Dear Al Gore

Neither side (Left nor Right) should be throwing stones on L/P. Just a warning.

 

 

I agree. That's why I wrote it. I'm as centrist as it comes. I agree with what logic and reason tells me is right; on certain issues, that may align me more so with the left than right (e.g., social issues, climate, etc.); but I certainly am not a 'leftist'.

OK, forget C02 levels for a sec, and look at rising sea levels. Very simply, sea levels are rising because landmass ice is melting in Greenland, glaciers, Antarctica, places that most of us will never see! The ice is melting because the planet is getting warmer. So global warming is a fact.

 

Back to Co2, we know with zero C02 in the atmosphere, we would be freezing our balls off(like today except 24/7) so the gas is necessary to sustain human life and biodiversity. We also know that the planet has a self regulating system in place to maintain a fairly constant level of CO2. Since the the Industrial revolution, and huge increases in the world's population, a shitload fossil fuels have been burned, forests chopped down and mega loads of ADDITIONAL C02 dumped into the atmosphere where the gas remains for decades.

 

I am not an expert on the issue, and I am not going to second guess thousands of trained scientists or toss peer reviewed scientific research into the waste bin. The evidence seems strong at this point, although there is much more research left to do. Also consider that climate science deals with probabilities(just like the weather man), so just how big a problem we are facing remains to be seen.

 

Unfortunately, the politics of global warming have turned ugly, and predictably stupid. There is a LOT of misinformation about the subject, a lot of fear mongering too. The proposed cap and trade bill is a joke, wont do anything but create another huge bureaucracy, an army of Co2 molecule counters, and give the guys on Wall St another way to rip us all off.

snow is awesome..people here pay alot for an airticket to places which snows!

 

It's fun for a little while, but it really get old after a few months

OK, forget C02 levels for a sec, and look at rising sea levels. Very simply, sea levels are rising because landmass ice is melting in Greenland, glaciers, Antarctica, places that most of us will never see! The ice is melting because the planet is getting warmer. So global warming is a fact.

 

Vroom, I think we probably agree on more than we may disagree on when it gets down to some of the most important issues (particularly the "what to do" issues), but there are a number of problems with this type of statement IMO. One is that sea levels rise and fall for reasons other than melting or freezing ice. Another is that short term trends do not necessarily equal long term trends. I don't claim any technical expertise on these issues either (although I have followed the issues with some interest), but let's say sea levels are in fact currently rising. I can tell you that there are studies out there which say that rising or falling sea levels have been occurring regularly over various intervals for the past couple of thousand years, but that the various upward or downward trends do not predict future variations in sea levels. One of the major problems inherent in the subject of AGW generally is humans' inability to come to grips with the time intervals in play. That is, the same scientists who will tell you AGW is occurring will also tell you that the Earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old. That is one hell of a long time. Whatever has been going on the last 2 or 3 thousand years with the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age, etc. might as well have been a minute or two in the grand scheme of things. Even if one assumes the "Highest CO2 levels in 15 million years" from the UCLA study is true (and I don't), it is a whole lot less alarming if you can put it in perspective with how old the planet is. I think virtually all climatologists will also concede that they believe that over the vast majority of the Earth's history, it has been much colder than it has been over the last few hundred years. Humans happen to have progressed at an extremely rapid pace during one of the Earth's more pleasant interglacial periods, which is not the norm. Personally, I think there is a growing body of scientific thought that ties the changes in our temperatures to changes in the Sun (doh--wouldn't that be a surprise!). The absence of sunspots and certain other solar activity recently may explain the absence of any overall warming the last few years, and may signal the start of a significant cooling trend. Which as I mentioned before, would be something to really worry about, as an inability to cultivate large swaths of currently fertile land would be a major problem. And the politicians and scientists will pivot on a dime and go right back to saying what they were saying in the 70's. Oh and BTW, the 70's was only the last cycle before the current one--the media and various scientists have been alternately warning of global warming and cooling, with a little overlap as they changed gears, since the turn of the century (1895-early 1930's: coming ice age); (late 20's to 60's: global warming); (50's to 70's: coming ice age); (70's to today: global warming). Now I'll grant you that the science has advanced a lot over that time, but predicting the climate is still a very, very difficult task. Far more difficult than predicting the weather a couple of weeks out, and you know how accurate we are with that.

