By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - NASA warming scientist: This is the last chance "We're Toast"

The ice age movement was a group of psuedoscientist who actually numbered more than the psuedoscience nay-sayers of climate change today. The deniers are the nut jobs that will go in the history books with the ice-agers.

Also, Hansen, overblows things. While climate change is a serious problem, Hansen goes overboard trying to gain publicity. He does more damage than good.



I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.

Around the Network
superchunk said:

During your lifetime...maybe. I guess that all depends on how quickly China and India keep industrializing and increasing their use of coal.

Even if it doesn't, is there no one younger than you that you have any care for? Are you seriously that selfish and inhumane that you don't care if human civilization continues?

If not, then people like you really disturb me.

You're only 25 years old, according to your profile, so you could easily live another 50-60 years.

Well, if you sooner or later have children, I bet your take on the future of this planet will change quickly. I know I can't look at my three kids and completely dismiss the notion of Global Warming. Especially when so much science backs it up.

 

I'm pretty evil man. I wouldn't underestimate Zenfoldor's evil, if I were you. As for children, I've always had a bit of contempt for them.

I will say this to you, however. Don't let worry, fear, and love for your kids trick you into worrying about this problem.

If you wanna make it your cause, do it for your own reasons. For the human race, and not for your own fear or worry, because trust me, scientists who want to do this kinda stuff for their own reasons are playing off of fear and worry, in an attempt to recruit people to their cause.

 

 

Here's an interesting fact. Obama wants the price of gas to go up. He admits as much. He wants gas to go up so that we use less gas, which is better for the enviroment.

Now, I want gas prices to go down so that I can afford to buy groceries and go to the store and such.

Obama's ideal for protecting the environment from global warming is causing me real economic hardship and a decrease in my quality of life.

Excuse me if I'm missing the bigger picture, but I'm just not down with being unhappy now for things that might happen in 100 years either way, which are entirely based on circumstatial evidence, no matter how compelling it might be.

If you can't see my point of view as well, then you might be a cool-aid drinker.



I don't need your console war.
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor.
You're power hungry, spinnin' stories, and bein' graphics whores.
I don't need your console war.

NO NO, NO NO NO.

superchunk said:
ZenfoldorVGI said:

You do realize that movie was actually brought to court and found to have several inconsistancies and outright lies in it, right?

When watching a movie changes your life, you might wanna determine if the movie is biased.

That movie isn't accurate, and you should go to wikipedia to find out some of the inconsistancies cited in the court case.

So 9 potential errors out of tons of factual information given in that movie make in biased and unrealiable. Talk about cherrypicking.

ok, fine, if some of you are too close-minded to think that we are negatively affecting our atmosphere at least you can realize that there are only a finite amount of the materials we use to create energy and by reducing our reliance on these materials and the overall use of them is a very good thing that in reality is a must for the longterm.

Then by using alternative fuels and making everything we can more efficient we also reduce the atmospheric waste.

 

The movie has a lot more than 9 factual errors, and yes I have seen it. The movie isn't what is ultimately important anyways so arguing about it is silly. A movie has no place in a scientific debate, its purpose was to bring more people to his cause which it has. I will note however that Mr. Gore has made substantial money in carbon credits/offsets as a result, the exact amount is undisclosed as far as I know but the speculation I've heard ranges from 50-150 million dollars. I have no idea if it is true but I know he has been asked several times to confirm or deny it and has declined comment in all cases AFAIK.

You are correct on the point about conservation however, and I don't think anyone disagrees with the idea of conserving and using efficient fuels and energy sources. But that doesn't happen over night, and there are economic factors to consider in addition to the environmental. Right now the economic factors matter far more to me, but once we solve the current energy crisis (which is very real and here right now) we can make the reasonable changes.

Now, many people like to claim the debate is over and that there is a scientific consensus, but if the debate is so settled amongst scientist why do 31,072 of them sign this (note these signers have had their sceintific credentials verified individually, over 9,000 are PHDs):

"All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement."

Now I think this idea of a consensus is absolute BS not only because science has nothing to do with forming a large conensus but because obviously there are plenty of scientists who do disagree. So, I will point out that they have a 12 page report compiled detailing the facts supporting their position, and you can view it here. If you would like to find out more about the project you can visit here.

Again I want to stress that the report they have compiled is what matters, the only reason I bring up the "petition" is because its clear evidence that there is no consensus.  I won't be responding to any argument aspousing a consensus because there demonstrably isn't one.

 



To Each Man, Responsibility

So 9000 PhD's think global warming is a sham... Do you know how many PhD's are in the U.S. alone? About 2.5 Million.

