All i believe is that it is not as "cut-and-dry" as people on both sides of the debate often like to believe it is.

I'm continually learning about this and trying to take a reasoned, unbiased approach, not clouded by political BS and the like.

It is hard to find that type of information, haha, but still worth looking for and studying.

I certainly believe that we do have currently, and can continue to have into the future, quite the impact on our climate and the earth as a whole.

Now, whether or not that impact would lead to what Al Gore and others say it would, i'm not sure.

But, i am all for a reasonable approach to this issue.

Emmett Brown wrote:

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: Anyone who has taken five minutes of Stats knows this.

5 mins of stats when there is only what 3 hours of stats. There has only been about 130 years of so called man made global warming. Cars were invented in what the early 1900's. Or when did we start burning coal for electric at a massive stage(maybe the 1880s) to start this so called global warming. This planet has a been around for billions of years and your telling me in 130 years we have changed the world forever? Also it is not just one year of a bad winter. Last winter there was not much snow but it was really really cold and this past summer I believe we only had three days of over 90 degrees.

I was referring to 5 minutes of a course in Statistics. Anyone who has taken Statistics knows that one cannot come to any sort of judgment until you have an accurate, well represented sample size of a population of given data points. 1 winter is just 1 data point in a sample size of information.

It is like 1 point on a line. It is just one point. From it, you cannot tell if the line is going up or down, only that is in one point on that line.

Here's the bottom line for me...

Until science can account for the Medieval warming period, and come up with more compelling evidence than I've seen so far; and until I stop seeing so much sloppiness and outright deception occurring by the people promoting this (losing data, changing data, hiding data, making stupid mistakes); I will never believe we should abandon our current standard of living.

I am a skeptic to the nth degree.

When you're talking about literally collapsing and/or rearranging the economic system of the world, you damn well better have the most compelling, damning evidence this world has ever seen.

So far, we're not even close to that standard.

In fact, events of the past decade (temperatures not warming, and the data "problems" that have now surfaced regarding the UN report) are taking this decidedly in the opposite direction.

As for the argument that one bad winter doesn't disprove global warming: it's ironic that when Katrina happened and the other bad hurricanes that season, scientists were pointing very strongly to global warming as being the likely culprit. Some went on to predict continuing bad hurricane seasons and have since been made to look foolish.

You can't have it both ways.

derek bomar wrote: Whether or not the current rise in temps seen in the last 100-200 years is caused by man can be debated, but what really confuses me is when people see it snowing outside and say that global warming can't be happening (thank you fox news). Also, why wouldn't we want to curb emissions? I mean, have you seen a picture of the haze over LA and other big cities? Do you think that has no negative effect on the environment or people? With new technologies come new jobs, so I can't wrap my head around people who are against moving in the direction of reducing man-made emissions...I just don't get it. What is the downside? Cost? That's a short-term side effect that will soon be negated by increases in technology and demand, just like with anything else...

Here's a chart of the avg temp anomaly over the last 2000 years...now I'm sure this is made up and Glen Beck knows more about this then the people studying it, but whatever...is the sun causing the spike? Maybe, so what? Does that still mean we shouldn't try to lead the world in new green technologies that bring jobs and a better environment?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

You do realize that in one sentence you are talking about the smog over LA and then talking about temperatures/CO2.

Those two things have zero in common and are caused by two different emission gasses.

Smog is caused by NOx (nitrous oxides) emissions, and it is the reason all cars have catalytic converters on them now (nearly eliminates NOx emissions from cars). Smog has ZERO to do with CO2.

But hey, its a good sound bite right? We may not have to lower CO2 emissions due to AGW (since its a farce) but hey, we should lower CO2 due to SMOG!

jmog wrote:

derek bomar wrote: Whether or not the current rise in temps seen in the last 100-200 years is caused by man can be debated, but what really confuses me is when people see it snowing outside and say that global warming can't be happening (thank you fox news). Also, why wouldn't we want to curb emissions? I mean, have you seen a picture of the haze over LA and other big cities? Do you think that has no negative effect on the environment or people? With new technologies come new jobs, so I can't wrap my head around people who are against moving in the direction of reducing man-made emissions...I just don't get it. What is the downside? Cost? That's a short-term side effect that will soon be negated by increases in technology and demand, just like with anything else...

