Letters to the Editor
Warming fallacy
May 10, 2007
Advertisement
To the editor:
With global warming approaching the status of a new religion it may be considered blasphemy to speak out against the hype. Somebody needs to.
Al Gore has the earth's warming relationship to an increase of carbon dioxide backward. Carbon dioxide buildup follows warming in the ice core record, it doesn't lead. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the gas laws can figure out that a warmer ocean holds less dissolved carbon dioxide. It takes hundreds of years for this to have a noted effect, indicating that warming began before industrialization. Furthermore, plants inspire carbon dioxide and expire oxygen making an increase in carbon dioxide beneficial.
The sun's output has been steadily increasing, as is evidenced by the melting of the polar ice caps on Mars, the liquefying of Saturn's ice-covered moons and the fact that Pluto is maintaining an atmosphere further into its solar apogee. Nothing we can do will halt the cyclic heating of the sun.
The truth is the New World Order crowd, including the United Nations and the Council on Foreign Relations, have seized on this opportunity to blitz the controlled media into imposing a global tax on carbon emissions. Increased control and surveillance will follow.
Lawrence's sales tax revenue has already caused proposed budget concessions. More taxes, as well as higher gas and oil prices, will further erode the middle class. Then, with the already dramatically fallen dollar, foreign companies - which have already happened with Laidlaw's busing system - can come in and buy us up at bargain prices.
Thank you, Al Gore, and the revolutionaries who have nowhere else to invest their energies.
Larry Kelley,
Lawrence
10 May 2007
at 1:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Ragingbear (Anonymous) says…
Your not Larry Kelly, your actually manbearpig!
10 May 2007
at 7:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
anxiousatheist (Clint Gentry) says…
Is this Larry Kelly the well known scientist that studies meteorolgy? Geology? Any science? No, it's just another below average citizen with an opinion that has no basis. Larry, please provide support for your opinion, you know, like a scientist would have to. “…Making an increase in carbon dioxide beneficial”? Sounds like Limbaugh logic to me, which is really the lack thereof.
10 May 2007
at 7:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
preebo (Anonymous) says…
I love how a small percentage of scientists (and I mean small percentage, like 2 to five percent of the scientific community) and an even smaller group of skeptics think the debate is still raging about Global Climate Change. The science is in. The international scientific community has reined in. Guess what, its real and humans are likely the cause.
10 May 2007
at 7:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
prioress (Anonymous) says…
Our little blue marble is like a supertanker; it's hard to make sharp turns and we must plan well in advance. The controversy will continue, but we need to think as a species about how we are doing things. To bring up the rest of the world to our standard of living will take several more earths to accomplish. Anyone found some extra planets lately? Even if the warming is misunderstood or an inevitable byproduct of the earth's evolution, we need to be careful, cut back on our use of petroleum and make some long-term plans to make this a better place for all.
10 May 2007
at 8:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gr (Anonymous) says…
“Guess what, its real and humans are likely the cause.”
It may be real. But, warming in comparison to when? I was told in grade school that the sun would keep enlarging until it engulfed the earth. Do you really think whether we breath carbon dioxide or not will stop that from happening.
“likely the cause”? The logic of that just as well be as cell phones are “likely the cause”. Do you just make up things, or merely parrot things? As the atheist ask, provide some support for your opinion. And that would entail, how much CO2 is in the atmosphere, how much we produce, if we stopped producing any, how would that “likely” prevent warming. I've seen and shown data showing it is about the same as a boy peeing in the ocean and then saying we are going to overflow the oceans. (He is contributing volume - it's a fact!) But, I have yet to see any data showing where the amount of CO2 we produce could possibly be construed as significant.
Show that, and we can have a discussion.
10 May 2007
at 8:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
preebo (Anonymous) says…
Gr,
As to your comment about making things up…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/na…
And as to your assertion that we can prevent warming, you are right. It is too late to prevent, but we can deminish. As the report from the The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said , it is a forgone conclusion that our temps will rise (they already are and have been), but the real issue is how much more.
If your claim is that CO2 is naturally dispersed into the atmosphere and human contribution is small in comparison, then at what point do you believe it to be an issue? Yes, CO2 is necessary to regulate our temps here on earth. There has been a natural balance of CO2 for hundreds of thousands of years, but over a few decades the human contribution has increased dramatically, thereby, throwing off that balance. As many climatologists will tell you, this atmospheric balance of gases has taken millions of years to balance out, and over the past few tens of years we have successfully tilted that balance.
10 May 2007
at 8:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gr (Anonymous) says…
Well, at least you backed up from where you parroted your opinion. Likely, probable, 90% certain. No facts of data, though, but lot's of scaremongering.
“but over a few decades the human contribution has increased dramatically, thereby, throwing off that balance.”
Yep, two boys peeing in the ocean - twice the amount. I doubt that throws anything off balance.
