For all you global warmin' interested folk

[stefan]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/57ddbaea-b0c4-11db-8a62-0000779e2340.html


[b]Bush

[Sombeech]

Finally, they confess that they are blaming Bush for Global Warming :roflol:

Bush hid some info, so it caused the globe to get warmer.

There truly are people that believe this. The "stupidest president ever" is also an "evil genius".

They need to just pick an opinion of him and stick with it.

[DiscGo]

There truly are people that believe this. The "stupidest president ever" is also an "evil genius".



That is a great observation.

[nefarious]

There truly are people that believe this. The "stupidest president ever" is also an "evil genius".I hate to say it, but that's fair. Anyone who buys John Kerry's official "I was tricked into supporting the Iraq war / if you don't study hard you get stuck in Iraq" line of apologetics must, by default, assume that Kerry is either retarded or that contradictory statements can both be true at the same time. People who believe in the the latter suffer from a condition that has been described as cognitive dissonance. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance) :lol8:

The bigger point for me is that Bush is no friend of science, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if the article in the OP turned out to be true. After all, he's on record supporting [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080201686.html][b][color=white]Intelligent Design

[stefan]

There truly are people that believe this. The "stupidest president ever" is also an "evil genius".



That is a great observation.

everytime sombeech says this i think it's a humorous observation, but it's misleading.

first off, even if bush were the dumbest president ever, it doesn't mean he's an idiot. you still need a large degree of intelligence to be a president of the united states of america. when folks say he's dumb, it's only relatively speaking ... and i expect everyone realizes this.

second off, he doesn't need to be an evil genius, nor exceptionally intelligent, to get involved in questionable and controversial decisions and actions. evil genius may be a natural amplification of one's simple contempt for the decisions/actions he makes.

third off, as president he may be a single person making decisions, but he has a whole administration of strong and intelligent political/law minds supporting and advising him.

as i said it's a humorous observation, but i take it with a grain of salt.

[Rev. Coyote]

[quote=Sombeech]There truly are people that believe this. The "stupidest president ever" is also an "evil genius".I hate to say it, but that's fair. Anyone who buys John Kerry's official "I was tricked into supporting the Iraq war / if you don't study hard you get stuck in Iraq" line of apologetics must, by default, assume that Kerry is either retarded or that contradictory statements can both be true at the same time. People who believe in the the latter suffer from a condition that has been described as cognitive dissonance. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance) :lol8:

The bigger point for me is that Bush is no friend of science, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if the article in the OP turned out to be true. After all, he's on record supporting [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080201686.html][b][color=white]Intelligent Design

[Sombeech]

first off, even if bush were the dumbest president ever, it doesn't mean he's an idiot.

But that's exactly what his "Fist Thrusting haters" are calling him, is an idiot. It's gotta be one or the other.

He's an idiot, or an evil genius. I'm fine with whatever they land on, just stick with it and we can get on with life.

[Rev. Coyote]

first off, even if bush were the dumbest president ever, it doesn't mean he's an idiot.

But that's exactly what his "Fist Thrusting haters" are calling him, is an idiot. It's gotta be one or the other.

He's an idiot, or an evil genius. I'm fine with whatever they land on, just stick with it and we can get on with life.


Sombeech my brother, re-read my last post. I got it right (as usual). Ahem.

After 8 years of Clinton-bashing, countless hours of mouth-breating fanatical right-wing talk radio, ribald hatred from the right, and the Bushies STILL wonder why we're so hard on their chimp.

Makes me giggle sometimes. Snicker even. Chortle during full moons.

Some of my best friends are republicans.

[nefarious]

He's an idiot, or an evil genius. I'm fine with whatever they land on, just stick with it and we can get on with life.Could he be an idiotically evil genius? Sorry. :whistling:

[DiscGo]

I definitely do not believe Bush is an idiot but I do believe that the people around him are more intelligent than he is (which is also smart of him). Condoleeza Rice is honestly the smartest person in Washington DC with whom I am familiar (but I have a hard time picturing people blaming her for anything, especially global warming)

[stefan]

After 8 years of Clinton-bashing, countless hours of mouth-breating fanatical right-wing talk radio, ribald hatred from the right, and the Bushies STILL wonder why we're so hard on their chimp.


yup ... don't dish it, if ya can't take it

[Rev. Coyote]

yup ... don't dish it, if ya can't take it


And they gave us such an easy target. Fish in a barrel. It might all be funnier if the stakes weren't so high.

[DiscGo]

I may not agree with President Bush on a lot of things, but I really believe he makes his choices on what he believes to be right. I think President Bush is more concerned with what is right over what is popular.

Bill Clinton did not put the country's best interest before his own. If you look at Clinton's dealings with China alone, it is clear that his number one priority was not America.

Again, President Bush has made some mistakes in my opinion, but the man really is quite bright and without the title of President is still a very impressive man. Bill Clinton is without a doubt one of the best public speakers in history (which is ironic because his wife is about the worst). Clinton really has some great attributes of leadership and is quite bright. It is easy to bad mouth Clinton's moral integrity but it is hard to bad mouth his talents. John Kerry on the other hand is a moron. I really believe that the only way President Bush could have been re-elected was by running against someone like Kerry.

[Rev. Coyote]

I may not agree with President Bush on a lot of things, but I really believe he makes his choices on what he believes to be right. I think President Bush is more concerned with what is right over what is popular.

Bill Clinton did not put the country's best interest before his own. If you look at Clinton's dealings with China alone, it is clear that his number one priority was not America.

Again, President Bush has made some mistakes in my opinion, but the man really is quite bright and without the title of President is still a very impressive man. Bill Clinton is without a doubt one of the best public speakers in history (which is ironic because his wife is about the worst). Clinton really has some great attributes of leadership and is quite bright. It is easy to bad mouth Clinton's moral integrity but it is hard to bad mouth his talents. John Kerry on the other hand is a moron. I really believe that the only way President Bush could have been re-elected was by running against someone like Kerry.

Ever seen the South Park episode about the turd sandwich vs. the giant douche for school mascot? The pretty much nailed the choices we get from the republicrats. I liked Clinton alright, think he's pretty much a straight shooter. What happened w/Monica was his business, not ours.

I went to episcopal prep school with people like George Bush, and know his kind REALLY WELL, and it's disheartening to see one of those little boys in the Casa Blanca. The Bush family strikes me as amoral and highly dangerous.

But hell, talking character issues about US presidents is so much pee-pee in the wind, know what I mean?

[Sombeech]

The point is, putting any blame on Bush for Global Warming.

