Greenhouse effect is a myth, say scientists

[AlDaja]

Originally Posted by Sedistix

Incorrect.

Pollution is a undesirable state of the natural environment being contaminated with harmful substances as a consequence of human activates. Look it up yourself.

Volcanoes are naturally occurring, and thus can not be classified as pollution.

You, not I, lost credibility attempting to persuade with your poorly thought out statement.

K – guy, relax you get your knickers in a twist way to often on these forums…learn to relax. Your stating an obvious, obviously natural and manmade pollutants are different no one is arguing with you on this – I just asked for the text you pulled it from so I can match apples to apples, I’m attempting to get you to better support your arguments. You have valid ones – I’ve read them, but the opposition usually pounds you, because you tend to support your arguments as voiced opinions.

[Sedistix]

I have little argument here, because unlike threads based on intangibilities and vaporous entities, the Global Crisis has tons of evidence to back it up. It needs little argument from casual folk. In a few years this issue will be as real to the people here, as the screen their viewing. Some people just don't see the effects yet. Give it time, and they will.

[Chemix2]

Originally Posted by Machiavelli's Apprentice

The atmosphere is a huge place, and the co2 emissions spread out across entire continents. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that it would take a long period of time for this to have any effect - assuming it happens at all.

I'll repeat what I already said - this is no reason for hysteria. Just keep on what we're already doing - carefully thought out and steady progress.



That'd make an interesting grave marker inscription - I was killed defending a damn tree.

Yes! Let's invade every country at the planet and forbid them from using their own natural resources! While we're at it, can we steal all their oil too?

Funny, I thought you opposed imperialism.

Now from a practical standpoint - its completely absurd. We have about 250 thousand marines total. The number of combat marines is much lower. We could guard, at best, a tiny fraction of the world's rain forests.

The cost would be huge - hundreds of billions of dollars.

The casaulties would be devastating as well. The natives would be far from pleased, and would take every opportunity to force the marines out.

This is NOT a theoretical scenario. We tried your plan in 1982-83 in Lebanon. The result? Hundreds of dead marines.



Not true. Kids are very impressionable. I've talked to quite a few parents who can confirm this - their children coming home from school crying because "we're all going to die from [insert environmental holocaust story of the month here]"

I doubt brainwashing children from an early age about every doom scenario the media latches onto would be a particularly wise idea.



Is it just me, or is the gw debate getting more and more absurd every time we talk about it?

There is very little carefully thought out "process" to industry, you build what makes money, and the little companies that supply the big companies, well they don't get more or less play because of their policies on the enviornment. These are the chemical plants, the small parts manufacturers, the steel refineries, products that aren't directly bought by average consumers, but by big companies to build things consumers do directly by, or to provide services for customers. These bigger companies can often be found linked to dozens of polluting little companies, but only in tabloids, because their lawyers give them very wise legal advice as to shredding documents that the press might find interesting, so forgo the clean versus dirty industries and simply pick whoever produces the cheapest product at the most volume with the least shipping charges. When's the last time a person thought about where the diodes in their computer's motherboard came from?... Never.

As towards my views on imperialism, is my sig link broken? do you normally have my post status set to ignore? I AM an IMPERIALIST, screw the paperwork and bullshit talks, if you need to protect a rainforest, you send troops there and you guard that rainforest. And as for the Lebanon/Israeli, we're not occupying an entire nation, no urban dealings, period. These soldiers would be deployed to the tree line, and stay there, building what they should need from imported concrete. Costs be damned, better to be a few billion dollars short than running out of oxygen. Furthermore, it's not their resource to obliterate, it's a global resource to be protected. Without the rainforests, the bulk of plantlife on this PLANET, not this side of the world, this PLANET, are there. This means the oxygen is there, and that the medicine is there, and that there are non domesticated, self sufficient ecosystems there which we haven't completely screwed up yet, simply mamed.

