Living Car Free - Finally watched "An Inconvenient Truth"

That being said, I think we can at least agree that the lifestyle that is blamed for global climate change is something that we all detest, autocentric culture and fossil fuel burning.

That doesn't seem to be the case at all. If this forum has taught me one thing, it's that car-worship and cycling are certainly NOT mutually exclusive.

I have a question for those among our friends at this forum who deny global warming, or who deny human responsibility for it, or who actually think it's a good thing, or whatever:

Even if you're right, and global warming is a hoax, or alarmism, or whatever... what's your problem with the proposed remedies? Do you think it would be bad for the world if we reduced carbon emissions, for example? Is the environmental faction suggesting anything you think is actually harmful? Or are they just an unnecessary hardship, a pointless inconvenience?

I believe global warming is real, is our fault, and is our problem. You don't. That's fine, we can disagree and still be friends.
I think we should do something about it. You don't. Fine, we can disagree about that too.
So now let's consider two of the possibilities:

If I am wrong, and we do something about it anyway, the world will be a better place for all humankind.
If you are wrong, and we do nothing about it, the world will be a better place for some other species.

Even if you're right, and global warming is a hoax, or alarmism, or whatever... what's your problem with the proposed remedies? Do you think it would be bad for the world if we reduced carbon emissions, for example? Is the environmental faction suggesting anything you think is actually harmful? Or are they just an unnecessary hardship, a pointless inconvenience?



Global warming is a political tool used for more than what you normally see. It's used to justify bad policy. For instance, reducing emissions is great here in America, but holding developing countries to the same standards would be terrible for their economies. I'm all for reducing our toll on the biosphere, but not at the expense of chocking the life out of the third world. I think we should attack real problems, because politicized science never helped anybody.

I'm also at a loss... It goes to show how far a little misinformation goes.

Putting aside "global warming" for a second - what I'm really shocked at is the number of people who seem to genuinely believe that we can overpopulate the earth, cut down the major forests, burn all the fossil fuels, and coat the planet with a layer of asphalt and chemicals -- and not have a negative long-term impact.

Thank you. Global warming aside for another moment, the synthetic world in which we live is suffocating and destroying the plants and animals who do not have the capability to fend for themselves in this kind of environment. How do we expect our planet to survive beneath the weight of such massive changes? Even if global warming does not exist or the blame does not lay on our heads (I think that it does in every way), what does the future hold for this planet if we (and I use that term loosely) continue to procreate, continue to build cities, roads, etc? Do we have room for an ever-expansive population and places to get away from all of that?
I, for one, enjoy having the option to escape the city on my bicycle. I do not believe that I, or the future generations, will be able to do that if things continue as they are. Cutting down on electricity, private transportation, etc and looking into greener options cannot do any more harm than we are already doing. And perhaps I am being a bit of an alarmist, but I don't want to be afraid that the air I breathe will one day be dangerous.

kjohnnytarr,

Thanks for your reply; but you have not answered my question.Global warming is a political tool used for more than what you normally see.
I respectfully disagree.It's used to justify bad policy.
Such as? You make it sound like something is being done, which would be news to me.For instance, reducing emissions is great here in America, but holding developing countries to the same standards would be terrible for their economies.
Terrible for their economies? By what standard? Creating soap bubble economies that cannot be sustained without fossil fuels benefits them... how?I'm all for reducing our toll on the biosphere, I'll have to take your word for that. but not at the expense of chocking the life out of the third world.
Is that your answer to my question? Doing something about global warming will choke the life out of the third world? If you mean this literally, it's nonsense. If you mean it figuratively, I disagree. But if global warming is real, its effects of global warming will quite literally choke the life out of much of the third world, and inundate much of the rest. It won't do the old world or the new world any good either.
I think we should attack real problems, +1. Most politics is about extremely minor problems. But I think global warming is a real problem. Just out of curiosity, what are, in your opinion, the real problems we should attack?
because politicized science never helped anybody.
+1. Politics should be about what to do about it, not trying to deny it.

My, how glib you are with your slander! There is no doubt in your mind that any of these prestigious scientists have honest doubts, but rather, they have all sold their reputations for a quick buck! :rolleyes:

You sound so pious and even religious in your rejection of these scientists. No need to consider their point of view, for they are "denying the basic tenants of their field" (Like you are in a position to know!) and they are "unethical". Therefore we can dismiss their arguments out of hand. How very open minded of you! It smells very similar to bigotry to me.

This type of shouting down opposing views is typical of tyrants and zealots. Not everything is as black and white as you make out, KP.You're the one foaming at the mouth, bro. Chill out.


Are you a Creationist, too? :)

Here's something from that radical leftist organization NASA, just in case anyone's missed it:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/arcticice_decline.html

Here's something from that radical leftist organization NASA, just in case anyone's missed it:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/arcticice_decline.html

Odd... it would seem that the ANTARCTIC ice sheet has been melting for 10,000 years, but is now growing.

http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_rec.php?id=2413

My take on the whole 'global warming' thing:

I don't know if we're causing it. I don't know if it even exists. but what I DO know: 'solving' global warming by switching all the cars to hydrogen or batteries, or whatever doesn't even come CLOSE to correcting all the harm that the car culture does to not only the planet, but also to people specifically.