This means that Bush is our ultimate source of information on GW, as if we haven't had any media coverage on it.

We can say he's wrong in Iraq, he's not an environmentalist, or he's just an idiot. To blame Bush and his administration for "covering up" global warming, making the situation worse, is just ridiculous.

How many people depend on his point of view for the environment? Were you misled by him, believing GW was not important?

[Rev. Coyote]

The point is, putting any blame on Bush for Global Warming.

This means that Bush is our ultimate source of information on GW, as if we haven't had any media coverage on it.

We can say he's wrong in Iraq, he's not an environmentalist, or he's just an idiot. To blame Bush and his administration for "covering up" global warming, making the situation worse, is just ridiculous.

How many people depend on his point of view for the environment? Were you misled by him, believing GW was not important?


WAIT A DAMN MINUTE!!!! I got it! The "GW" in G.W. Bitch (Bush, whatever), means Global Warming!!!! AH-HA!!!!!!!!!

[DiscGo]

The "GW" imeans Global Warming!!!!

That's not bad :haha:

[DiscGo]

Rev- I doubt this will surprise you, but I don't really watch south park.



How many people depend on his point of view for the environment? Were you misled by him, believing GW was not important?


Exactly. Everyone really does want to blame President Bush for everything. You seldom hear about how strong the economy has been under President Bush, nor do you hear about how low the unemployment rate has been. All you hear about is the mistakes he makes, and anything else that might be able to be blamed on him.

[stefan]

The point is, putting any blame on Bush for Global Warming.

This means that Bush is our ultimate source of information on GW, as if we haven't had any media coverage on it.

We can say he's wrong in Iraq, he's not an environmentalist, or he's just an idiot. To blame Bush and his administration for "covering up" global warming, making the situation worse, is just ridiculous.

How many people depend on his point of view for the environment? Were you misled by him, believing GW was not important?

uhhh ... okay you're losing me fast here. once GW is officially recognized as a more serious problem then it needs to be addressed accordingly ... the stronger the recognition of the problem, the more sharply it needs to be addressed ... otherwise the position is weak and highly suspect and riddled with i'm full of it ... downplaying and softening it means, action doesn't need to occur quickly or firmly. there are many companies and businesses around this nation that would be dramatically affected by the resulting decisions ... his tactics allow the aversion and delay of such changes to occur, thus protecting the status quo.

what this does mean is that blame can be placed on his delay on curbing the problem, for which america is currently heavily responsible. china at some point will be worse. but if you're not part of the solution ...

it's about the position of the white house on GW and its effect on the relevant decision making.

[Sombeech]

How did the small Ice Age of the 13th century come to an end?

[stefan]

How did the small Ice Age of the 13th century come to an end?

it was a result of the sasqueech almost going extinct ... fortunately one found asylum along the wasatch front ... and has given birth to another :afro:
he will repopulate ... and carry us forth to another ice age :cold:

[Rev. Coyote]

Rev- I doubt this will surprise you, but I don't really watch south park.



How many people depend on his point of view for the environment? Were you misled by him, believing GW was not important?


Exactly. Everyone really does want to blame President Bush for everything. You seldom hear about how strong the economy has been under President Bush, nor do you hear about how low the unemployment rate has been. All you hear about is the mistakes he makes, and anything else that might be able to be blamed on him.


A president cannot take credit for the economy. Not ever. It was good and strong in many sectors under Clinton, but he'd nothing to do with it.

Plus, right now, I'm not real sure just how one would judge the health of the current economy. It's not too strong in a lot of areas. Of course, I tend to look at my own industry, but it's a big one. Primary and unhealthy.

[Sombeech]

A president cannot take credit for the economy. Not ever. It was good and strong in many sectors under Clinton, but he'd nothing to do with it.

So that's why Left's don't like saying the economy's great? :ne_nau:

How did the small Ice Age of the 13th century come to an end?

[scoutabout]

A president cannot take credit for the economy. Not ever. It was good and strong in many sectors under Clinton, but he'd nothing to do with it.

So that's why Left's don't like saying the economy's great? :ne_nau:


They like saying it was great under Clinton, all thanks to him of course.

I disagree with RC, the President does have major influence over some things that directly affect the economy. Tax proposals, budgets, trade policies, SBA, and much more.

Why is global warming Bush's fault? Clinton was the President when congress rejected Kyoto. He didn't do a damn thing to change fuel standards or reduce emissions.

[Rev. Coyote]

They like saying it was great under Clinton, all thanks to him of course.

I disagree with RC, the President does have major influence over some things that directly affect the economy. Tax proposals, budgets, trade policies, SBA, and much more.

To your first comment, I said precisely the opposite. Read. Comprehend.

To your second comment, yeah, an administration can offer goodies and incentives to provide mild stimulations. But an economy (in this country) runs on its own. Of course partisan hacks want to take credit for a good economy under their people, but it's a false attribution.

You want to talk specifc sectors and programs, fine. But it's foolishness to give credit to any politician for the health of the economy. And when the gummint goes too far into subsidies and bailouts, it's always a mistake.

[Sombeech]

How did the small Ice Age of the 13th century come to an end?

[Rev. Coyote]

Rev- I doubt this will surprise you, but I don't really watch south park.

Really? Dang. You should give it a shot. The humor is base, but brilliant. EVERONE'S ox gets gored. Everyone.

[Sombeech]

How did the small Ice Age of the 13th century come to an end?

[Rev. Coyote]

How did the small Ice Age of the 13th century come to an end?

Through an accumulation of farts.

[stefan]

http://209.85.12.227/554/120/emo/ot.gif

looks like this thread has a case of ADD :lol8:

[Sombeech]

How did the small Ice Age of the 13th century come to an end?

Just waiting for an answer in this thread titled "For all you global warmin' interested folk"

[DiscGo]

Really? Dang. You should give it a shot. The humor is base, but brilliant. EVERONE'S ox gets gored. Everyone.

I saw a part of a couple of different episodes and it was just too offensive. I do like the Mormon clip:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qJdjq7hAgg


I also saw the whole episode about the Joseph Smith story. Not bad, but honestly I just try and avoid material that I believe is going to offend me (except you Rev.).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As far as the President not taking credit for the economy: I could not disagree more. Liberals were very upset with President Bush for his huge stimulant packages after 9/11 but it is impossible to say they didn't work. It was just about miraculous how fast our economy bounced back. For future reference you could make an easier argument about the President balancing the budget because that absolutely also falls under the president.

