Question for Global Warming Skeptics

Questions for Global Warming Skeptics:

(Note to others: If you believe that man-made global warming is real, PLEASE DO NOT participate in this discussion or debate the issue, no matter how great the temptation. That is not the purpose of the posting.)

My personal disclosure: (I’ll limit the details, as not to be an ego trip.) I’m extensively trained in the sciences and have participated in both academic and industrial research. I have been closely familiar with the theory of human-caused global warming due to excess greenhouse gasses, for 40 years. I’ve seen a lot of the data up close and know some of the frontline researchers related to climate and ice. I’ve had a very small part in getting some of this information out to the general public.

Now, if you have any reasonable understanding of the “scientific method”, you know it is impossible to prove or disprove the theory of man-made global warming, to the rigorous requirements applied to most scientific experimentation. We lack the necessary experimental control. The experimental control needed would be an identical solar system to our own containing an ‘earth’ where humans don’t put crap in the air. This is impossible. The best that can be done is to accumulate a preponderance of evidentuary data, that convinces enough people to use the political system to implement a political policy.

(Enough of me blowing wind.)

I would like to ask the wide variety of Global Warming Skeptics, what data, evidence, anecdotes, or strange occurrences, would definitely cause you to say, “You know, I’m beginning to think this man-made global warming thing, might be real” ?

I am not sure you could convience me. A start might be to actually get the weather prediction for tomorrow correct. However, I have traveled way too much and realized just how big this planet is, couple that with the size of the sun, (something most people have no idea about) and you have no chance. What is also impossible, is for man to actually have any measurable effect even should they want to try. At this point in time we still are not capable of equally one volcano, in either power or pollution.
But the foremost reason, is that it is purely a topic of politics. Simply a way to take money from producers to give to the leaches. The US is by far the cleanest country in the world. Most of the countries exempt from any consideration involving solutions are the worst. The Countries of freedom and democracy are the producers and can also afford to be clean, the vast majority of the world is not free. Guess what, their dictators and leaders have no interest in cleaning up after themselves or others. Sorry to dump on your religion though, I understand your right to worship as you see fit.

Okay, the only thing that might convince me is if we ever explore the planet Venus and find out that its atmosphere was destroyed by a civilized life form using fossil fuels and hair spray. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

I object in principal to being told not to participate.

This is an OPEN FORUM.

If you don’t want to hear from everybody, you need to create a survey and go to a mall with a clip board and bother people.

WoW!

How about when an event like Mount Pinitubo happens and the same scientists come out with the same fervor.

How about when the same "scientists" stop encouraging other scientists to exaggerate stuff because it might be happening and if it is it would be really important.

How about if the "scientists" break ties with radical anti-capitalists

How about if Al (I invented the internet) Gore admits that CO2 is a lagging indicator of global warming instead of a leading one. For good measure he could also stop saying that sea levels "might" rise 15-20 feet. Pigs "might" fly but I'm not worried. While we're on it Big Al could stop using energy like it's going out of style (which unfortunately it's not) if he's so worried.

How about when the hole in the ozone is anywhere near where all the chloro-fluorocarbons are or anyone can produce evidence that that reaction has ever taken place outside a lab or why such a heavy molecule is in the ozone layer or how it got there.

How about when the "consensus" of scientists start presenting evidence instead of engaging in ad-hominem attacks.

How about if Russia brings all their weather stations in Siberia back online or we throw out that data from the past 50 years for comparison.

How about when a weather station in a cornfield becomes a weather station in a black asphalt parking lot we factor that in.

How about ... Oh I could go on for days

Any of the above start happening and we can talk.

Can we move this thread over to political anarchy, and go back to cat sailing.

I don't think i could be convinced in the wake of all the data that supports that this is a normal cyclic occurance.

This article is REALLY good and provides some intersting points.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf

I'll read the article when I get a chance (probably tonight). I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I think it's worth pointing out that the "International Conference on Climate Change" at which this was presented was not exactly an unbiased forum for open scientific dialog (if in fact such a thing exists). The Conference Program is subtitled "Can you hear us now? Global Warming is not a crisis!", next to a picture of a megaphone.

But really, I don't think this discussion belongs here. So let me hijack it right back to sailing - Jeff, will you be coming to the Broken Rudder WI-MN Challenge in July?

When discussing bias, it must be noted that the IPCC was created with the intent of prooving CO2 induced global warming. Just a little history fact. (Margret Thatcher in an attempt to get away from coal and oil b/c of the unions and their control)

HUH???? <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

I'm looking for some wind

*gurgle* *gurgle*

What method did you use when you decided that??