It leaves out all the harm that sprawling cities and suburbs cause the environment, the emotional detachment that sitting in a car for several hours a day causes... the lack of close knit communities.

Concentrating on global warming to the exclusion of all the other woes is a disservice to humanity and to the planet.

kjohnnytarr,

Thanks for your reply; but you have not answered my question.

...

Doing something about global warming will choke the life out of the third world? If you mean this literally, it's nonsense. If you mean it figuratively, I disagree. But if global warming is real, its effects of global warming will quite literally choke the life out of much of the third world, and inundate much of the rest. It won't do the old world or the new world any good either.

+1. Most politics is about extremely minor problems. But I think global warming is a real problem. Just out of curiosity, what are, in your opinion, the real problems we should attack?

+1. Politics should be about what to do about it, not trying to deny it.

I mean it figuratively, of course. We've built up our country by propping it up on fossil fuels here in America. If we turn around now and say that it's wrong, and discourage developing nations from doing the same, we'd be hypocrites. We should wash our own hands before we try to clean up any more messes. So if you want to solve the problem, as you see it, by your own actions, than by all means do what you think is right. Just keep it out of the political arena.

After all, you're certainly entitled to believe that global warming is a real problem, but I don't think that you believe it for scientific reasons, even if you think you do, because I haven't seen any legitimate science behind the theory See my older post about that.

What are the real problems, in my opinion? I can think of a few I don't think anyone will dispute. Poverty. War. Social inequality. Crime, too, and it's not just the "criminals" committing them. We live in a police state, invade other countries, allow illegal immigrants to trample our homegrown proletariats, and let the government strip us of our rights one at a time. We let our corporations take advantage of us, then send our jobs overseas. Come to think of it, our own government seems to spend more time and effort on problems outside our own borders than they do on problems right here in our cities.

And you're worried about things getting a little warm, based on what politicians and the media tell you? Good luck with that.

My take on the whole 'global warming' thing:

I don't know if we're causing it. I don't know if it even exists. but what I DO know: 'solving' global warming by switching all the cars to hydrogen or batteries, or whatever doesn't even come CLOSE to correcting all the harm that the car culture does to not only the planet, but also to people specifically.

It leaves out all the harm that sprawling cities and suburbs cause the environment, the emotional detachment that sitting in a car for several hours a day causes... the lack of close knit communities.

Concentrating on global warming to the exclusion of all the other woes is a disservice to humanity and to the planet.

It's funny. I DO believe global warming is a real threat, yet I believe exactly what you do... that car culture has much more real, tangible effects than global warming.

Global temperatures will be different than they are today when all of us are older- just as global temperatures were different in the past. The main dispute is whether mankind has a significant role in affecting that change.

The alarmists contend that we must radically change our lifestyles in order to avoid the doomsday scenario. Fine. You are free to persuade others to your cause.

The problem is, that's not good enough for the radicals. Those who aren't persuaded must be forced to change how they must live. New government powers must be deployed for the sake of humanity! Those who don't agree must be marginalized, slandered, shouted down!

Those who seek power seize on the opportunity to expand their influence. Public funds are re-directed to studies about climate, and studies confirming warming trends are expanded and given publicity. Studies that find contrary evidence are given no new funding or publicity, because the purpose of those deciding the distribution of grants is at cross purpose from seeking truth. They seek to expand their own power and influence over others in their society.

This both starves worthy scientific inquiry of other areas (like treating disease, finding clean fuel, developing new technology), and distorts the true understanding of the actual situation.

Media feeds the frenzy because stories of alarm and doom sell. More reasoned, moderate voices are passed over. Those media are not interested in a smaller government either.

Me, I'm car free. I live a very frugal lifestyle. I have downsized and simplified my life. I have done by my own free will.

But I am not convinced that the remedy the hysterics propose to force on society is worth the cost in terms of freedom, autonomy and prosperity. If people choose to change their ways, cool. But way too many have abandoned persuasion and are turning to other means.

Al Gore is the biggest phony! He spews his save the environment bull crap. How can you believe someone that live in a 10,000 square foot+ house, flies around in private jets while he and John Edwards are telling me to give up my SUV!, what a big joke! I hope no one here believes his crap.

allow illegal immigrants to trample our homegrown proletariats..

Would you happen to know how you and your family got here? Are you a Native American? If not, you have no argument with this last comment.

It's funny. I DO believe global warming is a real threat, yet I believe exactly what you do... that car culture has much more real, tangible effects than global warming.


It's like I've said before, it doesn't really matter if global warming is happening or not. If it is, and it was caused by us, the increased carbon levels are already up there, doing their damage. If not, and we had nothing to do with it anyway, it still makes sense to clean up our act and downsize out lifestyle. There is only one outcome for continued expansion and consumption and that is a lack of resources.

For everyone talking about developing countries being able to develop with the automobile, I think you are forgetting the idea of peak oil and that the West has already used most of it. If you were a developing country and were basing your economy around oil and found out that it was almost all gone, what would you do? Keep planning for the future on a limited resource? I doubt it.