OK, forget C02 levels for a sec, and look at rising sea levels. Very simply, sea levels are rising because landmass ice is melting in Greenland, glaciers, Antarctica, places that most of us will never see! The ice is melting because the planet is getting warmer. So global warming is a fact.

I agree whole heartedly although there is the fact that ice levels have increased and decreased in the past by alot as well, Is this cause for concern... possibly..... is this just the earth doing its thing... possibly as well, we just arent sure.

 

Back to Co2, we know with zero C02 in the atmosphere, we would be freezing our balls off(like today except 24/7) so the gas is necessary to sustain human life and biodiversity. We also know that the planet has a self regulating system in place to maintain a fairly constant level of CO2. Since the the Industrial revolution, and huge increases in the world's population, a shitload fossil fuels have been burned, forests chopped down and mega loads of ADDITIONAL C02 dumped into the atmosphere where the gas remains for decades.

If you look at the increase in CO2 Vs the increase in Temp, the increase in CO2 did happen as you say during or shortly after the industrial revolution of the 1930's. However if you look at the temperature increase of the last 100 years it increased more from 1900 to 1940 than it did from 1940 to 2000. And in fact the temperature dropped from 1941 to 1983, this doesn't seem to coincide with the levels of Co2. To say that we haven't had an effect on the environment is just downright stupid but to say that Co2 is the cause I dont think is right.

 

 

Unfortunately, the politics of global warming have turned ugly, and predictably stupid. There is a LOT of misinformation about the subject, a lot of fear mongering too. The proposed cap and trade bill is a joke, wont do anything but create another huge bureaucracy, an army of Co2 molecule counters, and give the guys on Wall St another way to rip us all off.

Politics (or one could even say religion) is exactly what Global Warming has become and frankly Ive had enough of it and i know many other people feel the same way. These politicians have clouded the scientific community and I think are blowing alot of smoke and hiding certain facts.

 

Now I dont want to get in a whole political debate on the topic but I love to read these threads so long as they dont get all blown out of proportion because it can be interesting to see both sides of the argument and I know we have many knowledgeable people on the board. So I plead for us to keep it civil.

 

 

 

 

Hey RedGTS have you seen the BBC's production of "the great global warming swindle"? I think you would like it.

I agree. That's why I wrote it. I'm as centrist as it comes. I agree with what logic and reason tells me is right; on certain issues, that may align me more so with the left than right (e.g., social issues, climate, etc.); but I certainly am not a 'leftist'.

 

Come now David, you can't pull the wool over the eyes of all of us "right wing nut-jobs"

Come now David, you can't pull the wool over the eyes of all of us "right wing nut-jobs"

 

 

 

lol!

No one knows for sure if Antarctica, which has 90% of the world's ice, is melting. That is very debatable. What we know is that one small peninsula on the continent, seems to be melting. The overall continent itself has been melting for millions of years already, and now seems to be growing colder. Climate scientists who believe wholeheartedly in global warming even have said that just because Antartica may be growing colder does not mean manmade climate change is not real. Sea level is another very debated area of climate science, and no one knows for sure if sea levels are rising or not. As for glaciers, there are thousands of glaciers, only a fraction of which have been studied in any detail, so that is debatable too.

No one knows for sure if Antarctica, which has 90% of the world's ice, is melting. That is very debatable. What we know is that one small peninsula on the continent, seems to be melting. The overall continent itself has been melting for millions of years already, and now seems to be growing colder. Climate scientists who believe wholeheartedly in global warming even have said that just because Antartica may be growing colder does not mean manmade climate change is not real. Sea level is another very debated area of climate science, and no one knows for sure if sea levels are rising or not. As for glaciers, there are thousands of glaciers, only a fraction of which have been studied in any detail, so that is debatable too.

 

 

Whether or not something is EITHER melting or not melting isn't debatable. It's an exclusive disjunction where one must hold true (i'm assuming you aren't a logical intuitionist on this). The same is true for whether or not the sea levels are rising or not.

 

What makes either of these two topics debatable?

