Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Global Warming Questions

Posted 10 years ago on Dec. 29, 2011, 6:44 a.m. EST by toonces (-117)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Why is warming bad? A warmer climate means we can grow food in a greater amount of area. A colder climate could remove the ability to grow enough food to feed the people of the world.

How much CO2 is there in the atmosphere? Is it the most predominant gas? What is the most predominant gas? How does that gas affect global temperature? Are there any planets with CO2 gas where we can an idea of the effects of CO2? What can they tell us?

Why do global warming graphs generally only look at the past 1,000 years or so? Was the planet warmer and cooler prior to the past 1,000 years? Would the Earths current temperature be considered warmer or cooler judged against historical geologic temperatures?

How can weathermen predict climate 100 years from now, yet cannot predict conditions two weeks from now? Why can't they accurately predict a hurricane season? Why can't they predict a drought or end of drought? If we cannot affect change on a small scale, how could we affect a change on a larger scale? A huge scale?

I would be interested in having a discussion regarding the answers to these and other questions. Is anyone interested in discussing the topic?

140 Comments

140 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by BlueRose (1437) 10 years ago

Texas Censors Scientists' Work Revealing Impacts of Climate Change

"John Anderson, a oceanographer from Texas, worked with a group of researchers on an in-depth study on Galveston Bay for 10 years. He then authored the report on the study, which he submitted to Texas's environmental agency. But when he was shown the version that was readied for official publication, he noticed it was missing some key information -- namely, anything having to do with the fact that climate change was impacting the bay.

According to the Houston Chronicle, Anderson now believes that the state is attempting to censor any findings that might suggest that humans are causing global warming..."

http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/texas-censors-scientists-work-revealing-impacts-of-climate-change.html

[-] 2 points by 99PercentFriendly (31) 10 years ago

In a way both sides of the global warming argument might be right,

Earth has been going through warming and cooling cycles for millions of years long before there was any human activity on this planet. Glaciers have been advancing and receding during each cycle and somehow life has managed to survive through all these changes for all these years.

What is causing all the concerns amongst the scientists now is the rate of acceleration of the global climate change, in another words something that would have taken thousands or even millions of years to take place before is now happening within a century or two.

Short of this planet getting hit by a huge asteroid or having a gigantic volcanic eruption the only other suspect in raising the rate of acceleration of the climate change so quickly is large-scale human activity.

-

[-] 2 points by kingscrossection (1203) 10 years ago

Well as to your first question, more heat means more energy which means stronger storms, such as hurricanes, which have been noticed more recently.

I don't have an answer to the second so here's for the third. I'm 90% sure the graphs only look back 1000 years because that is when we started to notice the changes in temperature change. There is no real set temperature. We know that there are cycles of warm and cold and periods of time in between them much like ours that are more conducive of more types of life. I don't know whether or not we have the information on the different temperatures or not.

As for the weathermen I can make an inference that may or may not be correct. If you're willing to talk about it then it shouldn't matter right? Anyway, it would seem to me that weathermen don't make climate predictions hundreds of years into the future. That is left up to people who make a study of the climate as a career who have the help of massive computers. They may use the same machines to try to predict weather and the climate a hundred years from now. That being said there are several the computers can and can't do. The hundred year predictions are as far as I can tell more of a generality. In order for the weathermen now to get any kind of information out of computers in the details they want and need they have to use so many more details to get the detail they want. And because of all the intricacies of our weather system it is harder to determine what the weather will be like in two weeks. Make sense?

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 10 years ago

I question the "stronger storms," but I will cede this to you at this time.

Global temperature records go back with some degree of accuracy some six hundred fifty million years. Tell me when you notice temperature changes. What happened 65 million ears ago and what effect did that have on global temperatures? http://www.lakepowell.net/sciencecenter/paleoclimate.htm

So, let me get this straight, you are telling me it is harder to get the weather prediction correct two weeks out, when we can check accuracy, than it is when we predict hundred of years out when we have no way to check our predictions? I have considered your proposition and have determined that your premise is unreasonable. Please explain why you believe that someones prediction you have no way of verifying has more sway on your thinking than someone who you can check.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 10 years ago

It is called Chaos Theory, and, IMO, is the same reason why economists fail when they try to predict long term trends, but backwards.The butterfly effect is the reason that meteorologists can't predict where and when a storm will form, but they can pinpoint the probable months for a storm to develop. When you have long term trends, the multiple factors that converge and make discerning easier, are more informative when viewed in the long run. There are many reasons why the earth warms, precession, seven year sun spot cycle, CO2, seasons, jet streams and water currents and the elliptical nature of our orbit. This is like trying to figure out what is wrong with a body, a car, or a political social and economic society, but a lot harder. Once the long term stats, diagnosis, quarterly report, poll or whatever, is evaluated, a better picture can be seen. That picture has scientists worried, and we should heed their warnings, or at least be more open with our critique. Kinda like what you are doing.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 10 years ago

How expensive is death and disease? You know the things related to pollution? You know Mercury, Arsenic, carbon particulates etc.etc. or the melting of the worlds ice caps and the raising of the sea level up 60' or more. What cost for those driven out of their homes as they go under water? What cost for those needing to house floodwater immigrants? What cost to those dying of thirst because their glacial water source has melted away. What cost of polluting the Ground water by drilling for oil or fracking for gas? What cost lubricating the pressure points along a faultline with the fracking process fluids?