Again, thanks for your reply; and thanks for addressing my questions a bit more directly.

I mean it figuratively, of course. We've built up our country by propping it up on fossil fuels here in America. If we turn around now and say that it's wrong, and discourage developing nations from doing the same, we'd be hypocrites. We should wash our own hands before we try to clean up any more messes. So if you want to solve the problem, as you see it, by your own actions, than by all means do what you think is right. Just keep it out of the political arena.
Well, we've also ruined our country with fossil fuels. Right or wrong, it was f*****g stupid, and I don't believe we've benefited. So there is nothing hypocritical about discouraging other nations from making the same mistake.
My actions are a drop in the ocean. To make any difference, we have to get everyone on board, and to do that it has to be made a political issue.

After all, you're certainly entitled to believe that global warming is a real problem, Well, thank you very much!but I don't think that you believe it for scientific reasons, even if you think you do,
You realize that this is insult, I trust?because I haven't seen any legitimate science behind the theory See my older post about that.

Now that you mention it, I did see that. For those who didn't, it began:
Global warming is a pseudoscience, as I see it. I'll explain why, using the standards of scientific knowledge.

Science must be:

1. Empirically testable
2. Falsifiable
3. Reproducible
4. Valid
5. Generalizable
[...]

Your argument is a mixture of semantics and sophistry. You're taking a standard cookie cutter definition of science and applying it to the problem at hand, finding it doesn't fit, and saying therefore the problem at hand doesn't exist. But you really can't expect one science to follow the rules of another. One of Ernst Mayr's last books asked the question "What makes biology unique?" and in it he showed that biology has different rules than, say, chemistry or physics. One could therefore argue biology isn't a science at all; which, regardless how well one argued the point, would be a stupid argument. Does the same apply to climatology? I don't know, I am not a climatologist. Obviously the earth is larger than the average test tube, is unique, and is too important to us all to serve as a test subject anyway. Aside from that, climate changes work on a vast scale at a slow pace.

What are the real problems, in my opinion? I can think of a few I don't think anyone will dispute. Poverty. War. Social inequality. Crime, too, and it's not just the "criminals" committing them. We live in a police state, invade other countries, allow illegal immigrants to trample our homegrown proletariats, and let the government strip us of our rights one at a time. We let our corporations take advantage of us, then send our jobs overseas. Come to think of it, our own government seems to spend more time and effort on problems outside our own borders than they do on problems right here in our cities.
Yes, these are real problems. But they won't matter much if global warming proves real.

And you're worried about things getting a little warm, based on what politicians and the media tell you? Good luck with that. Again, you aren't serious, are you? The tail doesn't wag the dog; politicians and the media are way behind on the issue of global warming. Al Gore claims he had been following it for years, but only decided to make it an issue after his political career appeared to be over and, last time I checked, it's still over. If he had wanted my respect, he should have made it an issue in the 2000 campaign.

Just an FYI: BBC News survey on world opinions re: Climate Change (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/25_09_07climatepoll.pdf)

rhm, I'm sorry but you haven't accurately convinced me that there is any true science behind global warming. Also, let's not kid ourselves; we ALL reap huge benefits from fossil fuel consumption.

We can still be friends, but how can you not believe in global warming? For the past several years, even the most rabid opponent of this issue (the Bush administration) not only states that global warming is real, but that we have had some role:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37232-2004Aug26.html

Who, or what organization is stating that global warming isn't real today?

... Brad


Newsweek recently ran a cover story (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/) on the global warming "denial industry." I think you'll find it to be enlightening.

Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change. Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention, greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers) argued first that the world is not warming; measurements indicating otherwise are flawed, they said. Then they claimed that any warming is natural, not caused by human activities. Now they contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless. "They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry," says former senator Tim Wirth, who spearheaded environmental issues as an under secretary of State in the Clinton administration. "Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That's had a huge impact on both the public and Congress."

Unfortunately there are enough greedy politicians and industrialists to fund these lies, and enough gullible people to believe them. I'm afraid that these idiots have already caused enough delay that an "easy fix" to global warming is totally out of the question.

I didn't have to look very far:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Ain't the internet grand!

No the internet ain't so grand in this case. You source is bogus and worthless. The wikipedia article you linked to did not contain any citations of sources outside of wikipedial itself, other than the IPCC, a panel representing the vast majority of climate scientists across the world. The IPCC, of course, has stated with > 90 % confidence that global warming is real, is caused largely by human activity, and is likely to have adverse consequences for humans and many other organisms within this century.

Try again, but you will not find the evidence you want because it simply doesn't exist.

rhm, I'm sorry but you haven't accurately convinced me that there is any true science behind global warming.


That's it... revel in your ignorance. The data is readily available if you actually wanted to find it.

Just be honest and say that you're not going to alter your lifestyle anyway, so you just can't be bothered to do any research on the issue.

Well, everyone has obviously made their case about global warming's exisitence, or lack thereof.
That being said, I think we can at least agree that the lifestyle that is blamed for global climate change is something that we all detest, autocentric culture and fossil fuel burning.
I mean, why else do we ride bikes and hang out in the car-free forum?