Whether or not something is EITHER melting or not melting isn't debatable. It's an exclusive disjunction where one must hold true (i'm assuming you aren't a logical intuitionist on this). The same is true for whether or not the sea levels are rising or not.

 

What makes either of these two topics debatable?

 

They are debatable because they are incredibly difficult to measure. It's not like you just place a ruler at the ocean and take measurements or a thermometer on the ground and take measurements. I am not an expert on the subject, but for example measurement of sea level alone is a very technical specialty. With glaciers, well there are thousands of glaciers, only a small fraction of which have been studied in any detail. And determining whether a glacier is melting is also a bit technical, because glaciers can give the appearance of melting when they really aren't. Measuring whether an entire continent, especially a huge one like Antarctica, is melting, is difficult too.

They are debatable because they are incredibly difficult to measure. It's not like you just place a ruler at the ocean and take measurements or a thermometer on the ground and take measurements. I am not an expert on the subject, but for example measurement of sea level alone is a very technical specialty. With glaciers, well there are thousands of glaciers, only a small fraction of which have been studied in any detail. And determining whether a glacier is melting is also a bit technical, because glaciers can give the appearance of melting when they really aren't. Measuring whether an entire continent, especially a huge one like Antarctica, is melting, is difficult too.

 

 

Difficult doesn't mean impossible nor does it mean we shouldn't try nor does it mean we can't make educated guesses.

 

There is overwhelming evidence to support the theory that, in general, ice caps are melting and sea levels are rising.

 

The thing to remember is that even though two ideas may be polar opposites, that is NOT an indication that the truth lies in the middle. One can simply be wrong (e.g., religious views display this fact perfectly).

Difficult doesn't mean impossible

 

Of course not, but it makes it very difficult to determine.

 

EDIT: Well upon re-thinking, I think it depends. Difficult doesn't always mean impossible, but othertimes it can. Right now, no one knows for sure on these issues.

 

nor does it mean we shouldn't try

 

Of course.

 

nor does it mean we can't make educated guesses.

 

I don't know.

 

There is overwhelming evidence to support the theory that, in general, ice caps are melting and sea levels are rising.

 

That I disagree with. The evidence for melting ice caps cannot be overwhelming if scientists who even ardently believe in manmade global climate change say that they aren't sure. Same with sea levels.

If I actually believed in Global Warming and believed we could fix it. I sure as hell would not be driving a Lamborghini. That’s just me.

 

And fcuk U Al Gore

Vroom, I think we probably agree on more than we may disagree on when it gets down to some of the most important issues (particularly the "what to do" issues), but there are a number of problems with this type of statement IMO. One is that sea levels rise and fall for reasons other than melting or freezing ice.

 

Yeah, we proabably do, but I am trying to separate the science from the media bullshit. Water is a finite resource, planet earth comes with exactly a "gigagillion" gallons, and mother nature doesn't manufacture any, just recycles it, so tell me how sea levels can rise w/o land mass ice melting? Do an experiment, take one glass of water and one ice cube, draw a line on the glass at the water level, then drop the cube in and measure the difference.

 

Check out this site which lists every argument against global warming then shoots them down with the real science, your solar theory is number one on the list. Like I said there is a lot of misinformation about the subject.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

 

 

I agree whole heartedly although there is the fact that ice levels have increased and decreased in the past by alot as well, Is this cause for concern... possibly..... is this just the earth doing its thing... possibly as well, we just arent sure.

 

Could it also be the earth "doing it's thing" by self regulating C02 levels at 250 ppm, the level that was maintained prior to mankind's burning of fossil fuels? And if everything was humming along fine at that level, does it make any sense to fcuk with it, particularly when we are not 100% sure what the effects of our actions will ultimately be?

 

 

Could it also be the earth "doing it's thing" by self regulating C02 levels at 250 ppm, the level that was maintained prior to mankind's burning of fossil fuels? And if everything was humming along fine at that level, does it make any sense to fcuk with it, particularly when we are not 100% sure what the effects of our actions will ultimately be?

 

I understand your point, but unless we convert to a pre-industrial economy, we will continue to output carbon. It is thus up to us to create technologies to reduce our carbon output as much as possible. But remember the atmosphere of the Earth has cycled through warmings and coolings, ice ages and warmings on its own, I don't know if some additional CO2 will make that much of a difference. The idea of the greenhouse effect is it traps additional heat in the upper atmosphere which then heats the ground, but from what I have read, the upper atmosphere is not heating up as much as the lower atmosphere, which is confusing.