Natives are payed a nickle a day to cut down trees, better for us to simply pay them dollars a day to help guard the rain forest, they'd be happy enough. I somehow doubt that logging companies are going to be able to mount a massive offensive much less a geurilla war, I mean, in South America, where are they going to get weapons from cheap enough to make it effective? Venezeula is up shits creek, Mexico knows that if they started helping US enemies we'd crackdown on the borders and as a result they would have a whole lot more unhappy protesters placading their government buildings, and Russia is an ocean away (can you say? Shipping). The real threat is beaurocracy and corruption within our own government.

As towards kids running home crying to their parents that the world is going to end, they probaly also are scared of everything else on this planet, starting with wild animals, then " outside " and furthermore, " people ". Kid's don't run and play anymor as people are too scared of the world they live in, to live in it. Hell I'm all for hand sanitizer, tissues, bandaids, modern applicances, but kids going outside, or heaven forbid walking through the city to get to school, is getting more and more unheard of. Pedophiles, psychopaths, drug dealers, drug addicts, drunkards, bullies, thugs, gangs, all reasons for people to be scared the hell out of by the world outisde their front door, and that fear is why the outside world continues to get less and less open to kids, whereas people are going moreso to computers and message boards to socialize and all the while forget about the world beyond the plastic and metal, the world of the woods, the world full of people. Should kids be allowed to frollik next to gang members in shoot outs, no, but that kid should be reason enough for people to take initiative against gangs and the outside world. Huddling in a corner won't do anything, going out there and trying to solve problems will atleast be an attempt. Fear can be a great motivation, if only we'd learn how to use it.

[Sedistix]

An interesting article on the suppression and censorship of scientific study and data related to polar bears and generalized global crisis discussions was posted on the routers.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070308/ts_nm/polarbears_scientists_dc_2

Originally Posted by WASHINGTON Reuters

Listed as a "new requirement" for foreign travelers on U.S. government business, the memo says that requests for foreign travel "involving or potentially involving climate change, sea ice, and/or polar bears" require special handling, including notice of who will be the official spokesman for the trip.

The prohibition on talking about these subjects only applies to public, formal situations, Hall said. Private scientific discussions outside the meeting and away from media are permitted and encouraged, he said.
“This administration has a long history of censoring speech and science on global warming," Eben Burnham-Snyder of the Natural Resources Defense Council said by telephone.

"Whenever we see an instance of the Bush administration restricting speech on global warming, it sends up a huge red flag that their commitment to the issue does not reflect their rhetoric," Burnham-Snyder said.

Gotta love the active “effort” being put into suppressing information eh?

So much for being up-to-date on international scientific communities with this kind of policy in effect. Least as far as traditional media goes, because they still have the "Internets".

[Mr. Pedantic]

Yeah, well, George Bush is a nut. I thought America was doing quite well during the Clinton administration (I couldnt care less about Monica Lewinsky) but then Bush Jr came along. i admit 9/11 made things worse for him, but he could have handled it far better.

By the way, Bush is paying for people to give him articles that damn global warming and claim everything is a hoax, that nothing is wrong. Notice he's not paying for articles that say global warming is true. You can tell which side of the fence he's sitting on.

[~LK~]

I most likely lean to what people would consider the conservative side, so I do not believe W. is a nut... A impedent moron maybe, but hey, thats just me. Though, I felt quite similarly about clinton.. minus the impedent part.

[Mr. Pedantic]

Who do you want to win these elections?

Seriously, Bush has denied funding for stem cell research, and he has continued the Iraq and Afghanistan wars (I think most people have forgotten about that). And then, while he is getting everybody else to disarm their nuclear warheads, he goes on and gets a new design for his own warheads, to make them 'better', i.e. deadlier. What a hypocrite.

[Atrusino]

Sadly I didn't have time to thoroughly ready through all of this, but I read the first page and ksimmed the other two.. I'm gonna post some points here and read the erst later :P

As far as Bush goes... (Off topic, I know) he is reason #3 that Enron was able to make almost 70 billion doller swhile remaining thirty billion in debt.. I just learned of this today and lost all respect for him.. Continuing, I was going to vote for McCain in the '08 elections untill I found out he stabbed a good friend in the back when he got the chance. Bush is the last person I will ever vote for.. Politics has gone south.

Now back on topic:
Global Warming..