I do not like Clinton, but the budget was balanced under him. The problem with his budgeting I have is this:

1. Clinton cut our military budget in half, while using more of our military stock pile of weapons than Korea, Vietnam, & the gulf war combined. Part of the problem President Bush had in following Clinton, is that the military was cut down so much under Clinton and needed so much under Bush.

2. With the exception of the huge military funding slashing, I feel like a lot of the economic success we had under Clinton was largely due to Newt Gingrich. Newt did a lot of good for which Clinton gets the credit because he didn't stop Newt's efforts and work bipartisan with him.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for Global Warming: A lot of intelligent researchers believe that Global Warming does and does not exist. The truth is we just have not been monitoring the world's weather conditions long enough to completely know if the current temperature rise is man made or not.

One thing I do not believe that most people understand is how much worse Chinese companies are on the environment. China does not enforce the same environmental laws we have here in the U.S. Every time you increase environmental laws and prices for companies it just makes it more of an incentive to move to China where the company can pollute all it wants and pay pennies on the dollar for labor.

[stefan]

As for Global Warming: A lot of intelligent researchers believe that Global Warming does and does not exist.


however, in the field of climate science, i.e., the relevant field of analysis and assessment, the number of intelligent researchers who believe that there is an anthopogenic componenent to GW is far more in favor of it than you and others acknowledge, something conservative/rightwing news /opinion has tried to downplay and cast doubt upon ... which i submit, ferverently, is NOT their place.

unfortunately, they've apparently convinced a lot of people.



The truth is we just have not been monitoring the world's weather conditions long enough to completely know if the current temperature rise is man made or not.


even if you DO watch it for a long time, you'll still never completely know, you'll simply feel more confident in the conclusion, as there will be more evidence in support of it.

this kinda reminds me of the argument you and the rev. had about whether the president can affect the economy or not. he believes the effect is small, you believe the effect is large. this is how lay people understand global warming.

[Rev. Coyote]

As far as the President not taking credit for the economy: I could not disagree more. Liberals were very upset with President Bush for his huge stimulant packages after 9/11 but it is impossible to say they didn't work. It was just about miraculous how fast our economy bounced back. For future reference you could make an easier argument about the President balancing the budget because that absolutely also falls under the president.

The stimulus package was a give-away aimed only at certain producers. Add in the Halliburton fiesta (noncompetitive) and you've just got an economic policy based on the Monty Hall model. Don't look at this as a liberal/neocon thing. It is damaging to the overall economy for governments (federal to local) to subsidize chosen businesses. In fact, I really don't see how any self-proclaimed conservative can get behind such activities. In my own industry, I see the ill effects of government subsidy all the time.

And when I was working (years ago) as a general assignment reporter I was shocked at the way some businesses were handed pots of gold by local governments and others were not. Favoritism, nepotism, "cronyism" are all hurtful to the health of the economies. Businesses should all rise and fall on their own merit. While a tax break for one business may look like stimulus, it creates an unfair advantage against the competition (direct and indirect, mind you).

[Sombeech]

How did the small Ice Age of the 13th century come to an end?

[Rev. Coyote]

How did the small Ice Age of the 13th century come to an end?


Your persistent nattering led me to some interesting Wiki reading. I'll just paste:

Causes

Scientists have identified two causes of the Little Ice Age from outside the ocean/atmosphere/land systems: decreased solar activity and increased volcanic activity. Research is ongoing on more ambiguous influences such as internal variability of the climate system, and anthropogenic influence (Ruddiman). Ruddiman has speculated that depopulation of Europe during the Black Death, with the resulting decrease in agricultural output and reforestation taking up more carbon from the atmosphere, may have prolonged the Little Ice Age.

One of the difficulties in identifying the causes of the Little Ice Age is the lack of consensus on what constitutes "normal" climate. While some scholars regard the LIA as an unusual period caused by a combination of global and regional changes, other scientists see glaciation as the norm for the Earth and the Medieval Warm Period (as well as the Holocene interglacial period) as the anomalies requiring explanation (Fagan).

Solar activity

Solar activity events recorded in radiocarbon.
During the period 1645

[Sombeech]

How did the small Ice Age of the 13th century come to an end?


Your persistent nattering led me to some interesting Wiki reading. I'll just paste:

Thank you for answering. I was very interested in this question, so I had to ask it 6 times.

My point is, humans had nothing to do with it. The industrial period didn't start until the 17th century, or technically the 18th century. So the climate changed with no human effect at all.

It was due to a number of possible reasons, like your source stated. The earth is an ever changing planet. Sun spots could have even effected it, but it was not humans.

[Rev. Coyote]

[Thank you for answering. I was very interested in this question, so I had to ask it 6 times.

My point is, humans had nothing to do with it. The industrial period didn't start until the 17th century, or technically the 18th century. So the climate changed with no human effect at all.

It was due to a number of possible reasons, like your source stated. The earth is an ever changing planet. Sun spots could have even effected it, but it was not humans.

Wherever you stand on the issue of cause, it is still a good idea to clean up our act as much as possible. Personally, I believe human activity is one cause of global warming among others. Even the chimp admits that.

The most interesting part of the Wiki post is the theory that a lack of human activity may have prolonged the Wee Age of Ice. To wit:

"Ruddiman has speculated that depopulation of Europe during the Black Death, with the resulting decrease in agricultural output and reforestation taking up more carbon from the atmosphere, may have prolonged the Little Ice Age."

It is my belief that most of the human troubles in this world (environmental, political, economic) stem from overpopulation. Plus, it's a quality of life thing. It's the reason I want immigration (illegal or otherwise) controlled -- we've got enough folks here already.

[Sombeech]

The most interesting part of the Wiki post is the theory that a lack of human activity may have prolonged the Wee Age of Ice. To wit:

"Ruddiman has speculated that depopulation of Europe during the Black Death, with the resulting decrease in agricultural output and reforestation taking up more carbon from the atmosphere, may have prolonged the Little Ice Age."

I'll give him credit, it's the best theory yet that I've heard attempting to tie humans to the atmosphere before the industrialization period.

but

Europe was not always that populated either, and before the Plague, before London was a major city, there is not a record of an earlier Ice Age, except for "The" Ice Age.

...but an interesting theory, nonetheless. Thanks.

[Rev. Coyote]

...but an interesting theory, nonetheless. Thanks.


OK, now here's another interesting theory that will make the mind spin a wee bit faster: Global warming causes a quickening of timber rotation. Faster rates have been noted for the boreal forests of Canada, so we can surmise that timber rotation is faster everywhere, meaning greater production of biomass and a larger gloabal carbon sink. SO, is it possible that the effects of global warming could actually be negated through the accelerated growth of forests?

