Global Warming Thread for All GW Posts (businesses, Miami, New Hampshire)

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by Neuling

No idea where you get the idea from that anyone, be it me or what you call eco-terrorists, are in favor of killing anyone, whether proactively or otherwise. If you think so, obviously based on your utter misunderstanding of that video and activists' causes, actions and statements, you really should go and talk WITH those people rather than ABOUT them. You are really not far anymore from Tea Party members accusing Obama of being Hitler or the Antichrist

I get that idea because it is the message they send in the videos like the one we are discussing. It is the entire point to which you keep referring to as a non-issue. It is not as if this behavior or suggestions of behavior are unknown. There have been numerous statements of this subtle suggestion made by such activists and even through administrations of such. I already provided examples of such in the "tree-hugger" thread concerning the public statements concerning a tend for violence by many in this movement.

As for me talking "with" them, that presents a bit of a problem. You see, we are told the discussion is over, there is no need to talk, it is a time for action. When the science of the issue is questioned, it is met with attacks of being called a denier. I nor others can talk "with" them as they have specifically set the stage to avoid such discourse. /shrug

Originally Posted by Neuling

What you call a foolish and extreme approach doesn't seem that way at all and makes perfect sense to me. Nor is it very costly or disruptive. Most Europeans for instance use only about half the energy per capita as US-Americans. Do Europeans live in caves? Certainly not, their quality of life is basically at the same level as yours, but they achieve it in a more efficient way. If Americans reduced their consumption of energy by half, that would already be a huge progress.
Cutting back on consumption of anything always makes sense, the more so, the more consumers there are.

We have already established that your personal acceptance of an issue is not based on rational objective thought, but one to which promotes double standards, so please excuse me if I don't place any weight in your opinion as to what makes sense and what does not. The rules of your mindset are not a factor of reality.

Your claims of costs not being disruptive is easily disputed by the significant increase in expense concerning these projects. The problem is, you do not fully evaluate the costs and ignore the expense derived from costly subsidies that hide the full money sink. You also discount the chain reaction this has on economic systems in terms of outside effects of these changes. You also ignore the actual productive aspect of these suggestions because you do not evaluate their practical implementation in a functional society. The problem with your assessments is that they are half-truth conclusions that appear to be a good choice, but as I said, this is because you ignore the full truth of each assessment.

Making changes to be more efficient is noble goal and few would argue against such a direction. This however is not the point of contingency many are making concerning the choices suggested and being mandated. The solutions are poorly thought and politically motivated. They often do not even achieve the goals they set (EPA reduction on Co2 plans are shown to be pointless upon detailed evaluation, even under the perception that reducing is effective).

Rather than creating incentive's to sput leaps in technology, subsides are being used to promote failed technologies that are not capable of serving the infrastructure without demanding excessive compromises of our current ability. This is not an acceptable progression, it is often a devolution in our structure, but as has been repeated many times over by you and others within this movement, they are not concerned about anything but reducing energy and so they pay no attention to the actual legitimacy of their solutions.

Originally Posted by Neuling

While CO2 certainly is a gas that belongs in the natural air, what we add by our unnatural activities en masse is additional CO2 that would not be there without us. Thus even if it's just one percent we add to the natural concentration, it may be a problem, especially because of the speed with which we emit those gases, 100 years are nothing compared to the history of the Earth. And whether or not it is a problem, I don't want to find out the hard way. Now, if nature all by itself changes in a way that becomes a danger to humans, then at least I can die with a clear conscience

What relevance of a position is that? It makes no sense. You assume that because we contribute that it is unnatural. That somehow man is not a component of nature. Nothing we create is not already in existence within our system. We simply move it and distribute it. The process of the planet is not one of a linear progression. You make assumptions that there is a set process to which must be held to in order to achieve a balance. This is ignorance to the issue as you nor those you keep promoting as experts know how our systems truly work. As I explained, they do not know if our contributions are meaningful. You act as if man in its insignificant being can accidentally make a wrong move and the planet will break. You position is one that seems to be based on that of fictional concepts.

Originally Posted by Neuling

Regarding your accusations against Shelby and others, while most here are certainly not as obsessed with our political agenda as you are with yours (judging from the way you inundate this thread with your posts) and for that reason we are not so much into the details and thus not qualified to prove or disprove those data and charts presented by either side, readers should not forget that most real professioinal climate researchers know a hell of a lot more about all those issues than you do, are not involved in Climategate etc., and still don't share your views at all

And yet, what is this place? It is a discussion board. Also notice that all I am doing is showing that yours and others claims here are unfounded ones that appeal to an ideal in the face of the actual understanding of the issue. Your response in a single step here makes an accusation of my intent and then dismisses everyone else with nothing more than a unfounded explanation.