Yes indeed what cost is worth supporting Oil, Gas & Coal or Supporting a clean energy program.

People can weigh the costs and decide what they prefer. In all I think they will decide that health and a healthy environment are worth pushing forward truly green energy and fuel.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 10 years ago

Why is warming bad?

because there are over one billion people on the planet dependent on glacial runoff for their drinking water, and once the glaciers all disappear, those people will do one of two things -

  • die of dehydration

  • immigrate

Imagine, a mass of one billion people, environmental refugees, wandering dry places, looking for water - at some point, the needs of survival dictate that many of them will kill, to satisfy that basic human need. We are talking about the prospect of social instability on a global scale. Refusal to do anything to provide a solution is to deny our own humanity, and such a denial on such a mass scale begs the question of whether or not the entire race of man is fit for existence at all.

A warmer climate means we can grow food in a greater amount of area.

That is not the evidence given us by the current environments of TExass or much of the rest of the south west. Rain fall patterns are changing, drought in that specific area is spreading - and that will dislocate the bread basket of the U.S.

How much CO2 is there in the atmosphere?

Answer:

Is it the most predominant gas? What is the most predominant gas?

How does that gas affect global temperature?

Why do global warming graphs generally only look at the past 1,000 years or so?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 10 years ago

Also consider all of those who will be forced to immigrate or migrate when Their Island home goes under water or Their shoreline moves inland.

Consider coastal and Island populations as well as those who will be thirsting.

What is the heart of our problems? What is standing in the way of change/recovery?

Watch:

This is why we are here this is why you are needed.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/inside-job-documentary/

Share, circulate, educate, inspire.

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 10 years ago

yeah-ya - like all of Florida, New York City, Vietnam, Bangladesh, . . . .

There were over 40 island nations who appeared before the U.N. in 98, begging for action on climate change.

Why?

Because - it's already here - and they know what will happen.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 10 years ago

Exactly why they need to band together in protest along with the rest of the 99% & Occupy movements. We don't need a leader, we need to do as we are doing, support an ideal "Get Corruption/Greed out of Government and Business.

Plain and simple.

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 10 years ago

Yes indeed.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 10 years ago

Absotively Posolutely!

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 10 years ago

Here -

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 10 years ago

Nice and appropriate. Lets get past the distractions and fix the problems!

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 10 years ago

well thanks.

I wrote that back in 1999

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 10 years ago

Just shows ta go ya.

If it's good it can be timeless.

As well as timely.

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 10 years ago

If the practices outlined in the poem come to an end it will cease to be relevant.

I would be happy if it ceased to be relevant.

But thanks though.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 10 years ago

It could live on in memory of chaotic times.

Once we move past them.

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 10 years ago

That would be fine.

Somehow I doubt what we have said or done here will be long remembered.

The outcome is what is important.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 10 years ago

Whatever helps.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 10 years ago

Noted.

I will forward the credit to tomorrow.

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 10 years ago

I'll be sure to try to get up on the . . . .left . . .. side of the bed.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 10 years ago

Thanks for the signature.

You are a scholar and a gentleman!

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 10 years ago

That would be on Friday's schedule.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 10 years ago

Got that right.

Check out the petition that I just initiated. I also contacted Bernie S. about supporting it.

Save Homes, Save People and save the economy while paying down the National Debt.: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/Savingpeople-savinghomes-payingdowntheNationaldeficit/

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 10 years ago

I just signed

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 10 years ago

390.31 is how much CO2 is in the atmosphere? What does that represent as a percentage?

Neither site listed the most predominant gas in our atmosphere, nor do they give information on the temperature effects of those gasses.

The more history you have of past temperatures, that more realistic a model for prediction you will be able to produce. It looks to me like the natural state of the planet is a significantly higher global mean temperature.

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 10 years ago
  • Average global temperatures in the Early Carboniferous Period were hot- approximately 20° C (68° F). However, cooling during the Middle Carboniferous reduced average global temperatures to about 12° C (54° F). As shown on the chart below, this is comparable to the average global temperature on Earth today!

  • Similarly, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm -- comparable to average CO2 concentrations today!

  • Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).

.


.

What the world needs to watch

  • Global warming is mainly the result of CO2 levels rising in the Earth’s atmosphere. Both atmospheric CO2 and climate change are accelerating. Climate scientists say we have years, not decades, to stabilize CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

  • To help the world succeed, CO2Now.org makes it easy to see the most current CO2 level and what it means. So, use this site and keep an eye on CO2. Invite others to do the same. Then we can do more to send CO2 in the right direction.

    • 2010 - 389.78

    • 2008 - 385.57

    • 2006 - 381.85

    • 1987 - 348.98 . . . . . . . . The last year when the annual CO2 level was less than 350 ppm

    • 1959 - 315.98 . . . . . . . . The first year with a full year of instrument data

    • From: CO2now.org What the world needs to watch

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 10 years ago

Why just 300,000 years? What about global temperatures prior to that time. Earth records roughly 4 billion years. 300,000/4,000,0000,000=0.000075. 0.0075%. 0.0075% of the time of the existence of the earth.

Just an honest question: Could I make a prediction regarding your life, knowing 0.0075% of you life? How accurate would that prediction be?

