More Global Warming bad science ahead.

Eric Ferguson
Posts: 75
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
More Global Warming bad science ahead.

As we approach the release of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the imprudence has already begun.

This is confusing so pay attention. There are two documents of interest.

One is:
"IPCC Working Group I Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis."


This would be the upcoming report and would be a section of the Fourth Assessment Report.

The other is:
"Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers: Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."

The later is a recently released document with a very similar title but not the same document. Notice the word summary. This was done deliberately to confuse people, and it works. The media believes this is the definitive report. It is only a summary. It was issued on February 2nd, 2007, and was 21 pages long. This document was riddled with serious errors. On February 5th, 2007 an edited version, 18 pages long, was released.

The actual FAR is being held up at least through April for additional editing. An earlier draft does not agree with the just published summary. Yes only government science could pull this one off. They've released a summary, edited it and re-released it, without releasing the underlying document the summary is based on. A medical research company or science department at a University doing this would have them closed down.

The "IPCC Procedures for the Preparation, Review, Acceptance, Adoption, Approval and Publication of Reports" lists the rules by which the IPCC operates to publish a report. The procedure states "The content of the authored chapters is the responsibility of the Lead Authors, subject to Working Group or Panel acceptance. Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter." Did you catch that? The report is supposed to be changed to be consistent with the summary. Real science doesn't function this way.

If this global climate change is of such importance and you're prepared to issue a statement based on scientific findings, why not release the findings? Oh, wait, the findings aren't ready yet.

This is becoming tradition. The EPA did the same thing when they declared second hand smoke kills 3000 people each year. They made the statement before their research was completed. Then they doctored the research to meet their statement.

Is there no end?

Consider this account closed. It's disgraceful this site has no function to delete an account. I cannot be part of an organization that seeks only to replace the religion of the god of the bible with the religion of "poor me" bleeding heart liberalism. Rational my ass! Not believing in a god is one thing. A rational view of the rest of the world is something else, which isn't found here.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10146
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Probably not. But the fact

Probably not. But the fact is that we do have an effect on the earth, and moderating that effect is a requirement for our survival. So in this case, I don't mind so much.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Probably not.

Vastet wrote:
Probably not. But the fact is that we do have an effect on the earth, and moderating that effect is a requirement for our survival. So in this case, I don't mind so much.

You don't mind that they're using bad science to prove something?

What if the ICR was using bad science to prove something?

Is it okay just because it's bad science that makes people do things you want them to do? 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10146
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote: Vastet

Zhwazi wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Probably not. But the fact is that we do have an effect on the earth, and moderating that effect is a requirement for our survival. So in this case, I don't mind so much.

You don't mind that they're using bad science to prove something?

What if the ICR was using bad science to prove something?

Is it okay just because it's bad science that makes people do things you want them to do? 

Not in general. But in this case the real science has been unable to sway public opinion. So what else is there to do?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
It's sad that the only

It's sad that the only options you can see are force and fraud. If you lie, people will resent you for it. If you force it down their throats, people will resent you for it. Part of the reason the truth isn't working is because enough people already resent environmentalists for all the lies and force that's been used. Try a different tactic.

How about making green technology convenient, inexpensive, and popular? Save the world and make a profit doing it!


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10146
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote: It's sad

Zhwazi wrote:

It's sad that the only options you can see are force and fraud. If you lie, people will resent you for it. If you force it down their throats, people will resent you for it. Part of the reason the truth isn't working is because enough people already resent environmentalists for all the lies and force that's been used. Try a different tactic.

How about making green technology convenient, inexpensive, and popular? Save the world and make a profit doing it!

No. The reason it isn't working is because it's uneconomical. Every massive power in the world is fighting the science that tells them they're destroying us. They know it's true. They just don't give a shit. And their responsive lies must be dealt with somehow. I don't care how. Since I tend to mirror the irrationality in an debate when irrationality is evidently not going to be countered with rationality, I have no problem with the same tactic being used on a mass scale. Anyone who wants to know the real science can look it up. It's not like it's being hidden.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
First of all, if it's

First of all, if it's uneconomical MAKE IT ECONOMICAL. This was my proposed solution. You can make money by making things economical.

Second, they're not destroying us. Not all change is bad. For all we know, a warmer earth may actually do more good than harm

Third, mirroring their irrationality makes you no better than them.

Fourth, advertising lies DOES hide the truth.

Fifth, you totally did not support the assertion that I'm wrong in suggesting that people are not paying attention to you because they resent you.

I don't believe the global warming bullshit because I'm tired of hearing environmentalists' lies and seeing their violence. I am not paying attention to you because people like you are telling me it's the end of the fucking world if we don't do exactly as you say. I am not paying attention because 30 years ago your kind resulted in an article in TIME magazine about how GLOBAL COOLING was going to be the death of us. I am not paying attention because I know damn well that Al Gore knows damn well that An Inconvienient Truth is an awfully convenient lie.

That's why I'm not paying attention to you people. If you want my attention, don't fork your tounge and don't try to pass laws telling me what to do. Those are the environmentalists I'll listen to.

I give a shit about the environment. I really do. I care. I want clean air and clean water and green forests. I like these things. I recognize threats to these things and that they should be dealt with. But people who use them as an excuse to control my life will not be given consideration in my choices because they refuse to allow me choices in the first place.

When someone is lying to you it means they are trying to control you. I like the environment, but my hatred of being controlled far exceeds that. If I recognize that I am being lied to, I am no longer going to take a word you say seriously. If you say "But I'm telling the truth this time!", am I actually expected to believe that you aren't just lying again? How am I supposed to tell the truth from the lies? By your word, which I already know to be untrustworthy?

I'm a very tolerant person. You can believe whatever you want, I don't care if you want to have gay sex with your dog on the lawn, charge $20 for a bag of ice after a hurricane, not pay taxes, or go form a commune in the woods, I don't care. But there are two things I do not tolerate: Force and fraud. If you want me to pay attention to you, do not use force, do not use fraud, and my mind will be open to what you have to say. As soon as I detect either, I'm not listening, because you have demonstrated that truth and reason are irrelevant, so your truth and reasons are irrelevant to me.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10146
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote: First of all,

Zhwazi wrote:
First of all, if it's uneconomical MAKE IT ECONOMICAL. This was my proposed solution. You can make money by making things economical.

It's not possible to make it economical. Do you have any idea how much the entire industry of humanity is based on oil? In time it will become economical, but people don't tend to look at long term goals. They deal with the here and now. Especially in the market place. In the here and now, it's not economical. Switching from oil to anything is a multi-billion if not trillion dollar process.

Zhwazi wrote:

Second, they're not destroying us. Not all change is bad. For all we know, a warmer earth may actually do more good than harm

Wrong. We know that a warmer planet means more hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts, disease, and extinctions. Habitats are dying. Species we rely on are dying. Virus' and parasites that cannot spread to some areas due to cold weather are now spreading to communities with no defense against them. A warmer planet isn't good for us. It may be good for some species, but not us.

Zhwazi wrote:
Third, mirroring their irrationality makes you no better than them.

That's your opinion. In my experience, sometimes the only way to fight fire is with fire. And in fact, the only way to counter an irrational argument is to use a rational argument. Someone who is arguing irrationally cannot defeat another who is arguing irrationally. If the only way for them to defeat your argument is to use rational arguments, then they are exposed to their own irrational arguments being irrational.

Zhwazi wrote:
Fourth, advertising lies DOES hide the truth.

Not if the truth is also being advertised. And it is.

Zhwazi wrote:
Fifth, you totally did not support the assertion that I'm wrong in suggesting that people are not paying attention to you because they resent you.

Strawman. I never made such an assertion. How does people resenting me have anything to do with global warming? I could frankly care less what other people think, unless it negatively affects me.

Zhwazi wrote:

I don't believe the global warming bullshit because I'm tired of hearing environmentalists' lies and seeing their violence. I am not paying attention to you because people like you are telling me it's the end of the fucking world if we don't do exactly as you say. I am not paying attention because 30 years ago your kind resulted in an article in TIME magazine about how GLOBAL COOLING was going to be the death of us. I am not paying attention because I know damn well that Al Gore knows damn well that An Inconvienient Truth is an awfully convenient lie.

That's your problem. More people are becoming aware of the reality despite your problem, so I could care less about your problem.

Zhwazi wrote:
That's why I'm not paying attention to you people. If you want my attention, don't fork your tounge and don't try to pass laws telling me what to do. Those are the environmentalists I'll listen to.

I don't care if you think you have the right to pollute the environment because of willfull ignorance. I'll agree with the law that puts you in jail for trying to poison me.

Zhwazi wrote:
I give a shit about the environment. I really do. I care. I want clean air and clean water and green forests. I like these things. I recognize threats to these things and that they should be dealt with. But people who use them as an excuse to control my life will not be given consideration in my choices because they refuse to allow me choices in the first place.

Obviously you don't care. People are saying what needs to be done to reverse the damage we're causing. If you ignore it then you are a part of the problem.

Zhwazi wrote:

When someone is lying to you it means they are trying to control you.

Agreed. But there's a lot of truth behind the lies. The lies are just breaking through other lies. The lesser of two evils if you will. It's a common situation for life on this planet. Not liking it and fighting to change it is fine and rational. Not accepting it and ignoring it is irrational. The oil companies have fought for far too long to keep their hefty profits at the expense of the species. And I could care less if you have a problem with the methodology used to unseat them.

Zhwazi wrote:
I like the environment, but my hatred of being controlled far exceeds that. If I recognize that I am being lied to, I am no longer going to take a word you say seriously.

Again, that's your problem. I care more about my life than complete unwavering honesty. Most people are like me.

Zhwazi wrote:
If you say "But I'm telling the truth this time!", am I actually expected to believe that you aren't just lying again? How am I supposed to tell the truth from the lies? By your word, which I already know to be untrustworthy?

Look at the science itself instead of the government reports if you want the reality. Science doesn't lie. That's the big flaw with your entire argument. The government is not the only source of information. Not today. The government always lies. Every government always lies. The trick is in recognizing which lies are for a good result(climate change) and which are for a bad(Iraq). Getting pissy at the fact the government lies isn't going to change anything.

Zhwazi wrote:
I'm a very tolerant person. You can believe whatever you want, I don't care if you want to have gay sex with your dog on the lawn, charge $20 for a bag of ice after a hurricane, not pay taxes, or go form a commune in the woods, I don't care.

I'm the same way.

Zhwazi wrote:
But there are two things I do not tolerate: Force and fraud. If you want me to pay attention to you, do not use force, do not use fraud, and my mind will be open to what you have to say. As soon as I detect either, I'm not listening, because you have demonstrated that truth and reason are irrelevant, so your truth and reasons are irrelevant to me.

And your willful ignorance is irrelevant to me. Ignoring reality will never change reality. Reality is that people lie. Truth is preferred to a lie, except when the truth will not change things for the better. And in this case, the truth has failed. Within moments of the report of the lie, suddenly the US switched rails from "global warming doesn't exist" to "global warming exists". That's all I care about. And it's all you should care about too.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote: First of

Zhwazi wrote:

First of all, if it's uneconomical MAKE IT ECONOMICAL.

Not in ALL cases, and technology certianly is NOT static.

Quote:
This was my proposed solution. You can make money by making things economical.

 And as deminishing and unreliable supply drives the price of petro up, alternatives will become more attractive.

 

All bullshit aside, the earth IS warming up., I think the data is in on that. That's not a good thing.

How responsible humans are is debatable, but the fact remains we are NOT helping the matter. Personally, I think IF we are the impacters some think we are AND we stop all green house emmissions tomorrow; we're STILL fucked. The gasses we're talking about have half lives on the order of 50+ years(certain CFCs have half lives over 100 years). That means that IF we are the cause things are going to get worse before they get better. And honestly, it's pretty foolish to think we have nothing to do with it. Emmissions made during WWII are just now beginning to impact us - gasses emmited at ground level take that long to reach the upper atmosphere.

I WILL agree with  Zhwazi that many in the environmentalist community have damaged their credibility, but in all honesty the projections coming now are not JUST from treehuggers. The scientific community as a whole seems to agree that there IS a problem, that the earth IS warming up, and that humans ARE likely at least partly responsible. That's tough to poo poo.

Here is where personal responsibilit comes into play. Humaninty is responsible for protecting and saving itself, if we have to rely on goverments to do it, frankly we're fucking doomed.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Eric Ferguson
Posts: 75
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Not in

Vastet wrote:
Not in general. But in this case the real science has been unable to sway public opinion.

That's right, only the bad science has been able to. 

Quote:
Every massive power in the world is fighting the science that tells them they're destroying us. They know it's true. They just don't give a shit.

Not true. In fact the "power" supports the bad science because it makes people want/need their power.

The "science", and I use that term loosely, is not telling them it is true. Only the talking heads and fear mongers are telling them.

I know this will open a can of worms but...there is no catastrophic end of the world coming from global warming. There is no science to support it.

It would be foolish to think that anthropology has no effect on the Earth. But it would also be foolish to think that anthropology, which is infinitesimal compared to the Earth could cause such dramatic changes.

Climate science is in its infancy. Read the whole Third Assessment Report. Count the errors, bad science, and judgements made without complete data. I'm not going to do it here, far too busy as it is, but I could go on for hours.

Don't believe everything you hear. e'hem... the Bible? But if you didn't know any better and were told it was true repeatedly... 

Consider this account closed. It's disgraceful this site has no function to delete an account. I cannot be part of an organization that seeks only to replace the religion of the god of the bible with the religion of "poor me" bleeding heart liberalism. Rational my ass! Not believing in a god is one thing. A rational view of the rest of the world is something else, which isn't found here.


Eric Ferguson
Posts: 75
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Anyone who

Vastet wrote:
Anyone who wants to know the real science can look it up. It's not like it's being hidden.

See the post at the beginning of the thread.

They are hiding it. Is altering it not the same? 