You haven't provided anything to discuss, yet. Maybe it's because you don't know and are merely parroting. You'll say can't we trust the scientists? Well, what has their track record been? Face it, not all are honest. But 90% you would think. However, an “Intergovernmental Panel” does not even come close to sounding trustworthy to me. Do you believe a government panel went to war on Iraq because of weapons of mass distruction? That's what they “concluded”.
Ask yourself what you would do. You are on a panel to determine if we are causing global warming. If so, you and others have a job for the rest of your lives. If not, you will no longer have a job and thousands of others will be out of a job. Are you going to put thousands of people out of a job? One would think there would be honest people even if it causes harm to them. Maybe a small percentage? I see a great conflict of interest in basing facts on an “Intergovernmental Panel conclusion”. Let's see some data. Isn't that what science is supposed to be about so that others can look at the data?
Where's the data you are basing the conclusion on? No discussion, yet.
10 May 2007
at 9:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“Yep, two boys peeing in the ocean - twice the amount. I doubt that throws anything off balance.”
Gawd, do you really think this all about two boys' uninary habits? Are you unaware that there are 6 billion other humans on the planet doing a lot more than just peeing?
10 May 2007
at 9:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bearded_gnome (Anonymous) says…
good letter with good evidence. I see anxie can't refute it, so he/she just engages in slur.
not much man made pollution on mars.
10 May 2007
at 9:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mick (Anonymous) says…
I wonder why the American Enterprise Institute, which runs the White House, was offering thousands of dollars to scientists and economists who would come out against evidence for global warming.(“The Guardian”, Feb 2, 2007)
10 May 2007
at 9:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
preebo (Anonymous) says…
Gr,
I haven't backed up from my position in the least. I have provided you with a claim, and all you can do is assert your skeptisism, which I can respect as a Conservation Biologist and a Lawyer I urge skeptisism. Afterall, that is the driving force of science and logic.
Again…
As the report from the The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said , it is a forgone conclusion that our temps will rise (they already are and have been), but the real issue is how much more.
If your claim is that CO2 is naturally dispersed into the atmosphere and human contribution is small in comparison, then at what point do you believe it to be an issue? Yes, CO2 is necessary to regulate our temps here on earth. There has been a natural balance of CO2 for hundreds of thousands of years, but over a few decades the human contribution has increased dramatically, thereby, throwing off that balance. As many climatologists will tell you, this atmospheric balance of gases has taken millions of years to balance out, and over the past few tens of years we have successfully tilted that balance.
10 May 2007
at 9:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
preebo (Anonymous) says…
sorry… Skepticism, not Skeptisism.
10 May 2007
at 9:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“good letter with good evidence.”
There was no evidence provided in this letter— none.
“not much man made pollution on mars.”
Mars is not Earth. What possible relevance does that have to the discussion on global warming?
10 May 2007
at 9:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
JohnBrown (Anonymous) says…
Recommend everyone check out the graph in the link below.
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Prec…
10 May 2007
at 9:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gr (Anonymous) says…
“Mars is not Earth.”
I see the bozo hasn't even entered this conversation.
“then at what point do you believe it to be an issue? “
preebo, if that's what you find so important, I would say 10% probably is significant, but .05% is not. Then there's some point in between. Just “claiming” something is a foregone conclusion, doesn't mean you can't look at the facts, or the lack thereof. Why are you so resistant to presenting some facts instead of “claims”? If you are a biologists, surely some part of your work entails facts. Why not present some whether 10% or .05% and shut us up?
Here is a scientist. See what you think:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/r…
and another site:
http://nov55.com/gbwm.html
10 May 2007
at 9:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
This isn't a conversation— this is a bunch of ideologues desperately protecting their willful ignorance.
10 May 2007
at 10:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Roadkill_Rob (Anonymous) says…
Even if global warming isn't real, which it seems to me it is based on the findings of international scientific community (not just Al Gore), wouldn't it be nice to clean up the air anyway? Wouldn't it be nice to try and make more fuel-efficient vehicles or, even better, electric cars!!! Not only would this be cleaner, but cheaper too!
Regardless of the global warming theory, we are polluting the air through ineffecient cars and industrialization. It's unhealthy for us and the next generations. I would think anyone with kids would want to clean up the air so their children and their children's children don't have to grow up with asthma problems and lower quality of life.
10 May 2007
at 10:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
redglare (Anonymous) says…
Why is the LJ World publishing this sad example of misinformed, anti-scientific drivel? That the Earth is warming due to human emission of greenhouse gasses is beyond debate… there is consensus in the scientific communtiny. See the National Acadamies of Science for more information.
Please do not use your newspaper to promote loony theories that cast doubt upon Global Warming. Frankly, it is a disservice to your readership and community.
10 May 2007
at 10:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
nugget (Anonymous) says…
Elvis and John F. Kennedy are still alive. 9/11 was planned and carried out by the U.S. Aliens from another planet once crash landed in New Mexico and their bodies are preserved and hidden away by the government.
It's the internet, where every squirrel eventually shows us how nutty they are. Meet Larry Kelley, from Lawrence.