What were temperatures before 300,000 years ago. How about the chart for 10% of global temperatures time? That would be 400,000,000 years. 4 hundren million years. We look warm comparing global temps for the three hundred thousand years, how do we look compared to the last 4 hundred million years?

Have you looked at a chart? What is your opinion?

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 10 years ago

You are going back to the time of dinosaurs.

Do you really think we want the climate that hot?

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 10 years ago

Are you trying to imply that we, humans, can control the temperature of the entire planet? If so, why can't we keep a hurricane from hitting the entire east coast of the United States?

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 10 years ago

we can quit sitting on our hands

we can quit lying to the public

we can focus our efforts at providing a solution

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 10 years ago

You did not answer any questions that I asked.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 10 years ago

Implement Hydrogen fuel/power generation and Geo-thermal Heating/cooling/power generation.

How about that for starting to do something?

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 10 years ago

By "implement", do you mean "force"?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 10 years ago

Implement:

to put into effect according to or by means of a definite plan or procedure.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 10 years ago

So, yes, you do intend to force people to use energy that is less efficient and more expensive to achieve your goal, even those who you would force may prefer not to.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 10 years ago

How expensive is death and disease? You know the things related to pollution? You know Mercury, Arsenic, carbon particulates etc.etc. or the melting of the worlds ice caps and the raising of the sea level up 60' or more. What cost for those driven out of their homes as they go under water? What cost for those needing to house floodwater immigrants? What cost to those dying of thirst because their glacial water source has melted away. What cost of polluting the Ground water by drilling for oil or fracking for gas? What cost lubricating the pressure points along a faultline with the fracking process fluids?

Yes indeed what cost is worth supporting Oil & Coal or Supporting a clean energy program.

People can weigh the costs and decide what they prefer. In all I think they will decide that health and a healthy environment are worth pushing forward truly green energy and fuel.

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 10 years ago

yeah-ya

I was trying to focus on solutions, rather than indulge in the distraction you so kindly provided

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 10 years ago

Your "solutions" fix a problem that does not exist.

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 10 years ago

a problem that does not exist . . .

If you take one dollar from the oil industry, just one, I am of the firm opinion that you should be shot. After a brief and very public trial of course.

We know the tobacco industry engaged in a campaign of disinformation regarding the affects of nicotine. We know scientists were paid to lie.

We know the oil industry is no different.

We also know the affects to the global population will be far more wide spread and devastating than any other single lie told by man.

One billion people depend on glacial runoff for their drinking water.

Soon that source of drinking water will be gone.

If the Greenland and the Antarctic land based ice sheets melt, New York City will be inundated by seas over 60 feet deeper than they are now. The storm surge from Hurricane Irene was enough to threaten the subway system in Manhattan. That storm surge will look like a small ripple by comparison.

Can we engage in geo-engineering and thus control the normal temperature fluctuations that occur over millenia?

That is unknown - what is known is that temperature increases correspond directly with co2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

We also know that human behavior, through the use of fossil fuel, is increasing those concentrations far beyond what they have been for over the last 500 millennia.

We know that if we do nothing, within the next 200 years, and perhaps much sooner, the entire sea coast population of the United States will either be forced inland - or die.

We know this is true - and it will play out world wide.

We know that we are facing a mass migration coupled with a mass die off of the entire human race.

And yet you say this is

  • a problem that does not exist . . .

Well, perhaps not yet. But if we do nothing the consequences are clear. I say those who engage in denial of the science, where that denial is encouraged by the fossil fuel industry that stands to profit in the short term, and where cash or gifts are given in exchange for that denial, all those involved

  • should be tried, and then shot.

There is precedent for such trials - the tobacco industry has paid out millions in settlement.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 10 years ago

What percentage of the atmosphere is composed of CO2?

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 10 years ago

I don't give a shit. It's increasing.

.


.

What the world needs to watch

  • Global warming is mainly the result of CO2 levels rising in the Earth’s atmosphere. Both atmospheric CO2 and climate change are accelerating. Climate scientists say we have years, not decades, to stabilize CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

  • To help the world succeed, CO2Now.org makes it easy to see the most current CO2 level and what it means. So, use this site and keep an eye on CO2. Invite others to do the same. Then we can do more to send CO2 in the right direction.

- 2010 - 389.78

- 2008 - 385.57

- 2006 - 381.85   

- 1987 - 348.98 . . . . . . . . The last year when the annual CO2 level was less than 350 ppm

- 1959 - 315.98 . .  . . . . . . The first year with a full year of instrument data 

- From: [CO2now.org What the world needs to watch](http://co2now.org/Current-CO2/CO2-Now/annual-co2.html)

.


.

piss off

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 10 years ago

So, 4 one hundredths of one percent atmosphere is composed of CO2? How can a trace component alter the temperature so significantly? How do the major components affect the temperature?

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 10 years ago

How much does the oil industry pay you to attempt to sow doubt?

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 10 years ago

You truly are a putz.

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 10 years ago

Hottest years on record:

  1. 2005 ranks at number 1

  2. 2010 ranks at number 2

  3. 1998 ranks at number 3

  4. 2003 ranks at number 4

  5. 2002 ranks at number 5


  • The average UK temperature for 2011 is 9.62C. The seven warmest UK years have all been in the past decade, with 2006 the hottest of all with an average of 9.73C.