Do you know how many have PhD's in the sciences? About 1.2 Million.

Do you know how many PhD's work for the oil industry? I don't either, but it's more than 9k.

Oil companies, have nothing to gain, right?

Why don't you read what exxon mobil has to say about climate change?
http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/energy_climate_statements.aspx

or
BP:

http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9021743&contentId=7042289

or
Royal Dutch Shell:
http://www.shell.com/home/content/responsible_energy/environment/climate_change/

Oil companies understand, if they don't do something the economy will suffer and they will suffer.

Some political links

Prez W.:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/06/20010611-2.html

McCain:
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/da151a1c-733a-4dc1-9cd3-f9ca5caba1de.htm



I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.

steven787 said:

So 9000 PhD's think global warming is a sham... Do you know how many PhD's are in the U.S. alone? About 2.5 Million.

Do you know how many have PhD's in the sciences? About 1.2 Million.

Do you know how many PhD's work for the oil industry? I don't either, but it's more than 9k.

Oil companies, have nothing to gain, right?

Why don't you read what exxon mobil has to say about climate change?
http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/energy_climate_statements.aspx

or
BP:

http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9021743&contentId=7042289

or
Royal Dutch Shell:
http://www.shell.com/home/content/responsible_energy/environment/climate_change/

Oil companies understand, if they don't do something the economy will suffer and they will suffer.

Some political links

Prez W.:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/06/20010611-2.html

McCain:
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/da151a1c-733a-4dc1-9cd3-f9ca5caba1de.htm

 

Congratz on ignoring the very point of my post and instead focusing on the least important part, I even explicitly stated such. If you have a point to make on the science then make it, otherwise you're just blowing hot air.

edit: And for the record, you're right that oil companies have lots to gain. Why even Enron was planning to move into Carbon Offset/Credits because they saw it was the new multi-billion dollar industry. So no disagreement there.

edit2: Wow just did some more digging, I might have been wrong about what I said with Enron...it turns out they weren't just getting involved but were the ones who pushed and lobbied for legislation to limit C02 emissions in the US and specifically for a system where credits could be traded (since that is how they planned to make their cash).  Source.

"An internal [Enron] memo said the Kyoto agreement, if implemented, would "do more to promote Enron's business than almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring the energy and natural gas industries in Europe and the United States.""



To Each Man, Responsibility
Around the Network
superchunk said:

Bolded is greatly untrue.

As I mentioned, watch "An Inconvient Truth". At the end Gore shows that we do not have to do dramtic changes to immediately affect global warming for the better.

Simply remove all regular light bulbs with halogen, which I personally don't understand why you wouldn't want to use them, has a dramatic change across the board in terms of energy consumption which in turn reduces the waste put out by electricity plants.

Combine that with realistic drop in emissions in newer vehicles, which Europe and other countries have already began implementing, and that actually causes the rate of change to level off.

The problem is there are too many people who get very rich based on how things are now and these changes will cause them, not us, to lose some money. Therefore, they push their agenda to our wonderful lobbiest system and help stop change.

Need proof, google the history of Home Depot and ceiling fans. HD almost single handingly stopped all legislature that would have forced them to be dramatically more energy efficient. However, since HD owns a very large percentage of the ceiling fan business these changes would have cost them a decent chunk of income. Thus, they used their lobbying powers to stop ALL pressure to make the fans more efficient.

Search Tesla motors. They have already proved you can make a viable electric car that uses NO OIL and produces no emissions. Granted, it would cause you to use more electricity, but the energy consumption in that exchange is far less than the current gasoline powered vehicles.

Actually read about the Kyoto Accords that the current administrations turned their noses up to. These changes would not have killed our economy, etc, blah blah.

We (US) produce more waste than the next few countries combined. We should spend more money to fix the problem since we are the primary cause. Soon, though, we won't have that title. China and India are quickly catching us and with a much larger population they will certainly be the nail in the Earth's coffin if we don't change soon and guide them in the same direction.

Again, I encourage all of you to put aside stupid political leanings and just watch "An Inconvient Truth". It is really a well done, purely scientific look at global warming.

 

Okay, I'll toss my little eye opener into the mix. Do you realize that they have found that when those "environmentally safe" halogen light bulbs break, the surrounding area has a mercury content roughly 100x what is considered safe? Have you seen how a garbage truck works, or even a recycling truck? It doesn't matter which you do, expecting those lightbulbs to not get broken at some point is just plain foolish.

