Global Warming is over. (Really, it is. No joke.)
- Thread starter Adjuster
- Start date
Dude - I'm dead serious. They not only produce as much as the cut down, it's an exact science - they start with an empty field, plant trees on it, wait until they are big, and then cut them down. Tree farmers do the same thing all over the world - it just happens to look uglier in South America. Plus it's easier to point fingers when you are pointing a long ways away - how many people from North America will go visit Brazil to see what really happens?
Greenpeace just sneaks in with a camera, takes a bunch of photos of the razed field, and uses them to harass the rest of the world into believing that Brazil is slashing and burning the entire jungle.
That's like taking a picture of a solitary pumpkin patch the day after Hallowe'en and claiming that the world Pumpkin Population has been permanently decimated.
Now to be honest, I really don't know what all Greenpeace does, and some of what they do might even be worthwhile. I happen to be close to the logging industry - my father was a Forester until he retired - so I happen to know the facts about this one facet of their existance. IMHO, when the first two things you investigate about an organization turn out to be complete frauds, you're pretty safe labelling the rest of the organization as a fraud as well.
If you research Greenpeace, you'll discover that the founding members won't have anything to do with the group any more, citing more concern about money than the environment. I think this is a group that was started with good intentions, and then slowly subverted into a method of making a few people very rich.
Greenpeace just sneaks in with a camera, takes a bunch of photos of the razed field, and uses them to harass the rest of the world into believing that Brazil is slashing and burning the entire jungle.
That's like taking a picture of a solitary pumpkin patch the day after Hallowe'en and claiming that the world Pumpkin Population has been permanently decimated.
Now to be honest, I really don't know what all Greenpeace does, and some of what they do might even be worthwhile. I happen to be close to the logging industry - my father was a Forester until he retired - so I happen to know the facts about this one facet of their existance. IMHO, when the first two things you investigate about an organization turn out to be complete frauds, you're pretty safe labelling the rest of the organization as a fraud as well.
If you research Greenpeace, you'll discover that the founding members won't have anything to do with the group any more, citing more concern about money than the environment. I think this is a group that was started with good intentions, and then slowly subverted into a method of making a few people very rich.
but what about photos like this
http://www.solcomhouse.com/nasarainforest.htm
^^ thats from a NASA satlite, scroll down to the red part and red what it has to say,
its not just green peace,
http://nasadaacs.eos.nasa.gov/articles/2005_rainforest.html
^^ thats from nasa also.
and what about the government of Brizil they stepped in to study whats happening.
http://www.solcomhouse.com/nasarainforest.htm
^^ thats from a NASA satlite, scroll down to the red part and red what it has to say,
its not just green peace,
http://nasadaacs.eos.nasa.gov/articles/2005_rainforest.html
^^ thats from nasa also.
and what about the government of Brizil they stepped in to study whats happening.
This isn't the same situation. These are photos of land development for use in farming (of the food variety) expansion by cities, new roads, etc. These may very well be destroying portions of the rainforest.
I'm referring specifically to logging, as this is the only subject I'm very well educated about, and one of the things that Greenpeace likes to vilify.
I'm referring specifically to logging, as this is the only subject I'm very well educated about, and one of the things that Greenpeace likes to vilify.
well, just seeing that they continue to go into the rainforest is kinda sicking to me. where i live in dickson, i dont like them logging in my area, it just makes me mad. instead of putting the money for logging, put it toward new alternatives for wood, and oil companies should be doing the same thing.
Brewster said:
thats the thing they cut them down but dont grow more, a tree takes almost 10 years to mature, they cut them down faster than they can grow.
and around my area, they clear cut, and dont replant cause its private property.
I Believe that global warming is an absolute truth.
- The biggest producer of CO2 in the US is not vehicles, its power plants.
- Collectively, the US uses 25% of the world's oil supply. We have 5% of the world's population. So, if you do the math, US citizens use an average of 5 times more energy per person than the rest of the world. We are very wasteful.
- Some scientists claim that one of the biggest contributors to global warming is actually jet aircraft exhaust even though it only accounts for ~3% of the emitted CO2
- If you notice that chart posted earlier by joel w. (pg 1) you can see a direct coorelation between the crude oil prices of the energy crunch in the late 70's to early 80's to the temperatures of the Atlantic. The ocean temp would be effected by the increase in CO2 -> thats the way the wind blows..... Heres your oil history: http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif
- The biggest producer of CO2 in the US is not vehicles, its power plants.
- Collectively, the US uses 25% of the world's oil supply. We have 5% of the world's population. So, if you do the math, US citizens use an average of 5 times more energy per person than the rest of the world. We are very wasteful.