I'll just throw that one out there.

[Sombeech]

...but an interesting theory, nonetheless. Thanks.


OK, now here's another interesting theory that will make the mind spin a wee bit faster: Global warming causes a quickening of timber rotation. Faster rates have been noted for the boreal forests of Canada, so we can surmise that timber rotation is faster everywhere, meaning greater production of biomass and a larger gloabal carbon sink. SO, is it possible that the effects of global warming could actually be negated through the accelerated growth of forests?

I'll just throw that one out there.

I see the logic there as well. It's interesting that there are so many more atmosphere influencing sources than just humans.

[Udink]

Wherever you stand on the issue of cause, it is still a good idea to clean up our act as much as possible.
I don't think anybody would argue you on that one. This should be the common ground between those who do and those who don't believe humans are the main cause of global warming. In fact, I can't believe that people spend so much time and effort debating the issues when I'm sure we all agree on that one thing.

[Sombeech]

In fact, I can't believe that people spend so much time and effort debating the issues when I'm sure we all agree on that one thing.

:lol8: Too much debating = hot air. We should stop worrying about Global Warming, it's our only chance of survival!!!!!

[stefan]

...but an interesting theory, nonetheless. Thanks.


OK, now here's another interesting theory that will make the mind spin a wee bit faster: Global warming causes a quickening of timber rotation. Faster rates have been noted for the boreal forests of Canada, so we can surmise that timber rotation is faster everywhere, meaning greater production of biomass and a larger gloabal carbon sink. SO, is it possible that the effects of global warming could actually be negated through the accelerated growth of forests?

I'll just throw that one out there.


course you cannot exclude the fact that we frequently log large tracts of our forests, so you're removing this sink. not to mention when our forests burn ... to put numbers to the significance of all of this is complicated ... we can toss around these ideas all we want, but ...

[Sombeech]

... we can toss around these ideas all we want, but ...
But my point remains, how much human interference was involved in the Global Warming of the 13th century?

[Rev. Coyote]

... we can toss around these ideas all we want, but ...
But my point remains, how much human interference was involved in the Global Warming of the 13th century?

Not much, Mr. Beech. We've covered that. But it's a very different world these days, with human population WAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYY larger and the impacts of our industries, etc., much more profound. Profound and similar to those impacts foisted by volcanic eruptions and other influences.

Since the implications of our human impact are in question (more by those with political/big business agendas), I'd rather err on the side of cuation and try and minimize suspected sources. Plus, it's good for the overall health of all us Earth-bound critters.

[DiscGo]

Do any of you guys watch Scrubs? Last night's episode was all about people debating politics instead of focusing on what really brings them together in the first place. The episode ends by one of the characters going out of his way to make people hate him, so they could be united in that and forget about their squabbles. That episode reminds me of us.

[Rev. Coyote]

Do any of you guys watch Scrubs? Last night's episode was all about people debating politics instead of focusing on what really brings them together in the first place. The episode ends by one of the characters going out of his way to make people hate him, so they could be united in that and forget about their squabbles. That episode reminds me of us.


Well, just so you know, after seeing the picture you posted of yourself covered in pigeons I am no longer capable of using my big hammer on you. I am a soft-hearted SOB, and that one just got me.

[DiscGo]

Well, just so you know, after seeing the picture you posted of yourself covered in pigeons I am no longer capable of using my big hammer on you. I am a soft-hearted SOB, and that one just got me.


Wow. I was surprised to read that. Now, I'm glad I posted it. I almost didn't.

[stefan]

I see the logic there as well. It's interesting that there are so many more atmosphere influencing sources than just humans.

[sorry sombeech, i know you hate long posts but ...]


it's all about the significance of these sources too. the earth is warming whether we're part of the problem or not. there are going to be many factors we cannot control.

but if we are contributing, then this is what we can control. and unless we can predict with absolute certainty, what the outcome will be and whether it's beneficial and responsible, then we have no justifications for ignoring the problem.

looking at points in time, pre-industrial revolution, could give you a sense of what is possible or periodic, but there is a huge element of disparity, which is the amount of significantly measurable greenhouse gasses we know WE have released into the atmosphere, combined with the plausibility of the greenhouse effect. and if CO2 measurements are accurate, the current atmospheric carbon level is significantly higher than it's been in the past 400,000 years. in many ways this identifies that this could be a singular moment in our recent history, which we are not causing per se, but rather AMPLIFYING.

i think it's great that you have interest in examining the past, and looking for alternative ideas. i believe thinking critically about this is a good thing, for everyone. but i can't help but notice that this seeking of alternative explanations has lead to an apparent dismissal or doubt of our involvement, contrary to the convictions of those most informed and capable of assessment.

the most natural conclusion is that one is looking for a solution which is unchangeable, so that we will not need to change ... that this leads to complacency, scares the hell out of me.

it's funny how some folks on this site are so eager to condemn the raising of the minimum wage and the effect it has on the economy ... which, by the way, i can't believe is so trivial to predict ... yet some of the same are unwilling to condemn the potential effects of the megadose of carbon that we have released and will increase in the future AND our apparent complacency about the matter. what do you buy into and what do you dismiss?

one might speculate that it's all economics-driven and an unwillingness to compromise the status quo ... regardless it's complacency

[stefan]

... we can toss around these ideas all we want, but ...
But my point remains, how much human interference was involved in the Global Warming of the 13th century?


how relevant and significant do you believe it is ... see my previous post.
the long one ... please read it sombeech, i know you hate them, but i wrote it specifically for you :nod:

[DiscGo]

however, in the field of climate science, i.e., the relevant field of analysis and assessment, the number of intelligent researchers who believe that there is an anthopogenic componenent to GW is far more in favor of it than you and others acknowledge

Stefan- I honestly do not have a formed opinion on global warming. I have looked in to it, and I am still not sure what I believe. My point before was just there is no way of "knowing absolutely" the validity of global warming without really having accurate records of the history of weather and temperatures in the world.

[Rev. Coyote]

it's all about the significance of these sources too. the earth is warming whether we're part of the problem or not. there are going to be many factors we cannot control.

but if we are contributing, then this is what we can control. and unless we can predict with absolute certainty, what the outcome will be and whether it's beneficial and responsible, then we have no justifications for ignoring the problem.


Thaks, Stefan, you illustrate my point well. To just sit and do nothing about climate change would be tragic. I'd rather we were wrong but tried to turn around the problem. Better to have loved and lost, you know?