10 May 2007
at 11:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
werekoala (Anonymous) says…
Oh my goodness! The Martian Ice Caps are melting? Surely this must mean that all of global warming is a hoax perpetrated by the same folks who made up Darwinism, thermodynamics, and the heliocentric model in a vain attempt to disprove God, and his chosen party, the Republicans!!!
Or, we could note that this is a known phenomenon that is completely different in extent, severity, and origin and effects than what we are seeing on earth. The basic reason is that as global dust storms have exposed darker rocks around the planet, these darker rocks have absorbed more of the sun's heat, which in turn has increased the strength and severity of these storms, which expose more black rock and hence accelerate the cycle in a classic feedback loop.
But don't believe me, listen to what that terrible liberal rag Nature has to say.
http://humbabe.arc.nasa.gov/~fenton/p…
In fact, it's funny that you mention this, because it's actually a very good demonstration of why we SHOULD be concerned about global warming. For all your talk about two kids peeing in an ocean, the fact is that all physical/ecological systems are intensively connected to each other in ways which are still only dimly apprehended. And thus, if a few dust storms are enough to gradually change the climate of mars, what might 6 billion people and their cars, factories, homes, and farms be doing to our planet?
More to the point, all of this can be discovered by a short Internet search of the relevant literature. Which brings up a more trenchant point: in the age of unlimited information, all ignorance is willful ignorance. I'm not a hysteric by any means, but pretending that you can just go on doing whatever you like for as long as you want with absolutely no repercussions is an unrealistic and juvenile position based on wish-fulfillment.
10 May 2007
at 11:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
redglare (Anonymous) says…
It is indeed interesting and disheartening how many unfortunate people, such as our president and his supporters, think …
science = leftist politics
and
reality = a leftist conspiracy.
I just think it's a shame that the LJ World amplifies such delusions. And I said so in a comment. Is that censorship? No, censorship is when the Bush White House hires oil company shills to rewrite EPA reports in order to muzzle real scientists, who understand the reality of Global Warming.
10 May 2007
at 11:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
preebo (Anonymous) says…
http://www.exploratorium.edu/climate/…
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warm…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/stat…
gr,
Here are a few sources that support the concept of global climate change and the human activities causing it.
Hope this helps…
10 May 2007
at 11:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Roadkill_Rob (Anonymous) says…
redglare,
Censorship should only occur when it's something the Neo-Cons don't like.
10 May 2007
at 12:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
preebo (Anonymous) says…
PossessionAnnex,
Where did you get your information? They sound like arbitrary numbers to me.
10 May 2007
at 12:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Ragingbear (Anonymous) says…
There is no doubt that Global Warming is indeed happening. The rising sea levels, the strange weather patterns, adaptive evolution of animals in preparation of the change and so on. The main issue seems to be around the cause. Some people claim it's man made, pointing to the properties and measurements of certain pollutants. Others claim it is natural, a part of the Earth's natural cycle of Ice age to Tropical Age and then back again. We know that we are just coming out of an Ice Age now. We have ancient records and full proof in the form of receding glaciers well before man started making any significant level of pollution.
For some strange reason, nobody wants to accept the possibility and probability that it is a mixture of both. We are continuing to emerge out of an Ice Age and will continue to see a global increase in temperature for generations to come. However, there is no doubt that man is having an influence. Causing these cycles to move forward at a rate that makes something that would take a century to be completed can be completed in a decade. Creatures are changing, evolving and going extinct even though man is making an effort to prevent it because our world is changing. However, by the rate we are moving, we have little time to adapt. The Earth has little time to adapt. We know what the long term outcome will be if we continue to progress at this rate. We can also expect the apex of the hot period to be much hotter than we would normally have (but what do you care? That's not for hundreds or even thousands of years.).
We have got to stop. There is no way you can look at the soot being spilled out of factories, and the smog domes that loom over cities is in any way good for us or the environment. We are only making it worse. The Earth can only recover from damage at a certain rate. We are still polluting faster than it can recover. We must change now if we don't want the planet to just decide to wipe the slate clean and start over. It wouldn't take as much as you might think. An airborne and highly contagious version of the Ebola Virus mixed with a global insect borne pandemic (like west nile, malaria and the like) could decimate our population. We are talking 1 in 12 surviving as an optimal number. That could easily drop the human race into 500 million. Or roughly half the population of China.
10 May 2007
at 12:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
werekoala (Anonymous) says…
posessionannex :
I fail to see how common-sense solutions like alternative power sources would destroy all of western civilization. On the contrary, I'd say that a concerted effort to develop and implement sustainable power sources would help revitalize a flagging economy. We'd also see quite a research dividend in other areas, as we did following the space race, further improving the quality of life for every day Americans. This would also have positive effects on national security, as a stronger US manufacturing sector makes us less dependent on others for war material, as does an end to the hegemony of oil barons.
I mean, solar, wind, water, and nuclear power plants, and green transportation services are going to kill western civilization? Come on. You sound like the typical chicken-little conservative, outraged and inflamed by whatever Rush's topic-du-jure happens to be.