- Some scientists claim that one of the biggest contributors to global warming is actually jet aircraft exhaust even though it only accounts for ~3% of the emitted CO2
- If you notice that chart posted earlier by joel w. (pg 1) you can see a direct coorelation between the crude oil prices of the energy crunch in the late 70's to early 80's to the temperatures of the Atlantic. The ocean temp would be effected by the increase in CO2 -> thats the way the wind blows..... Heres your oil history: http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif
P5150, and Death, you guys are totally making my point here.
READ THE BOOK and the footnotes.
I can pull data from a graph and make it say whatever I want. Look at the whole history, and suddenly the trend is no longer what you though it was.
On the rainforests, do you guys realize that those "eternal" forrests are actually quite young? And as the normal weather changes that cycle around the planet every 10,000 years occur, they will change over to other types of forrest and even desert type "ecosystems" (Now that is a word that is overused.)
Trees are not eternal. They live, die and make way for other trees and plant life. Those pics of the growth in Brazil into the "rain forrest" is much like the growth of the Pioneers into the Midwest and West of the USA. Heck, even the East coast of the USA, or anyplace for that matter. To farm you have to cut down trees. Sunlight is the issue as well as making it easy to plant and harvest your crops. (You know, put them in rows, and grade the land so you can irrigate if you need to, things like that.) We have done it all over the world, why do you hate that those farmers in Brazil are doing what was done in the USA a few hundred years ago? We killed off the buffalo, and planted farms. We have logged huge tracts of land and built cities. I think it's great that those in Brazil are doing the same things, and wish them well in their labors.
"I belive that global warming is an absolute truth." is a great statement. If we had lived a few hundred years before, I could have said "I belive that the earth is flat." Or "I belive that the earth is the center of the solar system."
I could continue, but it's pointless. The theory of "Global Warming" was based on flawed science, and has been PROVEN to be wrong, but there are so many who love the idea that we are consuming too much, and bad, therefore must be punished for our excess, they can't let go of the idea that we are not bad, and consuming is a way of life, and has been since the dawn of time. (Everything is a consumer. Everything.) These same folks can't let go of the idea that ELF, Greenpeace, Sierra Club and others are all just money making machines now. They don't care about the envionment any more than oil companies do. That is to say, they don't want to destroy their source of income, so it makes good "consumer" sense to protect the land you get your oil from, or in the case of the environmentalists, to protect the theory that fills your donation letters.
READ THE BOOK and the footnotes.
I can pull data from a graph and make it say whatever I want. Look at the whole history, and suddenly the trend is no longer what you though it was.
On the rainforests, do you guys realize that those "eternal" forrests are actually quite young? And as the normal weather changes that cycle around the planet every 10,000 years occur, they will change over to other types of forrest and even desert type "ecosystems" (Now that is a word that is overused.)
Trees are not eternal. They live, die and make way for other trees and plant life. Those pics of the growth in Brazil into the "rain forrest" is much like the growth of the Pioneers into the Midwest and West of the USA. Heck, even the East coast of the USA, or anyplace for that matter. To farm you have to cut down trees. Sunlight is the issue as well as making it easy to plant and harvest your crops. (You know, put them in rows, and grade the land so you can irrigate if you need to, things like that.) We have done it all over the world, why do you hate that those farmers in Brazil are doing what was done in the USA a few hundred years ago? We killed off the buffalo, and planted farms. We have logged huge tracts of land and built cities. I think it's great that those in Brazil are doing the same things, and wish them well in their labors.
"I belive that global warming is an absolute truth." is a great statement. If we had lived a few hundred years before, I could have said "I belive that the earth is flat." Or "I belive that the earth is the center of the solar system."
I could continue, but it's pointless. The theory of "Global Warming" was based on flawed science, and has been PROVEN to be wrong, but there are so many who love the idea that we are consuming too much, and bad, therefore must be punished for our excess, they can't let go of the idea that we are not bad, and consuming is a way of life, and has been since the dawn of time. (Everything is a consumer. Everything.) These same folks can't let go of the idea that ELF, Greenpeace, Sierra Club and others are all just money making machines now. They don't care about the envionment any more than oil companies do. That is to say, they don't want to destroy their source of income, so it makes good "consumer" sense to protect the land you get your oil from, or in the case of the environmentalists, to protect the theory that fills your donation letters.