Temperature is rising, that is measurable. Ice in the artic and antartica is melting, also measurable and a clear indicator of temperature. Only thing left to debate is wether it is man made or a natural variation. Most of the scientists say "man made" while a few say "natural". Think I'll stick with the crowd..
Melt enough ice, disturb the golf stream and we are closing up the shop here in Norway on a very short notice. That is enough for me to decide that I am no fan of not trying to do anything.

Exactly!

It seems to me that weather is a pretty important factor for sailing. The first thing I do every morning is check the local weather on Intellicast or Weather Underground. I check to see which direction my flag is blowing and listen for whether my wind chimes are chiming, and I check our indoor-outdoor weather station for temperature and humidity and barometric pressure.

So I am VERY interested in the future trends of weather, whether it is going to be global warming or global cooling, and how that is going to affect sailing in all parts of the country and the world.

In other words, I think discussion of "global warming" is very relevant. It is just unfortunate that it has become so politicized that it is difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff.

As was said in that article in the prior post, it is going to be very, very costly if businesses and nations plan on the basis of warming and it turns out to be cooling, or vice versa. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

I'm with MARY~!

Mr. Heston says it best.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozO4YB98mCY

"Earth will survive us"

It will take a tremendous amount more of hard evidence to convince me that global warming is manmade. I found these two very fine articles concerning global warming. Not everyone will agree with them but at the very least, they are well written.

The Myth of Dangerous Human-Caused Climate Change

Global Warming: Man-Made of Natural

What a load of American far-right rubbish!!

According to the World Resources Institute in 2002 the USA had the second highest per capita carbon footprint, after Luxemburg, at 20.0 tons CO2 per person per year. The world wide average was 4.0 tons, and the average of all industrial nations was about 11 tons CO2 per person. No doubt these levels have increased significantly since 2002.

As I see it, the only hope for the global environment is if the American capitalistic system collapses under mounting debt and greed. I am pleased to see the many signs of this imminent collapse now emerging.

<rant>
Re : "imminent collapse"

That is an utterly disgusting and inhumane comment!
However you may think about some political system. Total collapse would hurt so many people in so many awful ways that the whole world would suffer. Think about all the (North)American folks the internet puts you in contact with. Do you really want them all to suffer loss of jobs, homes, even lives? A little humanity would suit you well.

</rant>
Sorry all, the pastor in me just kicked in...

Sir,

Maybe you are aware that the majority of users here work hard for the money they have, enjoy the time spent with, and around their friends in the sport of sailing. All can attest that we spend way too much on our hobby/ sport. But we choose to participate in this wonderful action filled event in which we can all come together as 'sailors'.

With your kind permission, I would like to provide you with a link to a great web-site (forum) in which the subject matter is broad and diverse. You can post about politics, music, art, religion.... really anything you want. Like here, you find a common thread....

They are for the most part Anti-American. They parrot anti-Bush stuff, anti-USA speeches like any old bird, on any old post. They hope and pray that we fall and fail. I think you would like that place very much.

I somewhat find this amusing.... all the world likes or wishes the USA to fail (such as yourself), except for when they need us. Then, all of a sudden, the phone won't stop ringing! In some cases, they don't even have to call.... we are there, arms out, offering help.

I see you are an Aussie? Assume please that a QANTAS triple 7 has just been taken by radical [fill in the blank]... and has just wiped out that famous bridge of yours.... or that opera house. If that were the case, please don't worry....

Uncle Sam will be there for help and protection.... you would not even have to ask.

May we please get back to our lovely sport of sailing, friendship, and sharing? This site and forum while open to almost any post, is (by the name of the web-site) mostly for fun, sport, and sailing.

Would you like the link? I will be more than happy to provide it.

Cheers,
Michael

Ha ha ha! That is a good one...

See, now y'all are into politics instead of weather. PLEASE stay on topic.

OK...with all the whys and wherefore aside (since we know, ad nauseum, the suspected, or real, causes), what are the specific predictions for weather patterns, due to GW? The earth will still rotate, so what's the forecast? Do the winds slow down all over the world?

The good news is in a few million years, the planet will be just fine and the **** will continue on ...

That is the question. If there is global warming, does that mean more wind or less wind? If there is global cooling, does that mean more wind or less wind?

And not only that, how would global warming or global cooling affect beach area for cat sailing?

Those are the things inquiring catsailor minds want to know.