[stefan]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/10f7d396-b20d-11db-a79f-0000779e2340.html

Scientists dispel global warming doubts

By Fiona Harvey in Paris


The world

[scoutabout]

As far as the President not taking credit for the economy: I could not disagree more. Liberals were very upset with President Bush for his huge stimulant packages after 9/11 but it is impossible to say they didn't work. It was just about miraculous how fast our economy bounced back. For future reference you could make an easier argument about the President balancing the budget because that absolutely also falls under the president.

The stimulus package was a give-away aimed only at certain producers. Add in the Halliburton fiesta (noncompetitive) and you've just got an economic policy based on the Monty Hall model. Don't look at this as a liberal/neocon thing. It is damaging to the overall economy for governments (federal to local) to subsidize chosen businesses. In fact, I really don't see how any self-proclaimed conservative can get behind such activities. In my own industry, I see the ill effects of government subsidy all the time.

And when I was working (years ago) as a general assignment reporter I was shocked at the way some businesses were handed pots of gold by local governments and others were not. Favoritism, nepotism, "cronyism" are all hurtful to the health of the economies. Businesses should all rise and fall on their own merit. While a tax break for one business may look like stimulus, it creates an unfair advantage against the competition (direct and indirect, mind you).

The dems are the ones who like to exclude/include SPECIFIC businesses in legislation (i.e. Nancy and her exclusion of a company in her district in the minimum wage bill). Tax breaks for an industry or section of industry is how things are done.

How do you know that those businesses weren't judged by merit? From your point of view it was cronyism.

[JP]

Will: Inconvenient Kyoto Truths
Was life better when a sheet of ice a mile thick covered Chicago? Was it worse when Greenland was so warm that Vikings farmed there?
By George F. Will
Newsweek
Feb. 12, 2007 issue - Enough already. It is time to call some bluffs. John Kerry says that one reason America has become an "international pariah" is President Bush's decision to "walk away from global warming." Kerry's accusation is opaque, but it implies the usual complaint that Bush is insufficiently enthusiastic about the Kyoto Protocol's binding caps on emissions of greenhouse gases. Many senators and other experts in climate science say we must "do something" about global warming. Barack Obama says "the world" is watching to see "what action we take."

Fine. President Bush should give the world something amusing to watch. He should demand that the Senate vote on the protocol.

Climate Cassandras say the facts are clear and the case is closed. (Sen. Barbara Boxer: "We're not going to take a lot of time debating this anymore.") The consensus catechism about global warming has six tenets: 1. Global warming is happening. 2. It is our (humanity's, but especially America's) fault. 3. It will continue unless we mend our ways. 4. If it continues we are in grave danger. 5. We know how to slow or even reverse the warming. 6. The benefits from doing that will far exceed the costs.

Only the first tenet is clearly true, and only in the sense that the Earth warmed about 0.7 degrees Celsius in the 20th century. We do not know the extent to which human activity caused this. The activity is economic growth, the wealth-creation that makes possible improved well-being

[Rev. Coyote]

Tax breaks for an industry or section of industry is how things are done.

How do you know that those businesses weren't judged by merit? From your point of view it was cronyism.


To your first point, I believe that is unethical.

To the second, I was covering the local governements for the paper and researched the issues and the merits. It was cronyism in a few cases, and blind stupidity in others. Government should NEVER give arbitrary support to business. It creates unfair advantages. It is welfare of the worst kind.

[Rev. Coyote]

Oh, my.

Always great to hear in-depth reasoning from climate expert George Will. The bow tie says it all.

[Scott P]

And we do not know whether warming is necessarily dangerous.

It depends on where you live. It probably wouldn't effect Utah and Colorado much except perhaps for water conservation or the ski industry.

I spent the end of 2005 in the Pacific Islands. All the people there are very concerned since they live only a few feet above sea level. In countries like the Marshall Islands or the Maldives (indian Ocean) a slight rise in sea level could wipe out their entire country. Here's an excerpt pn the geography.

[i]Maldives holds the record for being the flattest country in the world, with a maximum natural ground level of only 2.3 m (7

[JP]

I believe that is unethical.
Pot calling the kettle black? :haha: :haha:

[Rev. Coyote]

I believe that is unethical.
Pot calling the kettle black? :haha: :haha:

Uh, yeah, whatever dude -- but you should be more specific. (Trying to remember the last time I paid off a politician for a development permit...)


Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.............

[JP]

Roofing nails = unethical :2thumbs:

are we still on roofing nails?

c'mon back on topic

[Rev. Coyote]

Roofing nails = unethical :2thumbs:


You need to get over that one. And think about this -- sometimes the mere suggestion of roofing nails is as good as roofing nails themselves.

But yeah, stay on topic, I agree.

[JP]

But yeah, stay on topic, I agree.
Wow, again that kettle thing :roflol:

[JP]

But yeah, stay on topic, I agree.
Wow, again that kettle thing :roflol:


are we still on roofing nails?

c'mon back on topic
Nice try :five:

[JP]

I know that many here have said the US shouldn't be concerned about how we effects others and that we should be able to do whatever we want regardless of how it might effect others, but I would still disagree in many cases.
So, if one was going to buy into this "end of the world" as we know it scheme, what about other countries say like China? Doesn't seem that they will be doing anything about GW.

[stefan]

are we still on roofing nails?

c'mon back on topic
Nice try :five:


that was i, but i wasn't trying to be hidden, the permissions have been fixed now. earlier anyone could post without logging in in this new section.

[DiscGo]

As I said before, I honestly do not know what to think about global warming, but I would love it if the world (not just the U.S.) would be careful. I can't imagine anyone on this website not caring about the environment . I know that several of us have really disagreed politically but I am really surprised to see this thread go on so long.

As an honest bystander, are you guys debating if "Global Warming" is real? Are you debating if it is President Bush's fault? What to do about it? I was reading through the posts and it kind of seems like the focus was lost somewhere.

If nobody wants to respond to my post, it is cool. I was just genuinely curious why this topic has continued so long.

[stefan]

As I said before, I honestly do not know what to think about global warming, but I would love it if the world (not just the U.S.) would be careful. I can't imagine anyone on this website not caring about the environment . I know that several of us have really disagreed politically but I am really surprised to see this thread go on so long.