Adjuster said:
I'm not saying your wrong, im just saying it makes me sick to look at pictures like that, im a pretty big wildlife freak, and to think of all the animals and plants that are being destroyed with them raping the rainforest like that just, ehhh. :3d_frown:
ya the rain forests scare me too, since i seriously believe that all the cures to diseases or medicine and science can be found in nature like in old forests and the oceans. And yet some ppl are so eager to cut them down and polute them that this fact may not be realized untill there gone forever. and its too late...
Adjuster said:
Respectfully, I disagree.
I do acknowledge that there is a cyclical change in the Earth's climate and that we may be in a warming trend.
However, as we continue to increase the rate of greenhouse gas emission AND decrease the size of our forests with human expansion, the concentration of greenhouse gases will continue to increase at an EXPONENTIAL rate. It is a well researched fact that the historical concentration of CO2 is directly related to population.
The concentration of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is at its highest level ever recorded. Even with comparison of CO2 trapped in ice cores dated back before 1200 AD.
http://www.john-daly.com/bull120.htm
No, im not a fanatic; just a realist. http://www.exploratorium.edu/climate/atmosphere/data3.html
1. There are not more CO2 absorbing forests magically appearing somewhere else.
2. We are consuming more fossil fuels and producing more CO2 every day.
3. Our government continues to subsidize oil and refuses to impose stricter mileage standards on vehicles.
It sounds pretty simple to me.
Let us put CO2 into perspective.
Sorry, but I think this part of the book is very well written, and since it's based on facts, Mr. Crichton should have no problem with me using a quote. (Might sell him a few more books, so good for him.)
Page 426, State Of Fear. (Quote)
"They'll show you a graph of increasing carbon dioxide that looks like the slope of Mount Everest. But here's the reality. Carbon dioxide has increased from 316 parts per million to 376 parts per million. Sixty parts per million is the total increase. Now, that's such a small change in our entire atmosphere that it is hard to imagine. how can we visualize that?" (Left out some)
"Next, they'll bring out a card showing a football field. And they'll say, Imagine the compositoin of the Earth's atmosphere as a football field. Most of the atmosphere is nitrogen, So, staring form the goal line, nitrogen takes you all the way to the seventy-eight-yard line. And most of what's left is oxygen. Oxygen takes you to the ninety-nine-yard line. Only one yard to go. But most of what remains is the inert gas argon. Argon brings you within three and a half inches of the goal line. That's pretty much the thickness of the chalk stripe, folks. And how much of that remaining three inches is carbon dioxide? One inch. That's how much CO2 we have in our atmosphere. One inch in a hundred-yard football field. (left some out.) Now, you are told that carbon dioxide has increased in the last fifty years. Do you know how much it has increased, on our football field? It has increased by three-eights of an inch- less than the thickness of a pencil. It's a lot more carbon dioxide, but it's a miniscule change in our total atmosphere. Yet you are asked to belive that this tiny change has driven the entire planet into a dangerous warming pattern." (End quote.)
What I really like about this book is all the footnotes that directly tie every subject discussed to real science. Not some propaganda designed or spun up to get money from you to support defense of the environment or whatever.
Look at the temp charts, and the data after you take out the cities where overall temps have gone up, but only in relation to the size of the cities. If you take out the "urban" effect on temp recording, the actual data or real temp change is just about zero, or even possibly going down if anything.
Read the book, then debate with me if you want, but spouting off data or claims from envrionmentalist groups will not pursuade anyone with 1/2 a brain when you actually look at the real data and science.
Sorry, but I think this part of the book is very well written, and since it's based on facts, Mr. Crichton should have no problem with me using a quote. (Might sell him a few more books, so good for him.)
Page 426, State Of Fear. (Quote)
"They'll show you a graph of increasing carbon dioxide that looks like the slope of Mount Everest. But here's the reality. Carbon dioxide has increased from 316 parts per million to 376 parts per million. Sixty parts per million is the total increase. Now, that's such a small change in our entire atmosphere that it is hard to imagine. how can we visualize that?" (Left out some)
"Next, they'll bring out a card showing a football field. And they'll say, Imagine the compositoin of the Earth's atmosphere as a football field. Most of the atmosphere is nitrogen, So, staring form the goal line, nitrogen takes you all the way to the seventy-eight-yard line. And most of what's left is oxygen. Oxygen takes you to the ninety-nine-yard line. Only one yard to go. But most of what remains is the inert gas argon. Argon brings you within three and a half inches of the goal line. That's pretty much the thickness of the chalk stripe, folks. And how much of that remaining three inches is carbon dioxide? One inch. That's how much CO2 we have in our atmosphere. One inch in a hundred-yard football field. (left some out.) Now, you are told that carbon dioxide has increased in the last fifty years. Do you know how much it has increased, on our football field? It has increased by three-eights of an inch- less than the thickness of a pencil. It's a lot more carbon dioxide, but it's a miniscule change in our total atmosphere. Yet you are asked to belive that this tiny change has driven the entire planet into a dangerous warming pattern." (End quote.)