10 May 2007
at 12:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jonas (Anonymous) says…
“With global warming approaching the status of a new religion it may be considered blasphemy to speak out against the hype. Somebody needs to.”
Errrrr… . right, because NO ONE'S doing that.
Gnome, I was hoping you'd point out the evidence you refer to as good. I don't see any evidence, just inference.
Is this OUR Larry? The tone seems suitably erroneous on most levels, but I don't want to make assumptions.
10 May 2007
at 12:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
pelliott (Anonymous) says…
Since almost all action that is in response to global warming is reducing pollution, using nonpetroleom energy, and basically living cleaner, I don't care that this persons's opinion is so different than mine, unless he is advocating that we should not only be filthy pigs locally but globally too. Lots of harm from pollution, global warming may not be the worst. Reduce, reuse, recycle.
10 May 2007
at 12:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gr (Anonymous) says…
“And thus, if a few dust storms are enough to gradually change the climate of mars, what might 6 billion people and their cars, factories, homes, and farms be doing to our planet?”
And then you have several million butterflies flapping their wings in the tropics. What kind of changes will that cause? We'd better restrict ourselves for “that's all we have”. Better restrict those two boys peeing because there are lots of rivers dumping lots of water in the ocean.
Thppppth.
==============
preebo,
We have from your first link, “We also know that human activities-primarily the burning of fossil fuels-have increased the greenhouse gas content of the earth's atmosphere significantly over the same period.” that is about the only thing that hints at hard data of humans causing warming - and that poorly.
The second article…. projections? Really you think that somehow answers how much humans are affecting warming? I did find a link that said US emitted 7 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases. That's a lot compared to two boys peeing in the ocean. How does it relate to the total in the atmosphere? I couldn't find that. Maybe you could point it out to us. I remember something like 7 / 700 = 1%.
I couldn't figure out why you gave your third link. It showed a rise in temperature. Why does that mean we caused it?
I never heard what your response was after reading what a scientist directly said on the link I gave.
Some of the other people's comments reminded me of his statement:
“At the same time, political pressures on dissidents from the “popular vision'' increased. Sen. Gore publicly admonished “skeptics'' in a lengthy New York Times op-ed piece. In a perverse example of double-speak he associated the “true believers'' in warming with Galileo. ”
(Gore, was he the one who wanted to keep recounting votes until he won?)
and regarding scientists completely in agreement:
“, a number of the participants have testified to the pressures placed on them to emphasize results supportive of the current scenario and to suppress other results. That pressure has frequently been effective, and a survey of participants reveals substantial disagreement with the final report.”
“On the basis of the summary, one frequently hears that “hundreds of the world's greatest climate scientists from dozens of countries all agreed that.|.|.|.''
“a professor of economics at Carnegie Mellon University, wrote to me about being dismissed from a Senate hearing for suggesting that the issue of global warming was scientifically controversial. I assured him that the issue was not only controversial but also unlikely. ”
You should read it. It addresses a number of issues.
What do you think we should conclude? I ask for some data to back up your opinion. This would be a good time to present it. All you present are links saying how bad the earth is going to be when it warms. Hmmm. No data to present?
10 May 2007
at 1:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
dorothyhr (Dorothy Hoyt-Reed) says…
Wouldn't it be nice to develop an engine that ran off of something other than oil, then we could tell the Middle East to go blow themselves up? Those people who are still buying the gas guzzlers to drive 2 blocks to the grocery store are the ones giving aid and comfort to the enemy, not those who want to end the war. We could abandon the Middle East to their own stupidity, bring developing nations up to our living standards, and have clean air. Where are the scientists. Oh yeah, we don't teach science anymore. We have to concentrate on reading and writing. Knowing the difference between a simile and a metaphor isn't going to develop alternative energy. And saving the earth means saving mankind. The earth will still be a planet, humans will just be extinct.
10 May 2007
at 1:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
blue73harley (Anonymous) says…
I think global warming is real and it is being caused by Al Gore talking too much.
Seriously, though, I did want to make a comment regarding this from Roadkill - “Even if global warming isn't real, which it seems to me it is based on the findings of international scientific community (not just Al Gore), wouldn't it be nice to clean up the air anyway? Wouldn't it be nice to try and make more fuel-efficient vehicles or, even better, electric cars!!! Not only would this be cleaner, but cheaper too!”
The main “pollutant” that modern cars emit is CO2 so while making them more efficient would conserve resources it would do nothing to improve air quality. As for electric cars, the current state of battery technology does not enable them to be cost effective. And battery production and disposal creates some really nasty hazardous waste.
10 May 2007
at 1:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
blue73harley (Anonymous) says…
posessionannex - can we dispose of the depleted uranium in your backyard?
10 May 2007
at 2:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
SB1 (Anonymous) says…
May Mr. Kelley's next life be as a polar bear. Better tone up, you'll have a lot of treading water to do there Bub…..