We know a lot more than that Wiggs, for starters that Co2 is a heat trapping gas, that we are adding more into the atmosphere than the atmosphere can naturally process/eliminate, that the Co2 level prior to the industrial revolution was 250 ppm and is now closing in on 400 ppm, a 15 million year high. We also know sea levels and temps are rising, coral reefs are dying, the Amazon rain forest is shrinking(the biggest natural Co2 trap of all). This in addition to the fact that there is a LOT less ice on the planet (hence the rising sea levels, duh!), and more is melting every year.

 

No doubt the politics of climate change involves a lot of bullshit(cap and trade in particular), and god help us if the eco-fanatical crowd is put in charge of this issue, but the above is beyond dispute.

 

Vroom is 100% correct. Climate change aside...i all for the reduction in Co2 gasses in our atmosphere. You should see the toxic black cloud that looms over Beirut City on my way to work every morning. Its nasty. On top of that, in just 5 years, the percentage of patients we treat in our hospital for cancer has jumped up to 25%. Granted, they are not all respiratory types of cancer, but im sure its a contributing factor. If we dont at least try and fix things for the sake of the weather, then at least for our health.

 

Its pretty hard to believe that we dont possess the technology that will allow a shift to less polluting forms of industrial practices. Of coarse, many third world countries still have a long way to go, but the superpowers can definitely make a huge difference if they start now.

 

All that being said...its never a good idea to have the extremists running the show.

I find it rather amusing that some people are pontificating about greenhouse gasses while driving a vehicle that gets 8 MPG. You can't go around saying ABC should do a better job of monitoring their pollutants until you start practicing what you preach. Don't get me wrong I care about the environment as much as anybody, but I can't see myself marching on some factory holding a placard while my Lambo is parked in the company lot.

Easy on the comebacks boys, it's MY opinion and that's all. Your opinion is just that as well.

I find it rather amusing that some people are pontificating about greenhouse gasses while driving a vehicle that gets 8 MPG. You can't go around saying ABC should do a better job of monitoring their pollutants until you start practicing what you preach. Don't get me wrong I care about the environment as much as anybody, but I can't see myself marching on some factory holding a placard while my Lambo is parked in the company lot.

Easy on the comebacks boys, it's MY opinion and that's all. Your opinion is just that as well.

 

You make an extremely valid point. If the guys in charge agree with what i have mentioned above, then they will take the necessary steps to relieve us common folk of the responsibility to make changes. For example, the UK's decision to have no petrol cars on its roads by 2050.

 

This may sound bad, but i dont wanna get rid of my Lambos since i dont feel that my single decision to do so will not make a difference to the current status quo. Yet, if the world leaders enforce laws that can be applied to the masses, then i guess ill have to go along with it whether i like it or not.

 

Finally...although cars spew a ton of Co2 into the atmosphere, the industrial processes and factories all over the world do much worse. I think it would be a more realistic/beneficial place to start.

Its pretty hard to believe that we dont possess the technology that will allow a shift to less polluting forms of industrial practices. Of coarse, many third world countries still have a long way to go, but the superpowers can definitely make a huge difference if they start now.

 

Well the problem is that CO2 is not a pollutant in the conventional sense. We do have the technology to significantly reduce the pollutants from industrial processes. Unfortunately many foreign countries do not utilize such technology, but countries like the U.S. have among the cleanest industry. The pollutants are the stuff mixed in with the CO2 emissions and you can reduce them, but there is no way to get rid of the CO2 itself. It's like a car. You can use technology to reduce the pollutants in the exhaust, but you can't actually get rid of the exhaust itself.

One can simply be wrong (e.g., religious views display this fact perfectly).

 

The sound of cracking ice anyone?

 

Do not open this can of worms again.

Hell Yea you should be excited (or worried). That's a 60% change! Change our planet's temperature by that much and we would have been dead a long time ago. Just because the numbers are small, doesn't mean that it's not important. 60% is HUGE.