What I really like about this book is all the footnotes that directly tie every subject discussed to real science. Not some propaganda designed or spun up to get money from you to support defense of the environment or whatever.
Look at the temp charts, and the data after you take out the cities where overall temps have gone up, but only in relation to the size of the cities. If you take out the "urban" effect on temp recording, the actual data or real temp change is just about zero, or even possibly going down if anything.
Read the book, then debate with me if you want, but spouting off data or claims from envrionmentalist groups will not pursuade anyone with 1/2 a brain when you actually look at the real data and science.
Unfortunately, I think the only way this is going to be resolved is to wait another 50 years and check back then. 
GrimJack said:Unfortunately, I think the only way this is going to be resolved is to wait another 50 years and check back then.
ill be pesomiistic and say 12 yrs..
i stil havent seen ANY links to back up any proof that its not happening.
I'm not going to post all the links, READ THE BOOK.
I'm assuming you know how to read, your here on a board....
There are 42 pages of sources in the bibliography. (Back of the book.) Also many hundred or more footnotes all regarding science texts and other journals etc.
Here is one that I found amusing, so should you.
Penn and Teller. Bullshit! Showtime series. Brisk, amusing attacks on conventional wisdom and sacred cows. The episode in which a young woman signs up environmentalists to ban "dihydrogen monoxide" (better known as water) is especially funny. "Dihydrogen monoxide," she explains, "is found in lakes and rivers, it remains on fruits and vegetable after they're washed, it makes you sweat..." And the people sign up it goes on to make fun of recycling... you get the point.
There are pages, and pages and even more pages of sources for this book. All of them valid.
Another one that I think is funny is the courts have actually had so many environmental lawsuits, they have come up with a 634 page document outlining what is, and is not admisable in court. Sounds like there is a ton of BS being presented if they have to draw up this sourt of "guide" don't you think?
Again, I say, READ THE BOOK. It's much better than I am at making the case that Global Warming is a pack of lies, and we are being fed these lies to line the pockets of environmental organizations, not to "protect" anything since the environment does not need protecting actually. Man has little to do with it. The planet will continue on, either getting cooler, or warmer depending on where we are in the cycle of things. Any effect we may have is minimal at best is what I get from this reading. And the follow up reading of some of the sources.
The book on our continued screw up's in Yellowstone intrest me as well. (I used to live up near there, and have watched the park service make one stupid decision after another. And this is just in the few years I've been paying attention. The book is "In a Dark Wood" by Alston Chase. Very interesting.
Another you might like is "Hard Green" by Peter Huber. (Very smart guy.) It's more hard core, and your going to find yourself realizing that much of what you have been taught about the environment is/was wrong. So much for conventional wisdom. Just keep telling yourself "We used to think the world was flat" and your going to feel better about clinging to the ideas and "truth's" you used to think were right just before you read these books.
My favorite however is still "Deep Hot Earth" by Thomas J. Gold. I did not see it listed in "State of Fear" but it's great reading if you used to think your gas is from dead dinosarus and rotted plant life.
Enjoy, and debate me when you read a few of these.
I'm assuming you know how to read, your here on a board....
There are 42 pages of sources in the bibliography. (Back of the book.) Also many hundred or more footnotes all regarding science texts and other journals etc.
Here is one that I found amusing, so should you.
Penn and Teller. Bullshit! Showtime series. Brisk, amusing attacks on conventional wisdom and sacred cows. The episode in which a young woman signs up environmentalists to ban "dihydrogen monoxide" (better known as water) is especially funny. "Dihydrogen monoxide," she explains, "is found in lakes and rivers, it remains on fruits and vegetable after they're washed, it makes you sweat..." And the people sign up it goes on to make fun of recycling... you get the point.
There are pages, and pages and even more pages of sources for this book. All of them valid.
Another one that I think is funny is the courts have actually had so many environmental lawsuits, they have come up with a 634 page document outlining what is, and is not admisable in court. Sounds like there is a ton of BS being presented if they have to draw up this sourt of "guide" don't you think?