Let's stop bickering over our political views and our views on politicians and enjoy what it is that brings us together. I mean, some of these arguments are getting pretty personal and there is really no need for that.

It's not bickering. It's an important issue. In a democracy, we rely on citizens forming views on important issues and coming up with an action plan. The consortium of industry, neoconservative politicians and contemporary evangelical religion are trying their darnedest to keep the truth from the citizenry. Free forums like this (and many that are more influential) are one defense against their greedy corruption of the truth.

Global warming is a political tool used for more than what you normally see. It's used to justify bad policy. For instance, reducing emissions is great here in America, but holding developing countries to the same standards would be terrible for their economies. I'm all for reducing our toll on the biosphere, but not at the expense of chocking the life out of the third world. I think we should attack real problems, because politicized science never helped anybody.

What the US is actually doing is exporting our own pollution to the developing countries. Instead of leading the world to a greener future, we're sweeping our own problems into other countries. How moral is that?

Al Gore is the biggest phony! He spews his save the environment bull crap. How can you believe someone that live in a 10,000 square foot+ house, flies around in private jets while he and John Edwards are telling me to give up my SUV!, what a big joke! I hope no one here believes his crap.

You're right. Nobody should believe Al Gore. **** Al Gore.

But we should believe the overwhelming majority of scientists who are trying to warn us about climate change. To refuse to believe a worthy message because you don't care for the messenger is pretty ignorant.

...Obviously, you cannot build two identical planets, introduce greenhouse gases into one but not the other, then wait thousands or millions of years to view the results...
I've heard it claimed that if Venus didn't have such an enormous greenhouse effect from its atmospheric carbon dioxide, it would have a surface temperature similar to Earth. Does anyone here know the current scientific status of that claim?

Global warming is a pseudoscience, as I see it. I'll explain why, using the standards of scientific knowledge.

Science must be:

1. Empirically testable
2. Falsifiable
3. Reproducible
4. Valid
5. Generalizable

The problem of global warming theory not being empirically testable: We simply don't have accurate temperature data for the range of time that would be required to prove or disprove global warming. I'll be surprised if anyone could even show me decent, reliable data for the past 50 years in the developed world, let alone the last 500 years on the whole planet.

Global warming theory is also not falsifiable. The pseudoscientists who propagate the idea made sure of that. You can't design a test to disprove that the planet is warming at the gradual scale that proponents of global warming claim. That's the beauty of it, for a global warming scientist: they'll aways have a job, because no-one can actually beat them at their own game (since by the very wording of the theory, they've written the rules in their favor)

Any research done on global warming is also not reproducible. It's impossible to create an accurate computer model of the world, or find an identical planet to research, or go back in time. If anyone else knows a reproducible way to study the earth, please point it out.

Global warming data is also not valid. Some places get warmer, some places get colder, and they only really report the former. When the latter is brought up, it's brushed aside as climate change caused by global warming. Yeah right; that's like gaining weight by fasting.

Global warming theory also ignores the necessity that the data be generalizable. If scientists want to claim that a set of conditions is making this planet warmer, they need to provide evidence that the same would be true on similar planets.

This is the classic theory of science formulated in the 19th century and is certainly an appropriate criterion for for simple laboratory experiments of the type scientists did at that time. Modern science must rely more on statistical measures of certainty rather than the standard of replicability. Obviously, you cannot build two identical planets, introduce greenhouse gases into one but not the other, then wait thousands or millions of years to view the results, and finally repeat the experiment by building more planets to replicate the results.

Fortunately, since your argument was irst made nearly 300 years ago, scientists have devised new methods for formulating and testing theories. Sorry, but you're a couple centuries behind the times in your "knowledge" of science.

Roody you forgot astronomy, a science where until very recently and only for the solar system scientists couldn't manipulate their objects of study. In astronomy you used to have to wait generations for events like a transit of Venus in order to test a theory or calibrate your instruments.

Global warming is a pseudoscience, as I see it. I'll explain why, using the standards of scientific knowledge.

Science must be:

1. Empirically testable
2. Falsifiable
3. Reproducible
4. Valid
5. Generalizable

The problem of global warming theory not being empirically testable: We simply don't have accurate temperature data for the range of time that would be required to prove or disprove global warming. I'll be surprised if anyone could even show me decent, reliable data for the past 50 years in the developed world, let alone the last 500 years on the whole planet.

Global warming theory is also not falsifiable. The pseudoscientists who propagate the idea made sure of that. You can't design a test to disprove that the planet is warming at the gradual scale that proponents of global warming claim. That's the beauty of it, for a global warming scientist: they'll aways have a job, because no-one can actually beat them at their own game (since by the very wording of the theory, they've written the rules in their favor)

Any research done on global warming is also not reproducible. It's impossible to create an accurate computer model of the world, or find an identical planet to research, or go back in time. If anyone else knows a reproducible way to study the earth, please point it out.

Global warming data is also not valid. Some places get warmer, some places get colder, and they only really report the former. When the latter is brought up, it's brushed aside as climate change caused by global warming. Yeah right; that's like gaining weight by fasting.