(Time to get this thread back on track.)

To the Skeptics who took my question seriously, thank you. I would like to return to the original question. So far, it appears that the level of scientific evidence that could chamge your opinions has not been met. Some of you believe the warming is real, but natural; others are skeptical of the existance of warming. --Question: If many of your favored scientists changed their positions, would that affect your personal opinion?

Global warming theory predicts a variety of future adverse events. If some of these events start appearing, would that affect your personal opinion? How severe would those events need to be to cause you concern? As examples:

--Would a complete summer melt-out of the Arctic sea ice, within the next ten years, cause concern?

--Would a one foot rise in sea level by the year 2025 cause concern?

Thank you for taking my questions as sincere. And, yes there are events that could cause me to reconsider my current opinion. A 15-year cooling period, with advancing glaciers, could have me rethinking. But, a 5-year cooling period after a volcanic eruption wouldn’t sway me.

If the scientists who do not believe in manmade global warming suddenly changed their minds, I would figure that pressure had been brought to bear on them -- like the threat of losing their research funding.

If the sea level rises one foot by 2025, I would suspect that an army of green people wielding blowtorches is down melting the ice off the land mass of Antarctica.

It IS comforting to know that if things start heating up too much, we can always drop a bomb into a volcano so it will erupt and cool us off for a few years.

I took your question very seriously and answered it honestly.

You are right in your assertion that the skeptics debate is about cause.

The earth is always either warming or cooling. Since WW II it appears that the earth has warmed somewhat although that appears to have stopped in the last 10 years or so.

Given that, it will not be which catastrophe makes me believe my Jeep (that I tow my boat with thereby making this relevant) caused it. It will be someone presenting evidence that co2 or cfcs in the environment actually change it more than Mt Pinitubo or solar activity.

The issue has been so politicized by the believers that they have stopped trying to convince and now just try to silence. Whoever said the US was the cleanest should have said western democracies. Of that there can be no doubt. Why aren't the earth firsters beating up China, India or some of the other third world hell holes where they take their air chunk style?

Where's the beef? Stop telling me the sky is falling, stop the Stalin-like suppression of dissent, and start presenting evidence!

If you think what you see now is anything like "Stalin-like suppression of dissent" you better go check some history books.

Rolf,

If I can keep you from flooding I'll do the best I can. Unfortunately we can't keep ourself from flooding.

I agree with trying to reduce polutants and trying to keep OUR earth for our children. But when the loudest (in our country) person on the bandwagon flys around on his private jet (its OK cause he buys carbon credits...) each of his houses burns more fuel in a day than mine does in a year, and tells ME I'm the cause of global warming... excuse me while I don't give a rats butt about HIS theory. Scientists (not politicians) can't agree on specifics about this so who do we believe? When its real they will all have the same story.

JMO,

Clayton

Well regardless of the conspiracy theory, there is no denying the negative impact man has had on the planet Earth. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

Clayton,

it is more a matter of icing down under one large glacier called "Norway" than flooding. Once Greenland really was green, a thousand years ago. Same for Svalbard further back in time, which was tropic. I dont want to live and see similar changes in our climate or in my childrens time.

For a guy who at least knows what the internet is, flying around spending the energy he does is quite hipocritic. Norwegian politicians are no better. They dream up all kind of restrictions and "environment taxes" which they calls "fees" to save the environment and makes the common public pay. These taxes are added to hydroelectric power (go figure), new cars, fuel, airfare etc. etc. With the other hand they let oil companies pumping black gold out of the north sea get away with power stations based on gas, and even burning off excess gas pressure in "flame towers. All without taxing or restrictions. Politicians are into it for money power, and they will not go against the large companies before they start to loose votes big time. They are all the same, funny enough.

Jeff your sample period is too short to confirm global warming. We have just exceeded our hottest spell recorded since 1935 I assume that global warming rose and fell between then and now. Old fences on the Coorong and river Murray are being exposed due to global warming, I assume that the fencing contractors used submarines 50 years ago. The credibility of scientists should be seriously questioned now, the money and fame goes with being on the warming bandwagon which gets all the press. There is no difinative proof about global warming but I can plant some trees for you ( for a fee ) to offset your computer use, what a crock of sh&*%$^
regards

OK, now take a deep breath and relax. No sense in getting all worked up over nothing.<img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Maybe more people would be worried about global warming if we didn't have the benefit of air conditioning. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/ooo.gif" alt="" />

What a well thought (and spelt), intelligent response. The world needs more troglodytes like you, I don't think.