Here's a chart of the avg temp anomaly over the last 2000 years...now I'm sure this is made up and Glen Beck knows more about this then the people studying it, but whatever...is the sun causing the spike? Maybe, so what? Does that still mean we shouldn't try to lead the world in new green technologies that bring jobs and a better environment?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

You do realize that in one sentence you are talking about the smog over LA and then talking about temperatures/CO2.

Those two things have zero in common and are caused by two different emission gasses.

Smog is caused by NOx (nitrous oxides) emissions, and it is the reason all cars have catalytic converters on them now (nearly eliminates NOx emissions from cars). Smog has ZERO to do with CO2.

But hey, its a good sound bite right? We may not have to lower CO2 emissions due to AGW (since its a farce) but hey, we should lower CO2 due to SMOG!

do you realize how stupid this post is? probably not...

are Nitrus Oxide emissions man made? yep. Are they healthy? Nope.

I'm not tying smog and temp together in a cause/effect way...re-read what I typed..

"Also, why wouldn't we want to curb emissions? I mean, have you seen a picture of the haze over LA and other big cities? Do you think that has no negative effect on the environment or people?"

so you're trying to tell me man made smog isn't bad for people? I never once said Smog had anything to do with temp...All I said was that emissions should be lowered in attempt to protect the environment and create new jobs...

again, I don't get the resistance. There's no downside.

derek bomar wrote: again, I don't get the resistance. There's no downside.

Are increased energy costs a downside? I automatically distrust anyone who says "WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING RIGHT NOW OR EVERYONE IS GOING TO DIE, so please give me lots of money."

FatHobbit wrote:

derek bomar wrote: again, I don't get the resistance. There's no downside.

Are increased energy costs a downside? I automatically distrust anyone who says "WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING RIGHT NOW OR EVERYONE IS GOING TO DIE, so please give me lots of money."

Where did he say that?

cbus4life wrote:

FatHobbit wrote:

derek bomar wrote: again, I don't get the resistance. There's no downside.

Are increased energy costs a downside? I automatically distrust anyone who says "WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING RIGHT NOW OR EVERYONE IS GOING TO DIE, so please give me lots of money."

Where did he say that?

I didn't...

No one has been able to come on here and state why they are against lowering emissions and making investments in new technology that will lead to new jobs, so I am still waiting for that one

derek bomar wrote:

jmog wrote:

derek bomar wrote: Whether or not the current rise in temps seen in the last 100-200 years is caused by man can be debated, but what really confuses me is when people see it snowing outside and say that global warming can't be happening (thank you fox news). Also, why wouldn't we want to curb emissions? I mean, have you seen a picture of the haze over LA and other big cities? Do you think that has no negative effect on the environment or people? With new technologies come new jobs, so I can't wrap my head around people who are against moving in the direction of reducing man-made emissions...I just don't get it. What is the downside? Cost? That's a short-term side effect that will soon be negated by increases in technology and demand, just like with anything else...

Here's a chart of the avg temp anomaly over the last 2000 years...now I'm sure this is made up and Glen Beck knows more about this then the people studying it, but whatever...is the sun causing the spike? Maybe, so what? Does that still mean we shouldn't try to lead the world in new green technologies that bring jobs and a better environment?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

You do realize that in one sentence you are talking about the smog over LA and then talking about temperatures/CO2.

Those two things have zero in common and are caused by two different emission gasses.

Smog is caused by NOx (nitrous oxides) emissions, and it is the reason all cars have catalytic converters on them now (nearly eliminates NOx emissions from cars). Smog has ZERO to do with CO2.

But hey, its a good sound bite right? We may not have to lower CO2 emissions due to AGW (since its a farce) but hey, we should lower CO2 due to SMOG!

do you realize how stupid this post is? probably not...

are Nitrus Oxide emissions man made? yep. Are they healthy? Nope.

