Global Warming - Page 3

I haven't red the thread, but this poll is a bit disingenuous. Whether or not humans are the primary cause of global warming is moot. The fact remains that humans are one cause of global warming. There is much we can do to remove our footprint, regardless of whether ours is the largest.

Exactly! If it keeps going in this direction in the end the results will be the same.

What do I read, you ask?

I read extensively from the well respected peer reviewed climate science literature.

I've read literally thousands of such articles over my 30 years as a Research Hydraulic Engineer.

The aforementioned individuals discredit themselves, simply by opening their completely ignorant mouths.

Nuff said.

If you can't speak to the science, then you can just shut the ...

The blog-o-smear? Seriously. You could get even a semblance of a clue. Make it so.

Yeah I read a couple, was especially intrigued by the Bait and Switch article by Paul Driessen who claimed therein that 32,000 scientists signed the Oregon Petition also known as the Petition Project.

We know that the vast majority weren't scientists but educated people with an opinion, which makes one wonder why he would say this.

Follow the money, pay someone to push your agenda and ignore what doesn't fit.

I already linked to an example previously,
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/sc...agewanted=1&hp
which you ignored and now you link to a site funded by the same industries with the added joke that Richard Mellon Scaife funds them as well.

Soylent Green (1973 aka 2022!!) I've seen it before, as I'm sure others here have. It's downloadable for iPod on Google Video, for long bus trips, enjoy the popcorn! here http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...=Soylent+Green

That's the best you can do?

---

Maybe we could go visit some Eskimos to hear their take on things... Oh, they had to move.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/sci...mos/index.html

Great link Bergie.

Perhaps the two most vexing problems facing climate science today.

An accurate predictive model for sea level rise and an accurate predictive model for fresh water runoff.

Both of these rely on accurate modeling of the loss of glacial ice pack.

The best that can be done today is a semi-empirical approach due to the complexity of the ice melt processes involved.

Needless to say, the current theoretical models for sea level rise all under predict the actual current sea level rise by ~50% (e. g. two thirds).

Also of some serious (long term) consideration is the potential short circuiting of the oceanic currents due to excessive glacial melt (e. g. Greenland), and lastly potential for catastrophic failure(s) of sections of the Greenland (and Antarctic) ice sheets, causing potential tsunami-like events (instead of massive volcanic related landslides into the oceans, think of it as massive ice slides into the oceans, causing very rapid rises in sea level).

If the town in question had been a suburb of New York or Los Angeles, I'm pretty sure a few more people would be raising their voices about needing rapid action.

America has pissed off the rest of the world, indeed made matters far worse, regarding these issue for long enough, thanks primarily to the republicans and the largely ignorant and selfish American populace. Fortunately, that's beginning to change. But Americans in general have a long way still to go and most will ignore the issue, deny it's real or come up with ways to prevent action, so long as they think it doesn't effect them.

Al Gore is a Lier, the proof is the fact that he was a politian . Oh, and this...
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/mo...oreerrors.html

tftfy

Oh and BTW, your "beloved" Count Chocula has already been discussed and summarily dismissed.

I don't understand how people can take what Republicans or the religious right have to say about climate change seriously. These are the same people who want to replace modern science with fairy tales ("creationism"). They ignore the obvious signs all around us and make up their own version of "science" based on their religious and ideological beliefs.

Meanwhile, these same people in government turn a blind eye to companies who pollute our air, water and land which has had genocidal results on life all over the globe. It's because they have no respect for any other life than human, and even that is debatable. They think the Earth is disposable because some imaginary dude that lives in the sky will take care of everything, so they absolve themselves of all responsibility.

Unless we as a society start to reject such nonsense, the make-believers will continue their crusade against science, reason and enlightenment.

Found the thread,
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=91236

The guys name is Julian Lincoln Simon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Lincoln_Simon

The thread was interesting.

As has your rectum god Al Gore

Great comeback! For me to poop on!

Callipygian

Well I think both have just shown that dismiss and disprove are not the same thing.


Ass-plosion!


Some of us can read current threads made by current posters. Is there really a good reason why we should tell people currently posting that old threads/old posters/whatever addressed this and thus you want to go back to that or not address it again? It is the internet equivalent of telling them to get off your lawn.