Global warming theory also ignores the necessity that the data be generalizable. If scientists want to claim that a set of conditions is making this planet warmer, they need to provide evidence that the same would be true on similar planets.


This is the classic theory of science formulated in the 19th century and is certainly an appropriate criterion for for simple laboratory experiments of the type scientists did at that time. Modern science must rely more on statistical measures of certainty rather than the standard of control and replicability. (Obviously, you cannot build two identical planets, introduce greenhouse gases into one but not the other, then wait thousands or millions of years to view the results, and finally repeat the experiment by building more planets to replicate the results of the first experiment.)

Fortunately, since your argument was first made nearly 300 years ago, scientists have devised new methods for formulating and testing theories. Sorry, but you're a couple centuries behind the times in your "knowledge" of science.

Just an FYI: BBC News survey on world opinions re: Climate Change (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/25_09_07climatepoll.pdf)

And that means... what? 75% of people I talk to believe that bicycles aren't allowed off the sidewalks. Doesn't mean it's true.

My problem with the Global Warming hysteria is that it concentrates on one very small (possible) issue with the culture we've built... and ignores everything else.... including issues which are both directly attributable to cars and urban sprawl, and are easily provable.

Urban areas are shown to be several degrees hotter than surrounding areas, more water is shed as runoff rather than absorbed into the ground, and parking lots and streets are awesome at collecting hazardous substances (Which then get picked up in the runoff and deposited into streams)... and I'm sure that's just the tip of the iceburg. Curing 'Global Warming' by switching EVERYTHING to clean energy sources overnight wouldn't even begin to touch on any of these issues.

I've heard it claimed that if Venus didn't have such an enormous greenhouse effect from its atmospheric carbon dioxide, it would have a surface temperature similar to Earth. Does anyone here know the current scientific status of that claim?

Damn those Venutians and their global warming! *ducks*

And that means... what? 75% of people I talk to believe that bicycles aren't allowed off the sidewalks. Doesn't mean it's true.

My problem with the Global Warming hysteria is that it concentrates on one very small (possible) issue with the culture we've built... and ignores everything else.... including issues which are both directly attributable to cars and urban sprawl, and are easily provable.

Urban areas are shown to be several degrees hotter than surrounding areas, more water is shed as runoff rather than absorbed into the ground, and parking lots and streets are awesome at collecting hazardous substances (Which then get picked up in the runoff and deposited into streams)... and I'm sure that's just the tip of the iceburg. Curing 'Global Warming' by switching EVERYTHING to clean energy sources overnight wouldn't even begin to touch on any of these issues.
You're certainly right that environmental policies should be based on science rather than public opinion polls. It's harder to understyand how you manage to ignore the evidence of all good science (shich supports global warming theory). But blindness has many causes, many of them willful.

Two things:

First, I don't think that global warming activists are ignoring other environmental issues. It's just that at this time, we're pretty aware that the longer we wait, the less likely that we will find an agreeable solution to global warming. Already, we may have reached the point where it's necessary not only to stop emitting GHGs, we might actually have to come up with some way of removing them from the atmosphere. Also, the sooner we start preparing and adapting for warming, the better our chances of surviving it with any kind of acceptable losses in our way of living. This gives a strong sense of urgency to just about everybody who has studied and understood the basics of the science.

Second, I think that switching to clean energy would solve much more besides global warming. Obviously, coal power plants and internal combustion engines pump many pollutants besides CO2, and cutting back on these major sources of GHGs would also reduce particulates, acids and toxins in the air and water. And reducing the number of cars might go a long way to reducing sprawl, runoff, urban heating and other problems associated with them.

I find it strange that you have a desire to reduce pollution in the classic sense, but you feel no urgency in also reducing a more recently proven form of pollution (the greenhouse gases).

That's it... revel in your ignorance. The data is readily available if you actually wanted to find it.

Just be honest and say that you're not going to alter your lifestyle anyway, so you just can't be bothered to do any research on the issue.

Shut up about my lifestyle.

I've never owned a car, and I live in a single 10 by 15 foot room with a shared bathroom. Most of the money I spend on a daily basis doesn't leave the local economy. Hell, the most expensive and wasteful thing I've ever owned is the laptop I'm on right now.

Besides, I have researched the issue. I've researched and found no reason to believe that any temperature data I see as accurate or valid, and no reason to believe that the IPCC is correct/truthful.

Wow did this thread rabbit trail or what?

Hey, I'll admit, it, I'm no climatologist, so I could be wrong. But If we all did our bit; used less, rode our bikes, recycled, bought locally grown food, all the stuff we can easilly do, but were wrong about global warming, then what would we get? A better world.
Of course if you deniers carry on as you are doing, but are wrong...

It's a hell of a gamble to take.

I am a car free non-believer in global warming.

I also vote 100% for anti-gun control candidates.

I do not exactly fit the mold.

Hey, I'll admit, it, I'm no climatologist, so I could be wrong. But If we all did our bit; used less, rode our bikes, recycled, bought locally grown food, all the stuff we can easilly do, but were wrong about global warming, then what would we get? A better world.
Of course if you deniers carry on as you are doing, but are wrong...

