CPM, did you read the 4th myth? the person used examples of record temperatures. if you think his logic works there, then mine would as well.

geo, the atmosphere is pretty damn big, and the most abundant gases on the planet are oxygen and nitrogen (not in that order), which make up much of the composition. followed by them, is water vapor, the most abundant greenhouse gas (and a very necessary one) and then fifth (i don't know what fourth is) is CO2. That less than one percent still can make a big difference. also, the amount of water vapor could be increasing as well (I don't know this for a fact, but it crossed my mind), as water vapor and CO2 are the products of combustion reactions.

Ziggy, that's a fair point, but I found #4 in the article to be one of the least compelling points. Even if that one is disregarded, there's still a lot in that article that has to be dealt with to prove global warming beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I've already said this twice: I won't/can't assure anyone that global warming is a myth, but I just don't think there's enough evidence to support it without reasonable to considerable doubt. Especially since the earth seems to have cooled the past few years.

I was just pointing that out.

now for 5, the oceans have warming and cooling cycles (el nino and la nina). For the last couple years, we have been in a cooling cycle and it's quite possible that once a warming cycle comes, it will be warmer than usual. also, the person did that whole "taking quotes out of context" thing again

I skipped 6 for now to avoid research so I went to 7. Now, the last part of the quote is where he says "no firm conclusion can be made on this point" so that discredits the argument completely

for the same reason I skipped 6, I skipped 8. Now 9 is the same as 4, where the author provides examples from one area with no proof. I can say that in PA, we have had less snow the past few winters. We had less than average snow these last few winters.

10 is a stupid argument, because nobody, including these "alarmists," believes (that I know of) that tsunamis are caused by anything other than earthquakes.

So, I discredited 7 of ten without more than 30 seconds of research. Yeah, that dude wasn't so great at making his points obviously

I just realized I've been doing this all wrong....


what evidence do you have that the earth is warming at a catastrophic rate?


I think we all agree that the earth is warming.... you would have to be pretty stupid to deny it. We are coming out of an ice age and probably returning to the normal temperature of the earth. However I think we disagree about what this warming will do to the world and how hot the earth will get.

I guess I'm just curious what you think about Global warming.... you've spent a fair bit of time disagreeing with me and other people but I'm not sure where you stand on the issue for sure.

Did I say it was warming at a catastrophic rate? I don't remember but if I did, then I didn't mean to.

Well what I think, is that the planet is warming more than it should be, but not really too much more. I don't think it will be a problem in the near future, but 50-100 years from now global warming will be a more significant threat if not dealt with.

okay, at least now we know where you stand.

We're not all that different in opinion then.

I don't think there is any immediate threat at all.... sure the earth is warming and increased CO2 levels are probably causing more warming that would have happened if humans didn't produce as much CO2....

I think this is the sort of problem that will sort itself out in that sort of a time frame. Technology will change over even the next 20 years that is creating cleaner coal emmisions which should be exported to places like China and India, cleaner cars, etc etc. And by the time 50 years roll by I find it hard to believe that technology will have remained stagnant when it comes to emmisions. We're not far off from being able to produce energy in a very clean way but it's going to take time for it to be profitable. We need to stop forcing projects through for the sake of CO2, or "Green jobs" when the positives don't clearly outweight the negatives.

I think I'm mostly just tired of hearing that the polar caps are going to melt in the next year, or 5 years and cause catastrophic flooding and sea rise and all this stuff. A lot of these predictions being made are not coming true. I mean it's been several years since Al Gore did his movie and it's gotten colder since then. We need to study the climate a lot more before we start dumping billions of dollars into programs that might not work or might attack something that isn't actually a problem.

Well, I think dumping all the money into projects could be a good thing, as long as many many jobs are created as a result.

yeah, but dumping money into projects that aren't viable is just wasting money.... you're better off dumping money into research for more efficient technology rather than into projects that end up costing more money to create energy. The system won't switch over to cleaner forms of energy until they are cheaper than oil or coal.

Well if they weren't viable then I doubt that they would create many jobs. However, putting that kind of money into developing solar power here in the States would be a great idea. All of the jobs for the creation of the solar plants and solar panels and such would create thousands upon thousands of jobs and it's an efficient, clean energy source. For example...

