Poll, Is Global Warming real?

[rn79870]

I remember. I was around then

Wow, so were the Woolly Mammoths really that big?

[pancho y onions]

Ive just come up with a crazy conclusion. I think were growing taller, I know its crazy but think about it. Houses used to be smaller and now things are getting bigger. So that mean we are getting bigger and the glaciers are getting smaller. OH MAN IM A FREAKING GENIOUS!

[audtatious]

You should know, you have a couple years on me....

[rn79870]

Yeah, they were big.

[audtatious]

Ive just come up with a crazy conclusion. I think were growing taller, I know its crazy but think about it. Houses used to be smaller and now things are getting bigger. So that mean we are getting bigger and the glaciers are getting smaller. OH MAN IM A FREAKING GENIOUS!

Glaciers are getting smaller not due to Global Warming but due to getting a layer of soot on them and the sun having the capability of heating them up instead of them reflecting the rays. The majority of soot is from China.

[AZhitman]

Friggin' China.

Looks like the answer to all our nuclear waste storage problems to me...

I can live without knockoff Gucci bags and chow mein.

[homeslicej2]

Friggin' China.

Looks like the answer to all our nuclear waste storage problems to me...

I can live without knockoff Gucci bags and chow mein.

along with lead covered and infused everything else.

[audtatious]

They are probably not painting the objects with lead based paint. It's probably getting in there during the drying process

[DJButton]

The spewing of common sense and real research in this thread is fantastic, you guys rule!

[Woot!]

I remember. I was around then

LOL! I guess my dad isn't THAT old...he's only like 45.

/threadjack

Back on topic here:

I heard some report a while back that the main concern (or some word like that ) of Americans today is Global Warming. Back in the 70's 80's and 90's it was Nuclear war...but now global warming is a greater concern to them/us then even Nuclear war

[audtatious]

In the 70's it was also Global Cooling and a new ice age....

[ishkabibble]

Silly, self-important pompous-a$$ libbies always think the world revolves around them, and that their contributions are significant.

If anyone thinks the world revolves around them, the neocons do. Come live near the Capitol for a while and you'll see.

Anyway, back to the original topic. My personal belief is that global warming is probably occurring. A lot of the disbelievers can't seem to grasp the concept that there can be warming and cooling cycles, while the mean temperature still trends upward. Most "skeptics" of the theory tend to be uncomfortably close to corporate sponsors with a vested interest in unregulated CO2 emission.

What is the fallout if we address a non-existent global warming issue? Not much. What is the fallout if we fail to address a real global warming issue? Life may suck. Seems that we should take the safer route (but we won't - humans tend to be reactive and selfish rather than proactive and selfless).

[audtatious]

Anyway, back to the original topic. My personal belief is that global warming is probably occurring. A lot of the disbelievers can't seem to grasp the concept that there can be warming and cooling cycles, while the mean temperature still trends upward. Most "skeptics" of the theory tend to be uncomfortably close to corporate sponsors with a vested interest in unregulated CO2 emission.

And those who support man made global warming have no agenda? It has been proven over and over again that the scientific community as a whole still does not understand all aspects of climate change. When you have things you don't understand then simply ignoring those and making computer simulations is a crock. Since the IPCC report became the "word of God", what has the mean temperature done?

What is the fallout if we address a non-existent global warming issue? Not much. What is the fallout if we fail to address a real global warming issue? Life may suck. Seems that we should take the safer route (but we won't - humans tend to be reactive and selfish rather than proactive and selfless).

Who is benefiting from this global warming scare? Environmentalists and those like Gore who have decided to create carbon credit companies. But since they are trying to protect us with voodoo science then they are automatically given a pass on it?

[ishkabibble]

The mean temperature trend is still upward over time. If you want to narrow the timeframe you're looking at to support your position, sure, it went down.

Who is benefiting from the global warming denial? The fossil fuel and related companies are exponentially more powerful than the companies that stand to benefit from "environmentalism". How come companies with such massive resources find themselves on the minority side of a scientific debate?

The last people anyone should be listening to are those who stand to benefit on either side. This includes Gore and his cronies and the skeptics sponsored by the fossil fuel companies.

Nobody's going to understand all aspects of climate change. If we did, the weather forecast would always be right.

[audtatious]

The mean temperature trend is still upward over time. If you want to narrow the timeframe you're looking at to support your position, sure, it went down.

Which is exactly what the environmentalists are pressing, narrow trending. They simply put on blinders and keep charging ahead although ice cores and history itself show they are wrong.

Who is benefiting from the global warming denial? The fossil fuel and related companies are exponentially more powerful than the companies that stand to benefit from "environmentalism". How come companies with such massive resources find themselves on the minority side of a scientific debate?