  • 2010 tied for Earth's warmest year on record

    • Last year tied with 2005 as the world's warmest on record, according to data released Wednesday by the National Climatic Data Center. Records began in 1880.

    • By Doyle Rice, USA TODAY

  • Global Warming: 2011 Tied For The 10th Hottest Year On Record

  • 2011 is UK's second warmest year on record - Met Office

  • NOAA: 2010 Tied For Warmest Year on Record January 12, 2011

    • Combined global land and ocean annual surface temperatures for 2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest such period on record at 1.12 F (0.62 C) above the 20th century average. The range of confidence (to the 95 percent level) associated with the combined surface temperature is +/- 0.13 F (+/- 0.07 C).*

    • The global land surface temperatures for 2010 were tied for the second warmest on record at 1.73 F (0.96 C) above the 20th century average. The range of confidence associated with the land surface temperature is +/- 0.20 F (+/- 0.11 C).

    • Global ocean surface temperatures for 2010 tied with 2005 as the third warmest on record, at 0.88 F (0.49 C) above the 20th century average. The range of confidence associated with the ocean surface temperature is +/- 0.11 F (+/- 0.06 C).

    • more from NOAA

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 10 years ago

First problem I have with the article is that it is old, studies from 2002 just don't cut it old man. Second problem I find is that when I google the authors' names there are rebuking articles that say, here is one, that the ice that your guys observed is thinner and less dense than the ones of yore. I could spend the rest of the day debunking your one horse claim, and who knows maybe Global Climate change is a hoax. But, you gotta do better than to find a sorry, old article and say you have stumbled on to the conspiracy of our life time.Your finding illustrates the clinical definition of sophistry. You look for data that reinforces your world view and disregard anything that would ask you to change your behavior. Bring it on old man. And if I come off as rude, well, it is a new generation and this is how the bottom rung roles. Not meaning to disrespect you, but I'm not going to coddle you either.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 10 years ago

I did not notice the date on that one. The article I posted was about West Antarctica. I used that one because it was from a university and not a blog. There are more recent articles.

If you go look you will find that the East Antarctica ice sheet is expanding.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/03/02/science.1200109

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 10 years ago

Now that is more like it. I thank you for the link, and I've set up an account with the site. Although I'm having trouble reading the whole article, the synopsis and the summery are enlightening. The reason I fallow the writings of scientists, and not industrialists, Is that they take criticism and reformulate their science, and they don't hire a Public relations' firm to clean up their image, at least I hope not. When they find new data that shows "widespread existence may make the Antarctic ice sheet more susceptible to changes in velocity and mass balance than current models recognize," they change the model. These findings may just be what is needed to change scientists' understanding of global change. Or these new factors may just be more kindling for the fire. Now, I know this has nothing to do with your comment, but i am replying to afterforever's comment below: '"Why do you think the solution "for the greatest catastrophe known to man" involves cap and TRADE? No scientific solution at all just a financial one."' The solutions were devised that way so as to compromise with the capitalist, and not have a king tell everyone, "this is how it is going to be." The fact that a half measure was devised shows that compromises in a union are still possible. And for the silly afterforever cat, to think it is a hustle without looking at all the evidence shows that a Republic is dangerous too.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 10 years ago

Cap and trade does nothing except create another commodities market in carbon units that can be traded. You need to pump out carbon? Just buy someone else's credits.

What is interesting is to me that Al Gore is a major stakeholder in the company Hara Software providing software to track carbon units on the exchanges.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 10 years ago

Say you buy a swath of land and grow a forest; the sequestration of carbon that those trees will create become credits that you can sell to the coil burning power plant industry. All this is in line with free markets. The fact that Gore wants to make a penny shows that he is a citizen of these United States and is playing the game laid out in front of him. But, yes, I see how that could be misconstrued to mean he is nothing more than a hustler, which he could be. It just seems a little far fetched that he and 90 percent of the scientific community are all in on it. That would be a lot of pay offs, which would be too much of an overhead to make the hustle viable.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 10 years ago

The government distributes or auctions off emissions allowances that total the cap. Member firms that do not have enough allowances to cover their emissions must either make reductions or buy another firm's spare credits. Members with extra allowances can sell them or bank them for future use.

I believe we could accomplish the same reduction without creating a carbon exchange.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 10 years ago

Yes, you are right. That is why I call it a half measure. We could just go tell the whole coil burning industry, which is one of the major commodities are nation possess, to take their carbon and shove(L) it, but that would be out of line with free markets. What suggestions would you make?

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 10 years ago

We need change how we produce energy not punish the companies that need to use energy to produce products.

The answer to improving electricity generation depends on where you live. If you live out west, geothermal makes sense. If you live in the north east we need to improve coal and hydro make sense. Wind does not produce enough energy and is probably worse for the environmental aesthetics than most others. To create the power of one coal fired plants you would need wind turbines 300 ft apart across the entire state of Rhode Island.

Use cleaner coal technology.while we are phasing it out makes sense since bout 50% of our electricity is created by coal. Glassification and Super Critical technologies will reduce emissions by 50%-75% New scrubber technologies can reduce emissions even further to where warm air as all that is emitted.