Again, I say, READ THE BOOK. It's much better than I am at making the case that Global Warming is a pack of lies, and we are being fed these lies to line the pockets of environmental organizations, not to "protect" anything since the environment does not need protecting actually. Man has little to do with it. The planet will continue on, either getting cooler, or warmer depending on where we are in the cycle of things. Any effect we may have is minimal at best is what I get from this reading. And the follow up reading of some of the sources.
The book on our continued screw up's in Yellowstone intrest me as well. (I used to live up near there, and have watched the park service make one stupid decision after another. And this is just in the few years I've been paying attention. The book is "In a Dark Wood" by Alston Chase. Very interesting.
Another you might like is "Hard Green" by Peter Huber. (Very smart guy.) It's more hard core, and your going to find yourself realizing that much of what you have been taught about the environment is/was wrong. So much for conventional wisdom. Just keep telling yourself "We used to think the world was flat" and your going to feel better about clinging to the ideas and "truth's" you used to think were right just before you read these books.
My favorite however is still "Deep Hot Earth" by Thomas J. Gold. I did not see it listed in "State of Fear" but it's great reading if you used to think your gas is from dead dinosarus and rotted plant life.
Enjoy, and debate me when you read a few of these.
im a man of science so i need proof. i dont get my sources from the fiction isle...
i watch the news, I read the papers, google news, yahoo news, and many others sites. There thousands that ive read and 20 million more articles out there from many reputable sources that all seem to point to a threat.... i look at the photos, the graphs, and the past history of record temps on land and in the oceans since man has been recording temps and i draw my own conclusions.. i just happen to disagree with you and your one book.. sorry.. like i said ill try and read it some day..
i watch the news, I read the papers, google news, yahoo news, and many others sites. There thousands that ive read and 20 million more articles out there from many reputable sources that all seem to point to a threat.... i look at the photos, the graphs, and the past history of record temps on land and in the oceans since man has been recording temps and i draw my own conclusions.. i just happen to disagree with you and your one book.. sorry.. like i said ill try and read it some day..
Adjuster said:
Comparing the concentration of CO2 visually to a football field is not really an accurate way of describing the effects. What Mr. Crichton fails to mention is that the increase in CO2 is approximately 19%. Not 1 inch. That is a faulty comparison.
I could explain and justify the concentration of mercury or lead in your drinking water the same way.
Keep in mind that the DiVinci Code was based on FACT as well; its historical fiction..... Not that im saying that he is writing a fictional account, but I would like to see his sources; not the data he extrapolates from them.
Last but not least, I simply cannot see enough equity in the pursuit of "environmental" dollars to justify the creation of an organization - simply for the purpose of creating it. And to say that man has no effect on the environment is simply ignorant.
here is a quote from an interview from ABC NEWS with Micheal Crichton about his new science fiction book... hmmm..
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=316580&page=1
Crichton agrees the Earth is getting warmer. But he says there is little to worry about because the climate is always changing and there is no evidence to determine if the changes are manmade or natural. In fact he says, climate scientists admit they can't predict what temperatures will be in 100 years.
so it is getting warmer.. thats my point...
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=316580&page=1
Crichton agrees the Earth is getting warmer. But he says there is little to worry about because the climate is always changing and there is no evidence to determine if the changes are manmade or natural. In fact he says, climate scientists admit they can't predict what temperatures will be in 100 years.
so it is getting warmer.. thats my point...
i'm not going to take a side in this, but all i have to say, is that i think it's the height of human arrogance to believe that in 200 years we can seriously threaten a planet that's been around for hundreds of millions of years. global change takes place on a timescale of thousands of years. trying to measure temperature change over even 100 years on a year by year basis is ridiculous.
since this is a supra board, i think this is an appropriate analogy. you're running on the track, 1/4 mile. at any given 1/1000th of a nanosecond, if you took a snapshot of the fuel mixture, it would either be running lean or rich, depending on the state of the injector cycle. the median if you look at the whole run would be a good AFR, but a snapshot of that tiny instant out of context might make you think your car is running rich or lean.
maybe in 5,000 years, if we're still around, we'll be able to begin to have the barest of ideas of what effects our existence is having on the planet, but for now, it's ridiculous to try and figure anything out.
since this is a supra board, i think this is an appropriate analogy. you're running on the track, 1/4 mile. at any given 1/1000th of a nanosecond, if you took a snapshot of the fuel mixture, it would either be running lean or rich, depending on the state of the injector cycle. the median if you look at the whole run would be a good AFR, but a snapshot of that tiny instant out of context might make you think your car is running rich or lean.
maybe in 5,000 years, if we're still around, we'll be able to begin to have the barest of ideas of what effects our existence is having on the planet, but for now, it's ridiculous to try and figure anything out.