter of climbing temps. The "science" say's there will be more extremes on both ends of the spectrum...meaning colder colds, hotter hots, stronger snow storms, more powerful thunder storms, etc. Saying it is getting colder than normal in winter actually adds credance to the global warming bunch.

I also get a kick out of other comments saying man cannot change the environment…anybody else old enough to remember rivers catching fire?

I’m no tree hugger, and I have no use for the Greenpeace types but I don’t want to p*ss in my own home either. I see nothing wrong with trying to reduce pollutants, it’s just good stewardship. I do have an issue with both those who say we need to wear hemp and those who say screw-it, burn away. Like politics, balance is too much to ask for.


I hear ya, I’m no tree hugger either. But I also try to leave as little of a “foot print” as possible. We conserve everywhere that we can within reason. I’m just not convinced that we as a race are killing the planet in such a short period of time.

Oh ya, I remember the burning rivers. Damn that was a long time ago!

Jon.

#111
Jon Foster said:
I'm not trying to argue here but what about all the volcanoes erupting on Earth (like 400 plus each day)? Look at the amount of emissions each one spews out every time they burp. Talk about greenhouse gases! A while ago I read an article that said each eruption pretty much adds more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere than mankind has over our entire recorded history. I wish I could find that again. It was on some volcanism site...

I think Al Gore gets reamed by default. The “I created the internet” thing, not being able to spell potato and suddenly he’s an expert on global warming? Ya, right. Plus, just about every scientist quoted in his movie has pretty much gone on the record saying their statements were taken out of context and used in the movie to reflect an opinion they really didn’t have etc.

Jon.


If there really are 400 volcanoes erupting each and every day, then that would be considered as a background constant. Global warming is all about change, not constants.

As for “potato”, is believe it was Dan Quayle, as well as and English teacher I know, that insisted it was “potatoe”. Al Gore, on the other hand, talks about the polar regions but can’t pronounce “arctic”. It comes out something like “ardic”.

#112
Mik said:
"Lewis du Pont Smith, in an April 27, 1994, open letter to shareholders on DuPont’s CFC Policy, warns that DuPont Corporation will be destroyed when a consumer backlash demands a Congressional investigation “regarding the science behind the ozone depletion fraud and the economic forces that pushed for the CFC ban.”

Lewis du Pont Smith calls this CFC policy “the most massive consumer fraud of this century.”

IMO the main reason that the backlash mostly didn’t happen is because the public bought the media hype, because it was to both DuPont’s and the green agenda’s profit to make sure they did.


LOL Mik, Did you read the rest of the paragraph? “Eight years before, Lewis du Pont Smith had been declared mentally incompetent to handle his affairs after he gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to Lyndon LaRouche”

Great source!

Also, what the piece says is that Lewis DuPont Smith had been calling ozone depletion a fraud and a disaster for DuPont before it was banned, when the ban was threatened. It does not prove your case at all.

Mentally incompetent indeed

#113

The ice ages come in pretty constant intervals. The ice ages could be caused by one of three things
Solar activity
Volcanic activity
Astroids/meteors
Since the intervals are pretty regular, astroids/meteors are doubtful, but not ruled out entirely.
After every ice age, temperatures and Co2 levels rise, peak and then we have another ice age.
It is possible the intervals between ice ages is the time it takes for pressure to build for a major volcanic eruption.
Or the sun goes through some kind of regular cycle causing the ice age, and then warming temperatures.
Either way, the ice cores show the planet has gone through a self cleaning cycle 8 times in 650,000 years.
Ralph

#114

As I understand it, plants give off Co2 during the day and O2 in the absence of sunlight. Plant life in the ocean is multiple times greater than the plant life on land and would be far more responsible for Co2 and O2 emissions, along with chlorine gas and other supposedly harmful gasses.

The hole in the ozone does not exist. Ozone needs solar radiation to be formed and the “hole” that is depicted by satellite images is actually a thinning of the ozone during the polar winters. Ozone is also formed with lightning strikes.

Just saying.

#115

Deleted

#116
mike omalley said:
Eight years before, Lewis du Pont Smith had been declared mentally incompetent to handle his affairs after he gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to Lyndon LaRouche"
If giving a couple hundred thousand to LaRouche for nothing in return makes one incompetent then what are those nice Bronfman fellows who figured out how to USE the pollies and press and only spent tens of millions to rake in billions in return? Wonderful environmentalists who "just happened" to gain monetarily? Brilliant businessmen with no souls? or simply brazen crooks?

As YOU said, follow the money…

#117
TonyWalsham said:
I would say the general consensus of scientific opinion is that the Ozone hole exists. Mankind caused that. Period. Now that CFC's have been banned it is shrinking.
Banning CFC's was a good thing. So the hole in the ozone is shrinking..........but temperatures are still rising. Leads me to believe the ozone hole has little to do with rising temperatures. Ralph
#118

I think the ozone hole issue was UV radiation, not warming.

#119
mike omalley said:
I think the ozone hole issue was UV radiation, not warming.
Some people think the ozone hole contributes to global warming. I've not seen it brought up here, but many times elsewhere. I think this thread has run its course. Lets go plant a tree. Ralph
#120
TonyWalsham said:
David Hill said:
SNIP

The hole in the ozone does not exist. Ozone needs solar radiation to be formed and the “hole” that is depicted by satellite images is actually a thinning of the ozone during the polar winters. Ozone is also formed with lightning strikes.

Just saying.


David,
With respect, you need to check your facts.
Perhaps these sites may help.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/16/1032054763580.html

http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/hole.html

http://www.theozonehole.com/

http://www.aerosol.com.au/minigen/resources/Ozone_Layer_Explained.pdf

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200610/s1754959.htm

I would say the general consensus of scientific opinion is that the Ozone hole exists. Mankind caused that. Period.
Now that CFC’s have been banned it is shrinking.


With all due respect, may I ask are you from outside of the USA? It seems the global impact thing is waaay more pervasive in Europe as it tends to lay much of the blame on America. Just asking. Most of your arguments are a half-decade old and have long ago been disproved, i.e. an ozone hole exists. No direspect intended, just curious.

If I may add, here is some reading material for you: http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Global-Warming-Environmentalism/dp/B001JJBOQA/ref=pd_sim_b_3