As an honest bystander, are you guys debating if "Global Warming" is real? Are you debating if it is President Bush's fault? What to do about it? I was reading through the posts and it kind of seems like the focus was lost somewhere.


i am very exhausted tonight, so i'll answer this in a very simplified caricature, missing the finer points of every aspect of it.


i agree with you that the world needs to care. the US needs to help to set an example, but also to put major pressure on other countries to do the same. i don't know the answer, but i don't think it's a good excuse not to change, if, say, china will only be worse and it'll hurt us economically if we change while they follow along the same old problematic path 10 fold.

the US has been a revolutionizer with technology. this could be a chance to rekindle that innovation edge we have had ... and bring it to the rest of the world, to encourage the change, as we offer some solutions.

i think it's clear that there is a warming trend, after all we've exited out of a ice age 10-11,000 years ago (not to mention various independent scientific measurements). the question is whether humans contribute to it or not, and to what extent. if we are contributing to it, then it's believed that we have moral obligation to prevent it, lest we disrupt the climate patterns.

the other side of the issue is, what is to be done, should we actually take this seriously. taking it seriously would mean making serious attempts at reducing our carbon output as much as possible. a number of people are against this because it could (or is expected to) have dramatic economic and practical consequences for people, business, corporations, whatever. so to some degree, people want "proof" that one should worry, before going to all this trouble. either that or, some people don't really care, won't necessarily be around, and are leaving it as someone else's problem. realizing that the proponents of GW (which includes NUMEROUS scientists) are gaining momentum, in that "movement" sense, a few people are rebutting, in an attempt to keep this movement in check, at least in the eyes of the public. unfortunately it seems to have become more of a political issue than a scientific one

one question is, how much proof does there need to be to act on it. scientists have given a LOT of evidence to support the anthropogenic contribution to the carbon level (greenhouse gases) of the atmosphere, which is capable of causing warming due to the greenhouse effect.
on the other hand, the bush administration needed very little and very weak evidence to launch a full scale invasion of iraq. i think this is ironic.

if the bush administration were to agree that global warming is a problem and that we are part of the cause, then the bush administration/congress would need to address it and take action. otherwise it's a weak position to acknowledge it, but do nothing. the bush administration is being accused of downplaying the language and suppressing scientific and governmental reports supporting our contribution to global warming. and many people naturally speculate on why they would do such a thing.

one thing that is really important to keep in mind ... small changes can have big consequences. actions now can have delayed responses. there may be points of no return or irreversibility. these are natural phenomena we find regularly in science, that is, in the natural world. if we are indeed altering our climate with our emission of greenhouse gases, these considerations shouldn't be taken lightly. they are all possibilities ... the real problem is that, technically we don't know what WILL actually happen ... in my mind, the real question is whether it is responsible for us to ignore this issue and to be conducting a science experiment on a grand scale ... one that *could* have dramatic consequences?

"a science experiment" is exactly what we're currently doing whether anyone recognizes it or not. except, in general we don't believe in experimenting on humans, when there is the possibility of negative consequence.


i welcome others' views and perspectives on the matter.

[JP]

i welcome others' views and perspectives on the matter.
i am very exhausted tonight
the US needs to help to set an example, but also to put major pressure on other countries to do the same. i don't know the answer, but i don't think it's a good excuse not to change, if, say, china will only be worse and it'll hurt us economically if we change while they follow along the same old problematic path 10 fold.

the US has been a revolutionizer with technology
to encourage the change, as we offer some solutions.

i think it's clear that there is a warming trend
the question is whether humans contribute to it or not, and to what extent. if we are contributing to it, then it's believed that we have moral obligation to prevent it, lest we disrupt the climate patterns.

the other side of the issue is, what is to be done, should we actually take this seriously. taking it seriously would mean making serious attempts at reducing our carbon output as much as possible. a number of people are against this because it could (or is expected to) have dramatic economic and practical consequences for people, business, corporations, whatever.
unfortunately it seems to have become more of a political issue than a scientific one

one question is, how much proof does there need to be to act on it. scientists have given a LOT of evidence to support the anthropogenic contribution to the carbon level (greenhouse gases) of the atmosphere, which is capable of causing warming due to the greenhouse effect.
on the other hand, the bush administration needed very little and very weak evidence to launch a full scale invasion of iraq. i think this is ironic.

if the bush administration were to agree that global warming is a problem and that we are part of the cause, then the bush administration/congress would need to address it and take action.

if we are indeed altering our climate with our emission of greenhouse gases, these considerations shouldn't be taken lightly. they are all possibilities ... the real problem is that, technically we don't know what WILL actually happen ... in my mind, the real question is whether it is responsible for us to ignore this issue and to be conducting a science experiment on a grand scale ... one that *could* have dramatic consequences?
Did ya get enough sleep :mrgreen: You asked for this :haha:

Why does the US need to set the example? And why should we be the ones applying the pressure? We can attempt to set the example and we could attempt to apply pressure, but if a country looks at GW as nothing they want to be concerned with, what are we going to do? We don't even know all the answers to the questions.

Yes, we are leaders in some of the fields of technology; is that enough to bring change? GW solutions, we need to know more before we jump into that pot.

Oh yea, there is a warming trend. It's a naturally occurring event. When the dinosaurs were walking around the face of the earth, it wasn't their Hummers that caused the problem. It was nature. Do humans have an impact on it, of course we do. We're here, so we do have an impact, but the question is how much? Is it enough to throw in all of our chips and do extreme things to counter act a naturally occurring event? The media's and some scientific circles of the Doomsday analogy is a little overplayed. Why can't things be done in moderation? Baby steps toward the problem and as we learn more we do more if necessary.

Oh yes, jamming GW theories down everybody's throat and having knee-jerk reactions with extreme solutions will have an extreme consequences. All this for the unknown. It will cost industries and business major amounts of money to comply with these knee-jerk reactions. Guess who bares that cost? We, the consumer. It all sounds fine and dandy until it hits us right in the wallet. Baby steps are easier to take than leaps and bounds.

"unfortunately it seems to have become more of a political issue than a scientific one"
It's funny you say it's unfortunate and in the next series of points you attempt to make, you turn into just that. I think that's ironic.

What administration really did anything about GW? I'm not talking about just talk, which administration had made the US the example setter? NONE! Why? The cost that we as a nation would have to bare just to set an example on a theory. Then what other country would be willing to do that? It all comes down to cost. Cost and effect. Will the effect be worth the cost? Then we would also have to calculate that WE would be the only ones onboard. So, if we were the only ones to make costly drastic changes, would the world last a day longer than it would have?

[Rev. Coyote]

Why does the US need to set the example? And why should we be the ones applying the pressure? We can attempt to set the example and we could attempt to apply pressure, but if a country looks at GW as nothing they want to be concerned with, what are we going to do? We don't even know all the answers to the questions.

