0

I wonder what alternative energy source Georgia has to equal the energy output of a coal fired power station. Maybe they could harness all that extra hot air some of their politicos send out.

I am sure that Georgia's huge agriculture and forestry consumes more corbondioxide than is produced in the state. Something these scientifically uneducated judges and environmental whiners should consider.

0

I wonder what alternative energy source Georgia has to equal the energy output of a coal fired power station. Maybe they could harness all that extra hot air some of their politicos send out.

They'll do like Kalifornia, and import power from other states...
That way they'll appear "green" because they don't approve powerstations while not having to give up their airconditioned gardens and heated swimming pools.

0

With the ever increasing heat, where does all the cold go?

It's been going here. It's been unseasonably cold all year (barring a few days at the end of July, which immediately led to our weather service to declare this summer "the hottest ever because of Global Warming").

And it's been going to the poles, where both the arctic and Antarctic icepacks are growing rapidly.

0

@jwentig

>And it's been going to the poles, where both the arctic and Antarctic icepacks are growing rapidly.

i sincerely hope you are being sarcastic. because the alternative.... well lets just say that i have made a decision to show people more respect so if you were being serious i will have to ignore that remark .

1

The video that started this thread is logically flawed. While the action may need to be taken, global climate change is not the issue.

Although I believe we should do something about our pollution, maybe just so you can see the horizon as was possible not too many years ago, there's no "unnatural warming" going on. Global Warming as defined by Mr. Gore and others just does not exist. Is it getting warmer/colder? That's easily explained by glacial/interglacial theory and backed up by evidence such as ice coring, etc. Where's the evidence for global warming?

Computer models cannot predict what going to happen this afternoon, how can they predict what going to happen in 100 years.

Finally, the guy in the video argues for action. It sounds like an inescapable conclusion, right? Wrong, because even if we take action, most of the world will not take part in the action...China, Brasil, etc. etc. etc. They want their share of the wealth on the planet, that's what this is all about. We've had it all along and now they're going to restrict our consumption AND they're going to enlist our help (using our own, most gullible citizens) to screw ourselves.

Take action if you want...just don't base that action and the consequences on something that doesn't exist.

zeroth

Votes + Comments
well spoken!
0

@jwentig

>And it's been going to the poles, where both the arctic and Antarctic icepacks are growing rapidly.

i sincerely hope you are being sarcastic. because the alternative.... well lets just say that i have made a decision to show people more respect so if you were being serious i will have to ignore that remark .

I'm not sarcastic. What I am is better informed than you (and everyone else who gets their data only from Greenpeace and Al Gore).

0

my uneducated response,

The planet is going to run out of oil anyway, and just use nuclear power and launch the nuclear waste to mars. Problem solved, ya?

And to be honest with you, the world is going to shit anyway. Do we have a solution for the other x number of disasters that threaten civilization?

0

even if we take action, most of the world will not take part in the action...China, Brasil, etc. etc. etc. They want their share of the wealth on the planet, that's what this is all about. We've had it all along and now they're going to restrict our consumption AND they're going to enlist our help (using our own, most gullible citizens) to screw ourselves.

Well put.

0

Two things.

The Al Gore CO2 alarmists don't know everything. Consider this report on unexpected carbon uptake in desert areas

Will we run out of fossil fuels, in our lifetimes or our children's? The amount of oil discussed is generally in terms of "proven reserves", which means that which has been found and somehow measured. What about that which hasn't been discovered or exploited yet? And further, there are theories that contradict the standard origin of oil as remnants of the dinosaurs (which would be a finite resource) - that hydrocarbon fuels are originating from deep in the earth - so how much might there be over time?

0

@zeroth

>logically flawed
really? how do you know that. have you got a degree in philosophy or something or is this just your own conjecture

>one year how can they predict 100 years

this truly shows your ignorance. clearly you have not heard of chaos theory even though it has been with us for some decades now.

>most of the world will not take aprt in the action

this is one place where we agree. it helps nothing if the developed world takes action on its own. but that does not justify taking a "china does not do anything so it does not exist" mindset.

there are many ways in which action can be taken. the easiest that comes to mind is simple trade restrictions. i am sure that if the citizens of any country insists that their politicians do something about global warming then they will have little problem not buying something that caused masive amounts of CO2 to be released in the atmosphere. unless of course they are uninformed or just plain greedy for the cheap bargain. most of these developing countries focus on export heavily so refusing to buy their stuff if it was not produced in an environmentally friendly way is one way of forcing them to take action too.

the point is not to point fingers like a bunch of school kids but taking responsibility together.

@jwentig
>better informed than you are

really? i have read much of what you had to say on this topic in this and many other threads. as far as i can tell you dont even understand the whole process. i doubt if you know what is going on. nor do you even understand the quantities involved.

to make just one example. have you even looked at one graph that display the levels of CO2 for the past 300 years? even if you doubt them have you even looked?

and if you doubt them do you understand how scientists get them? what are your reasons for doubting?

the point is at some point in the past you have decided that global warming does not exist and instead of listening to what others say you insist on your point of view. i am not saying that you have to believe what others say but at least you should know what they say. for example galileo understand the geocentric solar system model so well he could explain it better than all of those who believed in it. just read "on the two chief world systems". if you seek to disprove something you should first know what it is about. otherwise you are grasping at straws.