Consider this account closed. It's disgraceful this site has no function to delete an account. I cannot be part of an organization that seeks only to replace the religion of the god of the bible with the religion of "poor me" bleeding heart liberalism. Rational my ass! Not believing in a god is one thing. A rational view of the rest of the world is something else, which isn't found here.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10146
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Eric Ferguson wrote: Not

Eric Ferguson wrote:
Not true. In fact the "power" supports the bad science because it makes people want/need their power. The "science", and I use that term loosely, is not telling them it is true. Only the talking heads and fear mongers are telling them. I know this will open a can of worms but...there is no catastrophic end of the world coming from global warming. There is no science to support it. It would be foolish to think that anthropology has no effect on the Earth. But it would also be foolish to think that anthropology, which is infinitesimal compared to the Earth could cause such dramatic changes. Climate science is in its infancy. Read the whole Third Assessment Report. Count the errors, bad science, and judgements made without complete data. I'm not going to do it here, far too busy as it is, but I could go on for hours. Don't believe everything you hear. e'hem... the Bible? But if you didn't know any better and were told it was true repeatedly... 

I agree to a certain extent(especially the end of the world bit. We may be capable of destroying ourselves, but we are not anything like capable of destroying all life or the earth itself), but scientifically it's impossible to deny that humans have a significant effect on the global climate, when looking at how the climate works in the first place. Global temperature is dependant on two things at the most basic level: The sun is the primary source, and the atmospheric makeup is the deciding factor in how much sunlight gets through and how much stays once through. The atmosphere is finite. Observations of Venus compared to Earth are direct evidence of how hot a carbon dominated atmosphere gets. And we are pumping more carbon into our atmosphere than it is capable of absorbing. We're also simultaneously destroying the natural counterbalance to increased carbon emissions(trees and ice). We're destroying habitats for species, which can have chain reaction effects that are somewhat unpredictable but always head up the food chain. And like Yellow said, the suggestive evidence is that we're only seeing the beginning of what we're going to see, no matter what we do now. But if we keep up what we're doing for long enough, Earth is going to look like Venus in years to come.

Eric Ferguson wrote:
See the post at the beginning of the thread.

They are hiding it. Is altering it not the same?

But you are only looking at the American perspective. The US government can alter it all it likes, it can't alter what comes from the UK, Canada, or China. Anyone willing to look at the science is incapable of being restricted from doing so, and seeing exactly what's accurate and what isn't. There is a lot of fear mongering going on, and a whole bunch of bullshit being spouted, but the essential claim in the middle of it all is true enough. The Earth is warming up. And we're at least partially responsible.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: It's not

Vastet wrote:
It's not possible to make it economical.

Yes it is. You're giving yourself an excuse to turn your brain off. 

 

Vastet wrote:
Wrong. We know that a warmer planet means more hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts, disease, and extinctions. Habitats are dying. Species we rely on are dying. Virus' and parasites that cannot spread to some areas due to cold weather are now spreading to communities with no defense against them. A warmer planet isn't good for us. It may be good for some species, but not us.

And do you think that with that there wouldn't be anything good coming your way? Just because you failed to name them doesn't mean they're not there. 

Vastet wrote:
That's your opinion.

And if you want to convince me of anything, you're going to have to operate within that framework.

Vastet wrote:
Not if the truth is also being advertised. And it is.

You are hiding truth under lies. You are still lying. 

Vastet wrote:
Strawman. I never made such an assertion.

You quoted my entire post and then started with "No." I interpret this as you making an assertion that I am incorrect on the entire post.

Vastet wrote:
That's your problem.

No, it's your problem. It's causing a problem for you, not me.

Vastet wrote:
I don't care if you think you have the right to pollute the environment because of willfull ignorance.

Just because I deny human causation of global warming does not mean I think I have the right to pollute the environment.

 

Vastet wrote:
I'll agree with the law that puts you in jail for trying to poison me.

Just sue me for poisoning you and cut the government out of it, as this is between you and me, not the government. 

Vastet wrote:
Obviously you don't care.

I do, I just don't care about what you're saying.

Vastet wrote:
If you ignore it then you are a part of the problem.

What problem? 

Vastet wrote:
Agreed. But there's a lot of truth behind the lies.

You are still lying and you are still trying to control me and I'm still not paying attention to you because I detect that. 

Vastet wrote:

And I could care less if you have a problem with the methodology used to unseat them.

You'll care when I shove hot steaming 12 gauge slugs down your throat to defend myself from your methodology. 

 

Vastet wrote:
Look at the science itself instead of the government reports if you want the reality. Science doesn't lie.

Science isn't a person, of course it can't lie. People claiming to represent science do lie, and are lying to me. 

Vastet wrote:
Reality is that people lie.

People like environmentalists. 

Vastet wrote:
Truth is preferred to a lie, except when the truth will not change things for the better. And in this case, the truth has failed. Within moments of the report of the lie, suddenly the US switched rails from "global warming doesn't exist" to "global warming exists". That's all I care about. And it's all you should care about too.

I'm more likely to do everything I can to tell people that these are lies than I am to be happy you've got people thinking it's the end of the world.

 

Now, I don't even believe in global warming. I don't deny that the climate changes, but I don't think it's on a long-term warming trend. From 1910-1945 there was global warming, then from 1945 to the 1970s there was global cooling, then from 1970-present there has been global warming. I think there's a cycle here that we should recognize before we shit our pants thinking we're going to d3st0ry t3h w0rldz!11one. There's been warmer periods in earth's history, and what happened? Nothing important. There was a medievel warm period, was there mass extinction? Did the droughts hurt that much or did people adapt to the changing conditions? Did it cause a chain reaction that resulted in the earth's warming accelerating?

No, it cooled down.

This is why I think global warming is bullshit. Global temperature swings in the past have far exceeded what we have experienced. We have no reason to believe we are the cause of this, and that it's not just another part of the natural cycle of earth's temperature.

How's that for an inconvenient truth?


Ivan_Ivanov
Ivan_Ivanov's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:It's not

Vastet wrote:
It's not possible to make it economical. Do you have any idea how much the entire industry of humanity is based on oil?

 What the hell are you talking about?

Oil is an energy source. If you can come up with a different source of energy that is at least just as efficient, for the same or lower price, people will start using it.

That's what making it economical means, and it has nothing to do with how popular oil is at the moment.

EDIT:

Wait on second tought I think it does have something to do with it.

The current high demand for oil makes it more expensive, and so makes it relatively easier to come up with a cheaper alternative.


Eric Ferguson
Posts: 75
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: but

Vastet wrote:
but scientifically it's impossible to deny that humans have a significant effect on the global climate,

Not true. Science has not proven this. And the question is how significant.

Quote:
when looking at how the climate works in the first place.

We don't know how it all works yet.

Quote:
Global temperature is dependant on two things at the most basic level: The sun is the primary source, and the atmospheric makeup is the deciding factor in how much sunlight gets through and how much stays once through.

You're right about the sun, but the entire process is far more complex than that. Surface reflectivity, radiative forcing, oceanic "memory", and any number of processes we have not discovered.

Quote:
Observations of Venus compared to Earth are direct evidence of how hot a carbon dominated atmosphere gets.

Invalid. This is an item used often by the doomsayers. You cannot compare the two. Millions of years of evolution, vast differences in the distance to the sun, vast differences in the initial make-up of the atmospheres, differences in terrain, gravity, rotational speed, orbital speed... it is not a valid comparison at all.

Quote:
And we are pumping more carbon into our atmosphere than it is capable of absorbing.

No science to support true or false. Natural occuraces such as volcanic erruptions introduce more "abnormal" content into the atmosphere than anything humans have ever done.

Quote:
We're also simultaneously destroying the natural counterbalance to increased carbon emissions(trees and ice)

Increase carbon emissions ramp up vegation growth.

Quote:
We're destroying habitats for species, which can have chain reaction effects that are somewhat unpredictable but always head up the food chain.

Perhaps. But every time, and I mean EVERY time government tries to step in they make matters worse. Read Mary Ruwart. And Earth is in a state of the greatest bio-diversity ever. There's more species alive today than ever before.

Quote:
And like Yellow said, the suggestive evidence is that we're only seeing the beginning of what we're going to see, no matter what we do now. But if we keep up what we're doing for long enough, Earth is going to look like Venus in years to come.

Impossible to know without a 10 million year account.

Quote:
But you are only looking at the American perspective. The US government can alter it all it likes, it can't alter what comes from the UK, Canada, or China.

Actually the report, which is supposed to be the definitive source is from the United Nations, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC.

Quote:
Anyone willing to look at the science is incapable of being restricted from doing so, and seeing exactly what's accurate and what isn't.

Also not true. Drafts of the IPCC report are not generally publically available. You can get them but not from the source, they aren't releasing them. Documents that show up are often "leaked". Reports that run contrary to the alarmist claims are frequently put out of print.

In 1989 the US Congressional Research Service performed a study about airliner cabin air quality. The results were not what the government and lobby groups wanted, it quickly went out of print. (I have an electronic copy)

Quote:
There is a lot of fear mongering going on, and a whole bunch of bullshit being spouted,

yep

Quote:
but the essential claim in the middle of it all is true enough. The Earth is warming up.

Is it? Know what the Earth's mean temperature is? And how much it's changed?

I said I wasn't going to go into this...dammit Smile

The generally accepted global mean temperature is 14°C, plus or minus .7.

The IPCC computer models, "trained" to determine how much human CO2 output raised the temperature, predicted an increase of .6°C since 1880. The calculated increas is less than the margin of error of which we can measure the actual temperature. And that's a computer model calculation, not an actual measured increase.

I'm oversimplifying...it would be like telling a calculator that 1+1=3. Then ask it what is 1+1. When it answers 3, "see, told you so".

Global mean temperature today is 8.38°C.

Quote:
And we're at least partially responsible.

And we may be.

Consider this account closed. It's disgraceful this site has no function to delete an account. I cannot be part of an organization that seeks only to replace the religion of the god of the bible with the religion of "poor me" bleeding heart liberalism. Rational my ass! Not believing in a god is one thing. A rational view of the rest of the world is something else, which isn't found here.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10146
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote:Vastet

Zhwazi wrote:
Vastet wrote:
It's not possible to make it economical.
Yes it is. You're giving yourself an excuse to turn your brain off.

No, it isn't. You obviously have no concept of the reality of the situation. And until you show how it could be, you're simply asserting nonsense without evidence.

Zhwazi wrote:
Vastet wrote:
Wrong. We know that a warmer planet means more hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts, disease, and extinctions. Habitats are dying. Species we rely on are dying. Virus' and parasites that cannot spread to some areas due to cold weather are now spreading to communities with no defense against them. A warmer planet isn't good for us. It may be good for some species, but not us.

And do you think that with that there wouldn't be anything good coming your way? Just because you failed to name them doesn't mean they're not there.

And you think that there would be good things coming my way? Without even naming them?

Zhwazi wrote:
Vastet wrote:
That's your opinion.
And if you want to convince me of anything, you're going to have to operate within that framework.

Much like theists, I don't care what you believe. If you want to be irrational, you have the right to do so. You do not have the right to negatively impact my life and or freedoms, so I stand firmly behind those who are telling us a truth even if it is wrapped in lies.

Zhwazi wrote:
Vastet wrote:
Not if the truth is also being advertised. And it is.
You are hiding truth under lies. You are still lying.

Nothing is being hidden. The truth is available to anyone who wants to look at it. If you want to allow yourself to be lied to without looking up the reality then that's your choice.

Zhwazi wrote:
Vastet wrote:
Strawman. I never made such an assertion.

You quoted my entire post and then started with "No." I interpret this as you making an assertion that I am incorrect on the entire post.

Your interpretation is invalid and irrational. I said no, then explained what no referred to.

Zhwazi wrote:
Vastet wrote:
That's your problem.
No, it's your problem. It's causing a problem for you, not me.

No, it's your problem. You're the one who has a problem. I don't. I'm merely defending my postion that you have a problem with.

Zhwazi wrote:
Vastet wrote:
I don't care if you think you have the right to pollute the environment because of willfull ignorance.

Just because I deny human causation of global warming does not mean I think I have the right to pollute the environment.

You said don't pass laws telling you what to do. I say you have no right to make that request if your acts impact me or anyone else.

Zhwazi wrote:

Vastet wrote:
I'll agree with the law that puts you in jail for trying to poison me.

Just sue me for poisoning you and cut the government out of it, as this is between you and me, not the government.

This isn't a solution. No court has jurisdiction over the world. And law suits do nothing more than raise insurance rates and make it harder for everyone to get insurance in the first place.

Zhwazi wrote:
Vastet wrote:
Obviously you don't care.
I do, I just don't care about what you're saying.

Which means you don't care about the environment. The government may be lying to you, but I'm not telling you there won't be any ice on the planet in 2050 or that north america will be a desert or some bullshit. I'm just telling you that without retracting current policies, we'll be experiencing a lot more climate based problems than we do today.

Zhwazi wrote:
Vastet wrote:
If you ignore it then you are a part of the problem.

What problem?

Denying the problem doesn't make it go away.

Zhwazi wrote:
Vastet wrote:
Agreed. But there's a lot of truth behind the lies.

You are still lying and you are still trying to control me and I'm still not paying attention to you because I detect that.

I'm not lying. The government and/or fear mongers are lying. If you want to put your head in the sand while everyone else makes effort to survive then evolution will leave you behind. I have no problem with this. Natural selection at it's finest.

Zhwazi wrote:
Vastet wrote:

And I could care less if you have a problem with the methodology used to unseat them.


You'll care when I shove hot steaming 12 gauge slugs down your throat to defend myself from your methodology.

No, because you'll be shot 30 times in the face by cops before you get anywhere near me. Any damage you cause will be negligible compared to ignoring the issue at hand.

Zhwazi wrote:
Vastet wrote:
Look at the science itself instead of the government reports if you want the reality. Science doesn't lie.

Science isn't a person, of course it can't lie. People claiming to represent science do lie, and are lying to me.

So look at the science, not the people. How is anyone stopping you from researching it yourself?

Zhwazi wrote:
Vastet wrote:
Reality is that people lie.

People like environmentalists.

People like a lot of people. Environmentalists do tend to fear monger more than others, I agree. That doesn't mean they are flat out wrong in everything they say. Why can't you ignore the idiot with the sign saying the world is doomed and instead see what led the idiot to claim this in the first place?