CO2 emissions: This is a subject that has been gone over and gone over and gone over. We as a human race breath as much CO2 in a year as 300% or more than vehicles put out. Vehicles are not a problem with Carbon Dioxide though they are with Carbone Monoxide (get to that in a minute). And there is an argument that with the destruction of the Rain Forests the CO2 will rise much more putting th human race in jeopardy.. This is total bull. On top of the above stated 80% of our oxygen from the ocean. It all comes from there. And as far as our CO2 Emissions go.. There is almost no way to tell how vast the changes have been in the last century.. We've only been able to track that efficently for several decades.

Temperatures: The simple fact is, the planet has and will change. We have had 7 Ice Ages and numerous intollerably hot spans of years. The climate will change over millions of years.. It's just how the world works. We are going to experiance warmer days and colder nights. People in arid climates (like me) will feel it much worse than those in moister and the tropics will get hit pretty bad as well. It's a natural course of the Earth's History. The earth's orbital speed changes.. This alone is enough to closely rule out man-made interferance though we cannot totally rule it out.

Carbon Monoxide: BS is all I can say here. It is going to have an effect.. When we all die and so do our grandchildren. We are still in a point where the impact on the atmosphere has been negligable to some large degree. The ammount of CO put out by motor vehicles has greatly declined in the last 15 years. Continuing, if the ammount of CO were to have a large effect it would take something in the neighborhood of 9 billion cars This means 1.4 (if I did my math right) cars per person running daily and it jsut doesn't happen. The environment can take care of sometihng this small. Oil spills are ten times are destructive as CO emissions.
The Atmosphere is just too big. If it drives everyon crazy enough I could figure out the volume of the atmosphere and average car emissions and compare them along with some scientific data and get a good idea of how long untill we'd see a major effect from CO emissions by both vehicles and factories. This would take a week or two and would eb useless.. Like I said, it's just too big.

That is my argument and I've been browsing the internet for an hour writing this so I didn't punch it up in 5 minutes.. I am serious about the mathmatics, but it would take some time. The numbers we're talkin about would have to be measured in metrics and they would be enormous. Global warming is happening, but not as it is being told.. It's a tool of the corporations to get you to buy their product.. It will be an issue, but not in our lifetimes and not in those our our great-grandchildren.. All we can do is our part to help it now.

Luck and best wishes to all,
-Atrusino Savituri

[Karst]

Originally Posted by Atrusino

Carbon Monoxide: BS is all I can say here. It is going to have an effect.. When we all die and so do our grandchildren. We are still in a point where the impact on the atmosphere has been negligable to some large degree. The ammount of CO put out by motor vehicles has greatly declined in the last 15 years. Continuing, if the ammount of CO were to have a large effect it would take something in the neighborhood of 9 billion cars This means 1.4 (if I did my math right) cars per person running daily and it jsut doesn't happen. The environment can take care of sometihng this small. Oil spills are ten times are destructive as CO emissions.

Cars are not the only contributor, not the biggest either. Almost 40% come from power stations and industry (of greenhouse emissions that is).
Transportation fuels (cars and planes mostly) contribute 14%.

Global warming is happening, but not as it is being told.. It's a tool of the corporations to get you to buy their product..

Like which product? If you're talking about energy-saving stuff, it's just a good idea to conserve energy in the first place, global warming or not.

It will be an issue, but not in our lifetimes and not in those our our great-grandchildren.. All we can do is our part to help it now.

So what do you suggest our part is?

Oh, and welcome to the forums. I see you're new. Enjoy the discussions.

[Joe Bonham]

Originally Posted by Archmage Cleps

Who do you want to win these elections?

Seriously, Bush has denied funding for stem cell research,

The "miracles" of stem cell research are dubious at best. Sure we should investigate it, but its certainly not worth all the money its proponents want poured into it.

and he has continued the Iraq and Afghanistan wars (I think most people have forgotten about that).

You break it, you fix it.

And then, while he is getting everybody else to disarm their nuclear warheads, he goes on and gets a new design for his own warheads, to make them 'better', i.e. deadlier. What a hypocrite.

You see - in the REAL world, you want your own weapons effective, but you don't want lunatics like Kim Jong to have such weapons.