A relative of someone my mom talked to (as in, used to be friendly with) lives in Arizona and set up solar panels and all that for his house. The amount of energy he gets powers his entire home AND he has enough that he sells the excess power to a power company.

I agree that some of it can be viable in areas like Arizona where they probably have way way more sunny days than cloudy ones. But in a place like that it would make a lot of sense to put money into solar panels.

That doesn't work so well for a lot of other places. And I'm not just talking electricity production either.... the technology for automobiles still isn't cheaper. Most of the options that could reduce emissions a lot (hydrogen or electric powered) are too expensive or inefficient to work yet. Other things like corn ethanol or biofuels just increase the cost of food and create more problems than they solve.... and the amount of emissions they reduce aren't a huge impact.

And I don't know if it would create thousands of permanent jobs.... sure there are some jobs to be had but have you heard what happened in Spain? They tried the "green job" route. Turns out for every 1 job created in a green sector that 2.2 jobs could have been created if the money had gone elsewhere. Spain also has unemployment around 15% right now.

I just think we need to be smart about what we do spend our money on. There are quite a few alternatives that cost more than they make.... but with some more time and investment in research I bet in 20+ years we could have much better technology without going in to massive amounts of debt so that the government can pay for a lot of it....

Well, think about it...Arizona, Texas, New Mexico, Nevada and Florida are all compatible states. Most houses there could be fueled by solar power for the entire year, and then some. Plants would make batteries to send to houses in other states to fuel things like air conditioners and heaters that typically use oil When production of solar panels and batteries becomes more efficient, the costs won't be an issue and there would be so many available jobs...

I disagree with what you said about hydrogen power, because there already are vehicles that run on it, including buses. They are expensive, but not so much that hydrogen power isn't workable. It's all about the effort put into making production efficient.

And what is the "green job" route? "Green" is a very broad term that doesn't specifically mean anything.

Originally posted by ziggy

---

Did I say it was warming at a catastrophic rate? I don't remember but if I did, then I didn't mean to.

Well what I think, is that the planet is warming more than it should be, but not really too much more. I don't think it will be a problem in the near future, but 50-100 years from now global warming will be a more significant threat if not dealt with.

---

Perhaps we should collect more data in the next 50 years and continue this debate then. I'll still be here.

I'm not sure that vizzed board will exist in 50 years...(at least not like this)

A quote I came across today:

"The combined carbon dioxide emissions from the 850 new coal-fired power plants that China and India are building between now and 2012 are five times the total savings of the Kyoto accords. So you can put in all those curly light bulbs and drive all the Priuses you want: India just ate that for breakfast and China will eat the next round of conservation for lunch." (7)

The point is this - the developing worlds, especially China and India, are going to be adding so much carbon compared to any savings that the developed world can manage that it seems pointless to spend time worrying about CO2 in the developed world.

Yeah, as much as we try, other rapidly developing countries will screw everything up for the rest of us

well, they will and they won't.... if we continue to work on making clean energy more affordable eventually the market will shift. What we can't do is try to force clean energy to work when it's not affordable yet. That just wastes money. We just need to keep researching ways to be more efficient until they become cost-effective. If we force technology into the market before it's wortwhile then all we're going to do is bankrupt ourselves trying to solve a problem that we can't fix on our own.

Do you think China is going to go "green" if it costs twice as much to use green energy to power their country? Not a chance.

I think that global warming can be a threat because there would be lot of toxic gases in the atmosphere and the polar bears will become extinct of the melting ice on the Atlantic ocean + drown in the ocean. Also every where will be flooded in water from melting oceanic ice.

Guess what? We're not even in the warmest period of the last 1,000 years.

And guess what else.... we havne't had warming for the last 10 years.

Polar Bear populations are not dwindling.... maybe the US ones are.... but you forget that the Canadian Arctic area is about 10 times the size of the US arctic area and our bear populations are growing.

Arctic sea ice melts and comes back every year. This is floating ice and does not affect sea level. And increases in temperature in the Antarctic would have to be in the order of 5-10 degress before any real melting would occur, and even then you're not going to see any big change because you're only talking about the outer-most layer of ice.

Global warming is not a REAL threat.... we need to stop wasting time on this and start dealing with REAL pollution and REAL environmental problems again.

The summers are becoming hotter and the winters are becoming colder annually.....
Whatever it might be that is causing this, it sure has been taking it's toll on planet earth evidently