Zhwazi wrote:
Vastet wrote:
Truth is preferred to a lie, except when the truth will not change things for the better. And in this case, the truth has failed. Within moments of the report of the lie, suddenly the US switched rails from "global warming doesn't exist" to "global warming exists". That's all I care about. And it's all you should care about too.
I'm more likely to do everything I can to tell people that these are lies than I am to be happy you've got people thinking it's the end of the world.

Climate change is hardly the end of the world. The end of humanity perhaps, if we ignore it. Either way, you go ahead and spread those lies. Not many will be listening to you anymore. They'll see you as being in an apologist postion for oil companies or a similar position.

Zhwazi wrote:
Now, I don't even believe in global warming. I don't deny that the climate changes, but I don't think it's on a long-term warming trend. From 1910-1945 there was global warming, then from 1945 to the 1970s there was global cooling, then from 1970-present there has been global warming. I think there's a cycle here that we should recognize before we shit our pants thinking we're going to d3st0ry t3h w0rldz!11one.

Except that aerosols used by man were mostly responsible for the cooling period you describe. And carbon levels today are higher than they've been in human history. And they're still rising. Denying the effect of an increasingly greenhouse environment is scientifically irresponsible. Ice core samples show a direct correlation between higher atmospheric carbon levels and higher global average temperatures.

Zhwazi wrote:

There's been warmer periods in earth's history, and what happened? Nothing important.

Climate change has been attributed to a great many extinctions. You are simply in denial.

Zhwazi wrote:
There was a medievel warm period, was there mass extinction? Did the droughts hurt that much or did people adapt to the changing conditions? Did it cause a chain reaction that resulted in the earth's warming accelerating? No, it cooled down.

Different cause and effect. Humans weren't pumping hundreds of trillions of carbon particals into the atmosphere while destroying the rain forests that feed on them and watching thousand year old ice shelves that help regulate said carbon particals fall into the sea and melt away. Invalid argument.

Zhwazi wrote:
This is why I think global warming is bullshit. Global temperature swings in the past have far exceeded what we have experienced.

Not in the time scale we're looking at. Not even remotely close.

Zhwazi wrote:
We have no reason to believe we are the cause of this, and that it's not just another part of the natural cycle of earth's temperature. How's that for an inconvenient truth?

You've posted more opinion than truth, and it's not inconvenient. Earth temperature changes do occur. They do not naturally occur with the speed of which they are occurring now.

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:
Vastet wrote:
It's not possible to make it economical. Do you have any idea how much the entire industry of humanity is based on oil?

What the hell are you talking about?

Reality. What are you talking about?

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:
Oil is an energy source.

It is also a lubricant.

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:
If you can come up with a different source of energy that is at least just as efficient, for the same or lower price, people will start using it.

It's not remotely that simple. You don't just change the source, you're changing everything that uses the source. Removing oil as a source means removing gas stations and replacing them with something else. It means changing every vehicle on the road, in the air, and on the water. It means closing power plants and opening new ones. You must not be grounded in reality to think that you can just switch energy sources without it costing anything.

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:

That's what making it economical means, and it has nothing to do with how popular oil is at the moment.

Popularity has everything to do with costs.

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:
EDIT:
Wait on second tought I think it does have something to do with it. The current high demand for oil makes it more expensive, and so makes it relatively easier to come up with a cheaper alternative.

Indeed. Which is why we are finally seeing some movement towards alternate fuel sources. Even though we've known about these problems for more than 30 years, and nothing until the last 5 to 10 was done about it.

Eric Ferguson wrote:
Vastet wrote:
but scientifically it's impossible to deny that humans have a significant effect on the global climate,

Not true. Science has not proven this. And the question is how significant.

Yes, it has. Though I agree the question is how significant.

Eric Ferguson wrote:
Quote:
when looking at how the climate works in the first place.

We don't know how it all works yet.

We know enough.

Eric Ferguson wrote:
Quote:
Global temperature is dependant on two things at the most basic level: The sun is the primary source, and the atmospheric makeup is the deciding factor in how much sunlight gets through and how much stays once through.

You're right about the sun, but the entire process is far more complex than that. Surface reflectivity, radiative forcing, oceanic "memory", and any number of processes we have not discovered.

You're correct that I oversimplified the issue. But surface reflectivity goes down with ice levels. Oceanic absorption goes down with ice levels. Radiative forcing is the issue in the first place. Every factor we know about points in the same direction.

Eric Ferguson wrote:
Quote:
Observations of Venus compared to Earth are direct evidence of how hot a carbon dominated atmosphere gets.
Invalid. This is an item used often by the doomsayers. You cannot compare the two. Millions of years of evolution, vast differences in the distance to the sun, vast differences in the initial make-up of the atmospheres, differences in terrain, gravity, rotational speed, orbital speed... it is not a valid comparison at all.

Yes, it is. Because of Mercury. Which is even closer to the sun by order of magnitude than Venus is, yet is massively cooler. Mercury without an atmosphere, when atmosphere is the exact problem we are dealing with. I don't see terrain as relevant. None of Venus' surface is exposed to sunlight. It's all atmospheric. Gravity is nearly consistant with Earth's, if there's anything to show gravity having an effect on climate. I've never heard of rotational and orbital speeds having an effect on climate. You could make a good case for the moon having an effect(atmospheric disturbance), but I don't see why the orbital speed would.
Initial makeup would appear to be irrelevant. Current makeup is relevant.

Eric Ferguson wrote:
Quote:
And we are pumping more carbon into our atmosphere than it is capable of absorbing.

No science to support true or false. Natural occuraces such as volcanic erruptions introduce more "abnormal" content into the atmosphere than anything humans have ever done.

Edit: This posted before I was done writing and hadn't been able to delve into editting. I don't have time anymore to deal with this point properly. My apologies.

Eric Ferguson wrote:
Quote:
We're also simultaneously destroying the natural counterbalance to increased carbon emissions(trees and ice)

Increase carbon emissions ramp up vegation growth.

We're destroying the vegetation faster than it's growing, which is releasing even more carbon. You do not counter my point.

Eric Ferguson wrote:
Quote:
We're destroying habitats for species, which can have chain reaction effects that are somewhat unpredictable but always head up the food chain.

Perhaps. But every time, and I mean EVERY time government tries to step in they make matters worse. Read Mary Ruwart. And Earth is in a state of the greatest bio-diversity ever. There's more species alive today than ever before.

You have no evidence to back up your claims. The only reason some species are still alive today is because of government action. And there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever to empirically state that there's more diversity today than ever before. You'd need a running history of the planet to claim this. Life does not have such a running history. Only geologic features do.

Eric Ferguson wrote:

Quote:
And like Yellow said, the suggestive evidence is that we're only seeing the beginning of what we're going to see, no matter what we do now. But if we keep up what we're doing for long enough, Earth is going to look like Venus in years to come.

Impossible to know without a 10 million year account.

Why?

Eric Ferguson wrote:
Quote:
But you are only looking at the American perspective. The US government can alter it all it likes, it can't alter what comes from the UK, Canada, or China.

Actually the report, which is supposed to be the definitive source is from the United Nations, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC.

The United Nations is as much a political body as the United States. My apologies for the error, however the essence of my statement is still valid. The UN can no more control science than anyone can.

Eric Ferguson wrote:
Quote:
Anyone willing to look at the science is incapable of being restricted from doing so, and seeing exactly what's accurate and what isn't.

Also not true. Drafts of the IPCC report are not generally publically available. You can get them but not from the source, they aren't releasing them. Documents that show up are often "leaked". Reports that run contrary to the alarmist claims are frequently put out of print.

I'm not talking about the IPCC report. I'm talking about the science of global climate. As for the rest: Two words: The internet.

Eric Ferguson wrote:
In 1989 the US Congressional Research Service performed a study about airliner cabin air quality. The results were not what the government and lobby groups wanted, it quickly went out of print. (I have an electronic copy)

I have no idea what the context here is. But the very fact that you own a copy is mere proof that whatever it was could not be completely hidden. With the internet today, it's an order of magnitude harder. If a scientist shoots an irreperable hole into climate change, noone can keep him quiet.

Eric Ferguson wrote:
Quote:
but the essential claim in the middle of it all is true enough. The Earth is warming up.

Is it? Know what the Earth's mean temperature is? And how much it's changed? I said I wasn't going to go into this...dammit Smile

The generally accepted global mean temperature is 14°C, plus or minus .7.

The IPCC computer models, "trained" to determine how much human CO2 output raised the temperature, predicted an increase of .6°C since 1880. The calculated increas is less than the margin of error of which we can measure the actual temperature. And that's a computer model calculation, not an actual measured increase.

I'm oversimplifying...it would be like telling a calculator that 1+1=3. Then ask it what is 1+1. When it answers 3, "see, told you so".

Global mean temperature today is 8.38°C.

Quote:
And we're at least partially responsible.

And we may be.

Actually I was aware that the global temperature difference seems negligible. But a small change in mean temperature can mean drastic local changes. I believe the calculation for maximum disruption of climate temperature based soley on carbon was 1.5c. I may be off by a bit.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Ivan_Ivanov
Ivan_Ivanov's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:It is also a

Vastet wrote:
It is also a lubricant.

And how is this at all relevant? 

Quote:
It's not remotely that simple. You don't just change the source, you're changing everything that uses the source. Removing oil as a source means removing gas stations and replacing them with something else. It means changing every vehicle on the road, in the air, and on the water. It means closing power plants and opening new ones. You must not be grounded in reality to think that you can just switch energy sources without it costing anything.

You must be not grounded in reality if you think that changes in the used technology are instantenious and take place only because someone decides they are the best.

No, you don't have to change everything that uses that source, but if you're going to build something that needs an energy source, you will most likely use the cheapest and most efficient one.

You don't have remove all the gas stations, but if you see people using a different energy source, you'll probably want to open a new station that will supply it to them.

You don't have to change every vehicle everywhere, but if you're buying yourself a new one, you'll be smart to pick the one that uses the cheaper and more efficient energy source.

It doesn't mean you have to close old power plants, but if you can offer electricity for a lower price using your new energy source, you can open a new one and compete with the old ones.

No, it doesn't cost you anything to switch to a more efficient energy source, it actually saves you money. That's what beeing more efficient, or economical, means!

Quote:
Popularity has everything to do with costs.

Yes, and as I later pointed out it actually makes it easier to make an alternative power source economically feasable. 

Quote:
Which is why we are finally seeing some movement towards alternate fuel sources. Even though we've known about these problems for more than 30 years, and nothing until the last 5 to 10 was done about it.

So make up your mind, first you said that making alternative sources economical is impossible because oil is too popular, now you agree that it's popularity is actually making it easier.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10146
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Ivan_Ivanov wrote: Vastet

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:
Vastet wrote:
It is also a lubricant.
And how is this at all relevant?

You said it's a fuel, I pointed out it's more than that.

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:
Quote:
It's not remotely that simple. You don't just change the source, you're changing everything that uses the source. Removing oil as a source means removing gas stations and replacing them with something else. It means changing every vehicle on the road, in the air, and on the water. It means closing power plants and opening new ones. You must not be grounded in reality to think that you can just switch energy sources without it costing anything.
You must be not grounded in reality if you think that changes in the used technology are instantenious and take place only because someone decides they are the best.

Strawman.

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:
No, you don't have to change everything that uses that source, but if you're going to build something that needs an energy source, you will most likely use the cheapest and most efficient one.

Nope. Just try putting deisel in a standard gas tank. See what happens. You don't have a clue do you?

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:
You don't have remove all the gas stations, but if you see people using a different energy source, you'll probably want to open a new station that will supply it to them.

Doesn't work that way. It's uneconomical to use a different fuel source than everyone else is using. You go ahead and open a hydrogen fuel station. You'll be bankrupt in a week. Maybe you'll learn something though.

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:
You don't have to change every vehicle everywhere,

Yes, you do.

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:
but if you're buying yourself a new one, you'll be smart to pick the one that uses the cheaper and more efficient energy source.

Takes a lot of time for every vehicle on the road/in the air/on the water to die. And lots of people aren't smart/don't care/or simply don't know. That's why they buy SUVs. Like I suspected, you aren't grounded in reality.

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:
=It doesn't mean you have to close old power plants, but if you can offer electricity for a lower price using your new energy source, you can open a new one and compete with the old ones.

You have any idea how much it costs to make a power plant? Any idea how much it costs to close one? How much to clean one up? IT IS NOT ECONOMICAL. Brainless suggestion.

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:
No, it doesn't cost you anything to switch to a more efficient energy source,

Flat out lie.

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:
it actually saves you money.

Two lies in two comments. Might save money 20-100+ years down the road(depending on certain circumstances), not today.

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:
That's what beeing more efficient, or economical, means!

You don't know how the economy works in the first place quite obviously.

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:
Quote:
Popularity has everything to do with costs.
Yes, and as I later pointed out it actually makes it easier to make an alternative power source economically feasable.

Only if popularity drives the new source. And it's not. Neither is it about to. So your point is moot.

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:
Quote:
Which is why we are finally seeing some movement towards alternate fuel sources. Even though we've known about these problems for more than 30 years, and nothing until the last 5 to 10 was done about it.
So make up your mind, first you said that making alternative sources economical is impossible because oil is too popular, now you agree that it's popularity is actually making it easier.

Strawman. I said SWITCHING fuel sources CANNOT BE ECONOMICAL TODAY. Try reading for once.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Ivan_Ivanov
Ivan_Ivanov's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:You said it's

Vastet wrote:
You said it's a fuel, I pointed out it's more than that.

And how is that at all relevant? 

Quote:
Strawman.

Woohoo, what an elaborate refutation. 

 

Quote:
Nope. Just try putting deisel in a standard gas tank. See what happens. You don't have a clue do you?

No, you don't have a clue.

What I said meant that if you're going to design a new car you might as well design it with a diesel (using your example) engine. 

 

Quote:
Doesn't work that way. It's uneconomical to use a different fuel source than everyone else is using. You go ahead and open a hydrogen fuel station. You'll be bankrupt in a week. Maybe you'll learn something though.

So how do you think today's gas stations started?