I have also been dealing with each point in the discussion. I can certainly provide all of the posts of those you defend to show their repeated personal attacks in previous posts. Chi made sexist comments and all three of you consistently called me a denier and made snide remarks about why I am discussing here.

Personally, I have a extreme dislike for loud mouth people who act on emotion and push ignorant claims as if they are the enforcers of a position. And so I enjoy pointing out their ignorance so people can see that simply having an opinion and being able to paste a link does not validate a position or concept. This may anger those who are used to perpetuating such garbage discourse, but I can't help it if they really are so ignorant that they do not understand the absurdity of their claims.

In the end, I have simply stated that there is no conclusion to be made, the science is not settled, and the administrations and researchers pushing such display an adherence to a bias by promoting that stance.

So which is a more reasonable position? One who demands conformity to an unproven position and attempts to constantly claim it is? Or a position that holds that there is no definitive in the issue and much more needs to be understood before conclusions are made? Which one appears more to that of a political agenda? Being skeptical of the issue is a primary component of the scientific process. Promoting conclusions without properly validating them is not. I think it is clear which is suspect of an ulterior motive.

[Neuling]

While there are radicals in every organization, I would certainly feel safer in a Peta, Greenpeace, or AGW meeting than in an American city or at a Tea Party meeting
Maybe it is an American problem, over here such organizations don't avoid dialog. But frankly, I don't even believe you when you indicate you have even tried to talk to them. I guess it is more like that you had a short discussion and they soon found out that there is no point in wasting their time on you, which I could relate to if I didn't have so much time


"We" have not established "that your personal acceptance of an issue is not based on rational objective thought, but one to which promotes double standard...", you have uttered your opinion that that is the case, which I have no problem with, still it is only your opinion. Again, you are simply not in the position to decide anything here, you are not a referee or an authority on climate research or anything else for that matter, just one of many posters with a view and an agenda he is trying to promote. All your statements that this and that is refuted and wrong and makes no sense etc. are not the verdicts of credible institutions, but only your opinions and conclusion.


Regarding humans and nature, you ignore the fact that a lot of modern human actions are fundamentally different from those of all other animals, at least since the beginning of the industrialization. For instance we are producing substances that simply do not occur anywhere in nature, most of the stuff we are surrounded by are artificial. Just because humans are the product of nature and have behaved accordingly up until recently, does not mean that our current way of life is compatible with nature as well. I do not think that our planet will break apart, but the ecosystems on it may. The Earth as a planet doesn't care if there are plants and animals on her and an atmosphere around her, it might as well be a dead ball of matter swirling in the universe. But in our own interest that can't be our position.
There have been several catastrophic events throughout the history of the Earth. It was not the events as such that caused for instance the extinction of the dinosaurs and other species, it was the long-term consequences of those events. And while those events were kind of natural, we as humans are capable of producing similar consequences by different means that are the product of our culture, for example atomic bombs and maybe even agriculture and the explosion of humans plus reduction of wildlife it has enabled.


Clearly the first in the sense of the lesser evil. The latter is the main strategy of outdated minds, saying that as not everything is fully understood yet, there is no need to act now. A dangerous approach, not worthy of humans who are one of the few species capable of anticipating consequences before they happen, even based on intuition. Your position makes lazy people that cling to what they know and have make up reasons and excuses to avoid having to change. And yes, in the long term I do think that we will have to radically change our entire economic systems and priorities, which will be a painful process, both emotionally and financially. It is just a matter of time. At the moment we are still overstaying at a party...

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by Neuling

While there are radicals in every organization, I would certainly feel safer in a Peta, Greenpeace, or AGW meeting than in an American city or at a Tea Party meeting

Of course you would, you share their views on the issue and since you conform to their views, you are accepted. That's like a white man saying he would be more comfortable at a KKK meeting than a black panthers meeting. It is an absurd statement that means absolute nothing in terms of this discussion. I am not sure why you keep wanting to bring politics into this discussion. It only serves to prove my point that you argue a political position, not one of any scientific concern.

Originally Posted by Neuling

Maybe it is an American problem, over here such organizations don't avoid dialog. But frankly, I don't even believe you when you indicate you have even tried to talk to them. I guess it is more like that you had a short discussion and they soon found out that there is no point in wasting their time on you, which I could relate to if I didn't have so much time

Really? Must I point you to the CRU with Phil Jones and the rest of his gang who were found guilty of violating an FOIA request? Might want to do a bit more reading on the issue before you start playing the Us/Them game. After all, was it not your country that tried to take over the world not once, but twice? I think it quite amusing you speak in such arrogant tones, but then... maybe that is why?

Originally Posted by Neuling

"We" have not established "that your personal acceptance of an issue is not based on rational objective thought, but one to which promotes double standard...", you have uttered your opinion that that is the case, which I have no problem with, still it is only your opinion. Again, you are simply not in the position to decide anything here, you are not a referee or an authority on climate research or anything else for that matter, just one of many posters with a view and an agenda he is trying to promote. All your statements that this and that is refuted and wrong and makes no sense etc. are not the verdicts of credible institutions, but only your opinions and conclusion.