I think you overestimate or exclude certain people from this category. A study of history will show that men blaming the actions of other men for the weather and the ability or lack of ability to control it is perhaps the world's oldest wedge issue. Gore is no different that someone telling us we have to throw a virgin into a volcano or slaughter a goat on a stone alter to bring rain.

I thought praying for rain or indeed praying for a better economy was a good thing http://bsalert.com/news/2422/Christi...r_Economy.html

OMG-Maybe we should follow this man who is a member of the House Energy and Air Quality committee http://bsalert.com/news/2494/IL_Cong...l_Warming.html

Naw, I'll trust my hands and brains over a gold bull, calf, or pretty much anything else.

Sure, lets post the same old stuff from the beginning and address the same points over again.

Why a new thread is created instead of posting new facts in the relevant thread is tiresome for those that need to repeat themselves.

Nothing wrong in pointing out the topic was discussed before and providing a link to it.

Can't understand why anyone would have a problem with it.

Thank you!
I second that.

If we can not overcome religion of all kind we are indeed out of luck. Idiotic christians somehow believe that the bible has ever had any other purpose than to keep the Roman Empire in power without weaponry other that the "word." Mr. Constantine remains the most brilliantly evil politician of all time. Rome still receives taxes from all over the world. Wow, and they thought it was about some guy who died on a cross sporting a death erection.

Except money.

Actually given what I have posted about our government and their currency manipulation it is pretty clear I don't have much trust in currency or money either.

The links I provided in a previous post disproves Count Chocula convincingly.

Just like the NIPCC has been thoroughly debunked using all the same well respected established peer reviewed climate science answers that existed prior to this rehashing of the same old and tired (and quite frankly at this point boring) contrarian falsehoods.


Yes, and your personal opinion of the man hasn't changed one iota either.

So what's new under the sun? For me to poop on!

Except when lots of it is in your hands...

Apparently not.


It's them darn contrarian falsehoods that keep ruining the day.


Well why would it? If anything it has gotten worse because the new moral crusaders have told us that good leaders never have children who do things wrong thus reflecting bad up bringing. Gore is still making plenty of money and using it to buy bigger houses, cars and boats all while lobbying everyone to give him even more money in his start-ups.

As for what is new, there is this Prince/Shania Twain sandwich bit that could use some poop as a condiment.


Naw, I would take it and quickly put it into something of real value. Even my dividend income is in a DRIP. Liquidity is bad for us inflationistas out here.

Me too... but isn't that the most obvious thing to do?

Kind of ironic that GM is headed into bankruptcy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYb3n...layer_embedded The US networks refused to show this ad.

Maybe they should just stick with the truth http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWnVh...9BBD77&index=3

A bit of reading there would make one a skeptic. I know it has done that for me. This NY Times article notes part of the problem is COST.

Some villages plan to hunker down behind sea walls built or planned by the Army Corps of Engineers, at least for now. Others, like Newtok, have no choice but to abandon their patch of tundra. The corps has estimated that to move Newtok could cost $130 million because of its remoteness, climate and topography. That comes to almost $413,000 for each of the 315 residents.

I'd sure love to hear how many of them would move from their huts and honeybuckets to pretty much anywhere else for half a million each and if they wouldn't they let them endure their delusion.

One of the main issues with matters like this are that these Native Americans want to live modern life in areas that do not allow it. When reading on this I discovered they've only inhabited their current site since 1950. They abandoned the site they were using before that due to... wait for it.... flooding. (Must have been the evil global warming back then too.) The reason this issue wasn't discovered before that... they only stayed in this area part of the year due to being nomadic people who built temporary housing. They live in an area where the structure are now permanent, gaining more and more stuff and amazingly enough are now sinking. (Is that really so hard to imagine when you live on the very edge of a delta that you are in a flood zone?)

I wonder if the estimate was half a billion dollars to move nine miles up the road in 1950?


I'm sure if the government walked up tomorrow and offered me half a million for each of my properties to move nine miles I'd grab it and be gone. I'm pretty sure that most people would.


GM is heading into bankruptcy due to union contracts. The Japanese companies are making cars in the U.S. without those contracts and do not have the same issues. The difference is the unions and pension and medical plans for retirees. It is simply an earlier version of the boomer problem. Ford and others also make some very nice Euro cars that cannot come to the U.S. because our safety and environmental concerns make it impossible. All those wonderful 40-60 MPG diesel cars wouldn't pass California emissions laws and have lenses and bumpers we don't consider to be safe. They seem to be safe enough for Europe though.