Imagine if we we declared war on emissions and instead of spending trillions bombing and policing other countries we upgraded our power infrastructure, and improved our capabilities to extract natural gas and oil, invested in geothermal.... I believe it would do more for our defense than bombing Afghanistan, Libya, Iran...

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 10 years ago

I like your lofty goals. Now, we just need to create a mandate to send to our leaders. Or the capitalists with all the capital need to be brought around to way of thinking. You have great Ideas. How best do we implement them? I, one hundred percent, have thought that wind power is more novel than practical but is still a step in the right direction. I've even heard of tides that are being used to generate electricity.

[-] 1 points by Tyroneaustin (7) from St Louis, MO 10 years ago

OCCUPY SOCIETY! 99% want to create 1,000,000 jobs. OCCUPY SOCIETY! 99% want to put $7Billion back a Quarter. OCCUPY SOCIETY! 99% I Need some help too. "Hydrogen Car Fenders 2012" (Google it) We provide financing for the Hydrogen Car Fender 0% down. No payment till June 2012 .

http://www.fatttrixx.com/HydrogenCarFender2012.html

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 10 years ago

We need 20million jobs, not one million.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 10 years ago

I live in the tropics.

Do you believe in anthropomorphic global warming?

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by toonces (-117) 10 years ago

I think global warming is being used to manipulate the uninformed.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 10 years ago

it is manipulating the uninformed icecaps - by melting them
OR
maybe God is getting ready to pay us back

[-] 2 points by Misfit138 (172) 10 years ago

Or maybe it is part of the natural cycle. The planet's historical climate has primarily been a tropical one with cool spells interspersed between longer warm periods. Why is it that now it is all man's fault for the slight warming and not part of the natural cycle that has been occurring for over 4 and a half billion years? Do you think that the Earth will stay a constant temperature forever, and if so, what should that temperature be?

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 10 years ago

"Why is it that now it is all man's fault for the slight warming and not part of the natural cycle that has been occurring for over 4 and a half billion years?"

Because rigorous scientific observations and experiments have shown that Global Warming is in large part caused by humans. The vast majority of the world's scientists are in agreement on this issue. There is really no debate in the mind of scholars. The only debate exists in the minds of young badly educated conspiracy theorists.

Do you think it's because there are natural heat and cold cycles that humans cannot be the cause of Global Warming? Is it because all people eventually die that I could not kill someone? I don't understand your logic. Natural heal/cold cycles do not preclude the possibility of human interference.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by mediaauditr (-88) 10 years ago

There's an equal # of scientists who do not support global warming as do support it.

Global warming is the ultimate cash grab for politicians. Green energy is nice and fuzzy way to charge more for less, and ensure the government gets a massive cut.

And look at corporations who get to charge a lot more money to provide a smaller service. Green energy is less efficient and more costly than traditional energy sources.

It's sickening, and it's probably the biggest reason liberals who support the green movement are thought of negatively.

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 10 years ago

I have a feeling the whole green movement is more about controlling people than it is about sustainable energy.

[-] -1 points by mediaauditr (-88) 10 years ago

I agree with that too toonces. Hell, just look at zenDog's posts below this one. He's frothing at the mouth with democratic talking points. He's bought into the whole 'warming' movement so much Al Gore may call him up for a date.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by afterforever (-6) 10 years ago

These comments were excellent and should be repeated over and over. These comments are exactly correct,they nailed it. JesseHeffran needs to educate himself on the facts.

"Global Warming has absolutely nothing to do with weather and everything to do with wealth transfer from rich nations to poor ones with fat opportunities for "friends of ours" to get rich as the money passes by."

"Why do you think the solution "for the greatest catastrophe known to man" involves cap and TRADE? No scientific solution at all just a financial one."

" Global warming has been debunked and exposed for what is it really is "A fraud" Is there pollution? yes, Is there Global warming? Fuck no"

[-] 0 points by America921 (161) 10 years ago

Global Warning has been proven a complete fraud. The earth naturally goes through warming and cooling cycles so we as humans must adapt to the changing environment. I personally live in Chicago and I don't mind it getting a little warmer.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 10 years ago

Actually, the proof is the other way around. Serious scientists are 90% in agreement that Global Warming is caused by humans and very real. I'm not sure where you are getting your false information?

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 10 years ago

What evidence do you offer as proof?

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 10 years ago

The multitude of articles published in scientific peer-reviewed journals from around the world. Take a trip to your nearest university. Go to the library, choose 4 scientific journals from around the world, then take out all their publications for the last 5 years. Spend an afternoon marking which Global Warming articles claim the problem is caused by humans and which ones claim it is a natural occurrence. You'll soon notice that about 90% of them agree Global Warming is caused by humans.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 10 years ago

Nice. You avoid answering the questions I have asked and directed me to go do the research myself. I have. I am curious if anyone else can answer those questions and what their answers would be.

Do you know the answers to the questions?

Do you have answers to the questions?

Have you considered the sum total of the info in answering those questions as a question yourself?

Just curious. I know you can flame, can you converse?

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 10 years ago

The evidence lies in articles published in scientific peer-reviewed journals that you can find at your University's library. There's no better answer. All the serious research on the matter is there, and no where else. This is a very complex subject. You won't find the truth all nicely packaged in a comment on this forum, or on a conspiracy website. If you care for the truth, then you'll read these journals. If you don't care, then that's fine too. I can help you find the source, but I can't make you drink.