10 May 2007
at 2:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Roadkill_Rob (Anonymous) says…
blueharley,
Wouldn't significantly less CO2 allow plants to play catch up on the whole photosynthesis process as opposed to being overwhelmed right now?
Have you seen the film “Who Killed the Electric Car?” It shows how the technology is available today to make cost-effective batteries. As for the hazardous waste issue, I don't remember the film covering that…do you have a link or can you explain further?
10 May 2007
at 2:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
MyName (Anonymous) says…
> it may be considered blasphemy to speak out against the hype. Somebody needs to.
There is no “hype” there is alot of data out there that shows that the temperature of the planet has been increasing steadily and that it seems to have started shortly after the industrial revolution. There is also alot of data out there that shows that at around the same time the warming started, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased. It is also a proven fact that atmospheric CO2 reflects infrared light back onto the surface of the earth, which can cause temperatures to warm. So how much “faith” do you need to put two and two together?
> Carbon dioxide buildup follows warming in the ice core record, it doesn't lead. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the gas laws can figure out that a warmer ocean holds less dissolved carbon dioxide. It takes hundreds of years for this to have a noted effect, indicating that warming began before industrialization. Furthermore, plants inspire carbon dioxide and expire oxygen making an increase in carbon dioxide beneficial.
Even if you are correct and the release of carbon dioxide was started by an increase in temperatures, it is still a proven fact that CO2, Methane, and other greenhouse gases reflect infrared light back onto the surface of the earth, which means that an increase in those gases will warm the planet. Your statement about the gas “originating in the ocean” is completely irrelavant as the emission by the ocean is not the only source, and may not even be the most significant source, of atmospheric CO2.
>The sun's output has been steadily increasing, as is evidenced by the melting of the polar ice caps on Mars, the liquefying of Saturn's ice-covered moons and the fact that Pluto is maintaining an atmosphere further into its solar apogee. Nothing we can do will halt the cyclic heating of the sun.
Where's your proof that the Sun's output has increased? Not only that, but where's your proof that the (supposed) increase is a more significant contributor to the rise in temperatures than atmospheric CO2?
10 May 2007
at 2:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
MyName (Anonymous) says…
I'm not even going to respond to the other red herrings about the planets except to say: 1) The water on Mars is not “melting” so much as evaporating into space because the atmosphere is so thin. 2) Saturn has at least 59 moons, nearly all of which are rocks, and none of which have melting ice, or any ice at all. One of them as an atmosphere, but it's so thick that it actually reflects light back out into space in a “reverse” greenhouse effect. 3) The same thing is believed to happened to Pluto as it gets closer to the Sun, however since it's orbit is 248 years, and we've only known about it since 1930, it's hard to say anything definitive about it.
Finally, I love how you have to invent a bogeyman for us to buy into your overall argument. I mean, you can either believe the science that says we've got a problem that needs to be solved or millions of people will be harmed, or we can believe your assertion that it's all a big lie put out there by the New World Order bogeyman. I'm sure having a hard time with this decision :-P
10 May 2007
at 3:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
blue73harley (Anonymous) says…
Roadkill - I have no comment regarding plants “playing catchup with CO2” production of cars. Was just trying to point out that cars of today are not gross air-polluters. While car makers have not made them much more fuel efficient, especially in the last twenty years, they have made them cleaner and safer.
Here is a link that tells a little about environmental hazards of batteries -
http://www.informinc.org/recyclenicd.php
I stand by my statement that currently (not a pun!) electric cars are not cost effective. I haven't seen the film you cite but I do read lots of auto publications. Manufacturing cost of a battery is only one factor. To be practical, the batteries would have to have enough capacity to allow the car to travel a significant range before recharging. Autoweek has had some good stories on electric cars. Every one I have seen is over-priced, has limited range or both. Autoweek is online so check it out if you are interested.
10 May 2007
at 4:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Stymie (Anonymous) says…
Who here knows the concentration of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere?
10 May 2007
at 4:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gr (Anonymous) says…
“There is no “hype” there is alot of data out there that shows that the temperature of the planet has been increasing steadily and that it seems to have started shortly after the industrial revolution. There is also alot of data out there that shows that at around the same time the warming started, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased.”
And there is a lot of data out there which shows that around the same time the warming started, cell phones started being used (fill in the blank of whatever is your political agenda). Where's YOUR proof that humans caused global warming?
Yaaaaaawwwwwn.
Please stop. I'm bored.
–––-
The rest of you people talking about how good alternative energy is and how bad pollution is. Well, that's all nice and all. But that has nothing to do with the topic of, did humans cause global warming.
10 May 2007
at 5:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Roadkill_Rob (Anonymous) says…
>”No, it's just another below average citizen with an opinion that has no basis.”- AA
> “Yep, see alot of that around these here parts.” RT
Right_Thinker, you should try to debate like a rational, logical person and back your comments up with some facts, links, or anything instead of making pompous statements like your smarter than everyone. The fact is that a lot of people are laughing at you, not with you. Just thought I'd give you the heads up.
