But this has become a political football, largely based on
bad science, shaky data, and aimed by agendas that have
less to do with the public good than with the ambitions of
various interest groups.
While I'm wholeheartedly in favor of eliminating "greenhouse
gases" for environmental reasons, and while I likewise concur
that it would be foolhardy to imply that the hand of Man has
no influence on climate; the numbers don't work -- and quite
a few scientists are quite vocal about that simple fact.
The existence of longterm Global Warming is by no means so
certainly proven (or accepted) as the strident proponents of
it would have us believe. Nor is such misappropriation anything
new: In the '70's, the Great Hoot was that we were barreling
headlong into a new Ice Age... which, uh, likewise did not, to
my knowledge, occur.
On the assumption that Global Warming on the proposed
scale is indeed occurring, though, natural cycles and forces
vastly greater in influence than anything humans do are at
work, ranging from changes in solar activity and insolation,
to planetary core heating due to ongoing adustments in Earth's
magnetic field... and probably a variety of other factors
ultimately far beyond our control or alteration.
That said, in a way, I hope Al Gore and others carry this
forward. Global Warming entirely aside, we now face a very
real and very deadly tipping point due to the filth and pollution
with which we have defiled our homeworld.
I watch the program you refer to and have already made the odd reference to it in previous threads. It simply confirms what I've thought for the last twenty years as an Amateur Radio operator, having relied on the sun spot cycle to allow me at this moment in time NOT work people around the world.
When Mount St. Helens blew it's top it probably produced more so-called greenhouse gases into the upper atmosphere than man has produced since rubbing two sticks together.
The problem is the global warming issue has been paired with personal responsibilty for doing sensible things about saving costs on energy. That has given it credence 'way above it's due.
Let the african counties dig up their coal and pump their oil.
In medieval times there were vineyards in Scotland. Roll on global warming!!!!!!!!!!!!
and the real agenda of people like Al "You Stay Home with the Lights Out While I Fly Around On My Private Jet Between My TEN Houses" Gore will be very apparent once we're all subject to the UN global "pollution" tax, and then forced into dense control-grid nightmares; i believe the real solutions to our pollution and resource problems already exist or can be created (so many brilliant minds on this planet!), and now it's just a matter of somehow getting rid of the parasites of humanity who seek to control people to their ends using whatever means possible...
where would we be if all the time and money spent on war and military and weapons research instead was used for the good of humanity (like GPO!)? perhaps our own destruction wouldn't be looming over our heads at the moment, but maybe that's necessary for people to begin taking an interest in their world
are you ok David? Did you fall asleep? You kinda left that one hanging...
Wow, i don't know what happened to that long spiel I typed, providence i guess.
Well I think the second one did a better job of presenting their view and backing it with clear data rather than claiming a consesus. The consensus is questionable with the personal attacks are made on the scientists and meteorologists that are not in the fold. They should welcome free and open debate on the subject and not try to quell opposing views.
...When Mount St. Helens blew it's top it probably produced more so-called greenhouse gases into the upper atmosphere than man has produced since rubbing two sticks together.
I love statements like this. It's strong on image. It has a common sense sound to it. Yet it includes no data. And it includes the weasel-word: "probably".
In other words, this is A+ propaganda. I wonder which oil-funded think tank came up with this one?
Having lived in LA, and now living within sight of Mount St. Helens, I can guarantee that this isn't remotely true.
Los Angeles is a single city, yet it pumps out tons and tons (tonnes and tonnes?) of gasses 24-hours a day, every day. Most of what came out of Mt. St. Helens was ash that fell back to Earth.
I can see the volcano puff smoke when the weather is clear. It's like an ant hill, compared to LA's smog mountain.
Okay. Numbers. Did you know that the EU 25 currently pumps out 6 billion metric tons of CO2 each year? Keep in mind that CO2 is very light stuff. How big a warehouse would you need to hold a single metric ton of CO2 at stratospheric pressure?
BTW, the CO2 numbers come from that radical organization, Credit Suisse, Switzerland's 2nd largest bank.
I really have to ask, why would anybody want to burn oil?
* Its byproducts cause cancer. Do you really want cancer?
* Its byproducts cause smog. Do your lungs like smog?
* Its byproducts cause acid rain. Don't you like forests?
* Oil is an underlying driver of modern wars. (Rommel wasn't in North Africa for the weather.) Do you like war?
By investing in clean fuel solutions, we create jobs and avoid the above problems.
The only people who lose? Those with big investments in big, dirty oil.
And guess who generally funds the anti-global warming "science". You guessed it.
There used to be "scientists" who said that cigarettes were good for you, too, and you know the story of who funded those guys.