Yes, we are leaders in some of the fields of technology; is that enough to bring change? GW solutions, we need to know more before we jump into that pot.

A different angle............

Here's the truly funny part: We're missing out on a multibillion dollar international market on carbon credits, while simultaneously feeding EU countries raw materials so they can capitalize on the same markets. It is rarely a good idea to ship out raw material (wood) when we could be capturing value-added opportunities here in the U.S.

[JP]

We're missing out on a multibillion dollar international market on carbon credits
Where is that figure? I understand the getting credit for reducing greenhouse gases, but where is that actual dollar amount for say a credit? How much do we get for that one ton drop?

[Rev. Coyote]

Where is that figure? I understand the getting credit for reducing greenhouse gases, but where is that actual dollar amount for say a credit? How much do we get for that one ton drop?

Global markets reported at about US$21 bn for the 1st 9 months of 06 (see below). Credits per ton US$25 spot against $52/ton penalty. You could have looked this up.

----------------------------------------------------
China eyes summer launch for carbon credit exchange
(Reuters)

6 February 2007


BEIJING - Beijing plans to launch a pilot exchange for carbon trade this summer to be ready to win a slice of the multi-billion dollar market by 2008 and capitalise on China

[JP]

You could have looked this up.
You're right, I could have. But since you're the one spewing it off, I figured that I would let you post where it was you got that information. :gulp:

[Rev. Coyote]

You could have looked this up.
You're right, I could have. But since you're the one spewing it off, I figured that I would let you post where it was you got that information. :gulp:


Oh, so you were just being a J.O.

[JP]

Oh, so you were just being a J.O.
Na, I'm not trying to emulate you. :bootyshake:

[stefan]

Oh yea, there is a warming trend. It's a naturally occurring event. When the dinosaurs were walking around the face of the earth, it wasn't their Hummers that caused the problem. It was nature. Do humans have an impact on it, of course we do. We're here, so we do have an impact, but the question is how much?


so you're suggesting (as sombeech, as many others on this forum and elsewhere) that the many independent, expert scientific researchers who have spent countless hours, err ... years, thinking about this and poring over and analyzing this data, as well as our wealth of knowledge on climate data/theory of the past, naively haven't thought about this or taken it into account?

that, J.P., is a boooold statement



Is it enough to throw in all of our chips and do extreme things to counter act a naturally occurring event? The media's and some scientific circles of the Doomsday analogy is a little overplayed. Why can't things be done in moderation? Baby steps toward the problem and as we learn more we do more if necessary.


well ... it depends on whether we have the luxury of time. some don't believe we do, however, we don't know for sure. just keep in mind, there could be major delays to the response of the system, small changes can have big consequences, and there can be points of no return or reversibility.

i think one of the most clich

[Cirrus2000]

but you're right, everything's probably fine
:roflol: :roflol: :roflol:


:popcorn:

[JP]

[quote=stefan]so you're suggesting

as well as our wealth of knowledge on climate data/theory of the past naively haven't thought about this or taken it into account?

that, J.P., is a boooold statement

well ... it depends on whether we have the luxury of time. some don't believe we do, however, we don't know for sure. just keep in mind, there could be major delays to the response of the system, small changes can have big consequences, and there can be points of no return or reversibility.

i think one of the most clich

[Rev. Coyote]

so you're suggesting (as sombeech, as many others on this forum and elsewhere) that the many independent, expert scientific researchers who have spent countless hours, err ... years, thinking about this and poring over and analyzing this data, as well as our wealth of knowledge on climate data/theory of the past, naively haven't thought about this or taken it into account?

that, J.P., is a boooold statement



Stefan...consider the source.

[DiscGo]

Shouldn't this thread be under: Environmental Issues ?

[Scott P]

What administration really did anything about GW?

Several, but they all had ulterior motives. A big example is the CAFE standards begun in 1975. It was increased every year in 1979-1985. Unfortunately it dropped to below 1985 standards until 1990 where it was increased back to the 1985 level. It has been stable ever since. Granted, the motive wasn

[JP]

[quote=Scott Patterson]If decreasing CO2 emissions would destroy an economy, why is Switzerland so much richer per capita than US?

Everyone can do their part as well. How about buying that Honda Civic instead of the Chevy Blazer? Bike to work as much as possible instead of driving all the time. Turn down the heat from 70 to 67. Turn off the lights when not in use and use florissant bulbs. Every little bit helps and everyone can make a difference, however small.

This isn

[Scott P]

I guess it would depend on how many industries Switzerland has and how many the US has that produce CO2. If the US has a greater number of these CO2 producing industries than Switzerland the cost to the US would obviously be more.

Don't forget that in the USA, personal vehicles, not any industry are the top emmiters of CO2. In Switzerland, for example, you don't need a car to get everywhere. You can zoom around country to country at over 100+ mph. Public transportation goes everywhere.


Someone looking into an SUV or a pickup for his or her purposes are not going to settle for a Honda Civic. Some people have actual practical purposes for the vehicle they choose.

True, but most don't. Only 2% of 4wd's make it off road. Most are used as grocery getters. Obviously, a rancher or contracter needs a truck. Where I live, you almost need a AWD or 4wd. However, unless you drive off road, a Subaru or otehr car based SUV's are usually better in the snow and ice, unless it is deep than a conventional SUV or truck and get's much better gas milage. However, those types of vehicles are not good off road. As pointed out however, 98% of people don't drive off road. It seems silly to have a Hummer in some place like Miami or Los Angeles.


I agree, the question is how much is man contributing to this naturally occurring event?

Yes, that is the question and most (not all) scientist say quite a bit.


And will it lead to this big doomsday sooner?

Depends on where you live. At current trends, at least one entire country (Maldives) is going to be wiped off the map within a few decades. Many other small islands where people live will be displaced as well. Doomsday is already creeping up on them. Since where I live, for example, is often the coldest place in the nation, people around here might not be effected too much, in fact in some ways it would be benificial, such as extending our very short growing season. On the other hand, if the temperature rises too much, the Rocky Mountain region in general could be in serious trouble if the average snowpack gets less. Almost all of our water comes from snowpack.

[stefan]

Shouldn't this thread be under: Environmental Issues ?

well, in some sense, you're right. but since the articles i posted were more politically relevant, i posted this here. there is of course a global warming thread in the environmental section too.