10 May 2007
at 5:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
boltzmann (Anonymous) says…
Stymie (Anonymous) says:
“Who here knows the concentration of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere?”
The current value is about 380 ppm (parts per million) up from 316 ppm in 1958.
Mr Kelly in his letter says…
“Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the gas laws can figure out that a warmer ocean holds less dissolved carbon dioxide.”
This is an example of a statement that, while true, is not necessarily relevant. First of all it assumes that the oceans are saturated in CO2, which is doubtful, as it is currently speculated that a good portion of anthropomorphic CO2 is absorbed by the oceans - if you keep approximate tabs of all of the CO2 that has gone into the atmosphere from anthropogenic sources, you would get about 500 ppm, so some fraction of the CO2 emissions must be going somewhere else - the best theory is that is primarily absorbed by oceans. If the oceans are not saturated then the problem is more a kinetics problem rather than an equilibrium gas solubility problem.
A good test for the origin of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is to examine carbon isotope ratios. Carbon has two stable isotopes, C-13 and C-12. Most carbon is C-12 with a small fraction of C-13 and the unstable isotope C-14 thrown in. For some reason, biological systems preferentially take up C-12, so the C-13/C-12 ratio in material of biological origin is smaller than that present in the atmosphere (and in the oceans) naturally. Therefore, if increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is primarily due to burning fossil fuels and forests then the C-13/C-12 ratio should decrease with time. If the increase was due to ocean degassing as the writer suggests, the ratio should remain constant. Isotopic analysis of atmospheric carbon and carbon in tree rings show that the C-13/C-12 ratio began to decrease in the mid 1850's at the beginning of the industrial revolution. While no single experiment is ever conclusive, this one does indicate that of the two hypotheses for CO2 incease, ocean degassing and anthropogenic sources, the latter is a better fit with the observed experimental data.
A decent source of information on the technical details of climate change is the website. This particular topic is discussed there.
http://www.realclimate.org/
10 May 2007
at 5:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Roadkill_Rob (Anonymous) says…
“Look, this planet coveres alot of miles in 3 billion years-we're supposed to 'salami/bologna' to some documentary that of all people, Al Gore puts out? No thanks.”
Al Gore didn't come up with the concept of global warming. This theory has been around for years before Al Gore made the documentary.
And I don't remember anyone telling anyone else to shut up. Maybe “back it up with some facts before posting” but never “shut up if you disagree!”
Most posts I've read from the “left” back up their arguments with links and supporting facts. All you seem to say is, “The left is a bunch of hypocrits who don't want me to say anything so I'm forced to generalize people into one category and whine about being a victim.” Hint, you lose respect and credibility when you play the victim. Just another heads up.
10 May 2007
at 5:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tasche (Anonymous) says…
Once again, the conversation has come to it's usual fruition: the right vs. the left. Sad, but true.
I can see both sides in this argument implying that we should base our opinion on scientific evidence - that we want science to prove something to us. Unfortunately, science doesn't “prove” anything, ever. It simply and objectively tests a hypothesis resulting in a support for and a rejection of the hypothesis. How you interpret the data and what you do with it, although important, is subjective. That said, one must weigh the evidence. When you tally up the data and 90% says one thing and 10% says the other, where are you going to put your money? As for global warming specifically, 95% of the international scientific community has agreed that human's addition of CO2 to the atmosphere has significantly contributed to global warming. If you want to rely on the 5% that say that's not the case, so be it, but understand you're going against the scientific evidence. I would also add that people will tend to go with the evidence that most suits them. That is, if you like driving your Hummer and don't want to feel as though your contributing to global warming, you're probably going to go with the 5%.
As for a more intuitive approach: CO2 is a greenhous gas that holds heat, since the industrial revolution, we've used of fossil fuels that releases carbon to the atmosphere. Considering that that carbon had been buried for 100's of millions of years, doesn't it make intuitive sense, even to the hardened skeptic, that adding this carbon to the atmosphere would cause at least something is going to change in our atmosphere?
Lastly, a point on the “precautionary principle”. This principle essentially says that something is guilty until proven innocent. Maybe future research on increased temps as caused by humans will eventually be a rejected hypothesis. In the meantime, it makes sense to play it safe and do something about the problem, rather than waiting until we get “100% proof.”
10 May 2007
at 6:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
blackwalnut (Anonymous) says…
Baloney!
10 May 2007
at 6:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tasche (Anonymous) says…
gr,
As for your idea that all these scientists would be out of a job if they discounted global warming is a far cry from reality in the scientific world as I know it. These scientists are simply reporting the results of their research and their job doesn't depend on which way the data goes. Their funding/job depends on good science regardless of the outcome. Your idea implies that there are all these scientists that make all their money by keeping global warming alive and well. With this logic, do you believe that a cancer researcher has actually found the cure, but doesn't want to release it because they would be out of a job?
If anything, think about all the money that certain companies would lose if society actually reduced our use of fossil fuels. There are many more jobs and billions of dollars that would be lost.