The Climate Change zealots like to use your math, and while technically correct, it is very misleading. Remember we are talking parts per million. If you start with a very small number, a slight increase will give you a large percentage increase. You need to look at the change with respect to the totality of the makeup of the atmosphere. A 150 ppm increase is only .0015% change in the overall atmospheric percentage.

Very true. I change my oversimplification!

 

 

Hell Yea you should be excited (or worried). That's a 60% change! Change our planet's temperature by that much and we would have been dead a long time ago. Just because the numbers are small, doesn't mean that it's not important. 60% is HUGE.

 

 

60% on a 100% scale is huge.

 

Now think about this......

 

what if it takes a 4000% increase to do damage?

 

My opinion is whatever we have added to the natural progression of CO2 is not having an effect on global weather.

I hate snow! But on a happy note, I was the last Continental flight out of Baltimore on Tuesday probably until today or tomorrow. I hope it snows more there and I get "stuck" out here a little longer. I dont' have to pay for it

Yeah, we proabably do, but I am trying to separate the science from the media bullshit. Water is a finite resource, planet earth comes with exactly a "gigagillion" gallons, and mother nature doesn't manufacture any, just recycles it, so tell me how sea levels can rise w/o land mass ice melting? Do an experiment, take one glass of water and one ice cube, draw a line on the glass at the water level, then drop the cube in and measure the difference.

 

You are familiar with rain, right? And the presence of water vapor in the air (by far the largest greenhouse gas on the planet), and the process by which water is transferred from the seas to the air and back again? Are you saying that process always leaves sea levels static?

 

Check out this site which lists every argument against global warming then shoots them down with the real science, your solar theory is number one on the list. Like I said there is a lot of misinformation about the subject.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

 

I'm familiar with Cook's site, and I actually think he tries to deal with things in good faith. But it's still just his take on things, and there are definitely many studies and opinions out there that contradict his take on things (you could say debunk his debunkings if you want to look at it that way). And Cook is not a climatologist and doesn't claim any special expertise in the field AFAIK; he mostly collects studies and data points etc. that he thinks are important and presents them as "shooting down" the "myths" about AGW, as he sees them.

 

Could it also be the earth "doing it's thing" by self regulating C02 levels at 250 ppm, the level that was maintained prior to mankind's burning of fossil fuels? And if everything was humming along fine at that level, does it make any sense to fcuk with it, particularly when we are not 100% sure what the effects of our actions will ultimately be?

 

Um, what happened to the "highest CO2 levels in 15 million years" argument? If you believe that study the CO2 levels back then were essentially the same as today, and that was long before we burned any fossil fuels. I think you'll also find that CO2 levels have varied a good bit since then, although 250 ppm may be a good rough average over the last few thousand years.

I find it rather amusing that some people are pontificating about greenhouse gasses while driving a vehicle that gets 8 MPG. You can't go around saying ABC should do a better job of monitoring their pollutants until you start practicing what you preach. Don't get me wrong I care about the environment as much as anybody, but I can't see myself marching on some factory holding a placard while my Lambo is parked in the company lot.

Easy on the comebacks boys, it's MY opinion and that's all. Your opinion is just that as well.

 

Whats worse, driving a few thousand kliks a year in a gas guzzler while you still can, having a blast doing so, or burying your head in the sand, believing you are right, against A LOT of evidence to the contrary, but at least feeling like you have the moral high ground?

 

The closet real life example of the consequences of this type of denial that comes to mind is the South African government's refusal to acknowledge the existance of AIDS. For at least 10 years the govt DID NOTHING, no family planning, no distribution of condoms, no AID prevention at all, because the jackass leader of the country did not believe in AIDS. Millions of people needlessly became infected due to his official policy of ignorance.

 

I am not 100% sold on global warming, just 75%.... for me thats enough, considering the scope of the potential problem. Another good reason to get out of fossil fuels is geopoltical, no offense to our ME brothers on the board, but it just aint working out for the US in the ME. We need to bring our men and women back home, buy our energy elsewhere, preferrably stateside!

 

So say the global warming theory is later DEFINITIVELY proved to be wrong, or not as bad as predicted(ie, sea level only rises a foot) would it be such a bad thing for the US to finally be energy independent? Natural resources will become scarcer in the future, so in the long run we NEED to do this.