[stefan]

[quote=Scott Patterson] How much is harder to prove as there are so many other factors involved, but it can be proved that it will indeed cause warming. This isn

[JP]

In Switzerland, for example, you don't need a car to get everywhere. You can zoom around country to country at over 100+ mph. Public transportation goes everywhere.

Only 2% of 4wd's make it off road. Most are used as grocery getters. Obviously, a rancher or contracter needs a truck. Where I live, you almost need a AWD or 4wd. However, unless you drive off road, a Subaru or otehr car based SUV's are usually better in the snow and ice, unless it is deep than a conventional SUV or truck and get's much better gas milage. However, those types of vehicles are not good off road. As pointed out however, 98% of people don't drive off road. It seems silly to have a Hummer in some place like Miami or Los Angeles.
I am a 2%'er that you despise. :ne_nau:
The large majority of people in the U.S. needs a vehicle. Public transportation is not offered in rural and most suburban areas.

But, people also buy 4x4

[scoutabout]

Of the people in this thread who claim we should give up our cars, how many of you have given up yours?

[Scott P]

I am a 2%'er that you despise.

Not so. I do much off road driving, in fact about the only time I use my SUV (Pathfinder) is when I need to go off road. In contrast to many areas, most roads around here are 4wd.

I am only against irresponsible 4wd use (such as driving through meadows and roadless areas, false road claims, etc). Why do you say I despise the 2%? I have said that I too go off-roading. Just because I'm an environmentalist it means I am against all off-roading? Not so.


The large majority of people in the U.S. needs a vehicle.

Exactly (see below).


Public transportation is not offered in rural and most suburban areas.

Exactly. Where I live, for example, the nearest train station is a drive of 300 miles round trip. The nearest bus station is almost 200 miles round trip. What you say is 100% true. In the USA the vast majority of people need cars. It is not true in other countries. Public transportation goes to every small rural town out there. Teh public transportation system in this country is among the worst in the world. It isn't practical to get hardly anywhere. The longer we wait to build the projects, the harder it will be. The day will come when we need more public transportation just to avoid sitting in traffic for hours a day. However, it can be assumed that Americans are addicted to cars and it will be fought tooth and nail before that day comes.

If you could ride a high speed train and it takes you two hours to get to Saint George, would you drive?

[quote]But, people also buy 4x4

[JP]

I am a 2%'er that you despise.
I am only against irresponsible 4wd use (such as driving through meadows and roadless areas, false road claims, etc). Why do you say I despise the 2
However, it can be assumed that Americans are addicted to cars and it will be fought tooth and nail before that day comes.
If you could ride a high speed train and it takes you two hours to get to Saint George, would you drive?
Click below for a photo we took near my house on June 4 2005.
Let say you are driving down the highway and get to a snowy area. In a 4wd you are shifting in and out driving in snow and dry areas. It's a pain when on a mountain road and half of it is in the sun and dry and half is in the shade and slick. You can't (or I should say shouldn't) use a concentional 4wd on dry pavement.
That doesn't mean everyone will do so or should be forced to.


Of the people in this thread who claim we should give up our cars, how many of you have given up yours?

You can't. That was my point.
All of the organized 4x4 clubs are too against irresponsible 4wd use. Stay on the trails. False road claims? Is it a road or not? Was it originally a road? I assumed by your signature that you viewed

[Scott P]

[quote]All of the organized 4x4 clubs are too against irresponsible 4wd use. Stay on the trails. False road claims? Is it a road or not? Was it originally a road? I assumed by your signature that you viewed

[scoutabout]

You can't. That was my point. The public transportation system in this country is terrible.

I'd be all for better public transportation. When I was going to school at UT in Austin, I rode the bus everywhere for two years. To get from my apartment to school to work and back was ok, but if I wanted to go anywhere else it was a long, multi-route journey.

[Scott P]

but if I wanted to go anywhere else it was a long, multi-route journey.

Here's one for you. :2thumbs: Links major cities in six countries:

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

361 mph anyone?: :2thumbs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JR-Maglev

[JP]

Yes. Too bad we can't ease into public transportation systems.
I did going from CT into NYC yesterday :nod:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v654/Zukimog/P1010016-2.jpg

Then of course a few taxi rides :haha:

[stefan]

one issues with the trains that already exist in the united states is that they are slave to cargo trains. cargo trains rule the tracks in this country, and passenger trains will frequently be delayed (depending on location) to ensure the efficient travel of cargo ... and trains aren't very cheap!!

it seems buses are more reliable as far as on-time travel

but, of course, neither of these in the united states are high speed

[stefan]

i am not trying to get into temperature in this post, just carbon. i want to make a point against the notion that our contribution to
atmospheric carbon is negligible. while a climate scientist could put together far better information than i, i think there is
something convincing in the simplicity of the following.

this first pair of graphs shows a strong correlation between the population growth and the atmospheric level of CO2 during the same
period of time. if one looks at the level of CO2 prior to this, there is an increase as well, coinciding with exiting the ice age,
but would not be correlated to population growth (next graph).

CO2 increases may have different sources. but the most recent sharp increase of 35% over the previous plateau levels
corresponds strongly to our population growth, and this represents 24% of the current total.
moreover, this increase represents about 42% of the total CO2 differential in the past 600,000.
and it really doesn't start to take off until after 1800, as the industrial revolution developed.

note in the past 400,000(650,000) years, the maximal amount of CO2 has been about 300 ppm whereas currently it's around 380 ppm.

this kinda data is not definitive, but it's glaringly correlating.

http://uutah.com/forum/files/co2pop.jpg

if you want to go back a little more in time, you can see that there was an increase correlating with the end of the ice age, which then
plateaus for a it, before this more recent sharp increase.

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/CO2_0-50k_yrs.gif




and if you want to go back 400,000(650,000) years here are the same ice core CO2 levels (with temp levels superimposed).



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/63/Co2-temperature-plot.svg/800px-Co2-temperature-plot.svg.png










:popcorn:

[scoutabout]

So somehow, C02 and temp levels varied even before man was burning fossil fuels? That must prove that we're responsible.

:roll:

[stefan]

So somehow, C02 and temp levels varied even before man was burning fossil fuels? That must prove that we're responsible.

:roll:

is that really the best you can come up with. very disappointed, sorry :ne_nau:

[JP]

cargo trains rule the tracks in this country, and passenger trains will frequently be delayed (depending on location)
Not here, that is strictly a commuter train/tracks that brings people into NYC from places in CT and other parts of New York. No cargo what so ever.

[stefan]

sure, right. forgot about commuter rails. thanks :2thumbs:

[stefan]

post just to upload an image.