The original post or subject does not warrant such flippant comments.

The issue is not necessarily one of global warming, but rather climate change with a resultant increase in extreme weather events (drought, flood, storms, low temperatures, high temperatures). We are all paying for these events now through higher insurance premiums.

I was not being flippant. I just think that a lot of people go from their air conditioned houses to their air conditioned cars to their air conditioned offices and to their air conditioned malls and just don't spend much time in the outside environment, so they would not even notice if things were getting hotter.

The original question was about what it would take to convince people that manmade global warming is real. So I guess one of my answers to that question would be: Turn off the air conditioning. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

But, then, of course, there are the people up north who are digging out of record snowfalls, and it is hard to convince them, too, about global warming.

Or maybe if I didn't have to use 1500 gallons of Propane to heat my home annually. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Jeff, as you can see from the responses of the believers, there seems to be only a focus on man as the big problem. Good job by the "scientists". Capitalism? Hello? If there is warming as many have suggested, it is not unusual for this planet. My big question is with the Sun. No one talks about the Sun? You know, solar flares. The history and phases of the Sun might give a clue. There is a lot of information out there, but don't look behind that curtain. Why is it warmer on Mars? The simple things really.

You hit the nail on the head Phile, everyone that doesn't believe in Global Warming is an uneducated troglodyte

I belive that it's happening.... I just don't belive that it's caused by man.

I agree, personally. After reading the definitions of "troglodyte," I think I definitely qualify.

In fact, I think I will get myself a troglodyte T-shirt. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Seems obvious to me, Martians don’t care about their environment

Right, and look what happened with them. Not many left to tell the story <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

How do you know? I mean, that there are none left? <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

actually I should re-phrase my post...

I belive that is has happened in the past, I don't believe that it had a man-made driver. I don't know how much longer it will continue if at all. I'm worried that we're about to see a serious cooling in the not too distant future (i.e. 10 or so years).

Will you are definately an uneducated troglodyte if you believe that this global warming is part of a universal cycle perhaps caused by the earth not spinning like a perfect top, around a perfect sun that radiates its energy in a perfectly even way over the millenia
regards

To describe a troglodyte as uneducated is a tautology.

Just in on the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) site an article titled "Antarctic ice shelf 'hanging by a thread'". (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/26/2199350.htm?section=justin). The article describes the collapse of an ice shelf 415 km2 in area.

The lead scientist involved with monitoring project was quoted as saying: "The warming that's going on in the (Antarctic) peninsula is pretty clearly tied to greenhouse gas increases and the change that they have in the atmospheric circulation around the Antarctic".

Evidence such as this linking climate change and its associated impact to atmospheric greenhouse gas increases is continually mounting. As an engineer/scientist I have the utmost confidence in the methodology used to establish these links.

I used to believe in MAN MADE global warming. Then Al Gore got on the band wagon and said it was happening. Then he won a nobel peace prize over it. That was when I said bullsh*t. This is the same guy that created the internet? The same guy that said he voted for the passing of a bill (sorry forget which one) that went through congress before he was even there? I don't claim the democrats or republicans, but if Al Gore says it true, then it is probably a load of sh*t. Funny, I am starting to feel that way about Bush too. Where are those weapons of mass distruction anyways? <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Scientists like Bell, Eienstein, Newton spent years in developing proof ( not their hypothesis ) of their theorys and ideas, which won them fame and continued admiration. In contrast to the above quoted scientist that it is " pretty clearly tied " with no cooberating evidence then it gets quoted by you Phile as definative evidence for us lesser mortals to accept as proof.
regards

To quote my high school football coach:

"now I don't know nothin' about nothin'", but the way I see it is that putting all of that man made crap into the air . . . well . . it can't be good. Is it worse than what Krakatoa did, or Mount St. Helens . . . I don't know.

I remember the good ol' days when people just littered everywhere. Remember those "litterbug" commercials. We actually needed TV commercials to tell us that we shouldn't throw our trash in the streets. I guess I kind of view "an inconvenient truth" stuff as today's litterbug commercials.

Would it really be all that bad to hvae better emission controls?


If war can boost an economy, so can "going green". The only difference is that the oil companies aren't going to be the ones to get rich . . . and . . . well . . . I guess they don't like that very much.

Now, don't go lumpin' me in with all the green freaks out there. I'm 3 beers deep here. I have no intention of selling my 8 cyl. Jeep Grand Cherokee . . . but will I look to buy something a bit "greener" the next time around . . . perhaps . . . If the price is right (I'm an American, afterall).