There hardly were any cars, say a 100 years ago, so opeining a gas station was certain bankruptcy, and if there were no gas stations how did people even start driving cars? 

 

Quote:
Yes, you do.

 You're getting more eloquent every second.

 

Quote:
Takes a lot of time for every vehicle on the road/in the air/on the water to die. And lots of people aren't smart/don't care/or simply don't know. That's why they buy SUVs. Like I suspected, you aren't grounded in reality.

Hardly anyone drives a car until it's completely dead. There are people that want to buy a car at any given time, you might as well offer them a one with a new engine. If it's cheaper to buy and maintain they might as well buy it.

And if you think people are not smart/don't know, then go and educate them, you elitist fuck.

Quote:
You have any idea how much it costs to make a power plant? Any idea how much it costs to close one? How much to clean one up? IT IS NOT ECONOMICAL. Brainless suggestion.

It's called an investition, dipshit.

You ask someone with a for a big sack of money, in return for an even bigger sack of money after a few years.

And as the owner of the new power plant, you don't give a fuck about the costs shutting down your competitors, that's their problem.

Quote:
Flat out lie.

Prove it. 

 

Quote:
Quote:
it actually saves you money.
Two lies in two comments.

Then I guess you have a better definition for the word 'economical', dumbass?  

 

Quote:
Might save money 20-100+ years down the road(depending on certain circumstances), not today.

The suggestion was to make it economical today, that is try to make the technology more efficient and easier/cheaper to manufacture, and you were arguing it's impossible.

No one said anything about economic feasability of current alternative energy sources.

What you just did was a bait and switch, you intelectually dishonest fuck. 

 

Quote:
You don't know how the economy works in the first place quite obviously.

Go ahead, show me what aspect of economy makes what I say wrong.

Otherwise I can play your game and just pretend that saying something makes it so.

 

Quote:
Only if popularity drives the new source. And it's not. Neither is it about to. So your point is moot.

Not the new source, but the old source.

Popularity = high demand.

High demand = high costs.

With high costs it's easier to come up with a new source that will be cheaper. 

Quote:
Strawman. I said SWITCHING fuel sources CANNOT BE ECONOMICAL TODAY. Try reading for once.

No you said "IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE IT ECONOMICAL", and the reason you gave was the extent to which the "industry of humanity" is based on oil. 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10146
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Ivan_Ivanov wrote: Vastet

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:
Vastet wrote:
You said it's a fuel, I pointed out it's more than that.

And how is that at all relevant? 

Why are you hung up on this? I merely pointed something out.

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:
Quote:
Strawman.

Woohoo, what an elaborate refutation.

Conclusive proof that even atheists can be irrational.

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:
Quote:
Nope. Just try putting deisel in a standard gas tank. See what happens. You don't have a clue do you?

No, you don't have a clue.

Again you speak for yourself.

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:
What I said meant that if you're going to design a new car you might as well design it with a diesel (using your example) engine.

Where are you going to fill up?

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:

Quote:
Doesn't work that way. It's uneconomical to use a different fuel source than everyone else is using. You go ahead and open a hydrogen fuel station. You'll be bankrupt in a week. Maybe you'll learn something though.

So how do you think today's gas stations started? There hardly were any cars, say a 100 years ago, so opeining a gas station was certain bankruptcy, and if there were no gas stations how did people even start driving cars?

It's completely inapplicable. That was the first fuel source for the first cars. There wasn't anything to replace. The industry was being started for the first time. Today it's replacing a fuel source that the entire planet uses. You don't just flip a switch and suddenly everything uses a different fuel source. Do you even know how engines work?

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:

Quote:
Yes, you do.

You're getting more eloquent every second.

You keep talking to yourself....

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:
Quote:
Takes a lot of time for every vehicle on the road/in the air/on the water to die. And lots of people aren't smart/don't care/or simply don't know. That's why they buy SUVs. Like I suspected, you aren't grounded in reality.
Hardly anyone drives a car until it's completely dead.

Flat out lie.

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:
There are people that want to buy a car at any given time, you might as well offer them a one with a new engine. If it's cheaper to buy and maintain they might as well buy it.

How is a new technology cheap and easy to maintain? Show me one piece of new technology that is a fundamental block of our society and was universally accepted in a day. Or a year. Or ten years. Just one.

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:
And if you think people are not smart/don't know, then go and educate them, you elitist fuck.

And how am I going to do that you brainless twit? You giving me power to change the education system and what corporations and governments can do and say all of a sudden? I'm starting to think you I should let you live in your cave and leave you to your idiocy.

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:
Quote:
You have any idea how much it costs to make a power plant? Any idea how much it costs to close one? How much to clean one up? IT IS NOT ECONOMICAL. Brainless suggestion.

It's called an investition, dipshit. You ask someone with a for a big sack of money, in return for an even bigger sack of money after a few years. And as the owner of the new power plant, you don't give a fuck about the costs shutting down your competitors, that's their problem.

Really? You useless shit. Why haven't these things already taken over then? Yep. You feel free to wallow in your foolishness. You aren't worth educating.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Ivan_Ivanov
Ivan_Ivanov's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Why are you

Vastet wrote:
Why are you hung up on this? I merely pointed something out.

And I merely pointed out that it's completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Quote:
Conclusive proof that even atheists can be irrational.

Right, and everyone knows that just giving the name a logical fallacy without explaining how it has been commited is the height of rationality.

Quote:
Where are you going to fill up?

Quote:
It's completely inapplicable. That was the first fuel source for the first cars. There wasn't anything to replace. The industry was being started for the first time.

This is irrelevant to the specific point that was raised.

The fact that there was nothing to replace doesn't change the fact that there was the very same "where are you going to fill up" problem... which turned out to be no problem at all.

Quote:
Today it's replacing a fuel source that the entire planet uses. You don't just flip a switch and suddenly everything uses a different fuel source.

No shit Sherlock, that's what I said.

It's completely irrelevant that the entire planet uses a different source, you start at the individual level, by, say, offering a new truck to short distance delivery companies along with fuel for it. If your offer is cheaper then just staying with the old trucks/fuel they'll accept it, if they accept other companies will see it and try to use it as well, if there'll be enough trucks using the new fuel someone will open a station supplying them with it, and at that point you're set to offer cars using this fuel to everyday folks.

Quote:
Do you even know how engines work?

What kind of engines?

Internal combustion, external combustion, electrical, they all work on different principles.

And how is this relevant to the discussion again?

Quote:
Flat out lie.

Don't give this shit.

I know there are people that do it, but using a car until it breaks down beyond repair in the long run costs more then buying a new one.

Hardly anyone does that where I live, so don't try to tell me it happens more often in the US. 

 

Quote:
How is a new technology cheap and easy to maintain? Show me one piece of new technology that is a fundamental block of our society and was universally accepted in a day. Or a year. Or ten years. Just one.

You said that making alternative sources economiocal is impossible because of the popularity of oil.

That's the only reason you gave in any of your posts. Therefore I took it you actually believe these sources actually are more economical in every other way (and that's assuming for the sake of your argument that you can say something is economical because it's popular).

 Beeing cheaper and easier to maintain are just few examples of how something can be more economical

As for the examples you asked, I never said any technology was accepted over night, idiot.

What I'm saying is that if one technology can outperform another, it will be economical to use it regardless how popular the other technology is.

How long did steam engines last the competition with internal combustion and electric engines?

How long did telegraphs last vs telephones?

 

Quote:
And how am I going to do that you brainless twit? You giving me power to change the education system and what corporations and governments can do and say all of a sudden?

Oh, yes because the only way to change people's mind is to completely take over every aspect of their lives.

Go to hell you nazi. 

Quote:
You useless shit. Why haven't these things already taken over then? Yep. You feel free to wallow in your foolishness. You aren't worth educating.

Because they are not efficient enough idiot.

And it has noting to do with the popularity of oil, the technology itself is not good enough yet.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:

Vastet wrote:
It's not remotely that simple. You don't just change the source, you're changing everything that uses the source. Removing oil as a source means removing gas stations and replacing them with something else.

No, it does not. It could be that simple, at least for a large portion of things. Going off gasoline could be as simple as converting from 4 to 2 cycle engines. Simply going diesle, which will burn pretty much any hydrocarbon if tweeked correctly. Make it CHEAP and the technology WILL follow.

Quote:
It means changing every vehicle on the road, in the air, and on the water.

Yeah, so we can do that in what, 10-20 years. How long do cars last? Ten years, at most for the most part. Big shit like locomotives, trucks and tankers are ALREADY diesle. Any such switch would take only slightly longer. Engines don't last for centuries.

Quote:
It means closing power plants and opening new ones.

No, it does not. It means burning different fuel, little more.

If it burns, it works. Period.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10146
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Vastet wrote:
It's not remotely that simple. You don't just change the source, you're changing everything that uses the source. Removing oil as a source means removing gas stations and replacing them with something else.

No, it does not. It could be that simple, at least for a large portion of things. Going off gasoline could be as simple as converting from 4 to 2 cycle engines. Simply going diesle, which will burn pretty much any hydrocarbon if tweeked correctly. Make it CHEAP and the technology WILL follow.

But it doesn't happen quickly. It's a process that takes years and costs money. Which was the whole thrust of my point in the first place, though it seems to have been lost.

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Quote:
It means changing every vehicle on the road, in the air, and on the water.
Yeah, so we can do that in what, 10-20 years. How long do cars last? Ten years, at most for the most part. Big shit like locomotives, trucks and tankers are ALREADY diesle. Any such switch would take only slightly longer. Engines don't last for centuries.

Exactly. I'm not saying that it's not going to happen or that it's not economical, I'm saying you can't just flip a switch and suddenly everything runs on hydrogen(or diesel) instead of oil byproducts.

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Quote:
It means closing power plants and opening new ones.

No, it does not. It means burning different fuel, little more. If it burns, it works. Period.

It does, and it's happening(at least in many European countries and here in Canada). When Ontario finally gets off it's lazy ass one of the biggest polluting sites in North America will be shut down and torn down(Nanticoke). They won't start burning something other than coal, we're switching to air and water based power production. So there are practically no emmissions at all. It's a slow and long road to an economically stable transition. Doing things too fast destroys the foundations it works upon.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet

Vastet wrote:
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Vastet wrote:
It's not remotely that simple. You don't just change the source, you're changing everything that uses the source. Removing oil as a source means removing gas stations and replacing them with something else.

 

No, it does not. It could be that simple, at least for a large portion of things. Going off gasoline could be as simple as converting from 4 to 2 cycle engines. Simply going diesle, which will burn pretty much any hydrocarbon if tweeked correctly. Make it CHEAP and the technology WILL follow.

But it doesn't happen quickly. It's a process that takes years and costs money. Which was the whole thrust of my point in the first place, though it seems to have been lost.

20 years is NOT a long time. It's PDQ in the grand scheme of thinngs and that sort of time frame is feasible for such a crossover. You agree below yourself. Cost in such a case is arbitrary, we're simply replacing technology, not revamping the whole fucking world. You have poor concept of the difference between different types of engines and the work and technology that goes into them. Going diesle or hydrogen would be a step BACKWARD as far as production goes - both would be simpler designs than gasoline equivalents.

Quote:
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Quote:
It means changing every vehicle on the road, in the air, and on the water.
Yeah, so we can do that in what, 10-20 years. How long do cars last? Ten years, at most for the most part. Big shit like locomotives, trucks and tankers are ALREADY diesle. Any such switch would take only slightly longer. Engines don't last for centuries.
Exactly. I'm not saying that it's not going to happen or that it's not economical, I'm saying you can't just flip a switch and suddenly everything runs on hydrogen(or diesel) instead of oil byproducts.

What retard would ever say it would be instantaneous? Only one who thought the time frame I laid out was unreasonable for such a change. Pick one.

 

Quote:
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Quote:
It means closing power plants and opening new ones.
No, it does not. It means burning different fuel, little more. If it burns, it works. Period.
It does, and it's happening(at least in many European countries and here in Canada). When Ontario finally gets off it's lazy ass one of the biggest polluting sites in North America will be shut down and torn down(Nanticoke). They won't start burning something other than coal, we're switching to air and water based power production. So there are practically no emmissions at all. It's a slow and long road to an economically stable transition. Doing things too fast destroys the foundations it works upon.

 Yeah, so how, exactly, did you refute my point? I've worked in the industry and developed technolgy for it. A traditional coal plant can function FINE burning coal, oil, wood, charcoal, trash, pretty much anything that you can set on fire. It really is a simple process - burn things, boil water, use steam to make electicity. We've been doing it for over a century.

As far as emmissions go, you're WRONG on that front as well. New membrane technology in conjuction with traditional scrubber systems can abate about 80-90% of such a plant's emmissions. New ideas such as using membranes to sequester CO2 and pump it underground are also quite close to becoming reality. 

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10146
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Vastet wrote:
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Vastet wrote:
It's not remotely that simple. You don't just change the source, you're changing everything that uses the source. Removing oil as a source means removing gas stations and replacing them with something else.

 

No, it does not. It could be that simple, at least for a large portion of things. Going off gasoline could be as simple as converting from 4 to 2 cycle engines. Simply going diesle, which will burn pretty much any hydrocarbon if tweeked correctly. Make it CHEAP and the technology WILL follow.

But it doesn't happen quickly. It's a process that takes years and costs money. Which was the whole thrust of my point in the first place, though it seems to have been lost.

20 years is NOT a long time. It's PDQ in the grand scheme of thinngs and that sort of time frame is feasible for such a crossover. You agree below yourself. Cost in such a case is arbitrary, we're simply replacing technology, not revamping the whole fucking world. You have poor concept of the difference between different types of engines and the work and technology that goes into them. Going diesle or hydrogen would be a step BACKWARD as far as production goes - both would be simpler designs than gasoline equivalents.

