quote:Enron = bad. (I never said they weren't) Enron = in favor of Kyoto.
So you hate Kyoto, and you hate Enron. You also hate Enron because they supported Kyoto, and you hate Kyoto because it was supported by Enron. My goodness, what a feedback loop. It's a miracle you don't explode with all that pent-up rage. . . 8)
The most pessimistic approximations only allow for an overall rise of 1-3 degrees total.
Also, with regard to the ozone, it's so thin it is less than .0000001% of the earth's atmosphere. This makes the ozone layer thinner than the bredth of a hair, so I don't believe all the ozone propaganda either.
With regard to carbon dioxide as a "greenhouse gas" well, we've got like .025% of the atmostphere (or something like that) as carbon dioxide. The vast majority is oxygen and nitrogen.
As for global warming, that happened on Venus, and their clouds are made of sulfuric acid. The clouds on earth are made of hydrogen hydroxide, aka water.
If global warming ocurrs, it will ocurr after humanity is already extinct. The worst that I think could happen is a return to the tropical age the dinosaurs lived in.
As for global warming, well, any major amount of heating is caused by the sun. The sun's high times and low times; right now I think we're in its mid times.
Low times were during the ice age, high times were during the mesezoic period.
The only thing that we can do as humans to have any fatal effect on the environment is to detonate a large number of big nukes in the atmosphere.
Anything else takes so much time that I'll have died of old age before the planet become uninhabitable.
What I am saying, is if global warming is ocurring, there is nothing we can do to stop it. If global warming is not ocurring, we're not going to unintentionally make it happen (though, I suppose we could detonate a number of nukes in an effort to make it happen, but that has an equal if not greater probability of capitulating into a nuclear winter...)
IP: Logged
posted
Global warming is occurring (to some extent, it seems, sometimes. Actually, the Antarctic ice sheet is currently showing similarities to its condition immediately prior to the "Little Ice Age"). It is not a sham (maybe)
However, the concept that humans are a bigger contributor to it than the Sun is, is a sham. As is the concept that any changes we make are going to drastically change conditions.
We're in a (moderately) warm phase. During the last cold phase, the glaciers came all the way to the Great Plains. During the last warm phase, hippopotami wallowed in the Thames.
None of it was caused by CO2.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Of course, Global Warming is a sham. It's exaclty like that one trick that David Blaine - Magic Man where he picks a guy off of the street and asks him to pick a card. The guy picks a card and then David Blaine - Magic Man throws the deck of cards against a storefront window, and then David Blaine - Magic Man reveals that his card is on the INSIDE of the window. It's just a trick. Probably perpetrated by Majestic 12. Something is fishy about David Blaine - Magic Man. Nanoaugmented perhaps?
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
There was a TV special on about this several nights ago. They referred to Global Warming as the "Science of Uncertainty".
Non Environmentalists say that it is too much of a risk to gamble on anything that is "Uncertain".
Environmentalists say that it is prudent to try to slow this problem down, because by the time it has become "Certain" it may be too late.
-------------------- "And slowly, you come to realize, it's all as it should be, you can only do so much. If you're game enough, you could place your trust in me. For the love of life, there's a tradeoff, we could lose it all but we'll go down fighting...." - David Sylvian FreeSpace 2, the greatest space sim of all time, now remastered!
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
For what, exactly? For all they know, and for all the evidence suggests, we're about to enter another ice age, and we'll NEED the CO2 to keep from freezing to death. You can't predict the weather on a national scale three days in advance with much better than 75% accuracy. How much less can you predict global climate changes decades beforehand?
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
At a guess, because one refers to a general trend in the weather, and the other refers to specific times and days. We can't say for certain what the weather will be like 4 days from now, but you we can make a pretty safe guess that Summer will be warmer than winter.
And obviously you don't want to get rid of all CO2. The argument is (presumably) reducing the amount that we emmit through industry and stuff that wouldn't normally be emmitted. There would still be a "normal" amount produced.
And why have both Simon and UM got the Deus Ex bug recently?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
The problem that we keep finding with the computer models is that the equations don't balance.
They input "current" conditions and trends, and run it forward for a couple hundred years, and they show global warming.
But when they reverse the equations, and run it backwards from the "hot" 200 years in the future to now... they don't get "current" conditions.
This indicates that somewhere in the predictive process, an error/errors have creeped in.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Do you know who has (inherited from his political father) a lotta stock shares in Occidental?
If you said Bush, you guessed wrong. Then-VP Al Gore.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
He was relevant to the government we had at the time.
He was in an oil company's pocket.
His supporters (or at least, the people who would rather have seen him as president) are still going on about how bad it is to be in an oil company's pocket, and how horrible it is to have a president who (to them) is.
I'm merely pointing out a flaw in the logic.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Interestingly enough, Elk Hills was part of the famous (and oddly similar to these events) Teapot Dome scandal, which brought down Then-President Warren Harding.
Incidentally, Occidental also controlled the company which was responsible for the dumping in Love Canal.
[ March 16, 2002, 14:24: Message edited by: First of Two ]
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
When I was twelve, I put oil on my bike chain.
That must mean I shot down Kyoto all by my self. Logic being what it is and all.
Well, that being that, I'm off to go begin voluntary personal measures in support of the environment that in no way harm the economy of the United States of America...which, at some point in the not so distant past became even more important than all other life on the planet.
If that damned Spotted Owl doesn't want to go all extinct, he'd better get himself a real job like the rest of us. Tell him to stop living off government land like some kind of lazy...uh...animal.
[ March 16, 2002, 14:43: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
What a perfectly useless distinction, First. Al Gore could be somewhere ripping the heads off chickens and opening portrals to the ninth circle, and it would not render a single word in any criticism of the current administration invalid.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