Back to the original post on this thread:
If it is impossible to prove or disprove the theory of manmade global warming, why are you asking what "evidence" would convince skeptics?

Also, it bothers me that the word "impossible" would be in a scientist's vocabulary. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

I really don't have an opinion about the issue overall, but regarding the report you cite, I have to point out that the same scientist stated that "this ice shelf has been in place for at least a few hundred years" - which implies that there has previously been a situation (more than a few hundred years ago) in which the shelf didn't exist and its non-existence could not be attributed to recent human activity.

Agreed. The Antarctic ice cap is never static.

However, what is concerning climate scientists is the comparitively very rapid change in both the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps that is occurring now.

I am not suggesting that the reported melting of this part of the Antarctic ice cap is definitive proof that elevated atmospheric greenhouse gas levels is responsible for global climate change. It is however further evidence added to a huge body of data and computer modelling that does indicate that a strong link exists.

Whether human activity (burning of fossil fuels and deforestation) is the primary or secondary driver behind global climate change is even more difficult to prove, as the original post stated. But even if there is only a small probability, say less than 30%, that humankind is the main driver behind climate change, then surely there is still sufficient justification for all governments, organisations and individuals to take measures. The consequences of denial are too scary to contemplate.

Australia's new government has accepted that the risks of denial are very real. One of its first moves was to ratify the Kyoto Agreement, and make a long term commitment to reduce national greenhouse emissions by 60% (of 1990 levels) by 2050. It is also planning on introducing a carbon trading scheme in 2010. Australia has a high per capita greenhouse emission, although in absolute terms we contribute less than 2% of global greenhouse emissions.

We are in this together, in the one life boat, and the future looks pretty rough.

Which would be tougher, global warming or global cooling? Just curious.

Shooting or hanging..
Both are equally bad and proportional to how large the changes are. We had a "mini" ice age in medevial times, and that was bad enough. If the change is large enough..

There is a small study on the "mini" ice age here: http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html

It dont matter if it heats up or cools down, both are equally bad in my opinion.

In the discussion in this post the US and Australia have been described as high emmission because were soft targets if you look beyond the carbon bit Asia is slaughtering its rivers and its air with very little control even the peasants burn very polluting substances to cook and heat. Australia signing Kyoto was just a popularist move by Labour to win Govt, how can shifting dirty manufacturing from Australia with its environmental controls to China with its obvious attitude save the world.

Just wondering why anyone cares?
I mean, it is clear to any non brain-dead person that we can't seriously stop it, so deal with it and stop all the whittering already.

I mean bio-fuel and carbon credits....Pllleease! Talk about p***ing in the wind.

I say drive big cars and use all the oil you can making much stronger homes and infrastructure in communities expecting to survive in a very non globalized way.

The tigers will die and so will 4-5 billion humans, get used to it and lean into it.

The zoos will be as endangered by the weather events as everything else so, really if we want to preserve species just gather the relevant DNA and set them free.

I know those with kids have a different perspective but as a terminal organism with maybe thirty years to live I think I might have a good standard of sailing to days lived ratio and that is what matters as 2050 seems to be a major measuring point.
So I will keep a weather eye on mast up storage possibilities if the ice caps do indeed melt.

It happens that for the first time since a few hundreds of years the Icelandic people can have cattle.....ironically belching up more hot house effect. So,.....

sail now.

I'm just not sure how much effect humans have in the eqution. The finger lake I sail on was formed by a glacier, long before man could have had an effect on melting the glacier away. I do think we should respect the environment, not be wasteful, and recycle as much as practicle.
Personally, I've got things covered. If it ends up being global cooling, than I have more time in my iceboat. If it's global warming, then thats a longer wet water sailing
season. If the ocean levels rise due to the icepacks melting, then hopefully I'm looking at my home in central NY becoming beachfront property!
Rob
PS-Four inches of new snow today

Interestingly enough I read two articles a/b the potential collapse of an ice sheet in Antarctica the other day. The one on Fox news said it might collapse and this was GW rearing it's ugly head. The other was much more scientific and said that Antarctica is experiencing rapid ice/snow growth and will be on track for a record year even before winter starts there.

And I still think everyone should at least try to read this:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf

I found this on a website, yahoo I think:

'SYDNEY (AFP) - Twenty-six major cities around the world are expected to turn off the lights on major landmarks, plunging millions of people into darkness to raise awareness about global warming, organisers said.