>al gore
get one thing straight. i am not an american and american politicians dont mean any more to me than vercingetorix means to you. every single piece of info i have on global warming comes from my own interest on the subject. i have only seen a small piece of his video(i dont even know if there is more than one). i cant even remember much of it except for the melting arctic ice cap.

besides your attitude reeks of bush's attitude a few years back(perhaps i should call you bushee) when he too insisted that it is not happening. now he is pointing fingers which means he is believing but is looking for a convenient excuse to not do anything. do you even know that bush has changed his stance by the way?

>ice caps are growing rapidly

thats why i said i hope you are sarcastic because unless al core shot that video in some studio or on some other planet at another star you must be going blind.

dont your eyes see? or dont you know whether to disbelieve your own eyes or to believe that the entire world has fallen for a giant computer animation scam.

0

>The Al Gore CO2 alarmists don't know everything. Consider this report on unexpected carbon uptake in desert areas


good article. i must admit that i myself did not know about deserts absorbing CO2. two things however.

First. much research must still be done on this. We need to know where the CO2 is going. whether we can be sure that it will go there permanently. and how it goes there. especially the last point. if we can figure out the how and the why then perhaps chemical engineers can replicate the process in some other way.

second.

it is not exactly the thing that will end the CO2 build up. as you can see in the article itself and by looking at a CO2 build up graph. it just does not absorb enough.

0

@zeroth

>logically flawed really? how do you know that. have you got a degree in philosophy or something or is this just your own conjecture

the point is at some point in the past you have decided that global warming does not exist and instead of listening to what others say you insist on your point of view. .


my answer is the attached graph which represent the FACTS (that's something that Mr. Gore, et al, seem to ignore) Earth has gotten hotter with more CO2 for the last 18K years or so, coinciding with end of ice age warming. There's more interesting data here, I'll leave their discovery to you.

zeroth

Attachments temp_graph.gif 7.81 KB
0

This constant back and forth about whether global warming is a myth or not is really getting old (a little mean spirited too). If being right is so important to you, I recommend you resolve to the following:

1. Stop arguing.

2. Wait for a few days/months/years according to whatever timeline you are measuring by. You'll see who is right.

3. Brag. (although, for those in favor of global warming this might be a bit...well...)

0

@ zeroth

obviously you havent taken a good look at your own graph or else you would have seen the very point that environmentalists are trying to make. the point is that higher levels of CO2 will lead to higher temperatures. did you see the co-relation?

something else that you have missed.

the sharpest rise in CO2 which lead to the sharpest rise in temperature(some say it is the other way around but they cant say why they are saying that... in fact your graph clearly shows that rising temperatures lags behind rising CO2 levels!) took part over a period of 25 thousand years. currently we are experiencing that kind of rise but instead of thousands of years we are talking about hundreds of years. that is what has environmentalists worried. not al gore.

with humans releasing tons of CO2 in the atmosphere that rate at which CO2 are rising is what has us worried.

also you seems to forget that even though nature too has CO2 emmisions they are not even a hundredth of what humans are emitting. a simple search of wikipedia will show you how much CO2 vulcanoes emits vs how much humans emits. that CO2 that mother nature release can be removed from the atmosphere by various means(did you notice the subsiding levels following the sharp release 150 000 years ago). the same is not true for humans since each day we have more cars and coal fired power stations.

i am sure that you have some interpretation for that spike of 150000 years ago that lasted for 25 000 years but as you can see from the graph that spike was an anomality. or perhaps you are saying that such spikes are the norm and occur every 150000 years. in that case you should have posted a graph spanning millions of years. or at least show a graph which shows a number of such spikes which cannot be linked to some explaned event(such as an industrial revolution for example). twice can be a co-incidence. many many many times? less likely so.

anyway. enough of pointing out that you did not analyse your own graph. better would be to ask where you got that graph. you should also post your sources so that i can go verify for myself. so please post some kind of reference so that i can go look at the original study. i want to hear what the original researcher had to say as well as who they were and when that study was done.

the reason why i am asking this is because many people convolute a good piece of work. a good work will always look at all sides of an argument and seek to explain or disprove things for both sides. some people take one small part, which an origonal researcher explains easily enough, and then make it off as his whole truth.

not that i am accusing you of being one of those who cherry-pick a good work but it is always good to say where you get your data from.

one last thing. please try not to misquote me. you copied part of a sentence of what i said to jwentig and twisted it out of proportion. anyone who read the original paragraph that that sentence was a part of will see that i was trying to make a specific point and that no part of your entire post had any bearing on that specific paragraph or its point.

0

Sorry, guy, you proved my point for me. As plainly titled, the graph and info came from NOAA. Who can't read? And for your "attack" on me, I didn't say anything, just posted the graph.