I'm not tying smog and temp together in a cause/effect way...re-read what I typed..

"Also, why wouldn't we want to curb emissions? I mean, have you seen a picture of the haze over LA and other big cities? Do you think that has no negative effect on the environment or people?"

so you're trying to tell me man made smog isn't bad for people? I never once said Smog had anything to do with temp...All I said was that emissions should be lowered in attempt to protect the environment and create new jobs...

again, I don't get the resistance. There's no downside.

You are lumping co2 emissions with all other types of pollution.

One is argued to lead to global warming (the current topic) and the other is not.

Stay on topic.

Writerbuckeye wrote:

derek bomar wrote:

jmog wrote:

derek bomar wrote: Whether or not the current rise in temps seen in the last 100-200 years is caused by man can be debated, but what really confuses me is when people see it snowing outside and say that global warming can't be happening (thank you fox news). Also, why wouldn't we want to curb emissions? I mean, have you seen a picture of the haze over LA and other big cities? Do you think that has no negative effect on the environment or people? With new technologies come new jobs, so I can't wrap my head around people who are against moving in the direction of reducing man-made emissions...I just don't get it. What is the downside? Cost? That's a short-term side effect that will soon be negated by increases in technology and demand, just like with anything else...

Here's a chart of the avg temp anomaly over the last 2000 years...now I'm sure this is made up and Glen Beck knows more about this then the people studying it, but whatever...is the sun causing the spike? Maybe, so what? Does that still mean we shouldn't try to lead the world in new green technologies that bring jobs and a better environment?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

You do realize that in one sentence you are talking about the smog over LA and then talking about temperatures/CO2.

Those two things have zero in common and are caused by two different emission gasses.

Smog is caused by NOx (nitrous oxides) emissions, and it is the reason all cars have catalytic converters on them now (nearly eliminates NOx emissions from cars). Smog has ZERO to do with CO2.

But hey, its a good sound bite right? We may not have to lower CO2 emissions due to AGW (since its a farce) but hey, we should lower CO2 due to SMOG!

do you realize how stupid this post is? probably not...

are Nitrus Oxide emissions man made? yep. Are they healthy? Nope.

I'm not tying smog and temp together in a cause/effect way...re-read what I typed..

"Also, why wouldn't we want to curb emissions? I mean, have you seen a picture of the haze over LA and other big cities? Do you think that has no negative effect on the environment or people?"

so you're trying to tell me man made smog isn't bad for people? I never once said Smog had anything to do with temp...All I said was that emissions should be lowered in attempt to protect the environment and create new jobs...

again, I don't get the resistance. There's no downside.

You are lumping co2 emissions with all other types of pollution.

One is argued to lead to global warming (the current topic) and the other is not.

Stay on topic.

because I was talking about a broader subject, but apparently I should have made it more clear for those unable to follow...I thought that's what the "also" was for

derek bomar wrote:

do you realize how stupid this post is? probably not...

are Nitrus Oxide emissions man made? yep. Are they healthy? Nope.

I'm not tying smog and temp together in a cause/effect way...re-read what I typed..

"Also, why wouldn't we want to curb emissions? I mean, have you seen a picture of the haze over LA and other big cities? Do you think that has no negative effect on the environment or people?"

so you're trying to tell me man made smog isn't bad for people? I never once said Smog had anything to do with temp...All I said was that emissions should be lowered in attempt to protect the environment and create new jobs...

again, I don't get the resistance. There's no downside.

You say I basically put words in your mouth then you immediately to the same to my post.

I am 100% for NOx reductions, it not only creates smog, it also creates ground level ozone and is the biggest contributor to acid rain.

NOx is bad for the environment, and it HAS been regulated.

Cars require catalytic convertors which nearly eliminates NOx emissions from cars.

In any and all smog related areas there are HUGE restrictions on NOx emissions on industry.