A few things here. The first and foremost is that we ARE revamping the whole world. There may be certain places that can remain relatively unchanged for a long time, but gasoline is used globally. Everyone uses gasoline. If you change one area without changing another then trade and tourism can become significantly costlier.
Second, hydrogen and diesel were just two examples I threw into the mix for attempted clarification. There is yet to be a consensus on what to use as an alternative fuel source. I wasn't trying to argue with those as specific fuel replacements.
Third, 20 years is forever in the business world. Longer than that. Technologically it's an eye blink, but not in the investment sectors. These people work by the minute. There are some that work towards long term goals, but most people are in it for the quick cash. Companies release beta tests as a final product today they're in such a rush to make a profit off them. And these people have forced the issue to be dragged through the mud for the last 15+ odd years. We could already be using another fuel source today, with it being a dominant source that had almost completely squeezed gasoline out the door if the whole issue hadn't been under such heavy debate. But instead of working economically through long term goals to change the fuel structure entirely to clean technology, they're milking the oil deposits for all they can.
Fourth, I ask for clarification on hydrogen being a step back. I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

What retard would ever say it would be instantaneous? Only one who thought the time frame I laid out was unreasonable for such a change. Pick one.

I don't know what kind of retard would. Maybe the guy above who wasn't paying attention to(or ask for clarification of if necessary) what I was saying in the first place? I agree with you that time negates the costs. If I implied otherwise I apologize. It wasn't my intention. It was my contention that because it's uneconomical to switch sources quickly(and because they could continue to make more money by not progressing to alternate fuel sources if they kept the debate going), many governments and companies have been doing nothing for a long time when they could have been fuelling a fuel revolution(pardon the pun).

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Yeah, so how, exactly, did you refute my point? I've worked in the industry and developed technolgy for it. A traditional coal plant can function FINE burning coal, oil, wood, charcoal, trash, pretty much anything that you can set on fire. It really is a simple process - burn things, boil water, use steam to make electicity. We've been doing it for over a century.

Burning things has byproducts. Why burn when you can generate power without burning?

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
As far as emmissions go, you're WRONG on that front as well. New membrane technology in conjuction with traditional scrubber systems can abate about 80-90% of such a plant's emmissions. New ideas such as using membranes to sequester CO2 and pump it underground are also quite close to becoming reality.

I'm not 100% certain I'm responding to this point properly, but if I understand your contention correctly, is not 10-20% emissions infinately greater than a dam using water flow or windmills utilizing air currents or solar panels collecting light? Even nuclear technology is safer and cleaner if used and disposed of properly.
Though I do admit I thought filters were closer to 50%. It's hard to keep up with all technologies at once. I thank you for letting me know that.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Eric Ferguson
Posts: 75
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Except that

Vastet wrote:
Except that aerosols used by man were mostly responsible for the cooling period you describe.

Check temperature records and you find the cooling did not occur. We were threatened with a coming ice age. Didn't happen.

Quote:
And carbon levels today are higher than they've been in human history.

Of course. Means nothing. How far back does human history go? 100,000 years ago CO2 level was almost identical to today. There's no evidence to suggest this is entirely caused by humans just like the last time when it clearly was not.

Quote:
Denying the effect of an increasingly greenhouse environment is scientifically irresponsible.

True. But making assumptions about it is equally irresponsible.

Quote:
Ice core samples show a direct correlation between higher atmospheric carbon levels and higher global average temperatures.

And they also show, particularly the Vostok samples, that the temperature increase is ahead of the carbon increase. Which makes perfect sense due to the nature of sea water's storage of CO2.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
but scientifically it's impossible to deny that humans have a significant effect on the global climate,
Not true. Science has not proven this. And the question is how significant.
Yes, it has. Though I agree the question is how significant.

No science has not proven this at all. The IPCC and Al Gore claim this, and they show their charts as proof. But real science has not proven this.

The bulk of the increase in temperature since 1880 occured BEFORE the bulk of increase in CO2 emissions. This is a fact that even the IPCC states. They then claim that subsequent temperature increases are entirely resulted from human activity, as if the natural forces all stopped suddenly. It's absurd.

Quote:
We know enough.

Perhaps for you or the doomsayers. No we do not know enough about climate science to make rash decisions. The IPCC admits that we cannot see these effects on short timescales. Yet we base legislation on it anyhow.

Quote:
You're correct that I oversimplified the issue. But surface reflectivity goes down with ice levels.

It changes with many factors. And ice levels actually haven't changed much. They vary naturally too. We've lost some ice in one place but gained it in another. Ever wonder how Greenland and Iceland got their names? Greenland is mostly ice today, but once was mostly green. Similar story for Iceland. Salinity affects ice formation too. Changes in ocean currents and temperature, an quite possibly human activity alter salinity.

Quote:
Oceanic absorption goes down with ice levels.

Oceanic absorption of what?

Quote:
Radiative forcing is the issue in the first place. Every factor we know about points in the same direction.

Not at all.

Quote:
Observations of Venus...
Quote:
it is not a valid comparison at all.
Yes, it is. Because of Mercury. Which is even closer to the sun by order of magnitude than Venus is, yet is massively cooler. Mercury without an atmosphere, when atmosphere is the exact problem we are dealing with. I don't see terrain as relevant. None of Venus' surface is exposed to sunlight. It's all atmospheric. Gravity is nearly consistant with Earth's, if there's anything to show gravity having an effect on climate. I've never heard of rotational and orbital speeds having an effect on climate. You could make a good case for the moon having an effect(atmospheric disturbance), but I don't see why the orbital speed would. Initial makeup would appear to be irrelevant. Current makeup is relevant.

You cannot compare any other planet. They are all different. Some with atmoshperes some without. Composition, distance from the sun, rotational speed, gravity, all of it are the very reasons why you cannot compare.

Gravity has a great effect, gravity alone determines density of an atmosphere's atoms and their ability to form molecules. On Earth for example about the only place you find atomic oxygen is at the top of the atmosphere, closer to the surface the density is too high for it to exist. Layers within an atmosphere are often governed by gravity.

How much salt water is on Venus? Salt water retains about 10 times the amount of CO2 as does Earth's atmosphere.

Volcanic activity, ocean and air currents, and surface reflectivity will certainly be different than here. Even rotational angle has an affect due to the nature of regional heating and cooling cycles.

You're right in that the atmosphere of Venus keeps it hot. The mean surface temperature of Mars is -63°C. Earth if it did not have an atmosphere is estimated to be -18°C.

Venus has a thick layer of sulphur above the layer of CO2, Earth doesn't. Guess what, different atmosphere, different rules. Sulphur on Earth has a net cooling effect.

As for light reaching the Venus surface it does indeed. If it didn't there would be no greehouse effect there. The effect functions by reflecting light energy back down to the surface. If no light hit the surface it could not reflect up. The primary element of it all is ultraviolet light, not visible light, including here.

Apples to Oranges.

Quote:
We're destroying the vegetation faster than it's growing, which is releasing even more carbon. You do not counter my point.

This would not be releasing more carbon, it would be processing it less. But no we are not destroying vegetation faster than it is growing. In the United States for example the amount of forest land is about the same today as it was in 1920. There's been some slight fluctuations but it's been basically flat. This as the demand for forest products is the highest it's ever been and continues to rise.

Quote:
Quote:
But every time, and I mean EVERY time government tries to step in they make matters worse. Read Mary Ruwart. And Earth is in a state of the greatest bio-diversity ever. There's more species alive today than ever before.
You have no evidence to back up your claims.

I have plenty of evidence. This is a well known fact.

Quote:
The only reason some species are still alive today is because of government action.

Name one. And prove government action did it. Government and Greenpeace might claim success, doesn't make it so. In fact most species identified as endangered are not.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And like Yellow said, the suggestive evidence is that we're only seeing the beginning of what we're going to see, no matter what we do now. But if we keep up what we're doing for long enough, Earth is going to look like Venus in years to come.
Impossible to know without a 10 million year account.
Why?

Easy, we have nothing to compare it to. Did humans cause Venus' atmosphere? No it's there naturally. The solar system is 4.5 billion years old. We know that even Earth has changed greatly over it's existence, it was once a much much hotter planet. Earth has been through 16 ice ages. Today's temperature and CO2 levels are almost identical to the last tepid period and very close to all the others.

Quote:
The United Nations is as much a political body as the United States. My apologies for the error, however the essence of my statement is still valid. The UN can no more control science than anyone can.

Nobody controls science. Governments however can and do control where research money goes and censor the findings.

Quote:
I'm not talking about the IPCC report. I'm talking about the science of global climate. As for the rest: Two words: The internet.

And you must dig deep for the information. Global warming alarmism is in the foreground. Most everything running to the contrary is hidden.

Quote:
Quote:
The results were not what the government and lobby groups wanted, it quickly went out of print. (I have an electronic copy)
I have no idea what the context here is. But the very fact that you own a copy is mere proof that whatever it was could not be completely hidden.

The point is that government tried to hide the information. Yes it's not completely hidden, but they try. And if you don't look for it you will not find it easily.

Quote:
With the internet today, it's an order of magnitude harder. If a scientist shoots an irreperable hole into climate change, noone can keep him quiet.

They try all the time. Government continually cuts funding off for anyone going against the grain. Global warming activists use ridicule to attempt to damage reputations.

Quote:
Actually I was aware that the global temperature difference seems negligible. But a small change in mean temperature can mean drastic local changes.

Or not. And it would mean global changes, not local. Local temperatures fluctuate all the time.

Quote:
I believe the calculation for maximum disruption of climate temperature based soley on carbon was 1.5c. I may be off by a bit.

Some have assumed various values. The IPCC model calculated increase is .6°C. Again that is not a measured increase.

Measured increases, which some suggest there is, are also subjective. The reason is that our ability to measure the Earth's mean temperature changes over time with technology. There's no single place on the planet that can be used for this measurement. A number of places are used, averaged. As the number goes up the value will likely change.

Understand that I, and others, are not saying that there is no global warming, or that human activity doesn't have an affect. Do not assume that the talking heads and treehuggers are telling the whole truth. I'm all in favor of alternative fuels and higher efficiencies. I'm not saying we are free to be irresponsible. But we don't need to panic. We don't need to waste $300 billion on mandates that have been shown to account for virtually nothing in slowing global warming.

A 4.5 billion year old planet. 1.6 million years of ice age cycles. And humans are going to break that?

In 1883 the eruption of Krakatoa spewed tephra particles into the air, spreading over the entire planet. The sky had an orange color and a halo around the sun, global temperatures were 1.2°C lower. Weather patterns were chaotic for years and did not return to normal for five years. The Earth itself has a greater affect than anything humans have ever done.

Consider this account closed. It's disgraceful this site has no function to delete an account. I cannot be part of an organization that seeks only to replace the religion of the god of the bible with the religion of "poor me" bleeding heart liberalism. Rational my ass! Not believing in a god is one thing. A rational view of the rest of the world is something else, which isn't found here.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10146
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Eric Ferguson

Eric Ferguson wrote:
Vastet wrote:
Except that aerosols used by man were mostly responsible for the cooling period you describe.

Check temperature records and you find the cooling did not occur. We were threatened with a coming ice age. Didn't happen.

As I'm not the one who brought up cooling in the first place, and in fact had to look it up since I hadn't heard it before, I would suggest that you're directing your comment to the wrong person.

Eric Ferguson wrote:
Quote:
And carbon levels today are higher than they've been in human history.
Of course. Means nothing.

Prove it please. I've seen science papers showing how it raises average temperatures and messes with ecosystems. I can accept that those papers were wrong, but not on an assertion.

Eric Ferguson wrote:
How far back does human history go? 100,000 years ago CO2 level was almost identical to today. There's no evidence to suggest this is entirely caused by humans just like the last time when it clearly was not.

I never said it was entirely caused by humans. Anyone who does, I agree is a nut.

Eric Ferguson wrote:
Quote:
Denying the effect of an increasingly greenhouse environment is scientifically irresponsible.

True. But making assumptions about it is equally irresponsible.

Only if you assume the only effects are thermal and atmospheric, when in fact emissions are down right poisonous on top of warming the planet. Climate change isn't the only reason we need to switch fuels. The perpetual smog cloud above LA should have been enough on it's own. But only the locals care about that.

Eric Ferguson wrote:
Quote:
Ice core samples show a direct correlation between higher atmospheric carbon levels and higher global average temperatures.

And they also show, particularly the Vostok samples, that the temperature increase is ahead of the carbon increase. Which makes perfect sense due to the nature of sea water's storage of CO2.

As the ice caps melt, lowering overall salinity, the ocean cannot store CO2 as efficiently or completely as when the ice caps are intact. Cooinciding with the clear cutting/burning of the rain forests, the carbon will stick around longer than it used to.

Eric Ferguson wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
but scientifically it's impossible to deny that humans have a significant effect on the global climate,
Not true. Science has not proven this. And the question is how significant.
Yes, it has. Though I agree the question is how significant.

No science has not proven this at all. The IPCC and Al Gore claim this, and they show their charts as proof. But real science has not proven this.

Science has proven it as much as it's proven that smoking causes cancer. Science is probability. Probabilities are in climate changes favour. That's why so many have lined up on the side of warming instead of the opposing side.

Eric Ferguson wrote:
The bulk of the increase in temperature since 1880 occured BEFORE the bulk of increase in CO2 emissions. This is a fact that even the IPCC states. They then claim that subsequent temperature increases are entirely resulted from human activity, as if the natural forces all stopped suddenly. It's absurd.

That is an absurd claim. One I've never made.

Eric Ferguson wrote:
Quote:
We know enough.

Perhaps for you or the doomsayers. No we do not know enough about climate science to make rash decisions. The IPCC admits that we cannot see these effects on short timescales. Yet we base legislation on it anyhow.

Even assuming for a moment that climate change is a red herring, there are enough other reasons to make these moves that it cannot be called rash. Not when people have dragged their heels for 15+ years as it is. The dangers of not acting outweigh the dangers of acting.

Eric Ferguson wrote:
Quote:
You're correct that I oversimplified the issue. But surface reflectivity goes down with ice levels.
It changes with many factors. And ice levels actually haven't changed much. They vary naturally too. We've lost some ice in one place but gained it in another. Ever wonder how Greenland and Iceland got their names? Greenland is mostly ice today, but once was mostly green. Similar story for Iceland. Salinity affects ice formation too. Changes in ocean currents and temperature, an quite possibly human activity alter salinity.