As I stated in the first post, global warming, within the context of this thread, does not exist. The earth has been warming as the result of an inter-glacial period for about 15-18K years, as shown on the graph. Are we contributin to CO2? Yes, no question. You can see that in the graphs.

So now, what is the temperature doing? It's cooling. There's a good explanation for this...

0

Just an observation:

This thread seems to be a lot more about Mr. Al Gore than one should expect.

0

yes, i agree, al gore is but a miniscule part of large ongoing argument about global warming.

although, you do have to hand it to him, he braught the stink back into the air.

0

what point? that i did not know what noaa was? did you not read me telling jwentig that i am not american? how in the name of the devil are non-americans on this planet supposed to know what noaa is? granted some do know but you do of course realise that most of us dont. i did not even know what the abreviation stands for.

anyway. i have found their website and i am going to take a look at them. will be back to you shortly after that.

as for the temperature cooling... i will have to take a look at that as well. maybe you would be so kind as to tell me how you have came to that conclusion.

1

The point, again, is that, within the context of this thread (that somehow humans are responsible for a catastrophic warming of the globe) global warming does not exist.

And I'm sorry I assumed NOAA is well known - but you will appreciate, once you've researched them, that this is a scientifically-based organization, in business since 1807. btw, I've been in Joberg many times...never visited the Cape, though...did some business with Telkom.

As for cooling, take a look again at the graph, the second (temperature) shows a well-defined cooling trend over the last thousands of years.

There's something going on but the fact that we're in an interglacial period is much more evidence for a major change in global climate than anything our puny human undertakings will accomplish. Just look at some astronaut photos, you can't even see our presence on the surface from just hundreds of miles up...in fact, I'd bet you can only tell we're here at night...just a bright, barely-noticable scum on the face of the planet.

zeroth

Votes + Comments
sounds logical
0

Interesting Ezzeral,

There's a lot of discussion here of global modelling and, without reading 30 pages of posts, I didn't see any real "accepted" reasoning behind the existance of "global warning", only a blanket belief in it with a few suggestions that those who don't "believe" can be compared to "we didn't land on the moon" loonies. I personally think one has to have more proof that a potentially catastrophic global system actually exists before they can use that system for study on how to reverse some activity that may or may not cause the catastrophe to happpen.

All good stuff mind you...but most of these discussions center around a belief system where "global warming is caused by human activity". And that's a theory...

In one of the more lucent discussions the following statement was made:

"the other big "intellectual" problem is that we don't model the interglacial periodicity well. This is probably a snow/surface/feedback problem. People are working on it. I expect that we'll see progress on this one."

There's no doubt that something is going on...I just have doubts that human activities contribute in a way that's noticeable in the grand scheme of things. It's just another example of humans making themselves larger than life and more important than anything else around them.

zeroth

0

So I took the time to do a little research, mainly trying to find evidence linking human activities to global warming and all I see are reports on government fraud and propaganda. If I do research the other way I find evidence, studies and results to back several positions.

One thing that I do know is that capitalism is a huge machine with a lot of inertia and before I vote to use up large amounts of resources and government funds to try to stop it I want to know what I am talking about and I'm sorry, I'm just not finding it. All the activists can scream and holler all they want to but, and I'm happy to say, most people just aren't going to listen unless you can come up with some honest proof developed by honest elbow grease.

0

Our governments invented global warming because it's in their best interests to stop using oil and coal and find some other way to power the earth.

0

Ezzaral, thanks for the references, they are very informative. R0bb0b, that's what I'm thinking!

I just can't find any argument for human contribution to any phenomenon that doesn't use "global warming" as an assumed axiom, when it is truly just a theory without much weight behind it. If you look at the numbers closely, there are holes in the Theory of Global Warming all over the place, as you can see from the simple NOAA graph.

Now, going back to my original idea, I have no problem with spending some funds to clean up the air, I remember when I could see the horizon. No issue with cleaning the ocean, I'm tired of seeing used condoms and worse float by me at the beach. I don't even have a problem with recycling, as long as those b$%^&* at the recycling centers pay me my share of their profits, after all it's MY garbage.

But to spend money trying to reverse a global climate trend? Now that is ridiculous to the extreme!! Only one faction on earth could have come up with that scheme...politicians wanting to line their pockets in yet the latest of scams on the public...give me a break.

zeroth

0

I am sure that Georgia's huge agriculture and forestry consumes more corbondioxide than is produced in the state. Something these scientifically uneducated judges and environmental whiners should consider.

Sorry, Bums, but I don't understand your point - are you saying that all the CO2 produced by the agri-business and the logging of the forests overwhelms the CO2 produced by the coal fired plants? Are you suggesting that the mining industry dumping tailings in the valleys and hollows is a good thing? What leads you to believe the judge is scientifically uneducated? Did you read the judge's opinion? Can you point to what is non-scientific in the judge's opinion?

Yes, I am an environmental whiner and I will match any scientific point you want to bring to the discussion.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.