The problem with you conspiracy theorists is you want everything to be easy. What you don't realize is that the scientific method is very rigorous and time consuming. It's not easy to summarize articles in a few lines in a comment. And, even if I did, you wouldn't believe me anyhow. Truthers have been debunked a zillion times over, and they still make the same claims they were making 8 years ago.

You know where to find the truth. If you really want to find it you will. No one can force you.

[-] 1 points by hymie (391) 10 years ago

Science can be manipulated though, by money. Most of our society's culture is manipulated by money, why wouldn't science be also?

I believe that throughout history science has been used both as a tool to help people, and as a weapon to hurt and kill people.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 10 years ago

Okay. You won't address my questions. You cannot converse.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 10 years ago

All the information already exists in peer-reviewed scientific journals. There's no point trying to make some synopsis on this page. It would only water down the thoughts. Go to the library and read if you care about the truth.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 10 years ago

... that you cannot explain of defend.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 10 years ago

I'm a musician, not a scientist. My explanation would not be worthy. That's why I suggest you read peer-reviewed journals. This is where the most complete and thorough explanations can be found. Hubert Reeves is also a great writer of science for the layman. I'm giving you the best sources. I can't force you to drink.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 10 years ago

So you completely agree and advocate a position you do not understand and have no idea of how to explain.

How does that make sense?

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 10 years ago

I understand their position, but scientists can explain it much better than I ever could. I read their articles. If I tried to make a synopsis here it would just water down their thoughts. I'd rather let them speak for themselves. The information exists. It's in the library. It's your call if you want to read it or not. Discussing such a complex issue on a non-scientific forum is a complete waste of time. The truth about Global Warming is not found on the Internet, but in serious publications. You need to make the effort to find and read these publications. Your nearest university can help you.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 10 years ago

So, have you put you faith in what scientists tell you? You do not look at the information and try to discern the truth for yourself? Do you believe that I should just have to have faith in what the scientists tell me? If I have reasons to believe the position of the scientists you have faith in is incorrect, your faith trumps my reason? Does your faith trump you examining and understanding for yourself?

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 10 years ago

"So, have you put you faith in what scientists tell you"

No, faith is not required with science. Scientists provide documented observations, details of experiments, and evidence for their claims. If one really wants, they can redo the experiments themselves. It's all there on the table, nothing is hidden. It's not like pseudoscientific conspiracy theories or religion; science does not require faith.

No, you shouldn't have faith in anybody. You should go to the library and read the articles of the scientists. Then you can see their evidence for yourself. If that's not enough, and you still want to know the truth, then you can study science so that you are able to redo the experiments yourself. You can leave faith at the door.

[-] 0 points by America921 (161) 10 years ago

But those articles were proven to exaggeration of the truth. Those scientists wanted funding so they came up with these massive claims to get said funding. To be honest it doesn't even matter Mother Nature is a tough son of a bitch and we will simply need to adapt as we always have.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 10 years ago

The idea that 90% of the world's scientists partake in dishonest research because they want funding is ludicrous, nothing more than a conspiracy theory, and shows that you don't understand how scientists work. Scientists are some of the most honest people out there. They study for a very long time to get their PH.Ds. They learn the scientific method and it becomes their bible. If you care about money, you don't waste your time getting a PH.D in science. You study law or economy. Some scientists might be corrupted, but not 90% of them. Not even close. This is a very weak argument used by conspiracy theorists who like to dabble in fantasy in an attempt to disprove serious thinkers. It's based on nothing more than paranoia of the most illogical and evil kind.

[-] 1 points by hymie (391) 10 years ago

Considering the state of our society, the economy, that is, the severity of the current crisis, I would not be surprised to find out that something is wrong with 90% of what is thought in a variety of fields.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 10 years ago

How very odd that a person who believes the majority in corporate America has no scruples and should be flogged and relieved of possessions has all this confidence in not only his ability to discern the truth, but also in the perceived "fact" that "scientists are some of the most honest people out there."

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 10 years ago

"How very odd that a person who believes the majority in corporate America has no scruples and should be flogged and relieved of possessions"

Where in heaven's name did I ever say this? Talk about putting words in somebody else's mouth. Or, perhaps you can't read?


90% of the world's scientists who publish papers on Global Warming are not all corrupted. The number is too big. It's far simpler to accept the truth that they agree that Global Warming is real and partly caused by humans. You can't always believe everyone is working together to form conspiracies. It's not healthy. In this case, it's not realistic. There's way too many scientists who publish articles about Global Warming for all of them to be corrupted.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 10 years ago

I find the discrepancy between the two positions confusing. I don't mean to belittle, I don't understand how you can absolutely trust one side and completely distrust the other people.

Who pays the scientists? Where do they get their funding from? Is their funding any more free from the prospect of corruption than the money earned through commerce?

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 10 years ago

"I don't understand how you can absolutely trust one side and completely distrust the other people."

Can you use specific terms. I'm absolutely confused as to who or what you are trying to talk about.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 10 years ago

Thrasymaque 1 points 4 hours ago

"90% of the world's scientists who publish papers on Global Warming are not all corrupted."

I would appreciate a second opinion on that. Can you provide documentation to back that claim?

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 10 years ago

Unsurprisingly, you don't understand the scientific method and the burden of proof. You are a conspiracy theorist after all.