When those lithium ion battery cars end up in accidents, you need a hazmat team to respond. Not only that, but have you ever noticed that early "green cars" and even a lot of the latest ones are designed to be the most uncomfortable aerodynamic thing ever? I wonder how much of their fuel efficiency is related to electricity, and how much is related to tossing out comfort and convenience in place of reducing wind resistance.

But people don't think about this crap. They see something that's been labeled "good for the environment!" and they cream their pants for captain planet.

A (believed)rare long tailed tufted titmouse is found in some guys backyard? Forget natural selection, WE HAVE TO SAVE IT OR IT WIL LEAVE A GAPING CHASM IN NATURE'S PLAN! Even though it doesn't do anything different from, and could easily be replaced by, ANY mouse.
Don't forget: HUMAN'S ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERYTHING BAD ON EARTH. Therefor, in order to SAVE THE TITMOUSE, he's no longer allowed to live at home or touch his yard, because it would disturb the titmouse. Nevermind that the titmice eat the birdseed he's been putting out and only live in his yard because he keeps the grass and his garden maintained.

 

It's the biggest scam in the world, except the people running it don't want money, they want CONTROL. Do you want to know how this is absolutely 100% Confirmably true? They constantly claim that there are no dissenting scientific studies. They actually are going around claiming that every scientist around teh globe has agreed that there is global warming, that it is not going to correct itself, and it is the direct fault of human action on earth.

But there ARE. There are TONS of scientist, in articles all over the place pointing out that this could be a natural cycle of the earth, pointing out that it may be related to solar activity, pointing out flaws in the studies that "prove" global warming, pointing out tampering with the data and innacuracies in models used.

But nope, it doesn't matter. They're obviously just big oil company chronies who are paying them off so people keep paying for gas guzzling cars. Who could possibly benefit from being able to pass all these various laws and regulations and fees in the name of environmental safety?


And for those claiming "No Economic Impact" I just have to laugh. United States, and MAYBE some European coutries are actually going to follow any environmental protocols. You think the UN is actually going to force China to start following those things? And not just say "okay" when China lies to their face and tell them they already are reducing their emmisions and such? I bet you could sell popcorn for the sheer diplomatic waffling and getting nowhere that takes place for that one, until it runs into the next century anyway.

And when we have to spend 100x as much to make a product because it's "environmentally friendly" are we going to stick with that? Not a fat chance. Union labor drove up our cost of production, and what happened? We went to China and other 3rd world countries to make our crap, and when environmental issues hit, we're gonna turn to them even more, and we're not going to have ANY exports. Good luck with the economy then.



Seppukuties is like LBP Lite, on crack. Play it already!

Currently wrapped up in: Half Life, Portal, and User Created Source Mods
Games I want: (Wii)Mario Kart, Okami, Bully, Conduit,  No More Heroes 2 (GC) Eternal Darkness, Killer7, (PS2) Ico, God of War1&2, Legacy of Kain: SR2&Defiance


My Prediction: Wii will be achieve 48% market share by the end of 2008, and will achieve 50% by the end of june of 09. Prediction Failed.

<- Click to see more of her

 

I'm glad my thread at least stirred up talk. Conservatives.. never want to change anything. Even if it means to die slowly.



Grey Acumen said:

Okay, I'll toss my little eye opener into the mix. Do you realize that they have found that when those "environmentally safe" halogen light bulbs break, the surrounding area has a mercury content roughly 100x what is considered safe? Have you seen how a garbage truck works, or even a recycling truck? It doesn't matter which you do, expecting those lightbulbs to not get broken at some point is just plain foolish.

When those lithium ion battery cars end up in accidents, you need a hazmat team to respond. Not only that, but have you ever noticed that early "green cars" and even a lot of the latest ones are designed to be the most uncomfortable aerodynamic thing ever? I wonder how much of their fuel efficiency is related to electricity, and how much is related to tossing out comfort and convenience in place of reducing wind resistance.

But people don't think about this crap. They see something that's been labeled "good for the environment!" and they cream their pants for captain planet.

It's the biggest scam in the world, except the people running it don't want money, they want CONTROL. Do you want to know how this is absolutely 100% Confirmably true? They constantly claim that there are no dissenting scientific studies. They actually are going around claiming that every scientist around teh globe has agreed that there is global warming, that it is not going to correct itself, and it is the direct fault of human action on earth.

But there ARE. There are TONS of scientist, in articles all over the place pointing out that this could be a natural cycle of the earth, pointing out that it may be related to solar activity, pointing out flaws in the studies that "prove" global warming, pointing out tampering with the data and innacuracies in models used.

But nope, it doesn't matter. They're obviously just big oil company chronies who are paying them off so people keep paying for gas guzzling cars. Who could possibly benefit from being able to pass all these various laws and regulations and fees in the name of environmental safety?