10 May 2007
at 10:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bearded_gnome (Anonymous) says…
there was recorded *global cooling from the mid '50s to the mid '70s, and some of these same yaywhos were warning us about “pollution winter” and “global cooling.” too much is being read into too little timesspan. evidence in the LTE [jonas] like his allusion to mars you mean?
mars is demonstrating an icecap change, change in what has till now been a perminent icecap in marsian conditions.
11 May 2007
at 8:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
werekoala (Anonymous) says…
bearded_gnome :
If you're going to bring up that old discredited talking point about the martian icecaps, you might want to look up earlier in this very comments section where I cited an article from one of the most respected scientific publications in the world that definitively refutes you. Otherwise people might get the idea that you either do not know what you are talking about, or are choosing to remain willfully ignorant because reality doesn't fit with your propaganda.
Here, I'll link it again for you:
http://humbabe.arc.nasa.gov/~fenton/p…
But somehow I'll bet dollars to donuts that you'll be back in a week or two, spouting the same old lines.
11 May 2007
at 8:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…
“…imposing a global tax on carbon emissions. Increased control and surveillance will follow.”
Why would there be more “control” or “surveillance” than with sales taxes or income taxes?
Query: if a carbon tax was revenue neutral (other taxes were lowered so government didn't end up with more cash) then what's your real beef? “The truth is the New World Order crowd, including the United Nations and the Council on Foreign Relations….” Ah, yes, a 'black helicopter' moron.
11 May 2007
at 9:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Roadkill_Rob (Anonymous) says…
“Fact is, I've presented, promoted and factually stated hundreds of things on this forum (memory/knowledge, c/p and links) and it's abundantly clear if anyone here has 'willful igonorance' and 'blindly follows' as I read over and over, it IS the left.”
Umm, never once have I read anything intelligent from your posts. Instead, I read whiny posts like the one above or how your a victim of the left. Get over it…the right had control of every branch and dropped the ball. Sorry if you can't handle that.
Your welcome for all the friendly advice.
11 May 2007
at 11:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
crazyks (Anonymous) says…
Back in the 70s, the whole “sky is falling” stuff was all about the hole in the ozone layer…every day you got to hear some other horror story about the hole in the ozone layer.
How come we never hear about the hole in the ozone layer anymore?
(My theory was always that if there WASN'T a hole in the ozone layer, considering the buildup of heat from the sun and other sources, that we would have all exploded a long time ago.)
I really don't think there have been accurate readings (temp or otherwise) for long enough to know anything for sure. Certainly not globally. Temperature and water levels weren't being recorded everywhere until quite recently. I'm not sure if they are recorded everywhere around the world even now.
And if you're talking about industrialization being the major cause, then you must also remember that industrialization began long before the 50s, or the 40s, or even 1900…back when no one was taking any readings of anything on a regular basis.
So how do they know?
The population of the world has grown by leaps and bounds since then, and now numbers in the billions. Even if there were no cars, or factories, or any industrialization at all, and had never been any, CO2 levels would still be rising, and be higher than they were in the 50s…simply from the sheer volume of people and animals.
I really suspect this is just part of a natural cycle. And for some reason, mankind thinks they have some kind of control over it.
11 May 2007
at 12:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
MyName (Anonymous) says…
gr:
>And there is a lot of data out there which shows that around the same time the warming started, cell phones started being used (fill in the blank of whatever is your political agenda). Where's YOUR proof that humans caused global warming?
I love how you cut out and ignore the rest of my posts (which contained the information your asking for) then pretend like I'm the one who is failing to back up my statements. Again, the logic is quite simple: 1) The temperature of the earth has been rising steadily, and actually accelerating in the past 30 years, and is the highest it's been in 12,000 years (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/new… ). 2) The levels of atmospheric CO2 and Methane have been rising and are reaching the highest level they've been in at least 650,000 years http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4… . 3) It is a scientific fact that atmospheric CO2 and Methane reflect infrared light back onto the earth causing temperatures to rise (http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/g… ). The only claim you have left is some sort of specious argument about how man-made CO2 isn't the leading cause. Not only has this been shot down by the studies mentioned by boltzmann, but it's really beside the point. We are at the very least a very significant contributing factor. Even if there are other sources, a reduction in human activity will definitely help fix the problem. So what we are left with is a choice between doing something that will help millions, if not billions of people, or sticking our heads in the sand and doing nothing. Unless you have something that outweighs the lives of millions of people, I suggest you reexamine your views on this issue.
BTW, If I can find these links in 5 minutes of google searching then what's your excuse for claiming there is no evidence out there?
11 May 2007
at 2:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
MyName (Anonymous) says…
Che:
I think you're ignoring the fact that having CO2 in the atmosphere actually does increase the temperature because CO2 reflects infrared radiation back to the ground. Fur coats have yet to demonstrate any such properties with respect to the reflection of light. So you're trying to attribute a logical fallacy to the reasoning that really doesn't apply.