If you claim that 90% of the world's scientists are corrupted, you are the one who bears the burden of proof. My point is that this is a very large number which makes your claim an extraordinary one. For extraordinary claims, you need to provide extraordinary evidence. So far, you have provided nothing. Don't believe everything you real on conspiracy theory websites. Most of the ideas on such sites come from the fertile minds of young paranoid Americans. It's fantasy, not reality.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 10 years ago

I did not make any claims. You are the one who claimed 90% of the scientists who publish papers on global warming were not corrupted.

I have, however, made an assumption that distrust corporations and the people who run them. If that is a mistake, I will withdraw my comparison between scientists and those who run corporations.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 10 years ago

You don't have to show proof for saying that someone is not corrupted, you have to show proof for saying that someone is. You can't prove negatives. I guarantee you you'll never be brought to court with no charges then asked that you prove that you are not corrupted. If you do get brought to court for corruption, it will be by people who claim they have evidence you are corrupted. It bewilders my mind that you don't understand simple concepts of science and the scientific method.

This will be my last reply to you. I feel like I am utterly wasting my time engaging with someone who spreads lowly forms of thought. Go to school and come back in a few years. Bye, and good luck.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 10 years ago

"Why is warming bad? A warmer climate means we can grow food in a greater amount of area. A colder climate could remove the ability to grow enough food to feed the people of the world."

Can anyone shout "simple minded"?

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 10 years ago

I think you just did.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 10 years ago

Quite perspicacious. It's called a rhetorical question.

[-] -1 points by DanMich (49) 10 years ago

I live in Michigan and I wish there was such a thing as Global warming. Just last July we had record cool temps in the low 40's for almost two weeks. brrrrrrrrr dam Global warming hahahahhaha

[-] -2 points by foreeverLeft (-264) 10 years ago

Since there's no one here but us progressives, let's be frank. Global Warming has absolutely nothing to do with weather and everything to do with wealth transfer from rich nations to poor ones with fat opportunities for "friends of ours" to get rich as the money passes by.

Why do you think the solution "for the greatest catastrophe known to man" involves cap and TRADE? No scientific solution at all just a financial one. I plan to get rich buying and selling credits!

The AGW group has exactly the same goals and motivations as OWS! Lets take all the fucking money!!!

[-] -1 points by DanMich (49) 10 years ago

Got that right!!!! Wealth redistribution and nothing else. Global warming has been debunked and exposed for what is it really is "A fraud" Is there pollution? yes, Is there Global warming? Fuck no

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 10 years ago

Besides over using exclamation points and silly language to spew your hot air, where is your proof that: 1. Global warming is not happening, and 2. We have nothing to fear about glaciers melting, islands disappearing, microbial, fauna and flora going extinct?. Just pronouncing something with vulgar language does not make something true. In fact, it makes your whole argument seem juvenile and lame, to use a word you can relate. The theory goes, like a green house, yours and my shit talking compounded by our cars and factories is trapping enough CO2 in the atmosphere to make it warmer than it would be if you'd shut up, turn your car off, and stop making and buying petroleum products. That theory makes more sense than, " Global warming has been debunked and exposed for what is it really is "A fraud" Is there pollution? yes, Is there Global warming? Fuck no"

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 10 years ago

These are conspiracy theorists. They don't provide proof with their claims. That's their modus operandi. They just provide ludicrous motives and randomly connect some dots then they believe they have uncovered the deepest government secrets. They're usually fat and operate out of their mom's basement. They have no clue what "scientific method" means. Once in awhile, one of these nuts sends his papers to peer-reviewed journals in the hope of being published. After he's refused for many obvious reasons he cannot understand, he self-publishes his ludicrous claims on his own self-hosted blog. The blog's server resides in his mom's basement.

[-] 1 points by hymie (391) 10 years ago

If an action has a "covert" dimension, wouldn't certain aspects of it be hidden to the public eye by definition? Why is it hard to believe that covert action exists on a level that doesn't allow us to prove its existence? Many countries have agencies that are dedicated to covert action, and many companies indulge in industrial espionage.

The effects of such actions naturally lead us to wonder about their underlying causes, so I don't think it is anything unnatural to theorize about conspiracies. I will admit, however, some people get out of hand with it. I've even had people making up conspiracy theories about me!

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 10 years ago

"Why is it hard to believe that covert action exists on a level that doesn't allow us to prove its existence?"

Because its existence has not been proven! :-) (That was a ridiculous question.)

[-] 1 points by hymie (391) 10 years ago

So do you believe that the CIA does not conduct covert action?

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 10 years ago

It doesn't matter what I believe, but I'm assuming they do. However, talking about such covert operations is useless if you cannot provide proof. It's not important what others believe. What's important is what others discover using the scientific method.

[-] 1 points by hymie (391) 10 years ago

Covert actions can be extremely dangerous to a society. I believe that covert actions have caused our current economic crisis that is destroying the lives of many of our unfortunate citizens today.

Talking about these things is a way of trying to understand them, so as to prevent them from reoccurring. On a professional level, this is called "counter intelligence", when amateurs do it, its called "conspiracy theory". There is nothing wrong with being an amateur.