And for those claiming "No Economic Impact" I just have to laugh. United States, and MAYBE some European coutries are actually going to follow any environmental protocols. You think the UN is actually going to force China to start following those things? And not just say "okay" when China lies to their face and tell them they already are reducing their emmisions and such? I bet you could sell popcorn for the sheer diplomatic waffling and getting nowhere that takes place for that one, until it runs into the next century anyway.

And when we have to spend 100x as much to make a product because it's "environmentally friendly" are we going to stick with that? Not a fat chance. Union labor drove up our cost of production, and what happened? We went to China and other 3rd world countries to make our crap, and when environmental issues hit, we're gonna turn to them even more, and we're not going to have ANY exports. Good luck with the economy then.

"Do you realize that they have found that when those "environmentally safe" halogen light bulbs break, the surrounding area has a mercury content roughly 100x what is considered safe? Have you seen how a garbage truck works, or even a recycling truck? It doesn't matter which you do, expecting those lightbulbs to not get broken at some point is just plain foolish."

Source

Is it true that CFLs contain mercury? Why and how much?
CFLs contain a very small amount of mercury sealed within the glass tubing - an average of 5 milligrams (roughly equivalent to the tip of a ball-point pen). Mercury is an essential, irreplaceable element in CFLs and is what allows the bulb to be an efficient light source. By comparison, older home thermometers contain 500 milligrams of mercury and many manual thermostats contain up to 3000 milligrams. It would take between 100 and 600 CFLs to equal those amounts.

There is currently no substitute for mercury in CFLs; however, manufacturers have taken significant steps to reduce mercury used in their fluorescent lighting products over the past decade.

Should I be concerned about using CFLs in my home or should I take any special precautions?
CFLs are safe to use in your home. No mercury is released when the bulbs are in use and they pose no danger to you or your family when used properly. However, CFLs are made of glass tubing and can break if dropped or roughly handled. Be careful when removing the lamp from its packaging, installing it, or replacing it. Always screw and unscrew the lamp by its base, and never forcefully twist the CFL into a light socket by its tubes. Used CFLs should be disposed of properly, learn how to properly dispose.

What should I do if a CFL breaks?
Because there is such a small amount of mercury in CFLs, your greatest risk if a bulb breaks is getting cut from glass shards. Research indicates that there is no immediate health risk to you or your family should a bulb break and it's cleaned up properly. You can minimize any risks by following these proper clean-up and disposal guidelines:

  • Sweep up—don't vacuum—all of the glass fragments and fine particles.
  • Place broken pieces in a sealed plastic bag and wipe the area with a damp paper towel to pick up any stray shards of glass or fine particles. Put the used towel in the plastic bag as well.
  • If weather permits, open windows to allow the room to ventilate.

 

What is mercury, what are the sources of mercury emissions, and what are the risks?
Mercury is an element (Hg on the periodic table) found naturally in the environment. Mercury emissions in the air can come from both natural and man-made sources. Utility power plants (mainly coal-fired) are the primary man-made source, as mercury that naturally exists in coal is released into the air when coal is burned to make electricity. Coal-fired power generation accounts for roughly 40% of the mercury emissions in the U.S. EPA is implementing policies to reduce airborne mercury emissions. Under regulations issued in 2005, coal-fired power plants will need to reduce their emissions by 70 percent by 2018.

CFLs present an opportunity to prevent mercury emissions from entering the environment because they help to reduce emissions from coal-fired power plants. A coal-fired power plant will emit 13.6 milligrams of mercury to produce electricity required to use an incandescent light bulb, compared to 3.3 milligrams for a CFL.

Even in areas without significant coal-fired power generation as part of the electricity mix (e.g., Alaska and the Pacific Northwest), there are other, equally positive environmental impacts from saving energy through the use of CFLs: reduction of nitrogen oxides (which cause smog), and prevention of substantial quantities of CO2, a greenhouse gas (which is linked to global warming), as well as other air pollutants.

Airborne mercury poses a very low risk of exposure. However, when mercury emissions deposit into lakes and oceans, they can transform into methyl mercury that builds up in fish. Fish consumption is the most common pathway for human exposure to mercury. Pregnant women and young children are most vulnerable to the effects of this type of mercury exposure. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) estimates that most people are not exposed to harmful levels of mercury through fish consumption. However, the FDA and state agencies do issue public health advisories.

EPA offers additional information and resources on all sources of mercury at www.epa.gov/mercury.