I love the 'plunging millions into darkness' thing. As if they'll be underater or something.
What a load of leftist crap.

This should really do something, probably lower the global temp at least three degrees- LOL.

Hi all,

I really haven't made up my mind either way, but I've been very curious about the IPCC "hockey stick" graph and it's lack of recognition of the Medieval warm period and little ice age. I came accross a very interesting article:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf
This article makes some quite compelling arguments that makes one wonder what's really going on at the IPCC. I encourage everyone to read it.

Al

I go away for a while and when I come back I find this topic on the first page. I am speechless........ <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

These idiots can't even predict when it is going to rain or not. Why should I be concern if they think the ice caps will melts?

That depends on if you live in Florida or not.

Hmmm, the idiots that's can't predict rain are weather men/women...not climate scientists.

I can't believe we're still at the level of "oh, it's cold today...therefore global warming is crap!" mentality.

Common folks, check out the peer reviewed studies and start understanding what we're all discussing!

Here's a few volcano facts I've dredged up:

1. Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons of carbon dioxide per year while man's activities contribute about 10 billion tons per year.
2. Volcanoes actually cool the climate, at least temporarily for a few years after a major eruption, due to the increase in particulate matter they pump up high...but it soon settles out again.

Its a pity they didn't stick to calling it pollution and tell everyone to stop polluting the environment because everyone would agree and this subject would be dead and gone.

Global warming. If you truly and honestly believe in your cause, extreme measures must be taken. If humans are the sole cause of impending doom than the easiest solution is to have fewer humans. I don’t think anyone could argue that over population is a problem. We double our population every hundred years or less. For the most part what we as an individual doesn’t have any real effect. It is what is done as a collective that is causing an issue. As with any great cause sacrifices may have to be made, sacrifices that I honestly am not prepared or willing to do. Those of you who are enlightened as to what is going on have a calling or duty to change the ways of others. Unfortunately for you a great portion of the population is like myself and don’t care about your cause. In the off chance you can get someone to change their abusiveness of the environment by 10% you will have five more people to deal with needing that same amount of change in habits. My solution to you is that if you truly believe in your cause and that ultimate tragedy is unavoidable then you have to take matters into your own hands. A purging of all the non believers and the disposal of all of the undesirable peoples in the path of your goal must be dealt with in the most severe of ways. While walking the path of righteousness, whilst cleansing the planet of its infidels you may at some point realize that you too are part of the problem and that after your work is complete you will be finally able to make the most glorious of sacrifices and put an end to your destructive ways as well. To some this may sound severe, but you can’t let them cloud your judgment with blasphemes lies. Salvation of the planet rests in the elimination of human life. Only then will the planet be capable of returning to the way it was prior to our ways.
I would recommend something viral

BTW this is exactly what I hear when I listen to you nut jobs preach about the environment. You sound like a crusader or jihadist. To be truthful I see no downside to global warming. Extreme weather? Please, I live in the middle of a continent; weather doesn’t get much more extreme without going to a higher latitude. Three degrees warmer? Half of this winter was below zero this year, maybe it won’t cost so much to heat my frickin’ house. Oceans rising killing off polar bears? I don’t care. Now this doesn’t mean that we need to be dumping toxins into rivers, or that we should all be bicycling to work. Moderation needs to be exercised no matter what. Even without the figuring environmental factors the conservation of resources is a good plan but unrealistic. The only thing I agree with in the previous paragraph is that we have become so large in number that it is becoming a problem. Who knows what the limit of technology is. Fifty years ago they would have said our current population would be unsustainable. At some point we will become too many.
People say we have to relieve our dependency on petroleum. Good luck. There isn’t one single thing that is in front of me that isn’t effected by oil. It was either made from, contained in, transported by, or made with energy from oil. There are so many lies that are spewed out by the media and our politicians and is truly is impossible to wade through the lies to find the truth. Remember that movement means motive.

Karl
They were right 50 years ago.

I can agree to the two last sentences Karl wrote. As for the first part.. You should look a bit into the consequences of global heating or freezing. It is very scary stuff and just as bad as your idea about "offing" large parts of the population. Puts your post in a bit of a funny light when we know which parts of the population are consuming the lions share of the resources. Myself included..

Yeah, that whole thing hit my household for an hour one night too. After nearly killing myself trying to get around the house in the dark, I remarked how the energy saved by turning off the lights for one silly hour will easily be offset by additional energy used taking x-rays of broken toes and feet around the world.

(PS - the TV's stayed on).