When you suspect someone of doing evil, you can't necessarily prove it right away. But still, much of law enforcement and counter intelligence is based on hunches or theories. These than gradually lead to the collecting of evidence that can be used for proof.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 10 years ago

The point is you're a conspiracy theorist. You don't collect evidence, you just establish correlations without causations. Conspiracy theorists don't use the scientific method. You are dangerous because you promote illogical thought processes. You are the one who said the existence of covert operations cannot be proven.

"Why is it hard to believe that covert action exists on a level that doesn't allow us to prove its existence?"

[-] 1 points by hymie (391) 10 years ago

When someone is conducting covert action, you may not be able to gather the evidence that would scientifically prove it. But still, there is a great danger that could happen if something is not done about it, but all you have is a theory.

For example, say we think the Japanese are going to bomb Pearl Harbor. We can't prove it scientifically, but if we don't act on our belief, great destruction may result. I think sometimes it is necessary to act even without scientific proof.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 10 years ago

That's great. Have fun chasing evidence for your unprovable claims.

[-] 1 points by hymie (391) 10 years ago

Many people have watched our country go down the drain over the past fifty years. So this is not about having fun, its about recognizing that something terrible has been happening, and trying to figure out how it can be stopped.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 10 years ago

It is called Chaos Theory, and, IMO, is the same reason why economists fail when they try to predict long term trends, but backwards.The butterfly effect is the reason that meteorologists can't predict where and when a storm will form, but they can pinpoint the probable months when a storm will develop. When you have long term trends, the multiple factors that converge and make discerning easier, are more informative when viewed in the long run. There are many reasons why the earth goes through its cycle; precession, seven year sun spot cycle, CO2, seasons, jet streams and water currents, and the elliptical nature of our orbit to just name a few play their part, kinda like market forces. This is like trying to figure out what is wrong with a body, a car, or a political social and economic society, but a lot harder. Once the long term stats, diagnosis, quarterly report, poll or whatever, is evaluated, a better picture can be seen. That picture has scientists worried, and we should heed their warnings, or at least be more open with our critique. Kinda like what you are doing

[-] 1 points by hymie (391) 10 years ago

Hmm... a... what?

By the way, I started studying about the economic crisis a few years before it happened. Lyndon Larouche predicted it. Many people here hate him because they believe the propaganda about him. But he predicted it, and knows how we can get out of it. You might want to check it out:

http://www.larouchepac.com/

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 10 years ago

Good luck with your MatLock type investigation.

[-] 1 points by hymie (391) 10 years ago

Perhaps you think it is a joke, but the problems discussed here are quite serious and will only become more so. On the horizon, there is the possibility of a nuclear World War 3, and if you are not aware of the relationship between Wall Street and world war, I suggest you look at the following site:

Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/

Its authored by Anthony Sutton, a researcher at the Stanford Institute.

[-] -1 points by DunkiDonut2 (-108) 10 years ago

National Geographic News Published December 28, 2011

Four new sharks—including a "rapier wielding" sawshark—are among 140 new species discovered by California Academy of Sciences researchers in 2011, the institution announced in December.

The African dwarf sawshark (Pristiophorus nancyae) was accidentally captured in a 1,600-foot-deep (490-meter-deep) trawl off Mozambique. The animal is only the seventh species of sawshark known to science, according to David Ebert, a research associate at the Academy.

The discoveries are part of a recent boom in new shark and ray finds. Over the past decade, about 200 new species have been described, compared with fewer than 200 in the previous three decades, Ebert said.

Thousands of new species of different animals and plants are found each year,,,, just as the Global Warming Fruit Cakes use their tactics of reporting the number of new extinctions (only).

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 10 years ago

That makes sense. So we can say that new species are forming because of the change in climate. Will this change have adverse effects on us as a species? To stay on topic, yes, it is a cost/benefit relationship climate change leaves us with. We can always buy our agriculture from Canada once we are no longer able to grow in the 'States, as rain patters will change when, OR IF, America becomes a desert. Also, we'll have more people wanting to come to America when island people loose their homes because their homes are under water. These are all positive spins that we can attribute to more CO2 in the atmosphere. But, did you know that once CO2 reaches one percent of the air, combustible engines no longer work, am not sure about jet engines. This is a reason why planes putter out over the Atlantic. The methane being released mixes with the air and makes the oxygen content less. This is a long way from happening, but it is something to think about. Also, CO2 is trapped in the arctic tundra. So, we have the makings for a nuclear type reaction once it gets too hot. The oceans hold lots of methane and as the oceans get hotter the methane goes from being frozen under water to being released in the atmosphere, more to think about.

[-] -1 points by DanMich (49) 10 years ago

Al Gore is that you?????

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 10 years ago

Again, over using punctuation and being a smart ass does not make you smart. It just means you are too set in your ways to change your behavior, and too lazy to find the truth for yourself. Did you even read his book and ponder the implications? Or did you just talk to your brain trust at the local pub and decided that you were a modern day Plato?

[-] -1 points by DanMich (49) 10 years ago

No I did not read Gore's book and also do not intend to. I do feel sorry for him though since Global warming has been debunked, he has stopped construction on mansion #5.

[-] 0 points by foreeverLeft (-264) 10 years ago

When all they have is whining about "how" you deliver the message then you know you've won the argument. :)

[-] -1 points by DanMich (49) 10 years ago

Hey with all due respect. I hope you and your family have a happy New Year. Hopefully next year will be better for all of us.