You're the first person to ever claim to me that ice levels are stable, so you're going to have to provide some evidence to back your claims. Every glacier on the planet is shrinking, including the ice caps. Shelves that have been stable for hundreds of thousands of years are collapsing into the water and melting. Which has a greater impact on salinity than anything we could do directly.

Eric Ferguson wrote:
Quote:
Oceanic absorption goes down with ice levels.

Oceanic absorption of what?

Carbon.

Eric Ferguson wrote:
Quote:
Radiative forcing is the issue in the first place. Every factor we know about points in the same direction.

Not at all.

Modification: Every factor I've seen points in the same direction.

Eric Ferguson wrote:

You cannot compare any other planet. They are all different. Some with atmoshperes some without. Composition, distance from the sun, rotational speed, gravity, all of it are the very reasons why you cannot compare.

Assertion. I say they are comparable. For the reasons I already pointed out. The two greatest factors are comparable between all three planets(every planetoid in our solar system actually). Atmosphere and solar absorption. There are other determining factors yes, and they are enough to suggest it would take more than carbon to turn earth into venus, but it is still acceptable to use other planets to compare to earth. That's how we learn things, by comparison.

Eric Ferguson wrote:
Gravity has a great effect, gravity alone determines density of an atmosphere's atoms and their ability to form molecules. On Earth for example about the only place you find atomic oxygen is at the top of the atmosphere, closer to the surface the density is too high for it to exist. Layers within an atmosphere are often governed by gravity.

Venus is remarkably close to the same gravity as Earth.

Eric Ferguson wrote:
How much salt water is on Venus? Salt water retains about 10 times the amount of CO2 as does Earth's atmosphere.

Pretty sure any water would be vapour considering the temperature. I grant your point conditionally. The condition is that salinity of earths oceans is decreasing as ice shelves and glaciers melt. And another is that higher carbon levels could lead to higher humidity levels, which would have a far greater impact than carbon could.

Eric Ferguson wrote:
Volcanic activity, ocean and air currents, and surface reflectivity will certainly be different than here. Even rotational angle has an affect due to the nature of regional heating and cooling cycles.

Yes they are different than here. The fact that it's so hot proves that it could not be the same as here. But that is NOT proof that here could not become similar to there. It's only evidence that it won't be identical, which would be self evident.

Eric Ferguson wrote:
You're right in that the atmosphere of Venus keeps it hot. The mean surface temperature of Mars is -63°C. Earth if it did not have an atmosphere is estimated to be -18°C. Venus has a thick layer of sulphur above the layer of CO2, Earth doesn't. Guess what, different atmosphere, different rules. Sulphur on Earth has a net cooling effect.

Yes. Water is the biggest factor to heat entrapment on earth.

Eric Ferguson wrote:
As for light reaching the Venus surface it does indeed. If it didn't there would be no greehouse effect there. The effect functions by reflecting light energy back down to the surface. If no light hit the surface it could not reflect up. The primary element of it all is ultraviolet light, not visible light, including here. Apples to Oranges.

Granted.

Eric Ferguson wrote:

Quote:
We're destroying the vegetation faster than it's growing, which is releasing even more carbon. You do not counter my point.

This would not be releasing more carbon, it would be processing it less.

Incorrect. Vegetation stores carbon, and burning it releases the carbon into the atmosphere. Burning the forests not only lowers the ability of forests to absorb carbon, but increases the emissions at the same time.

Eric Ferguson wrote:
But no we are not destroying vegetation faster than it is growing. In the United States for example the amount of forest land is about the same today as it was in 1920. There's been some slight fluctuations but it's been basically flat. This as the demand for forest products is the highest it's ever been and continues to rise.

The US is completely irrelevant. The rain forests are relevant. The only rain forest I know off the top of my head that is not being clear cut at this moment is the one in southern BC. There are likely others, but the biggest ones are being cut down. Since the US doesn't have any huge rain forests, the point is moot.

Eric Ferguson wrote:
I have plenty of evidence. This is a well known fact.

Assertion.

Eric Ferguson wrote:
Quote:
The only reason some species are still alive today is because of government action.

Name one. And prove government action did it.

Whales. The proof is in the pudding, so to speak. I'll grant that whaling activities still continue and there are some species that may still go extinct, but it was global government action that stopped the wholesale slaughter of them.

Eric Ferguson wrote:

Government and Greenpeace might claim success, doesn't make it so. In fact most species identified as endangered are not.

Assertion.

Eric Ferguson wrote:
Easy, we have nothing to compare it to. Did humans cause Venus' atmosphere? No it's there naturally.

We don't know what exactly caused Venus' atmosphere. The cause is not quite as important as the effect however.

Eric Ferguson wrote:
The solar system is 4.5 billion years old.

Technically it's older than that. That's the age of the earth itself.

Eric Ferguson wrote:
We know that even Earth has changed greatly over it's existence, it was once a much much hotter planet. Earth has been through 16 ice ages. Today's temperature and CO2 levels are almost identical to the last tepid period and very close to all the others.

Again, granted. There has not been such speedy climate shifts as we are witnessing today though.

Eric Ferguson wrote:
Quote:
The United Nations is as much a political body as the United States. My apologies for the error, however the essence of my statement is still valid. The UN can no more control science than anyone can.
Nobody controls science. Governments however can and do control where research money goes and censor the findings.

Which is counter balanced by governments in opposition and corporations who do the same thing for their own benefit. Not to mention the curious who happen to be financially endowed.

Eric Ferguson wrote:
Quote:
I'm not talking about the IPCC report. I'm talking about the science of global climate. As for the rest: Two words: The internet.

And you must dig deep for the information. Global warming alarmism is in the foreground. Most everything running to the contrary is hidden.

All things to the contrary I've seen were of more questionable science than the claims they were made to refute in the first place. Either way, it is still out there.

Eric Ferguson wrote:
The point is that government tried to hide the information. Yes it's not completely hidden, but they try. And if you don't look for it you will not find it easily.

And I've been saying from the very start of this topic that you should look, and not merely accept peoples word on it. I've looked. Perhaps I've read a bunch of lies. It's happened before. Just look at religion. But it hasn't been proven to be a bunch of lies. And it makes sense to me. It also combines with other factors than climate change that need to be addressed.

Eric Ferguson wrote:
Quote:
With the internet today, it's an order of magnitude harder. If a scientist shoots an irreperable hole into climate change, noone can keep him quiet.

They try all the time. Government continually cuts funding off for anyone going against the grain. Global warming activists use ridicule to attempt to damage reputations.

Considering that until this year, the US government was strictly against the idea, I don't see how this has any relevance. In fact it merely helps my case. If the most powerful government in the world couldn't prove climate change as inaccurate, even with standard government tactics, then it stands to reason that it is not inaccurate.
It may be a point to debate if the entire globe had been pushing the idea, but that's not the way it's happened.

Eric Ferguson wrote:
Quote:
Actually I was aware that the global temperature difference seems negligible. But a small change in mean temperature can mean drastic local changes.

Or not. And it would mean global changes, not local. Local temperatures fluctuate all the time.

Global changes require local changes to be global changes. And while local climates do fluctuate, they fluctuate within established parameters. These parameters are being observably broken.

Eric Ferguson wrote:
Quote:
I believe the calculation for maximum disruption of climate temperature based soley on carbon was 1.5c. I may be off by a bit.

Some have assumed various values. The IPCC model calculated increase is .6°C. Again that is not a measured increase. Measured increases, which some suggest there is, are also subjective. The reason is that our ability to measure the Earth's mean temperature changes over time with technology. There's no single place on the planet that can be used for this measurement. A number of places are used, averaged. As the number goes up the value will likely change.

I have always considered the one single greatest flaw in the climate shift argument to be the way the global temperature is measured. So I cannot argue this with you effectively. A real mean temperature of the planet would be in the hundreds of degrees celsius. I've never seen a real lay out of what they talk about when discussing mean temperature. But I've never seen it ripped apart either, so I have to sit on the fence waiting for one side or the other to put it in understandable and quantifiable terms.

Eric Ferguson wrote:
Understand that I, and others, are not saying that there is no global warming, or that human activity doesn't have an affect. Do not assume that the talking heads and treehuggers are telling the whole truth. I'm all in favor of alternative fuels and higher efficiencies. I'm not saying we are free to be irresponsible. But we don't need to panic. We don't need to waste $300 billion on mandates that have been shown to account for virtually nothing in slowing global warming.

I agree panic isn't necessary. But I also think that we've been sitting around for too long without making efforts to change. Sitting around cannot and will not accomplish anything. And yet if there is a problem, then it is going to get significantly worse as the rest of the world enters into industry. I think it would be nice if we could give China and India and all the other industrializing countries something better to work with than oil consumption.

Eric Ferguson wrote:

A 4.5 billion year old planet. 1.6 million years of ice age cycles. And humans are going to break that?

The prevailing theory is that when oxygen was first being introduced by plant life, every(or almost every) other species on the planet was suddenly being poisoned by an oxygen atmosphere they weren't equipped to deal with. It is therefore obvious that life is fully capable of altering the atmosphere of a planet. Breaking a cycle? No, I don't believe we can do that(at least without actually trying to do that). But we could accelerate or slow it, and break ourselves.

Eric Ferguson wrote:
In 1883 the eruption of Krakatoa spewed tephra particles into the air, spreading over the entire planet. The sky had an orange color and a halo around the sun, global temperatures were 1.2°C lower. Weather patterns were chaotic for years and did not return to normal for five years. The Earth itself has a greater affect than anything humans have ever done.

Only when comparing single events to single events. Not when comparing the actual damage a few local volcanos can do in eruptions to what a global community of humans can accomplish over 200 years. A volcano may pump out more gasses than human history has; but it doesn't burn down the rain forests, that absorb the volcano's emissions, in South America and Africa at the same time. If all we were doing was pumping carbon into the atmosphere then there likely wouldn't be a problem. But it's not all we're doing. We're eliminating species at a rate which hasn't been seen since before we existed. We're affecting the atmosphere more than any other single life form has for around 3 billion years. We're contaminating habitats and destroying rain forests. We're dumping nuclear and other wastes wherever we happen to feel like at the time. We're eroding environments by changing their makeup. Even if global warming itself isn't an issue, it's only one problem. We're destroying our own habitat. Switching fuel sources is a big step in the right direction. And so I can't say as I mind too much what tactics are used to facillitate that switch. Especially when history shows that previous tactics were disregarded, even though they were true, on the grounds that "who cares what the earth looks like when I'm dead?".

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet

Vastet wrote:
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Vastet wrote:
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Vastet wrote:
It's not remotely that simple. You don't just change the source, you're changing everything that uses the source. Removing oil as a source means removing gas stations and replacing them with something else.

 

No, it does not. It could be that simple, at least for a large portion of things. Going off gasoline could be as simple as converting from 4 to 2 cycle engines. Simply going diesle, which will burn pretty much any hydrocarbon if tweeked correctly. Make it CHEAP and the technology WILL follow.

But it doesn't happen quickly. It's a process that takes years and costs money. Which was the whole thrust of my point in the first place, though it seems to have been lost.

20 years is NOT a long time. It's PDQ in the grand scheme of thinngs and that sort of time frame is feasible for such a crossover. You agree below yourself. Cost in such a case is arbitrary, we're simply replacing technology, not revamping the whole fucking world. You have poor concept of the difference between different types of engines and the work and technology that goes into them. Going diesle or hydrogen would be a step BACKWARD as far as production goes - both would be simpler designs than gasoline equivalents.

A few things here. The first and foremost is that we ARE revamping the whole world. There may be certain places that can remain relatively unchanged for a long time, but gasoline is used globally. Everyone uses gasoline. If you change one area without changing another then trade and tourism can become significantly costlier.

Which is WHY I said the process would be cost driven. No new technology will be implemented unless it economical. Twenty years is a feasible amount of time to implement such tech in the US and the rest of the industrialized world. There WILL be holdouts, but they will be ever diminishing as the technology spreads.

Quote:
Second, hydrogen and diesel were just two examples I threw into the mix for attempted clarification. There is yet to be a consensus on what to use as an alternative fuel source. I wasn't trying to argue with those as specific fuel replacements. Third, 20 years is forever in the business world. Longer than that. Technologically it's an eye blink, but not in the investment sectors. These people work by the minute. There are some that work towards long term goals, but most people are in it for the quick cash. Companies release beta tests as a final product today they're in such a rush to make a profit off them. And these people have forced the issue to be dragged through the mud for the last 15+ odd years.

There has been stalling by people with vested interests in current technology. Nobody disputes that. The fact remains though that if you can come up with an idea or concept that is marketedly more economical, it WILL be embraced - and it WON'T happen over night, at least not in an idustry where products last 10+ years. Hybrids are gaining more market share as they become cheaper and are proven to work. As gasoline prices increase, their market share will increase as well. Give it a decade or so and a SIGNIFICANT amount of vehicles on the road will use that technology (unless somehthing better comes along, which may indeed be the case and may be why some are hesitant to embrace hybrids).

 

Quote:
We could already be using another fuel source today, with it being a dominant source that had almost completely squeezed gasoline out the door if the whole issue hadn't been under such heavy debate.

You completely ignore economics and practicallity here. Yes, we COULD all be driving electic cars right now, IF economics were not an issue.

Quote:
But instead of working economically through long term goals to change the fuel structure entirely to clean technology, they're milking the oil deposits for all they can.

No, it's simply a matter of practicallity. You don't switch your company over to unproven tecnology overnight. You introduce a few new models with the new tech, see how it does, see what other companies produce, demonstrate that the concept works and is reliable. Then you begin leaning in that direction. 

Quote:
Fourth, I ask for clarification on hydrogen being a step back. I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Technology wise. Electric motors are fundamentally more simple than their equivalent powered gasoline counter parts. 

Quote:
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
What retard would ever say it would be instantaneous? Only one who thought the time frame I laid out was unreasonable for such a change. Pick one.
I don't know what kind of retard would. Maybe the guy above who wasn't paying attention to(or ask for clarification of if necessary) what I was saying in the first place? I agree with you that time negates the costs. If I implied otherwise I apologize. It wasn't my intention. It was my contention that because it's uneconomical to switch sources quickly(and because they could continue to make more money by not progressing to alternate fuel sources if they kept the debate going), many governments and companies have been doing nothing for a long time when they could have been fuelling a fuel revolution(pardon the pun).