It's a hell of a gamble to take.

So you're saying that just because I don't believe in global warming, you assume I live a lifestyle of waste and pollution? No wonder things were getting hostile. That's a terrible assumption.

So you're saying that just because I don't believe in global warming, you assume I live a lifestyle of waste and pollution? No wonder things were getting hostile. That's a terrible assumption.

Can't argue with you there. It sounds to me like you --any you're not the only one-- lead a far more admirable lifestyle than many of us believers, such as Al Gore and myself.

That said, the number of people who reject global warming, and back up that claim by mentioning pseudo-scientific articles that they haven't even read, boggles the mind.

Kjohnnytarr, since you seem to be a diligent student of the subject and willing to look at the data and make up your mind for yourself, let me as a question that's not about global warming. Are you familiar with the studies that show acidification of the oceans? As I understand it, in a nutshell, when carbon dioxide gets dissolved in water it becomes carbonic acid and this, when it gets into the ocean, works to neutralize the sea water, which is normally somewhat basic. Shellfish and other sea creatures that build shells need the water around them to be basic in order to build their shells; if the water is too acidic, and they can't do that, they will die. This is not global warming, per se, but if it happens --and it is already happening in some places-- the effect will be catastrophic. It will wipe out a crucial link in the food chain --zooplankton, that is-- and this will wipe out everything that feeds on them, and so on up the food chain. That, in turn, will change ocean chemistry even more.... Are you familiar with this research as well? Do you think this, too, is a bunch of alarmist pseudoscience?

So you're saying that just because I don't believe in global warming, you assume I live a lifestyle of waste and pollution? No wonder things were getting hostile. That's a terrible assumption.

By necessity, we define groups by their beliefs and their actions, not the minutiae of their members' lives. We can find examples, I'm sure, in all groups which by themselves would normally be seen as running counter to the core belief of the group. That does not negate individual's responsibility for the group's action when said group is chosen and championed by the individual (Herman Goering, I seem to remember, tried to use his smuggling out of Nazi Germany two Jews who had helped him earlier in his career, as an example of why he wasn;t a war criminal - which, I must emphasize, is not a way of calling you a Nazi, nor a Holocaust denier, it's just the first example that springs to mind)...
You may live a thoroughly admirable life, a life more admirable than mine, maybe, but fey indignation is not a way sidestepping the issue.

Which is:

If I, and almost the entire majority of the general and specific scientific community (picture all those people for a minute) am wrong and there is no such thing as global warming due to human intervention, then little damage is done by the measures suggested we all take to lessen our carbon footprints.
If Human intervention Global warming deniers are wrong (very few scientists, lots of big business - hmmm let's ponder that one for another moment), then the consequenses of their belief that a large carbon footprint is immaterial to temperature rise is catastrophic.

Bottom line, in denying global warming by human intervention, you play fast and loose with my future, and the future of my children and my childrens' children, and give people who are less "Green" (for want of a better word) than you carte blanch to continue burning fossil fuels until they've wrung the last drop out of the last rag wrapped round the last pipe from the last well in an Antarctica devoid of ice.

Of course, then they'll be complaining that no one did anything to stop them.

Global warming happens naturally and has nothing to do is I drive an SUV or a truck or a prius, Gore is absolutely full of crap and the elite left just love to keep us scared so they can control us, as they know what is best for us as we are too stupid to figure it out for our selves. I just love limousine Liberals they are so funny.

Can't argue with you there. It sounds to me like you --any you're not the only one-- lead a far more admirable lifestyle than many of us believers, such as Al Gore and myself.

That said, the number of people who reject global warming, and back up that claim by mentioning pseudo-scientific articles that they haven't even read, boggles the mind.

Kjohnnytarr, since you seem to be a diligent student of the subject and willing to look at the data and make up your mind for yourself, let me as a question that's not about global warming. Are you familiar with the studies that show acidification of the oceans? As I understand it, in a nutshell, when carbon dioxide gets dissolved in water it becomes carbonic acid and this, when it gets into the ocean, works to neutralize the sea water, which is normally somewhat basic. Shellfish and other sea creatures that build shells need the water around them to be basic in order to build their shells; if the water is too acidic, and they can't do that, they will die. This is not global warming, per se, but if it happens --and it is already happening in some places-- the effect will be catastrophic. It will wipe out a crucial link in the food chain --zooplankton, that is-- and this will wipe out everything that feeds on them, and so on up the food chain. That, in turn, will change ocean chemistry even more.... Are you familiar with this research as well? Do you think this, too, is a bunch of alarmist pseudoscience?

I'm familiar with the concept. I'm under the impression that this process is a natural fluctuation that goes along with changes in equilibrium between the ocean and the atmosphere. As I've read it, the oceans are currently in a phase of releasing much of their carbon dioxide, which is probably why we see more of that particular greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. But of course, the IPCC would have you believe that almost all of that additional carbon comes from us. Either way, I'm not worried about it: it's a natural process that fluctuates in both directions over time. Yes, at time it means we have alarming carbon dioxide levels in the oceans or atmosphere, but seeing as how it's always been happening, and carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas anyway, it's not worth getting bend out of shape over.

By necessity, we define groups by their beliefs and their actions, not the minutiae of their members' lives. We can find examples, I'm sure, in all groups which by themselves would normally be seen as running counter to the core belief of the group. That does not negate individual's responsibility for the group's action when said group is chosen and championed by the individual (Herman Goering, I seem to remember, tried to use his smuggling out of Nazi Germany two Jews who had helped him earlier in his career, as an example of why he wasn;t a war criminal - which, I must emphasize, is not a way of calling you a Nazi, nor a Holocaust denier, it's just the first example that springs to mind)...
You may live a thoroughly admirable life, a life more admirable than mine, maybe, but fey indignation is not a way sidestepping the issue.

Which is:

If I, and almost the entire majority of the general and specific scientific community (picture all those people for a minute) am wrong and there is no such thing as global warming due to human intervention, then little damage is done by the measures suggested we all take to lessen our carbon footprints.
If Human intervention Global warming deniers are wrong (very few scientists, lots of big business - hmmm let's ponder that one for another moment), then the consequenses of their belief that a large carbon footprint is immaterial to temperature rise is catastrophic.

Bottom line, in denying global warming by human intervention, you play fast and loose with my future, and the future of my children and my childrens' children, and give people who are less "Green" (for want of a better word) than you carte blanch to continue burning fossil fuels until they've wrung the last drop out of the last rag wrapped round the last pipe from the last well in an Antarctica devoid of ice.

Of course, then they'll be complaining that no one did anything to stop them.

Assuming you're right and I'm wrong, yeah, I guess I AM the bad-guy.

But seeing as how that's still up for debate, I'm not going to change.

Nazis were mentioned, so the thread is dead. (Ancient internet rule or myth.)

Besides there's not much point in talking to peole who simply refuse to believe what has become basic, irrefutable science. This is the 21st century people!

Global warming happens naturally and has nothing to do is I drive an SUV or a truck or a prius, Gore is absolutely full of crap and the elite left just love to keep us scared so they can control us, as they know what is best for us as we are too stupid to figure it out for our selves. I just love limousine Liberals they are so funny.

Don't you have a sidewalk to go ride on? Or, is today dirt trail day? Maybe you could stay home and work on punctuation. :)

We simply don't have accurate temperature data for the range of time that would be required to prove or disprove global warming. I'll be surprised if anyone could even show me decent, reliable data for the past 50 years in the developed world, let alone the last 500 years on the whole planet.


We have ice cores going back a lot further than that. As to the last 500 years, we have historical narratives that describe climate conditions considerably colder than they are now. For example, we know from extremely detailed accounts that several hundred years of attempts to penetrate the NWP failed, often with massive loss of life. The theoretical passage was full of both shorefast and sea ice all year long. It wasn't finally navigated until Amundsen managed to do it, and that was only after getting stuck multiple times over the three year journey. This summer, for the first time, the passage was clear sailing along its entire length. That's a sea change, literally. You can plug your ears and hum, pretending none of this is happening. But that won't keep the tide from coming in.

We have ice cores going back a lot further than that. As to the last 500 years, we have historical narratives that describe climate conditions considerably colder than they are now. For example, we know from extremely detailed accounts that several hundred years of attempts to penetrate the NWP failed, often with massive loss of life. The theoretical passage was full of both shorefast and sea ice all year long. It wasn't finally navigated until Amundsen managed to do it, and that was only after getting stuck multiple times over the three year journey. This summer, for the first time, the passage was clear sailing along its entire length. That's a sea change, literally. You can plug your ears and hum, pretending none of this is happening. But that won't keep the tide from coming in.

Nice try. Ice cores and anecdotes are both secondary at best. The thermometer and the pen have both been around quite a long time now, so I wonder why you can't produce a simple set of temperature records that prove global warming.

We have ice cores going back a lot further than that. As to the last 500 years, we have historical narratives that describe climate conditions considerably colder than they are now. For example, we know from extremely detailed accounts that several hundred years of attempts to penetrate the NWP failed, often with massive loss of life. The theoretical passage was full of both shorefast and sea ice all year long. It wasn't finally navigated until Amundsen managed to do it, and that was only after getting stuck multiple times over the three year journey. This summer, for the first time, the passage was clear sailing along its entire length. That's a sea change, literally. You can plug your ears and hum, pretending none of this is happening. But that won't keep the tide from coming in.

Don't forget about tree ring data either.

But put aside "controversial" climate data and focus on a simple syllogism, based on 2 demonstrable facts:

Fact # 1-- Controlled, replicated laboratory experiments (simple chemistry experiments, first performed at least a hundred years ago) clearly demonstrate that CO2 blocks the re-radiation of infrared and other EMF energy (solar radiation in other words).
Fact # 2-- Humans pump ever increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, currently more than 2 billion tons a year. The CO2 level in the current atmosphere is shown, by replicated measurements, to be much higher (nearly doubled) than it was 50 years ago, when reliable measurement began.Conclusion-- Higher levels of CO2 will at some point result in higher temperatures on Earth. The only question remaining is WHEN this will happen, not WHETHER it will happen. That's where the climate data and the climate models come into the picture.