Just because Big Oil posted huge profits does not mean they are making a killing in the least. In 2007 they made a net profit of 9 cents per dollar of revenue which is below what S&P500 companies performed. They are also investing heavily into wind/solar and other technologies for the future. Oil is also a commodity in which the supply is less than the demand. Out of the goodness of their hearts they should actually make even less money? It does not work that way and they are not to blame. Oil is a commodity just like corn. Are you willing to complain about the earnings farmers are now making since corn prices are 2-3x what they were a few years ago?

Now, on to the environmentalist companies who are getting ready to make a mighty killing. Presented last year is the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008, which would result in a reduction of US CO2 emissions by 25 ppm by the year 2098. The EPA report states that by 2050 we'll be paying a total of $2.856 trillion dollars a year to reduce CO2 based upon the act itself. That's almost 3 trillion dollars a year for 25ppm because, as Lieberman stated "With all the irrefutable evidence we now have corroborating that climate change is real, dangerous, and proceeding faster than many scientists predicted......". Wait, he states irrefutable, as in all scientists agree?

So, yes, environmentalist industries are out to make a killing and this would include carbon credits and everything else. People are starting to line up with their hands out to "save the environment".

[ishkabibble]

Just because Big Oil posted huge profits does not mean they are making a killing in the least. In 2007 they made a net profit of 9 cents per dollar of revenue which is below what S&P500 companies performed. They are also investing heavily into wind/solar and other technologies for the future. Oil is also a commodity in which the supply is less than the demand. Out of the goodness of their hearts they should actually make even less money? It does not work that way and they are not to blame. Oil is a commodity just like corn. Are you willing to complain about the earnings farmers are now making since corn prices are 2-3x what they were a few years ago?

My statement wasn't about profit, it was to show that both sides of the debate are being funded. The "environmentalist" side is definitely the "little guy", in terms of financial and lobbying resources. And yet they are dominant side of the debate.

Lieberman is a joke.

That trillion figure... isn't that the amount that GDP would be lowered? If so, that doesn't mean most of it goes into anyone's pocket, it's just lowered GDP.

The main reason I believe in global warming is because the greenhouse effect has not been disproven, and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing and will continue to increase as more cultures adopt a Western style of living. This does not mean I feel the evidence is irrefutable; I just feel we're better off trying to address the situation rather than let it go.

[audtatious]

My statement wasn't about profit, it was to show that both sides of the debate are being funded. The "environmentalist" side is definitely the "little guy", in terms of financial and lobbying resources. And yet they are dominant side of the debate.

I'm not so sure how "little guy" the environmentalist side is at this point. I do agree that the environmentalists are the dominant side of the debate as Big Oil has been constantly made to be the bad guy who is taking all your money at the pumps.

Lieberman is a joke.

At this point, 95% of them are....

That trillion figure... isn't that the amount that GDP would be lowered? If so, that doesn't mean most of it goes into anyone's pocket, it's just lowered GDP.

GDP does have a monetary value and 3 trillion is a pretty big swipe.

The main reason I believe in global warming is because the greenhouse effect has not been disproven, and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing and will continue to increase as more cultures adopt a Western style of living. This does not mean I feel the evidence is irrefutable; I just feel we're better off trying to address the situation rather than let it go.

Global Warming is absolutely real. So is Global Cooling, thus greenhouse effect is real. The warming we saw in the 20th century (about 1 degree) primarily occurred in the first few decades which was before we were contributing to any CO2 in the environment. About 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor with the other 5 percent being due to carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and other miscellaneous gases (of the 5%, CO2 comprises of 94% of that number BUT the other gasses actually trap more heat than CO2). Carbon dioxide, therefore, is responsible for roughly 3.6 percent of the all greenhouse effects. Of the CO2 itself, we make up less than 0.3% (yes, less than 1/3rd of a percent of CO2 which is the "lesser of evils" of the 5% of greenhouse gasses that is not water vapor). The amount of CO2 we are adding to the atmosphere is miniscule when it comes to earths greenhouse. FWIW, methane (ocean burps, tectonic plate burps, permafrost, cow farts and feces, etc) is FAR worse than CO2 as it is 20x stonger of a greenhouse gas.

There are also other issues as well, the sun just exited a cycle of sunspots and is in a quiet period. Sunspots increase the greehouse effect on earth, thus potentially why some scientists say we may go into a cooling trend now. Testing of the troposphere has shown no increase in temperatures nor has testing deep waters of the ocean.