Fine. I do apologize for my choice of words there, btw. I think you have an unrealistic idea of how fast technolgy ought to progress in the absence of economic drivers, especially when considering industries where the products last for a decade+. This isn't the Manhattan project or Appollo Mission here - there aren't billions of dollars to throw at it, there isn't an economic driver to justify that sort of investment. There may very well be an environmental driver, but this has only relatively recently become clear - and furthur to this, it is not clear to me how auto makers are responsible for fixing the world. If the environment is a concern for you, alternatives are available, and they are being increasingly produced and are becoming more and more popular.

Quote:
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Yeah, so how, exactly, did you refute my point? I've worked in the industry and developed technolgy for it. A traditional coal plant can function FINE burning coal, oil, wood, charcoal, trash, pretty much anything that you can set on fire. It really is a simple process - burn things, boil water, use steam to make electicity. We've been doing it for over a century.
Burning things has byproducts. Why burn when you can generate power without burning?

Because it is CHEAPER. Cost IS an object in this case and MUST be considered.  

Quote:
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
As far as emmissions go, you're WRONG on that front as well. New membrane technology in conjuction with traditional scrubber systems can abate about 80-90% of such a plant's emmissions. New ideas such as using membranes to sequester CO2 and pump it underground are also quite close to becoming reality.
I'm not 100% certain I'm responding to this point properly, but if I understand your contention correctly, is not 10-20% emissions infinately greater than a dam using water flow or windmills utilizing air currents or solar panels collecting light?

A false dichotomy. The choice cannot always be made between buring coal or trash, building a dam and putting up an assload of soal panels. The coal plant is ALREADY THERE, we CAN make it cleaner. Dams take a decade to build, and have serious environmental impacts all their own. Solar is still ridiculously expensive compared to other alternatives - the technology is in its sophomore year; there ARE very promising solar technolgies on the horizon. Point is, retrofitting what we already have is cheaper and almost as effective. When the coal plant reaches the end of its life or we run out of coa (which won't be any time soon)l, maybe then we build something else. But if we can make the coal plant say 80-90% cleaner, how is that not the best choice when taking cost into the equation? The point is you don't just scrap the entire infrastructure because a new tech may be promising - not in the power industry and not in the automotive industry. The bigger and more costly it is, the longer it takes to switch out or change.

Quote:
Even nuclear technology is safer and cleaner if used and disposed of properly. Though I do admit I thought filters were closer to 50%. It's hard to keep up with all technologies at once. I thank you for letting me know that.

I fully support nuke power, unfortunately the public does not. It only takes a Chernobyl and a TMI to make that take the black sheep for decades. 

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Eric Ferguson
Posts: 75
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
Sorry I've been away for a

Sorry I've been away for a while.

I wanted to continue. I found myself very busy. Plus I'm fighting these same battles on several fields at once. 

Consider this account closed. It's disgraceful this site has no function to delete an account. I cannot be part of an organization that seeks only to replace the religion of the god of the bible with the religion of "poor me" bleeding heart liberalism. Rational my ass! Not believing in a god is one thing. A rational view of the rest of the world is something else, which isn't found here.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10146
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Didn't realize there'd been

Didn't realize there'd been another response here.

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Which is WHY I said the process would be cost driven. No new technology will be implemented unless it economical. Twenty years is a feasible amount of time to implement such tech in the US and the rest of the industrialized world. There WILL be holdouts, but they will be ever diminishing as the technology spreads.

20 years would have been a feasible amount of time 20 years ago too. The potential for an economical fuel change was there then almost as much as it is now. Yet nothing happened(despite the fuel shortage of the 70's). Nothing continued to happen until global warming started to become an issue. And so I will remain supporting those who are a bit flippy over it. If for nothing else than my own lungs.

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
There has been stalling by people with vested interests in current technology. Nobody disputes that. The fact remains though that if you can come up with an idea or concept that is marketedly more economical, it WILL be embraced - and it WON'T happen over night, at least not in an idustry where products last 10+ years. Hybrids are gaining more market share as they become cheaper and are proven to work. As gasoline prices increase, their market share will increase as well. Give it a decade or so and a SIGNIFICANT amount of vehicles on the road will use that technology (unless somehthing better comes along, which may indeed be the case and may be why some are hesitant to embrace hybrids).

Alternate fuel sources cannot be economically superior to current ones until they have been at least partially implemented. It's a simple logistical fact, barring a discovery that some common element can produce insane amounts of energy for marginal cost. Therefore there is no economical advantage to switching fuel sources for the sake of it. Especially if switching sources means less income for those controlling the current source. There must be external pressures to fuel change. It's an evolutionary fact of existance. Hybrid vehicles(contextually, not by definition) didn't even exist until emissions started to be a social issue. There was no advantage to making one. No reason to.

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
You completely ignore economics and practicallity here. Yes, we COULD all be driving electic cars right now, IF economics were not an issue.

I might have exaggerated the timeline very slightly, but the driving force of my point is completely valid. Technologies existed that could have erased coal and oil consumption decades ago. Not instantly at the time, but certainly by now if implementation had begun then. The only reason they are becoming more economical today is because the social views of global warming are fuelling demand for the alternative power source. They were not going to switch on their own. Demand and supply.

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
No, it's simply a matter of practicallity. You don't switch your company over to unproven tecnology overnight. You introduce a few new models with the new tech, see how it does, see what other companies produce, demonstrate that the concept works and is reliable. Then you begin leaning in that direction.

Companies put all their marbles into pushing unproven technology all the time. Practicality doesn't make shitloads of money. Risk does. Rule #1 for CEOs. The fact of the matter is that there are alternatives, and they are dependable. They are also cleaner for us to breathe, and have less impact on the environment than gasoline burning.

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
 Technology wise. Electric motors are fundamentally more simple than their equivalent powered gasoline counter parts. 

Some newer hydrogen engines are combustion engines. While I'm not an engineer, I'm don't see much of a technological difference between the two.

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Fine. I do apologize for my choice of words there, btw.

It's no problem. I've noticed you're passionate about your philosophies, and I don't mind expletives as long as they aren't directed specifically with intent to ad hom.

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
I think you have an unrealistic idea of how fast technolgy ought to progress in the absence of economic drivers, especially when considering industries where the products last for a decade+.

The economy isn't the only driver. Some things are more important than permanent economic stability. I think you have a strange idea of how much right companies have to poison us so they can line their pockets.

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
This isn't the Manhattan project or Appollo Mission here - there aren't billions of dollars to throw at it, there isn't an economic driver to justify that sort of investment. There may very well be an environmental driver, but this has only relatively recently become clear - and furthur to this, it is not clear to me how auto makers are responsible for fixing the world.

That coal and oil use have negative environmental and health impacts has been known for decades. Centuries even regarding certain applications. Alternatives have been known for decades. That's a sufficient driver. I don't believe people have the right to infringe upon others rights. Particularly the right to live.
And auto makers aren't responsible for fixing the world. They aren't the driving force in this scenario anyway though. They'll respond the same way consumers will. It's the source that needs to change. Fortunately it finally is. Thanks to the possibly immaterial anthropomorphic global warming scenario.

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
If the environment is a concern for you, alternatives are available, and they are being increasingly produced and are becoming more and more popular.

And it's about time too.

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Because it is CHEAPER. Cost IS an object in this case and MUST be considered.

Not in comparison to societal health. Cost is a secondary factor. A very significantly lower factor than health. Without health, money is irrelevant.

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
A false dichotomy.

Straw man. I asked a question, I did not stake a position. Nor did I suggest that the options in my question were the only options to be had. I merely kept it short and to the point instead of paragraphical as I was seeking clarification.

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

The choice cannot always be made between buring coal or trash, building a dam and putting up an assload of soal panels.

In this day and age, there are always alternatives. There just has to be a willingness to look for them.

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
The coal plant is ALREADY THERE, we CAN make it cleaner.

Something that wasn't even considered until the global warming issue arose in the first place. So yeah, it's good that things are being done to make it cleaner. But if there are cleaner alternatives, there's no logic in building new coal or oil plants. Yet new plants are in the development stage.

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Dams take a decade to build, and have serious environmental impacts all their own.

Granted. Though that impact can be largely or entirely negated. And is less immediately serious than the clouds of exhaust hanging over our cities and plants anyway.

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Solar is still ridiculously expensive compared to other alternatives - the technology is in its sophomore year; there ARE very promising solar technolgies on the horizon.

I wouldn't say ridiculously expensive. The price has dropped substantially in recent years. But it is out of the range of the average consumer I agree. Which could be mitigated by government sponsorship of material. A far better use for tax dollars than the war in Iraq to keep oil flowing I think.

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Point is, retrofitting what we already have is cheaper and almost as effective. When the coal plant reaches the end of its life or we run out of coa (which won't be any time soon)l, maybe then we build something else. But if we can make the coal plant say 80-90% cleaner, how is that not the best choice when taking cost into the equation?

Because lives are infinately more important than a few dollar symbols on a companies payroll. And 10-20% emissions are quite capable of causing health problems. Retrofit and filter until there's an alternative sure, but once there's a healthier alternative, it should be the standard. Not the alternative.

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
The point is you don't just scrap the entire infrastructure because a new tech may be promising - not in the power industry and not in the automotive industry. The bigger and more costly it is, the longer it takes to switch out or change.

I never suggested the entire infrastructure be scrapped. I'm fully aware that the current infrastructure must remain in place until an alternative has replaced it and proven itself functional and dependable. There's no other way I an think of to make a switch like this while remaining economically and socially responsible. I never once suggested we should go out and tear down every coal plant in existance when we have nothing to make up for the lack it would cause in the power grid. But it should be a goal to work towards.

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

Quote:
Even nuclear technology is safer and cleaner if used and disposed of properly. Though I do admit I thought filters were closer to 50%. It's hard to keep up with all technologies at once. I thank you for letting me know that.

I fully support nuke power, unfortunately the public does not. It only takes a Chernobyl and a TMI to make that take the black sheep for decades. 

Indeed. Most of the problems anti-nuclear people espouse are easily mitigated by responsible conduct and planning.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Mattness
Mattness's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
Great news guys! The US

Great news guys! The US government got the Jefferson Muzzle "Award" of the "Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression" ! For surpressing scientific opinions concerning the climate change and some other issues. Eye-wink In reply to the original post of this thread... I followed the process you described (with the summary) very close it's very entertaining what the US/Chinese/Indian government pulled off.

I heard some scientist actually stood up and yelled out loud in the conference when the US demanded to cut an entire section about effects of the climate change on the US... the part about hurricanes and floods. Smiling It's also amusing to see how they fought over lines like "very likely" and "likely". The IMO best part was when the US thought that many diagramms were too "red", why not make them orange? Looks far less dangerous.

All I can say is, man! This is not some treehugging group that made the ICPP report! Over 1200 scientists worked on this over the past 6 years. They analyzed a few hundred studies made on that subject. You ought to take it serious...

Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life. - Immanuel Kant


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
I saw an interview on 60

I saw an interview on 60 Minutes with a government scientist that has repeatedly written papers saying that we're getting close to the point of not being able to fix things.

His papers were heavily edited by politicians (Not scientists, POLITICIANS!) that didn't want it to sound like we need to step up and start fixing things NOW.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


kriz
Posts: 33
Joined: 2007-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Libertarians seem to have

Libertarians seem to have an itch that makes them swear global warming isnt a problem and companies can pollute as much as they want it doesnt make any difference.  Somehow thousands of scientists worldwide are involved in a vast conspiracy to make up this threat so that their grant monies continue flowing.

 

I'm afraid this isn't too plausible to me, and seeing how the majority of scientists accept global warming as a real threat the burden of proof is on you to show us how its wrong.  I don't know enough about Global Warming to get into a specific argument with you, but I could argue Evolution, another scientifically accepted fact that people pretend there is a debate about.

 The basis for the original post, that the committee released 2 reports, one a full scientific study and one a summary for politicians, well wheres the problem?  Politicians fully admit they dont read BILLS put in front of them to sign, why would they spend hours trying to wade through a scientific report they don't have the training to understand?  It makes perfect sense to have a summary of the findings and some recommendations, I'm sure ANY scientific study of political importance would do the same thing.

 


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Indeed. Most

Vastet wrote:
Indeed. Most of the problems anti-nuclear people espouse are easily mitigated by responsible conduct and planning.

 I agree with all your points except this one.  Nuclear is heavily subsidized which brings down the direct price to consumers.  There's a rush to build new reactors because the Bush administration provided $8 billion in government funds.  If that same amount was provided for alternative then there would be an even bigger explosion of clean energy.  The fuel also must be mined and refined which isn't terribly good for the environment.  It's also not renewable and the cost of the fuel has increased about 120% in the past few months.

So it's not the safety concerns that turn me off of nuclear.  It's the requirement for huge taxpayer subsidies, the fact that it isn't renewable, fuel mining and processing is harmful to the environment and there is currently no safe means to dispose of the waste. 


cheezues
cheezues's picture
Posts: 54
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
The Great Global Warming

The Great Global Warming Swindle

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&q=global+warming+swindle&hl=en

If the link doesn't work google it and it will be at the top of the video section.

Imagine the Sun being powerful enough to *gasp* change our climate? Naw... must be C02

1) It creates jobs

2) It criminalizes people who commit "climate criminals" giving people others to hate.  If we didn't have that we might have low self-esteem.

3) Anyone remember a decade ago when everyone was talking about a new ice age?

4) now is this not just a fad? 


kriz
Posts: 33
Joined: 2007-02-15
User is offlineOffline
cheezues wrote: The Great

cheezues wrote:

The Great Global Warming Swindle

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&q=global+warming+swindle&hl=en

If the link doesn't work google it and it will be at the top of the video section.

Imagine the Sun being powerful enough to *gasp* change our climate? Naw... must be C02

1) It creates jobs

2) It criminalizes people who commit "climate criminals" giving people others to hate. If we didn't have that we might have low self-esteem.

3) Anyone remember a decade ago when everyone was talking about a new ice age?

4) now is this not just a fad?