The NOx levels allowed in industry in areas like Nevada (near LV), California, Texas, New England states, etc is less than 15 ppm, the rest of the country is typically at least 3 times higher than that.

I am all for NOx, CO, and SOx (sulfur dioxides) emission restrictions as they do actually do harmful things to the environment.

However, CO2 does basically zero to the environment, its food for plants for Christ's sake. We breathe it out. CO2 is NOT a poison as the environmental crazies want to make you believe.

Also, you want a "downside" to reducing CO2 emissions, I'll give you one.

First off I am all for energy efficient industry, cars, "green" energies, etc. I drive a 35+ MPG car, I work in an industry that constantly is trying to improve its energy efficiency.

However, when you FORCE industry to go so efficient that the technology to get that efficient is astronomical in price, it then raises the price of their product and in turn raises the price to the consumers.

Its economics 101, they will pass the cost on.

Also, you start making US companies adhere to "Cap and Tax" and they will quickly relocate their industrial plants to foreign countries who could care less. And that means more jobs lost.


I'm all for energy independence and more efficient living, but you have to realize that so are most industries. Every company in the US constantly looks for ways to lower their energy costs, trust me. However, they aren't going to spend millions of dollars to save only thousands per year in energy costs.

That's the crap that Cap and Tax programs would create, it would require companies to outrageously spend money to save very little in energy costs.

derek bomar wrote:

cbus4life wrote:

FatHobbit wrote:

derek bomar wrote: again, I don't get the resistance. There's no downside.

Are increased energy costs a downside? I automatically distrust anyone who says "WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING RIGHT NOW OR EVERYONE IS GOING TO DIE, so please give me lots of money."

Where did he say that?

I didn't...

No one has been able to come on here and state why they are against lowering emissions and making investments in new technology that will lead to new jobs, so I am still waiting for that one

Well, I'll take the bait. We can "create jobs" by throwing billions of dollars at anything; that doesn't mean those are good jobs or efficient jobs or jobs worth creating. The opportunity cost of spending that billions of dollars on energy incentives may be prohibitive, as that money may be better spent elsewhere (either on different programs or in the form of tax cuts).

The article speaks for itself.

Leonard Evans has a doctorate in physics from Oxford University and is a member of the National Academy of Engineering. He has authored more than 100 peer-reviewed papers on many scientific subjects.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/12/has-global-warming-got-you-snowed-in/

fan_from_texas wrote:

derek bomar wrote:

cbus4life wrote:

FatHobbit wrote:

derek bomar wrote: again, I don't get the resistance. There's no downside.

Are increased energy costs a downside? I automatically distrust anyone who says "WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING RIGHT NOW OR EVERYONE IS GOING TO DIE, so please give me lots of money."

Where did he say that?

I didn't...

No one has been able to come on here and state why they are against lowering emissions and making investments in new technology that will lead to new jobs, so I am still waiting for that one

Well, I'll take the bait. We can "create jobs" by throwing billions of dollars at anything; that doesn't mean those are good jobs or efficient jobs or jobs worth creating. The opportunity cost of spending that billions of dollars on energy incentives may be prohibitive, as that money may be better spent elsewhere (either on different programs or in the form of tax cuts).

I think its gonna be hard to calculate the opportunity cost for this, but that's just my $0.02...I'm not saying throw the brakes on everything and divert all our energy into making everything green right now, but there is no reason we can't right now build high-speed rail and put aside some money to figure out how to make electric or water powered cars that are efficient to produce and use en masse (or other technological advances that reduce emissions while at the same time improving our competitiveness). We're wasting so much money as it is every day on things that are weakening our country and making others stronger. We drive the worlds economy through consumption, so why not have a product that can be locally produced be your main source of consumption? Its hard to put a $ on, but the benefit is out there.

quaker...I could cite opinion pieces by doctors who believe in global warming...does that make them right and yours wrong?

QuakerOats wrote: The article speaks for itself.

Leonard Evans has a doctorate in physics from Oxford University and is a member of the National Academy of Engineering. He has authored more than 100 peer-reviewed papers on many scientific subjects.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/12/has-global-warming-got-you-snowed-in/

Note, from the article:

Of course, a single snowstorm does not disprove global warming. Weather is not the same as climate.