**************************************************

Based on the info above the energy saved which would greatly reduce the average US households energy use and directly reduce the amount of energy a utility plant needs to produce far outwieghs the tiny amount of mercury you might come in contact with IF you happen to break a bulb.

1. How many light bulbs have you broken or even seen broken in your lifetime? I can honestly say less than 20 in my 32 years.

2. There still is far more mercury released by manual thermastats and coal utility plants than these bulbs. Thus, by using only these bulbs you are actually decreasing the amount of mercury spilled into the environment.

**************************************************

"When those lithium ion battery cars end up in accidents, you need a hazmat team to respond. Not only that, but have you ever noticed that early "green cars" and even a lot of the latest ones are designed to be the most uncomfortable aerodynamic thing ever? I wonder how much of their fuel efficiency is related to electricity, and how much is related to tossing out comfort and convenience in place of reducing wind resistance."

If the industry had focused on electric cars in the first place we would have normal family style electric cars by now. Tesla motors has proven that you can make an electric car that can operate in the same standards of travel that a gasoline engine car can. Once they build up their capital from a few years of selling this first car they will build and mass produce lower priced family sedans. Their current model is not different in size and scope than that of a typical high performance coupe.

As for you li battery concerns, there are already implentations of better batteries. All that is needed is to focus R&D on them to reduce cost and that will also come with mass production.

**************************************************

"There are TONS of scientist, in articles all over the place pointing out that this could be a natural cycle of the earth, pointing out that it may be related to solar activity, pointing out flaws in the studies that "prove" global warming, pointing out tampering with the data and innacuracies in models used."

It could be our natural cycle, except that ice cores have given substantial proof that we are far higher in emission levels per million now than in the last million years.

Science is all theory. You will always find someone who disagrees with something initially. Hell, people still fight about evolution. However, I would put down a very large sum of money that there are more than 10x the scientists that believe that global warming is a real concern for us now and steps should be taken before it becomes painfully true that its too late.

Does this mean I think it will happen in my lifetime? No. But, I do think it is irresponsible for me to continue to act in a way that will only make things severly worse for those that come after me.

**************************************************

I think some of you are too unwilling to get your hands dirty to improve something. What's the main reason why the US military is more advanced than anyone else? Money. We've spent many times more money in military R&D than anyone else. Regardless of the economic return on the research, we've spent it and that was just to give us the illusion of safety.

Now, why not put that same checkbook towards better sources of energy or at least better ways of utilizing the energy we have.

The solution is there and it is not this massive economic and lifestyle change that so many of you ignorantly blab on about.



Edge112 said:
I'm glad my thread at least stirred up talk. Conservatives.. never want to change anything. Even if it means to die slowly.

 

 

Conservatism has always been resistant to change, whether it be slavery, the women's rights movement, the civil rights movement, and Evironmental protection. Eventually though we go in the right direction, because of progressives and moderates that come of the conclusion that the status quo is unacceptable. The Global Warming deniars will in hisory will be looked at like those against women voting, or those that were for banning interracial marriage. Even the Republican candidate for President says we have to take climate change caused by humans seriously.



Edge112 said:
I'm glad my thread at least stirred up talk. Conservatives.. never want to change anything. Even if it means to die slowly.

Oh, I'm plenty happy to change things, but you're full of crap if you think these politicians and other legislators know what the hell they're talking about, and that they're actually concerned about the environment and not all the sheeple they can get to vote for them.

Christopher_G2 said:
Edge112 said:
I'm glad my thread at least stirred up talk. Conservatives.. never want to change anything. Even if it means to die slowly.

Conservatism has always been resistant to change, whether it be slavery, the women's rights movement, the civil rights movement, and Evironmental protection. Eventually though we go in the right direction, because of progressives and moderates that come of the conclusion that the status quo is unacceptable. The Global Warming deniars will in hisory will be looked at like those against women voting, or those that were for banning interracial marriage. Even the Republican candidate for President says we have to take climate change caused by humans seriously.

Wow... you're actually comparing "global warming" to basic human rights.

You're probably right, conservatives resisting the global warming movement will be seen just like those that resisted the global cooling claims 30 years ago.

 



Seppukuties is like LBP Lite, on crack. Play it already!

Currently wrapped up in: Half Life, Portal, and User Created Source Mods
Games I want: (Wii)Mario Kart, Okami, Bully, Conduit,  No More Heroes 2 (GC) Eternal Darkness, Killer7, (PS2) Ico, God of War1&2, Legacy of Kain: SR2&Defiance


My Prediction: Wii will be achieve 48% market share by the end of 2008, and will achieve 50% by the end of june of 09. Prediction Failed.

<- Click to see more of her