 

Whew, this video is 75 minutes long...maybe I'll take the time to watch it later....as for your 4 points, they don't convince me of a global scientific conspiracy:

 

1) I'm sure not very many.  Plus you could use this excuse to counter any scientific theory you happened to disagree with.  Evolution?  Conspiracy to give researchers, from chemists to paleontologists, jobs.  Without this evolution conspiracy there would be no need to fund these so called "scientists".  Astronomy? Funds everything from telescopes to multibillion dollar space shuttles.  Look at all the jobs there...this proves stars are just lights hanging in the sky...not the other stars "scientists" claim.

 

2) You let me know when someone goes to jail for an environmental offence.  I'd love it to happen, but lets face it, driving around in your Hummer doesn't make you some prosecuted minority.  I'll admit governments love people to hate each other, but they also love corporations and industry (these produce huge amounts of tax dollars).  Why would you want people hating these organizations, when you spend so much elsewhere to keep them propped up?  Much easier to sow seeds of racism and nationalism...that gets people hating each other AND has the benefit of helping government interests. 

3) No I don't remember.  But it doesn't matter.  So what?  Global warming is global, meaning its a world wide increase in temperature.  This could cause climate to shift warmer or cooler in different specific regions.  Besides, I thought the big argument against global warming was that people have been talking about it since the 70s and there hasn't been a global catastrophe?  Shouldn't you try pulling out this more valid accusation?

 4) Fad?  Yeah, you know how cool those "scientists" are, every kid I know wants to be one.  Is it any coincidence that white lab coats are the height of fashion this summer?

 

And the comment about the sun?  Are you expecting people to argue the sun doesn't warm the earth?  Sun + CO2 = Global Warming.  Its like arguing the glass in a greenhouse doesn't heat the greenhouse, the sun does.  Well duh, of course the sun does, thats the whole point, isn't it? 


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
The issue of the "ice age"

The issue of the "ice age" was pollutants in the air that was blocking sunlight.  The pollutants that were causing the problem were cleaned up.  That's why nobody is talking about it anymore and why it's not a problem.  This has been refuted over and over again, it's like dealing with a creationist.  The science for climate change is sound.  It's just pathetic hearing a bunch of self-proclaimed skeptics (more like deniers) pronounce bad claims like the sun is causing the increase in temperatures when the solar effect on increased global warming is practically zero.

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10146
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
cheezues wrote: The Great

cheezues wrote:

The Great Global Warming Swindle

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&q=global+warming+swindle&hl=en

If the link doesn't work google it and it will be at the top of the video section.

Imagine the Sun being powerful enough to *gasp* change our climate? Naw... must be C02

1) It creates jobs

2) It criminalizes people who commit "climate criminals" giving people others to hate.  If we didn't have that we might have low self-esteem.

3) Anyone remember a decade ago when everyone was talking about a new ice age?

4) now is this not just a fad? 

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html

At most only a quarter of the effects can be solar related.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
This is an excerpt from an

This is an excerpt from an article on the US senate committee on environment and public works website titled “Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics”

 

Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top young award winning scientists, recanted his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate change. ""Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media. In fact, there is much more than meets the eye,” Shaviv said in February 2, 2007 Canadian National Post article. According to Shaviv, the C02 temperature link is only “incriminating circumstantial evidence.” "Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming" and "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist,” Shaviv noted pointing to the impact cosmic- rays have on the atmosphere. According to the National Post, Shaviv believes that even a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere by 2100 "will not dramatically increase the global temperature." “Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant,” Shaviv explained. Shaviv also wrote on August 18, 2006 that a colleague of his believed that “CO2 should have a large effect on climate” so “he set out to reconstruct the phanerozoic temperature. He wanted to find the CO2 signature in the data, but since there was none, he slowly had to change his views.” Shaviv believes there will be more scientists converting to man-made global warming skepticism as they discover the dearth of evidence. “I think this is common to many of the scientists who think like us (that is, that CO2 is a secondary climate driver). Each one of us was working in his or her own niche. While working there, each one of us realized that things just don't add up to support the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) picture. So many had to change their views,” he wrote.”

link here:


The article lists a dozen prominent scientists that believed in man-made global warming and have reversed their positions. It also says that “A more detailed and comprehensive sampling of scientists who have only recently spoken out against climate hysteria will be forthcoming in a soon to be released U.S. Senate report.”

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


cheezues
cheezues's picture
Posts: 54
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Kriz,

Kriz,

They weren't so much "points" for arguementation as they were just highlights and thoughts frrom and about the movie.

D-Cubed,

Quote:
The science for climate change is sound.

The science is highly disputed, contrary to itself, and incomplete. Satisfying yourself, and indeed flattering yourself, with the idea that we as humans could have such a massive impact with the simple production of C02 only is naive. The Earth exists within a greater context, it's not just the earths environment that affects earths temperature. If nothing else the idea behind solar activity driving our climate change coming from the originator of the study should at least make you skeptical. This guy specializes in studying solar activity and was made famous for producing accurate results, and now no one's listening...

It's just pathetic hearing a bunch of self-proclaimed skeptics (more like deniers) pronounce bad claims like the sun is causing the increase in temperatures when the solar effect on increased global warming is practically zero."

To state that the suns impact on our temperature variation is "practically zero" just shows everyone how narrow your vision is with respect to this subject. The sun is not a constant non-changing ball of constant radiation. As explained in the video it's a wild beast.

Vastet,

It's the Sun.

Even the graph here shown by the your link proves the influence of the sun to be greater than this site portrays.

If you were able to watch this graph in real time, that is to say if time were being accurately represented, the sun would lead from left to right, followed by earths temperature, then followed by  CO2 composition.

The large variation is the suns activity, which is followed by the next to largest variation, the earths temperature because they are MORE directly related, then you have this gradual change in C02 levels, and a much smoother line.

Has it every occured to you that because CO2 makes up Less than 1% of earths total atmospheric gases that it might not produce as radical a change as is being seen? Quick Link

Also interesting that your article points out that solar activity has increased during this cycle.

Quote:
While a component of recent global warming may have been caused by the increased solar activity of the last solar cycle, that component was very small compared to the effects of additional greenhouse gases.

It downplays it, but the graphs are there, and they're just marketing fear to an ignorant population, they think quite literally "who's gonna read the graphs and even if they do who has a fuckin clue."


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10146
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
cheezues wrote:Kriz,They

cheezues wrote:

Kriz,

They weren't so much "points" for arguementation as they were just highlights and thoughts frrom and about the movie.

D-Cubed,

Quote:
The science for climate change is sound.

The science is highly disputed, contrary to itself, and incomplete. Satisfying yourself, and indeed flattering yourself, with the idea that we as humans could have such a massive impact with the simple production of C02 only is naive. The Earth exists within a greater context, it's not just the earths environment that affects earths temperature. If nothing else the idea behind solar activity driving our climate change coming from the originator of the study should at least make you skeptical. This guy specializes in studying solar activity and was made famous for producing accurate results, and now no one's listening...

It's just pathetic hearing a bunch of self-proclaimed skeptics (more like deniers) pronounce bad claims like the sun is causing the increase in temperatures when the solar effect on increased global warming is practically zero."

To state that the suns impact on our temperature variation is "practically zero" just shows everyone how narrow your vision is with respect to this subject. The sun is not a constant non-changing ball of constant radiation. As explained in the video it's a wild beast.

Vastet,

It's the Sun.

Even the graph here shown by the your link proves the influence of the sun to be greater than this site portrays.

If you were able to watch this graph in real time, that is to say if time were being accurately represented, the sun would lead from left to right, followed by earths temperature, then followed by  CO2 composition.

The large variation is the suns activity, which is followed by the next to largest variation, the earths temperature because they are MORE directly related, then you have this gradual change in C02 levels, and a much smoother line.

Has it every occured to you that because CO2 makes up Less than 1% of earths total atmospheric gases that it might not produce as radical a change as is being seen? Quick Link

Also interesting that your article points out that solar activity has increased during this cycle.

Quote:
While a component of recent global warming may have been caused by the increased solar activity of the last solar cycle, that component was very small compared to the effects of additional greenhouse gases.

It downplays it, but the graphs are there, and they're just marketing fear to an ignorant population, they think quite literally "who's gonna read the graphs and even if they do who has a fuckin clue."

No it isn't the sun. At most the sun can be responsible for up to 1/4 of observed climate change. No more. Probably less. Your graph proves it. If it were the sun, the changes in the sun would match the graph. Yet there's no match. Yet the CO2 matches it quite well.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


cheezues
cheezues's picture
Posts: 54
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
It's a complete match,

It's a complete match, you've got relative stability and toward the end there's an increase.

The sun acts violently, but not all of it's violent fluctuation hits the earth so the earth will fluctuate less. Plus, the earth has a built in regulatory system that repells a relatively consisten amount of the suns rays. But it's undeniable that the more the sun puts out, the more will get through those buffers.

The earth, less spasmatic than the suns patterns, absorbs less of the suns fluctuations than it produces and reacts to the sun, making the earths reaction less intense and lagging behind in time.

Because the increase in C02 (still less than 1% of our atmosphere) moves so slowly there zero jagged lines no sharp increases and a gradual increase towards the end of the graph is indicated because of a steady increase in temperature.

the vostok ice core records support this, CO2 lags behind, reacting to temperature change and not causing them.

read for yourself

Here's a pretty good article to explain CO2's possible effect on our planet, and how ALL of the catastrophy models have been yanking your prick! here

Here is an article explaining the Lagging behind of the CO2 as temp increases.. here

Speaking short term recently there's been another DECREASE in temperature as opposed to how the alarmists would like you to think.

An explanation of Cosmic Rays for you.

Every bit of this mutually exclusive evidence points directly at the sun, and away from CO2.

Emissions:Volcano Vs Mankind


   

Quote:
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)
link

 


cheezues
cheezues's picture
Posts: 54
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
The graph in your example,

The graph in your example, even though it supports my point, proves the short sightedness necessary to misconstrue the numbers in order to create this global warming panic. 30 years? Do you seriously think that is a sufficient time span to draw conclusions that are impacting the world in the way it is.

Here's that same graph with a time span of roughly 400 years, and yours below it. Notice that your graph and my graph don't conflict, mine just doesn't have CO2 on it, because it's irrelevant.

 Harvard Report correlating solar activity, clouds, and climate.

Check and Mate.

 


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
cheezues wrote: I don't

cheezues wrote:

I don't see where the problem is.  The sunspot level has shown a consistency since it was first measured back in 1860.  The only difference over the years in the increase of CO2 levels.  So it's absolutely reasonable to conclude that sun activity has played a nugatory role while the greatest affect has been CO2 increases.

What's odd is that you take the graph from the website and come up with a completely different conclusion than what the graph says and what the scientists say. 

Another source by people who know what they're talking about: 

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#Q10


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
cheezues wrote: Harvard

Thanks for that study but you apparently failed to grasp the author's mention that the data is not well supported and requires further research until a link can be made and the authors admit any connection between cosmic rays and cloud formation is weak.

Another scientist looked at previous studies on the subject and found the data flawed and in some cases manipulated.

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Laut2003.pdf 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10146
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
cheezues wrote: It's a

cheezues wrote:

It's a complete match, you've got relative stability and toward the end there's an increase.

The sun acts violently, but not all of it's violent fluctuation hits the earth so the earth will fluctuate less. Plus, the earth has a built in regulatory system that repells a relatively consisten amount of the suns rays. But it's undeniable that the more the sun puts out, the more will get through those buffers.

You know, I could bother with all the little bits but D-Cubed already did. One of two things I'd like to cover is that the buffers you mention are being destroyed by us. The two primary buffers to the earths climate are the oceans and the forests. The forests are being burned and the oceans are saturated.

cheezues wrote:

Emissions:Volcano Vs Mankind


   

Quote:
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)
link

 

You know what the problem with mentioning volcano's is? They put so much debris into the atmosphere that they not only counteract the carbon the emit, they overkill it. Using a volcano is completely pointless. A few eruptions would be a good thing.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


cheezues
cheezues's picture
Posts: 54
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Quote: the data is not well

Quote:
the data is not well supported and requires further research

This has been the main point the entire time, you can make an equally strong case either way because the data is so insubstantial.  The scare tactics are politically, not scientifically, driven and they are impacting the third world a great deal, and our own industry.

CryoSat2 in 2009 will end this nonsense. 


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
cheezues wrote: Quote: the

cheezues wrote:

Quote:
the data is not well supported and requires further research

This has been the main point the entire time, you can make an equally strong case either way because the data is so insubstantial. The scare tactics are politically, not scientifically, driven and they are impacting the third world a great deal, and our own industry.

CryoSat2 in 2009 will end this nonsense.

What other way?  The authors were referring to their study, there was no other study that mentioned needed further research.  I don't suppose your are including the hundreds of studies which confirm each other's findings.  

Senator Ted Stevens, ranked by Sierra Club as one of the most environmentally unfriendly senators in Congress supports the findings, as does Presidential candidate John McCain.  Conservative preacher Ted Haggard supports the findings.  Hundreds of countries around the world support the findings.  Is this all one massive political conspiracy as you suggest?  Doubtful, but if you could present some evidence of a global conspiracy I'd love to be entertained. 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10146
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
D-cubed wrote: cheezues

D-cubed wrote:
cheezues wrote:

Quote:
the data is not well supported and requires further research

This has been the main point the entire time, you can make an equally strong case either way because the data is so insubstantial. The scare tactics are politically, not scientifically, driven and they are impacting the third world a great deal, and our own industry.

CryoSat2 in 2009 will end this nonsense.

What other way?  The authors were referring to their study, there was no other study that mentioned needed further research.  I don't suppose your are including the hundreds of studies which confirm each other's findings.  

Senator Ted Stevens, ranked by Sierra Club as one of the most environmentally unfriendly senators in Congress supports the findings, as does Presidential candidate John McCain.  Conservative preacher Ted Haggard supports the findings.  Hundreds of countries around the world support the findings.  Is this all one massive political conspiracy as you suggest?  Doubtful, but if you could present some evidence of a global conspiracy I'd love to be entertained. 

This guys just a troll who is unwilling and unable to backup his bullshit assertions.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.