Just picked up a couple of candle lantern's at REI today. Will use to heat our two person tent at the Youth Sailing campout at Potholes State Park this weekend. Looks like we will have about 50 kids, 6 Waves, and 4 Tigers. Night time temperature 32 deg F. Will let you know how it works out.

Worked fine when I was in the Army, but that was before we had Global Warming.

Caleb

Watched a very good documentary last night, about crude oil, what it is, how it is formed and what it does. Was well worth the hour and a half spent in front of the TV: Crude - The incredible journey of oil http://www.abc.net.au/science/crude/

Read an article that stated that the average temp has not increased in the last 10 years. They also said that Gore no longer calls it "Global Warming" but "Climate Change".

Also the ice shelf that broke off in Antartica is a normal occurance and the reports don't mention the vast areas of "new" ice formed in Antartica.

Someone is not telling the truth or at least omitting some of it... <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Clayton

Clayton and others.

The documentary I linked to is really worth to watch. It explains what oil is and how the "oil"-cycle works. It gives a good understanding of the mechanisms of what we debate here.

Yes, and yet another reminder about how much we really do need to kick the fossil fuels addiction. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

That means turning our lives back about 200 years. Good luck. Say goodbye to everything you like, and prepare to work your butt off and die young. Probably from starvation before anything else.

That would be great! But maybe only 100 years back. I wish I had been born when my parents were. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

EXCELLENT ARTICLE. That IPCC Group I have been suspicious of from Day 1. Any group that large that claims a consensus worries me # 1 and # 2 looking at the people involved in the organization made me skeptical with so many of them in fields that would have NO REASON to dabble in the climate change arena. Other than for grants and free money that is. Have you seen some of the requests for grants and what the proposed areas for study are? It seems that anyone that wants money to study something simply throws in that it has something to do with Climate Change and it's a given. The effects of toothpaste on newts and salamanders given a Climate Change environment. NO LIE, that was one proposed Grant Request to the Smithsonian.

Mark me down on the side that AL Gore and his ilk, promote this crap in order to gain worldwide acclaim and will say and do ANYTHING to foster it's continued existence.

Greg

Correct me if I am wrong but both fiberglass boats and rotomolded boats are petroleum based. Hell, is the kevlar, carbon, mylar, dacron in our sails. Petroleum usage has been around much longer than most people recognize, just not for fuels for cars.

Exactly the point. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Guess it is back to wooden boats. BTW do not use the candle lanterns in your car, even if you have the windows partly open.

Seems like a lot of people believe we should not even try to change, becouse it is so bothersome. I think this is part of the reason so many choose to believe the relatively few scientists going against the commonly accepted theories on what is happening just now.
It is interesting to see how little interest there is in trying to understand the "other side". It is also interesting to see how opinions differ from country to country. You in the USA seem to be more opposed to global warming and CO2 theories than others. We also have some people sharing your point of view here in Norway, mostly on the far right side politically. I think it is fair to say that the USA politically is to the right of Norway, so perhaps what we choose to believe is a political matter. Whoose propaganda do you choose to believe, or rather who are telling the thruth and who are running propaganda shows.. When enough studies are released and 98% of them comes to the same conclusion, I think it is a pretty good indicator.

I had a look at the "hockey stick" graph and I think the author is very much right in his critique. However a 1000 years are not a long time in a geological perspective.
I dont think anybody are going to deny that earth have been both very much warmer and very much colder than today? It took nature a very long time to produce and process all the CO2 leading to these varmer and colder periods so the cycle took many, many thousands of years. In the 100 years since the industrial revelution, we have burnt about half of the earths liquid oil and released the same amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. Considering that oil really is captured sunlight, nurturing living organisms producing CO2, which died and was through time turned into oil by capturing CO2, heat, pressure etc., we are spending stored sunlight. Burning this "stored sunlight" we release the CO2 which was captured back then. We know CO2 in the atmosphere will raise the temperature, so we are helping the CO2 cycle along. The remaining question is why the organisms which today is oil died, at the same time, in a geological timeframe.. Nature needs thousands and thousands of years to produce the amount of CO2 we humans have released in a hundred years, do the math and the picture is pretty clear to me.


And nothing wrong with that. We are building ourself Blade F16s in wood just now. Expect them to last longer than a foam/glass sandwich..
As long as you dont burn hydrocarbons, like in an engine, the CO2 is not released into the atmosphere. Need to find other materials for glues and fibers when we run out of oil, but we can do that.