Not only that, but it seems ridiculous that people think they can poke holes in the theory just by using mere logic. There are smart, logical people who have looked at the theory and haven't seen any obvious holes. The only way you are going to find a problem with the theory is by gathering data and find some that contridicts it because the theory, on the face of it, makes sense.
11 May 2007
at 3:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BunE (Anonymous) says…
Blah Blah Blah. Global Climate Change is real, no matter what any of you science deniers think. The role of man is what the debate is about. If there is a chance that we can reverse things than, I say lets do it. The economics of new technological innovation in energy and efficiency will propel our economy to new heights. Look at the industrialization of transportation 100 years ago. The move from literal horsepower to the ICE created a HUGE boost in the economy. Should we have been afraid to change then? NO!
Embrace change, get efficient, wean yourself from fossil fuels and plant a few trees.
11 May 2007
at 6:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
anxiousatheist (Clint Gentry) says…
I don't think the real Che would have ever argued against ecological conservation. You're named after a radical-leftist, and you're following the neo-con party line, what an idiot.
11 May 2007
at 10:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“I want to debate the important issues of the far-left with objectivity and impartiality.”
Your nose just grew by about ten feet. Hope you were sitting down in a large room.
12 May 2007
at 2:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Stymie (Anonymous) says…
Yay!! Boltzmann wins with the correct answer for the concentration of C02 in earth's atmosphere is currently ~380 ppm. Read that closely. 380 parts per Million. For those without a calculator that is less than 1/10 of 1%. C02 is a trace gas. So why is it such a big deal?
Now who can tell us how much greenhouse warming it due to C02 and how much is due to the other gases in the atmosphere?
12 May 2007
at 2:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Stymie (Anonymous) says…
Correction: C02 concentration is less that 4/10ths of 1%
12 May 2007
at 3:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
Yea, and a few hundred grams (as in several ounces) of botulinum toxin could kill every human on the planet, Stymie. Does that relatively small amount mean it's not really dangerous?
12 May 2007
at 8:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
harrry (Anonymous) says…
I'm new. Here:anyway. I'm not as smart as you folks I can tell. I chalk it up to my current sleep problems, but the truth is I've never been a genius. I study long and hard because I can't “get” things easily. I've studied this issue. My opinion is we need to keep the jury out for a while longer before doing something we would regret. I would recommend the book “Unstoppable Global Warming” by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery. It's the best of three I've read on the subject. Dr. Singer is a climate physicist. I think that's cool. I flunked out of physics in college:well, I got a D, but that was the first D I ever received. It still hurts. Also, at Youtube search “crichton rose”. Michael Crichton is a very smart guy. His interview with Rose caused me to look more deeply at this debate. I'm done, I'm not checking the spelling.
May Father Zeus bless you and keep you.
Harrry
12 May 2007
at 8:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
Harrry, I'm wondering if you read anything that says that global warming is of pretty grave and immediate concern. I mean, there is a whole lot more of that, by people who actually know something about it (unlike Michael Crichton) than the three books you chose.
So was your book choice a random selection, or merely because they confirmed what you want to believe?
12 May 2007
at 9:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
harrry (Anonymous) says…
I'm sure I wasn't completely objective.
I chose:
Global Warming: The Complete Briefing by John Houghton very objective, as far as I cold tell.
An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore presents a powerful case.
Then, Unstoppable Global Warming, which kind of sums up with a very possible scenario; that we're in a cycle we haven't really recognized. This one makes the most sense to me. It's interesting that cost was a part of my choice - these were available in paperback. I ran into the Crichton interview researching the subject of politically motivated science. He wrote a novel on it, which I hadn't read. That interview got me interested in the subject of global warming. I have noticed through the years that scientific thoroughness is eroding in favor of political expediency. (Does that make sense?) Cyclamates, saccharin, video games, and second hand cigarette smoke have all been victims of this process. I'm wondering if human involvement in global warming is too.
Zeus, King of Kings
harrry
13 May 2007
at 1:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“Then, Unstoppable Global Warming, which kind of sums up with a very possible scenario; that we're in a cycle we haven't really recognized.”
The science that says global warming is a very strong possibilty really says no more than that. True science always holds out the possibility that the current hypothesis is wrong. The science behind global warming is no different.
But if the science and data behind human-induced global warming are valid, then the potential for catastrophic climate change is very high, and the only possibility to avert that exists now. If we don't act now, and these predictions turn out to be as accurate as then now appear they will be, it'll be too late to prevent us from driving off the cliff that the best available science and data say is looming before us.
But if you prefer to believe the conspiracy theories, I hope you find comfort in taking the rest of the world with you as a price of your convictions.
13 May 2007
at 5:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Stymie (Anonymous) says…
Hey Bozo… we are talking C02, you know, the gas that plants need to conduct photosynthesis and the gas animals release as a byproduct of respiration.
So while your comparison to botulinum toxin may appear relevant in terms of small concentration with powerful deadly effects, it does not apply to C02. Nice try, now try again.
15 May 2007
at 3:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink