United States Heading towards a Depression?

The wierd thing abt this global warming debate which just popped up is that chemistry is not the issue. There are well documented pretty accepted texts which discuss the chemistry of various items floating into the air and causing effects that impact the environment.

The first issue of which there is no debate is a level of warming that has been initially tied to the industrial revolution and has increased in the last few decades. The results of this warming have been extraordinary in the last number of years.

The science that has documented these twin events has been ongoing for several decades now.

The fact that just a couple of very heavyweight overly radical overly wealthy oil industry folks want to finance an attack on this evidence and an entire army of right wing mouthpieces want to parrot this perspective is pretty astonishing.

The impacts on trying to control the effects of humans essentially lead to making a strong effort to move from oil and coal fuels to fuels that will cause less impact on the environment. Naturally the oil industry hates that every inch of the way. Especially the Koch brothers.

Any efforts to try and control use of these fuels involve expensive alternatives with the logic of it suggesting that the cost increases will be passed on to consumers. The facts are that consumers are paying huge increases in fuel costs already without the add ons of efforts to control pollutants. Since 1998 the costs of crude oil have simply skyrocketed at an enormous rate. The suggested environmental controls that one would expect to increase costs HAVE NOT BEEN ADDED. Yet the costs of crude oil TODAY are roughly 6 Times the cost of crude in 1998. And that is without carbon taxes. Again...its about demand and supply.

I'd suggest that the overwhelming evidence tying fuel generated pollutants in the atmosphere connected to increases in temperatures and all the resulting extraordinary examples of extreme weather, let alone global warming are significant evidence that anyone with a brain should cease being a parrot for the Koch brothers and a small band of extraordinary wealthy oil barrons who love the flow of money into their pockets.

 

All that Earl with not a single citation, nice. What you've said may be "well documented" to you, but for the sake of debating can you provide links? In a formal debate unsourced claims hold no merit whatsoever, regardless of how obvious they may seem.

Citation needed.

Citation needed.

Some figures would be nice to illustrate your point.

Again a source and graph would have been nice.

That's a pretty naive statement when the oil industry is far from a free market without constraints.

Wow really? Now I'm convinced for sure!

One of my favourite points. You seem oblivious to the fact that weather has been far, far worse before you were even born. It's incredibly arrogant to think that a handful of decades constitutes a decent timeframe sample. You do realise climate scientists look at centuries and millennia of data, right? I don't think you have a basic understanding of what children are taught here with regards to geology. The levels of CO2 a few billion years ago were up to 80% higher yet the planet was still cool enough for live and vegetation to flourish [source] and the weather during early Earth was catastrophic.

You just had to chuck a red herring in there, eh? Not really relevant to the discussion seeing as we're independent thinkers.

You do realise that the IPCC predictions are based on computer models and simulations, right? It's pseudo-science at best, especially when considering chaos theory.

Here's an interesting article about how global-warming alarmist predictions for 2000-2010 have done the opposite: article.

Thousands of papers accepted by IPCC without being peer reviewed, as they always claim article

Here's a graph of the planet a mere 5 million years ago, look at the temperature. Aliens must have helped the millions of species survive the heat!



Here's one from 65+ million years ago:



Here's one from hundreds of millions of years ago:



And there you and Bushranger were, observing your decades of first hand data hahah

 

You chose the wrong date, the increase started after 2001 and it has got nothing to do with supply and demand. It was a present by Bush to his friends to keep the world in a continuous state of war and keep the price of oil up. Now we have a situation that both oil companies and oil producing countries are dependent on higher oil price. It is enough that U.S. government makes an announcement that Iran is the best country in the world and their friend and they have no intention in going to war and the oil price will drop to 50-60 USD and will go even lower in the long run. The Iran government will also fall in less than 3 months because their budget is based on higher oil price and their economy will not survive, change of regime without firing one bullet.

 

Look, if you are openly admitting here that climate change "scientists" have no ethics or a conscience, then why do you support it?


WARNING TO EVERYONE - CAREFUL, BULLSHIT AHEAD!

Please cite these "well documented pretty accepted texts". I know enough chemistry and physics of materials to understand them.

There is debate about this and I call Bullshit on you.

Please cite me the science that has documented these twin events.

Don't you think that if very heavyweight overly radical overly wealthy oil industry folks (WHAT ARE THEIR NAMES?) could make untold billions in alternative energy that they would be investing heavily in it?

You are talking about nuclear power, right? Nuclear power, which all of Europe, Japan, most of Asia is heavily investing in?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Show me the "the overwhelming evidence tying fuel generated pollutants in the atmosphere connected to increases in temperatures and all the resulting extraordinary examples of extreme weather".

Please show me the "the overwhelming evidence tying fuel generated pollutants in the atmosphere connected to increases in temperatures and all the resulting extraordinary examples of extreme weather".

It must be so overwhelming that it is easy for you to find, right? So, go ahead, SHOW IT TO ME! Show me this "overwhelming evidence". Overwhelm me.

 

I agree with Gworld in that the oil market has very little to do with supply and demand. It's one of the most manipulated industries in the world, OPEC any one?

@Corwin, if Earl has any sense he'll disappear from this thread for a while lmao

The hilariously ironic thing is that the graphs I've shown and that I took from climate-change history organisation websites clearly show that the global temperature is in fact more stable than it ever has been in the history of the planet!

 

O.K., glaciers shrink and grow. No argument from anyone. Temperatures got hotter and colder, the planet changes. It would be unrealistic to expect the environment to NOT change.

But I read the entire Popular Mechanics article and nowhere does it tie any of this is to man-made climate change, does it?

 

That's the thing Crowin, you do hear arguments from global-warming alarmists that glaciers are supposedly always shrinking at "alarming" rates yet they never, ever, ever mention the fact that they also grow and that these things, like most other environmental adaptions, are cyclical.

To a rational being this would seem unrealistic, but the AGW proponents aren't rational. I mean the phrase "climate change" is so ridiculous that they're trying to move away from it.

No, it just relates it to warming and cooling of the planet, no mention of human involvement at all, which is very telling.

Earl said:

So I provided the article to show the meaninglessness of his statement and to also point out the convenient omission of growing glaciers.

 

@BRum, what are those wikipedia maps proving in your mind exactly?

I didn't read the "Popular Mechanics" article LoL. I just couldn't take the relationship as serious. "Popular Mechanics?" LMFAO. just at the thought "Popular Mechanics" would have a serious and believable article on climate change.

 

AGW proponents claim that we're entering a warming period that is detrimental to the planet and will become more so when CO2 levels increase further. The fact that temperatures now are shown to be more stable than ever before, insignificant when compared to the past and the fact that the Earth's history has seen 80% more CO2, how exactly are we heading for a catastrophe? AGW fans like to quote graphs from tiny time frames to prove their point, deliberately omitting the larger periods which contradict their claims. I also posted it to show how your observation of "worsening weather" is so irrelevant to the discussion that a child would notice it. It follows similar logic to: "I've observed only white sheep in my life, therefore all sheep are white".

If I'd have said that about some evidence you'd provided to support AGW you'd be jumping around laughing at how ignorant and unwilling to read evidence I am. You sir, have just shown that you have a biased opinion with no intention of changing even when provided with various pieces of evidence. In other words, you've copped out.

Attacking the name of the organisation rather than what they've written is beyond desperate.

The funny thing is, as Corwin pointed it, it has nothing to do with "climate change" nor did I provide it to do so. It was in reference to Earl's shrinking glacier statement, so it also appears that you can't read. Look at the other articles and sources I gave, what you've done is used a series of logical fallacies; ignoring the other information and resorting to ad hominem to ridicule "popular mechanics", essentially creating a red herring.

Like someone mentioned before you have faith in AGW, not a scientifically based opinion. This renders any debate utterly futile and meaningless. So I'll not bother you with this issue any more, like how I no longer bother debating god with the religious.

I expect your next post will be a lame attempt to save face. Maybe you'll claim I'm "full of shit" and "clearly don't know I'm talking about" or I'm "an idiot to try and understand such things" or "95% of scientists can't be wrong!".

 

Seeing the industrial revolution began within the last 200 years wouldn't the last, say 2,000 to possibly 10,000 years be more appropriate?

Lol, now who's getting defensive. First of all I stated I had not read the article. That means whether it was FOR or AGAINST climate change I did not care. It is not legitimate evidence for EITHER side imho. "Popular Mechanics" is about as useful as us talking here and likely just as full of errors. You can't seriously suggest it would come out with any startling revelation we both haven't heard before, surely.

You're accusing me of copping out and then cop out LoL. I won't hold that against you, I get we're all hypocrites at times.

 

Mmmm no. That's not how statistics work. The fact that I have to explain to an old man that you have to evaluate the big picture is depressing. What you advocate is selecting evidence or distorting facts.

Showing a graph that only focuses on a few thousand years can show a trend, let's say a positive trend. AGW proponents then cream their pants in excitement and claim that for some reason the earth has been warming for this time, dreaming up all sorts of theories as to the cause. So what should we do? Look back even further... woops... the planet has been doing this and worse ever since it was formed - before humans were even around, let alone since the industrial revolution.

But you have copped out, that's not being defensive that's being truthful. If I were being defensive I'd call you a pathetic bastard for deliberately avoiding evidence which may disprove your opinions. "Popular mechanics" is just a name you fool, it's not "my first mechanics".

Mate, you've not contributed any thing at all to the debate, so why would I continue looking for articles and evidence for you to dismiss like a child? I feel embarrassed for you seeing you regress.

So now that we have your statements out of the way that address me (god knows why) would you like to address the actual information now?

 

No, I was just wondering what you got out of those maps, I got nothing. You're right though. We have the blind leading the blind leading the blind. There's no point us non-scientists discussing something none of us understand in the slightest.

 

No problem, now you know my intentions and what the graphs show.

That's not true, some of us understand it considerably more than others. Maybe we should stop voting, since surely none of us understand politics or economics in the slightest.

 

Ahhahah.. thanks for the compliments but you probably know a little too.

 

I know you're being facetious, but if you feel you do have a better understanding by all means show us some data we can have a gander at. Same goes for Earl.

Hey Earl I've come up with a new theory that has been influenced by your avid interest in supply & demand. I think the planet is demanding more CO2 and naturally we're supplying it Supply & demand is to blame, better get IPCC on the line.

 

I am still waiting for you to find your notebooks from economy 101 and disprove the labor theory of value.

 

That's like asking me to cite that the moon is round. Ever hear of Greenland? Peterman glacier is disappearing. The Antarctic? Pine Island glacier. Glaciologists have determined, through ice cores, that the melt now is worse than any we've seen in hundreds of thousands of years.

Who cares if it's anthropogenic or not? Do we let hurricanes destroy our houses because they're not man made? Do we refuse to shovel snow because we didn't cause it?

Global warming will completely change the way we live. Cities like New York and San Francisco will become dive sites. You'll have to go to the North Slope of Alaska to do any skiing. We need to stop, or even reverse, the warming, whether we caused it or aliens are focusing a "global warming ray" on Earth. Why is that difficult to understand? Man has been controlling his environment for millions of years.

I'm not assuming that the problem is our contribution (although some of it undoubtedly is), I'm assuming that warming is a problem and we need to try to fix it. Cutting our contribution will cut the total amount, which will decrease the effect. (The increase in greenhouse gasses increases the warming. A decrease would decrease the warming. There's not the slightest bit of scientific controversy about that.)

Whether our contribution is enough to eventually reach the tipping point is a nice academic exercise, but it's totally irrelevant, except to people who are opposed to doing something to try to ameliorate the problem.

 

Over how long a period? 50 million years?

And no glaciers on the surface at that time, right? Just lots of tropical dinosaurs. And continents all crowded around the equator.

A tropical Earth would be a catastrophe. The dominant species is no longer T-Rex, it's mankind, and we have things like cities. (Are you aware that the majority of the planet's human population lives at sea level?) We have very expensive infrastructure based on the fact that the sea level is what it is, and it snows in the winter starting around 50 degrees North in the Western hemisphere.

"Tiny" being a couple of thousand years.

Weather is heat-driven (weren't you aware of that?), so how is worsening weather irrelevant to a heat increase?

Actually, it is scientific findings that the global temperature is rising. And, as I've always said, whether we cause it or not is irrlevant, what's relevant is whether we can reverse it.

True, the global temperature is rising, there's nothing to debate, other than how to reverse the trend.

 

First, let me say that I have absolutely no expertise on this subject and my comments are the opinions of a lay man but it's true that the planet has experienced many ice-ages in the past few million years. Those ice-ages passed so there must have been just as many episodes of 'warming' as there were episodes of 'freezing'. All this happened when there was no human interference with the atmosphere so I suppose their could be an argument that ice-ages and subsequent warming of the planet seem to go in cycles....with no interference from us. It could also be argued that we certainly are not helping the situation with the present amount of emissions but it's going to happen anyway. All we might be able to do is slow it down a little but how much time would we gain - and for what cost?

I'll get my coat!

 

Popular Mechanics is a highly respected scientific journal. It is run by degreed scientists and is considered highly authoritative. It's staff include NASA scientists, MIT grads, doctors and surgeons. If you are not familiar with why they are held in such high respect in the scientific community, it's probably because you are outside of the community. I suggest you do some reading as to why Popular Mechanics is so respected and authoritative.

Spoken like a true liberal.

Um, EXCUSE ME, but what evidence suggests that the global temperature is rising significantly?

And, if it is, WHY should we do anything about it?