Nice try. Ice cores and anecdotes are both secondary at best. The thermometer and the pen have both been around quite a long time now, so I wonder why you can't produce a simple set of temperature records that prove global warming.

This is a link to a blog for climate scientists (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/instrumental-record/). You might find some answeres here.

.... As to the last 500 years, we have historical narratives that describe climate conditions considerably colder than they are now. ...

I hate to do this, since I'm on your side in this debate... but since we're trying to have an enlightened discussion here, I have to point out that you are referring to a comparatively recent event called the "little ice age." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age. Certainly the northwest passage was not open during that period, as demonstrated by the many failed attempts to find it; but whether it was open 1000 years ago, for example, we simply don't know.

Consider this: Greenland was settled by the Norse in the 10th century, and those settlements --sustained by farming and animal husbandry-- remained viable for centuries. When the Little Ice Age made farming and animal husbandry impossible, those settlements died out.

Assuming you're right and I'm wrong, yeah, I guess I AM the bad-guy.

But seeing as how that's still up for debate, I'm not going to change.

The way I see it, clinging like grim death to a position that is refuted by almost the entire scientific community, is not exactly "up for debate".

What exactly are the rules of that debate, anyway? How many counter signitaries to the perceived wisdom do you need?

I expect my 5 year old daughter could debate the fact Santa Claus exists. I mean, despite the perceived wisdom, she and all her friends believe in him.
Also, I bet no one can furnish her with evidence that he doesn;t. I mean, absolute, empirical evidence. It's a big place...a lot of snow. You could hide his house real easily.

Or how about the moon landings?

Or the Pentagon on 9/11?

Or Area 51?

Or Princess Diana?

Or Elvis?

(that's the full compliment for you, Roody ;) )

So long as you have a few signitaries, and are loud enough and convincing enough, the notion sticks, and next thing, you have a full blown belief system that flies in the face of all reason, but has a life of its own.

But it doesn't matter in your instance, because you do the right things, anyway. You live a commendably "green" life. On that I salute you. But in supporting this rubbish, you allow others the oxygen to fuel their over-consumption and stick their heads deeper into the sand.

That's the real danger.

Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation
A 2006 study and review of existing literature, published in Nature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_%28journal%29), determined that there has been no net increase in solar brightness since the mid 1970s, and that changes in solar output within the past 400 years are unlikely to have played a major part in global warming. It should be stressed, the same report cautions that "Apart from solar brightness, more subtle influences on climate from cosmic rays or the Sun's ultraviolet radiation cannot be excluded, say the authors. However, these influences cannot be confirmed, they add, because physical models for such effects are still too poorly developed."[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation#_note-UCARbrightness)Study was hampered during the 1600s and 1700s due to the low number of sunspots during what is now recognized as an extended period of low solar activity, known as the Maunder Minimum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum).(Maunder Minimum correlates to the Little Ice Age)

The level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional - the last period of similar magnitude occurred over 8,000 years ago. The Sun was at a similarly high level of magnetic activity for only ~10% of the past 11,400 years, and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation#_note-Solanski2004)Nimbus 7 (launched October 25 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_25), 1978 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978)) and the Solar Maximum Mission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Maximum_Mission) (launched February 14 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_14), 1980 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980)) detected that because the areas surrounding sunspots are brighter, the overall effect is that more sunspots means a brighter sun.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sunspots_11000_years.jpg

Hatching marks the previous period of high activity more than 8,000 years ago which is similar to present level of activity. This period corresponds with the Southern Hemisphere warming associated with the Holocene Climatic Optimum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_Climatic_Optimum).
At 140 sites across the western Arctic, there is clear evidence for warmer-than-present conditions at 120 sites. At 16 sites where quantitative estimates have been obtained, local HTM temperatures were on average 1.6±0.8 °C higher than present.

So... low solar activity matches up with 'the little ice age'... previous high solar activitiy matches up with an earlier episode of 'warming' .... but current high solar activity has no effect at all on climate.

Gotcha. ;)

If you want to try to 'scare people straight' with Global Warming then fine. My problem is that very few people I've ever talked to go beyond talking about alternative fuels or electric vehicles when they do speak of global warming. So... we'll trade one global crisis for another. Big deal.

Doh... I forget. The average person isn't capable of realizing that us destroying our planet goes far beyond JUST Carbon Dioxide.

What is really annoying is narrow minded people that attack you just because you choose to drive a big SUV, in fact H3 Hummer owners got it bad as their vehicles are vandalised on a regular biases. The thinking is if I vandalize his vehicle enough, I can sway the owner to give up the the SUV and buy a smaller car as they are tired of their vehicle getting vandalized. The SUV is not the contribute to global warming! The global warming crowd is miss informed and science has proven that global warming is a natural cycle and the short time humans have been in existence on the grand scale of things we have had no effect. I agree that we need to stop using foreign oil, but singling out SUV's as destroying the earth is absolute BS!