This is really sad to see people think that god is going to destroy this planet or not because in reality we the humans will. There are more than enough reasons to change our ways. We have been treating this planet like its ours since the beginning of time. We are going to die and we are going to kill ourselves unless there is major change around the world.

Yes, but many cultures have had a spititual awareness and connection with the land that has led them to respect it like one might respect their mother. The last ten thousand years of advancing agricultural advancements and then the industrial revolution have got us to this point of huge populations and the ability to alter our habitat beyond it's life supporting capacity for countless species and eco-systems.

I'm not big on these quotes but, in The Book of Revelation (11:18) "... and I shall destroy them which destroy the earth."

No content. No comment.

You've just walked yourself into a quagmire.

Taking things out of context again, I see.

I guess I should go to the USACE ERDC Technical Library or ask some SME's at ERDC for the real truth of the matter. Or maybe I should just ask ERDC's current Technical Director, or the ASCE's most recent past president.

Let's see, I'm a Research Hydraulic Engineer who worked at the ERDC's Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory (or CHL) for ~24 years.

However, I am not, nor have I ever been a Sand Engineer, I don't advocate building in the coastal zone, not at taxpayers expense. Breakwaters and jetties for navigation purposes being the only exception (no new builds just maintenance and deepening of existing navigation entrance channels).


Thus the mechanism for the sinking is well known. It is clearly and plainly due to AGW, plain and simple. Regardless of your mostly uneducated technical opinion, and lack of expertise in even a basic understanding of coastal processes and sea level rise.

You are not a SME, as you have neither the requisite training or work experience, regardless of your ability to read the NYT.


I know the costs are inflated, and I know why. Do you?


Nope. Wrong answer. It's inflated so that the C/B analysis shows it to not be of benefit to the federal government, therefore, the federal government won't pay for it.

D'oh!


Oh, lookie there, the COE doesn't build anything without the approval of Congress. Funny that?


As an aside, I wonder what happened to old Ted?

Well, I respect your opinion, but you need to recognize that there's no evidence to support your assertion. Since you yourself introduced "We have been treating this planet like its ours since the beginning of time", then you'd actually have to show some significant mechanism with which we'll "destroy this planet". After all, there's no historical precedent "since the beginning of time" to draw any parallels from.

To put things in perspective, the energy that the Mount Saint Helens eruption generated was equal to 27,000 Hiroshima-sized nuclear weapons - and just a thousand or so miles away I didn't even know it was happening except for news reports.

It would take quite a bit to destroy the planet.

I'm sorry but not, quite the opposite. I'll be happy to show you that actually the reverse is true.


Nope.


Thanks for sharing your background. Let me ask you and your expertise one final question now that you have tossed those credentials out there. What level of education do you think is required to realize that building on sand probably isn't the greatest idea?


It appears that being part of the process corrupts in this instance rather than credentials a person. You provide the data for this in your own post.


This is an admission that data and costs are not truthful. This is an admission that you understand this process.


This is an admission that the government manipulates data to obtain the outcomes it wants in a process.


Old Ted was found innocent after it was discovered that the prosecuters engaged in a little governmental manipulation as well.

Here is the reaosning presented in this thread.

I work for the government and have engineering expertise. I can go grab government data for you to show this is about global warming. At the same time I will share with you that the government intentionally distorts data to determine an outcome that they want to have happen. In this case they have distorted cost by inflating it. I know this because again, I work for the government.

Not to be rude, but that sounds like a reason to recuse yourself, not the opposite. Why would anyone trust sources that manipulates data to obtain an outcome?

You don't have a clue. Sorry, sad, but true.


Yup. No content. No comment.


My personal professional opinion or the facts of the matter?

I am not, nor have I ever been, a flatlander (a unique Vermont idiom).

The fact of the matter, is that all along our barrier island system (Atlantic and Gulf coasts) there are literally millions of homes and commercial buildings. That all of these are eligible for national flood insurance. That all of them are built on sand.

Funny that?


No content. No comment.


Again, being a SME, I can state categorically, that you don't have an effin clue. \


See previous comment.

The rest of your rant is total gibberish. No comment.

Humans will not destroy the planet, we'll destroy the environment and ecosystem that allows us to live on this rock. The planet will still be here long after we are gone.