Exactly my point I've been making.

derek bomar wrote:

cbus4life wrote:

FatHobbit wrote:

derek bomar wrote: again, I don't get the resistance. There's no downside.

Are increased energy costs a downside? I automatically distrust anyone who says "WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING RIGHT NOW OR EVERYONE IS GOING TO DIE, so please give me lots of money."

Where did he say that?

I didn't...

No one has been able to come on here and state why they are against lowering emissions and making investments in new technology that will lead to new jobs, so I am still waiting for that one

I don't distrust Derek. (I didn't word that as well as I could have.) It's Al Gore and his pals I have an issue with.

QuakerOats wrote: The article speaks for itself.

Leonard Evans has a doctorate in physics from Oxford University and is a member of the National Academy of Engineering. He has authored more than 100 peer-reviewed papers on many scientific subjects.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/12/has-global-warming-got-you-snowed-in/

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1893089

Great stuff done by NPR, interviews from three highly respected scientists, all with differing opinions.

fan_from_texas wrote:

Emmett Brown wrote: This planet has a been around for billions of years and your telling me in 130 years we have changed the world forever?

I'm not sure why this is so hard to believe. We've done plenty of things to change the world forever over the past 130 years. E.g., PCBs, TCE, nuclear fallout/widespread radiation, extensive logging, etc. The idea that we haven't been around long enough to have a meaningful effect on mother earth is kind of silly when we've obviously had an effect in all sorts of areas.

It is hard to believe, because we have had similar cyles in the past, pre-industrial revolution. And not only is it hard to believe, it can be soundly rejected by logic, let alone real science.

QuakerOats wrote:

fan_from_texas wrote:

Emmett Brown wrote: This planet has a been around for billions of years and your telling me in 130 years we have changed the world forever?

I'm not sure why this is so hard to believe. We've done plenty of things to change the world forever over the past 130 years. E.g., PCBs, TCE, nuclear fallout/widespread radiation, extensive logging, etc. The idea that we haven't been around long enough to have a meaningful effect on mother earth is kind of silly when we've obviously had an effect in all sorts of areas.

It is hard to believe, because we have had similar cyles in the past, pre-industrial revolution. And not only is it hard to believe, it can be soundly rejected by logic, let alone real science.

so you think that no matter what man does he doesn't have the ability to impact the environment on a significant level?

That is not what I said, and the "environment" is a big word. If you mean "climate change" or "global warming" or whatever the term-du-jour of the left is, then yes, we have not impacted those elements of the environment, nor do I believe we could on a "significant level" which is why then, it is impossible to reverse the earth's own cycles.

It is a political hoax on the grandest of levels ..................... fortunately it is crumbling.

QuakerOats wrote: That is not what I said, and the "environment" is a big word. If you mean "climate change" or "global warming" or whatever the term-du-jour of the left is, then yes, we have not impacted those elements of the environment, nor do I believe we could on a "significant level" which is why then, it is impossible to reverse the earth's own cycles.

It is a political hoax on the grandest of levels ..................... fortunately it is crumbling.

well I disagree, but that's your opinion

if Bill Nye says it, it must be so

http://dailycaller.com/2010/02/12/bill-nye-belief-in-global-warming-necessary-for-patriotism/

derek bomar wrote:

QuakerOats wrote: That is not what I said, and the "environment" is a big word. If you mean "climate change" or "global warming" or whatever the term-du-jour of the left is, then yes, we have not impacted those elements of the environment, nor do I believe we could on a "significant level" which is why then, it is impossible to reverse the earth's own cycles.

It is a political hoax on the grandest of levels ..................... fortunately it is crumbling.

well I disagree, but that's your opinion

Once you explain how we (and the industrial revolution etc.) could be responsible for climate change, even though the earth has continuously gone through these cycles for eons, then perhaps your "opinion" would have merit. However, such a logical argument is an impossibility.