But, the glaciers are melting.....Well, that may actually be true. Latest reports are showing that soot is covering portions of the glaciers. Normally, glaciers reflect the sun and they do not get heated. When covered with soot, they are now heated, thus they will melt. Where is the soot coming from? China of course, who was not to be covered by the Koyoto treaty that everyone is pressing us to follow. FWIW, some reports say that the south pole is getting bigger and thicker so maybe there is an offset because there have really been no major increases in the oceans water tables that I have seen.

I say let's work on fixing our pollution issues. As technology improves then the amount of CO2 and other gasses will be lower. There is no need to shoot ourselves in the financial pocketbook. We also need to get China and India to clean up their crap as it is causing issues all over the world.

[rn79870]

I say let's work on fixing our pollution issues. As technology improves then the amount of CO2 and other gasses will be lower. There is no need to shoot ourselves in the financial pocketbook. We also need to get China and India to clean up their crap as it is causing issues all over the world

I couldn't agree more. A clean environment needs to be a priority with all citizens of this planet.

I saw that show on the National Geographic Channel about life after humans. That was the second time I saw the show, and it made even more sense this time. It's funny that humans are the only species that have had a detrimental affect on the planet.

[AZhitman]

What is the fallout if we address a non-existent global warming issue? Not much. What is the fallout if we fail to address a real global warming issue? Life may suck. Seems that we should take the safer route (but we won't - humans tend to be reactive and selfish rather than proactive and selfless).

Ask those same people if they believe in God.

Regardless of what we all believe, the fact is this: If you don't, you'd better be right. And if you do, and you're wrong, there's no harm done.

Interesting how we're more concerned with one than the other. Just a little spotlight on the hypocrisy of people.

[AZhitman]

It's funny that humans are the only species that have had a detrimental affect on the planet.

You haven't read much about cattle and pig farms.

I know, I know... human-made.

Jeez. Just trying to be funny.

[homeslicej2]

....I say let's work on fixing our pollution issues. As technology improves then the amount of CO2 and other gasses will be lower. There is no need to shoot ourselves in the financial pocketbook. We also need to get China and India to clean up their crap as it is causing issues all over the world.

[greddy4u]

it's obviously real

[audtatious]

Global Warming or Man Made Global Warming?

Care to expand your comment?

[audtatious]

So, Cali just lowered their standards again. Maybe they have finally figured out that technological breakthroughs can't be legislated or mandated?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...icles

I love they quote comments from someone that is a member of "Union of Concerned Scientists".

Also, since they mandate set levels of sales for certain vehicles, what if the public won't purchase that many? The auto manufacturers default because the public did not want the mandated product?

[rn79870]

The decision is expected to affect 12 other states that had adopted California's target for zero-emission vehicles.

Clean air is a good idea at any cost. We've already beat this horse pretty well though. I'm pretty interested in the Honda FCV that goes on sale in certain counties soon. I want to see how reliable/efficient it is. If I was in the market for another car, and that was available in my area, I'd be at the dealer looking into it.

[audtatious]

The problem with the FCV is with fuel management. Not from the car itself but from creating the fuel (requires lots of energy) and the transportation and storage of the fuel itself which is rather difficult.

Maybe you should drive a Altima or Sentra to clean the air? Couple quotes for ya:

"Nissan Altima sedans equipped with 4-cylinder engines have qualified for Partial Zero Emissions Vehicle (PZEV) certification in the 2004 model year. The Altima joins its Sentra stable mate in attaining this stringent emissions certification. Achieving PZEV status reduced the Altima’s horsepower slightly from 175 to 170. The Altima PZEV will be sold in California and Northeastern states. "

and

"Nissan was the first automaker to introduce a partial zero emission vehicle (PZEV) with its Sentra CA in 2000. In many areas of California the air leaving the Sentra's tailpipe is cleaner than the air going into the engine"

[rn79870]

My support for the FCV comes from the fact that it uses no imported oil. I believe that the situation our country is in now would be much different if we had no need to import oil, or an interest in middle eastern security.

Never stopping at a gas station again would be pretty nice too.

[audtatious]

I agree. But some want to press the technology onto the market before it's ready. The amount of infrastructure that would be needed is huge as are actual safety concerns. 10-20 years? Maybe.

[HashiriyaS14]

I'm glad to see that most of my fellow NicoNauts have their heads on strait.

Science proves that "Global warming" is a hoax...It is just the pretext to raise gas prices and all other fuel prices....as if money is going to save the globe

For the LAST TIME. No one is "raising gas prices". The price of crude oil is bid up by commodities traders and this in turn means that in order to secure oil and gasoline, refiners and retailers must pay more per contract. The people selling the stuff aren't the ones setting the prices, it's the speculative traders, as with any other commodity.

I propose that the next person who makes this mistake gets a perma-ban. It seriously bothers me that much...I don't quite know why.

[audtatious]

Oil companies are evil and marking up gas "just because"