Hi Rolf (and others),

This will be the last time I bump this topic up, as I really should be re-stitching my tramp etc. in preparation for the ice to come off the lake.

If you liked the hockey stick article, the author co-wrote a book called "Taken By Storm - The Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming". Highly recommended reading, whether you agree with their connclusions or not. I laughed out loud repeatedly throughout the book.

I would challenge anyone to read this book all the way through, and then come back and express support for Kyoto or Kyoto-like treaties.

Cheers,
Al

Ps. They do address your carbon dioxide argument above in the chapter "Flat Beer".

Oh, I was going to add "not that we shouldn't be conserving wildlife habitat and minimizing waste in a reasonable manner". After all, that's why we sail vs. owning a PWC, right?

Rolf, I'll admit that I'm a "right leaner" in my beliefs, HOWEVER that has NO bearing on my beliefs with regards to climate change. What does cause me to think the way I do is my education as an engineer. I didn't take what the IPPC said and just run with it. I read it, digested it and for me 1+1 didn't equal 2. After MUCH more (and continued) reading on the subject it became VERY apparent to me that we we're being fleeced. Sadly there are a LOT of sheep here in this country but there are also a lot of us that don't follow the crowd and prefer to form our own decisions. That is the reason that a lot of people here don't believe, we've read and formed opinions based on scientific facts.

I don't want to talk too much about the science, however simply put the data does NOT support man made change. All the data shows that CO2 LAGS temperature, i.e. temp goes up and CO2 goes up after the fact. Here's the science behind that... Solar activity increase, planets in the solar system warm (check out the data a/b mars warming). Since the solubility of gases in liquids decreases as temp increases, more gas comes out of solution, hence CO2 concentrations rise. Now we HAVE contributed to that rise, however the single largest repository for CO2 on the planet is (drum roll please) THE OCEAN. More CO2 goes into/out of the ocean than any other source or sink. There are way too many holes in the THEORY of anthropological GW for it to hold much water. The mathematical impropriety of the hockey stick graph really chaps my butt.... How can you do what he did with regards to that data and be as widely accepted as it WAS???? [censored]

I don't doubt that pollution contributes to gw. But I am increasingly skeptical of the degree. Your point about the relationship to the solubility of gases and temperature is well taken. It is difficult for me to apply things learned in a high school chemistry lab. to the entire planet. Thank you.

Clean must be better than dirty, else why would we bother to bathe? If carbon credits can't be implemented, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120796372237309757.html?mod=hpp_us_inside_today, then we need to clean things up at the source of pollution.

GW aside, I like my fish without mercury or tumors.

If we didn't bathe, we wouldn't be putting all that dirt into what ultimately is our water supply system. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
And think about it: We are washing off lots of skin cells and bodily fluids, so we are creating literally a "soup" of commingled DNA. If somebody took a sample of that wastewater, I wonder what kind of creature they could create in a test tube. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

Hmmm, now that I think about it, maybe that's how God came up with human beings. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Mary, that sounds like something for "Mythbusters!"

No, that sounds like ridicule..

Rolf, are you saying that I am ridiculing something?
On the contrary, I was just rationalizing for not bathing very often, because thereby I am not contributing to pollution of the environment. Every time I take a bath or a shower I feel guilty. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

Jeez..

In many parts of the world, and even many parts of the United States, water is a more precious (and important) commodity even than oil.

Many of the places we have lived have relied upon wells for water and septic tanks for sewage. So we have learned to be very careful about how much we take in and how much we put out.

Too much information, Mary <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

Bored, pot stirring!

Hey, if you have lived on a boat or in a motorhome, you know what it's all about. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

Mary, you are absolutely right.
I've lived on a boat for a few years and the amount of water we used then was so little compared to what i use in my home today (daily shower, dishwasher, washing machine, etc).
Although I am very fond of my daily shower (and so are my colleagues!) <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> I do not always think it is good for the body, in fact I remember one sailor (Mike Golding) say that if you go without washing your hair for a few days it restores all the natural oils that shampoo "destroys".

I didn't wash my hair for a week once. I rinsed, but used no soap to test that theory. I didn't like the result. It felt gross, but I'm also OCD type that washes his hands all the time, and showers at least once a day.

don't joke about what goes down the drain. There IS evidence that the medicines we take end up in surface water and impact wild life.

Now, back to the topic at hand.

I was just reading an article a/b GW and had this thought. What if we were in a significant cooling period and CO2 was going up? Say the current C02 warms argument never happened. Would we see scientists and politicians out there rationalizing how CO2 COOLS the planet?