No, you have already stated you have no problems with holding a double standard. This invalidates your opinion. That is, it is not worth the air or words it takes to express it. More clearly, it is wrong, not because I say so, but because proper logic dictates it as so. That is, unless you wish to recant your statement that you have no problem with double standards? If so, we need to revisit that specific of the discussion so you can explain how you support one position for the same reason you disregard another.

Originally Posted by Neuling

Regarding humans and nature, you ignore the fact that a lot of modern human actions are fundamentally different from those of all other animals, at least since the beginning of the industrialization. For instance we are producing substances that simply do not occur anywhere in nature, most of the stuff we are surrounded by are artificial. Just because humans are the product of nature and have behaved accordingly up until recently, does not mean that our current way of life is compatible with nature as well. I do not think that our planet will break apart, but the ecosystems on it may. The Earth as a planet doesn't care if there are plants and animals on her and an atmosphere around her, it might as well be a dead ball of matter swirling in the universe. But in our own interest that can't be our position.

And a lot of animals are yet different from others as well. As for us creating something that does not exist in nature, I will bite, but can you explain how that supports the position of Co2? Something that exists naturally already and its levels have varied greatly over the thousands of years of the earths history without any influence by man? If you want to point out a specific thing we have created that is not naturally created AND claim it is the cause, you "might" have an argument, but so far, your rebuttal does not add any support to your primary position.

Originally Posted by Neuling

There have been several catastrophic events throughout the history of the Earth. It was not the events as such that caused for instance the extinction of the dinosaurs and other species, it was the long-term consequences of those events. And while those events were kind of natural, we as humans are capable of producing similar consequences by different means that are the product of our culture, for example atomic bombs and maybe even agriculture and the explosion of humans plus reduction of wildlife it has enabled.

I saw that movie, it was fun. Now, tie it in with something that is even remotely substantiated by facts, not assumptions of such. That is, you are attempting to claim that our actions are producing the same result, but I am not an actor and you are not a director, and this isn't some Hollywood set where you are shooting your next disaster film. Notice how we come back to the same points of you actually supporting something rather than making elaborate stories about the end of the world? Try turning off the TV and coming back to reality. One must show proper support for ones claims. Its how that silly science thing works. Though... we can always redefine what science is like Trenberth did in my previous quote of his?

Originally Posted by Neuling

Clearly the first in the sense of the lesser evil. The latter is the main strategy of outdated minds, saying that as not everything is fully understood yet, there is no need to act now. A dangerous approach, not worthy of humans who are one of the few species capable of anticipating consequences before they happen, even based on intuition. Your position makes lazy people that cling to what they know and have make up reasons and excuses to avoid having to change. And yes, in the long term I do think that we will have to radically change our entire economic systems and priorities, which will be a painful process, both emotionally and financially. It is just a matter of time. At the moment we are still overstaying at a party...

Actually, what you promote is exactly why the scientific method was created. You see, as we evolved intellectually, we realized that relying on superstition and unsubstantiated claims, that it had multiple downfalls. That is, it allowed panic and groundless claims to drive society (remember the inquisition and Salem witch trials). We understood that to act out of ignorance is folly, that understating something before action is paramount to resolution.

Though I hope you don't represent your countries intellectual endeavors or we may see another revisit from Germany on the global field.

[Neuling]

It doesn't have to do with my agreeing with them, you would be just as save in those meetings as I would be. Now, if you give them a reason to think that you are only there to oppose them and fight their cause, naturally they would avoid you, just like among any humans regardless of the issue. But they would not hurt you. In such a scenario I would feel much more threated among tea party members opposed to me. Your view that activists who strongly believe in and fight for their cause would kill people opposed to their views is ridiculous. How many AGW deniers have they killed so far?

Actually, the CRU FOIA thing seems much more complicated.
Do CRU emails show FOIA wrong-doing? : Law is Cool
Apart from that it has already been established that some climate researchers don't share information as readily as they should. Still, they are a small minority, mainly those invovled in Climategate. Climate research is not limited to the US or Britain
You are trying to discredit the entire caste of climate researchers (except those few who share your views, of course) based on the behavior of a few of them. You won't succeed.
My country? I am no stupid patriot, Germany is not my country, I just happen to be born on that piece of land. If you think I have anything to do with Nazis, you are obviously a slaveholder because of the history of your country.


"No, you have already stated you have no problems with holding a double standard."
Sorry, my memory is not as good as it used to be. Can you tell me the post number where I wrote that? Sounds more like your simplified conclusion of a more complex discussion.


Some unnatural things would be cars and factories, which produce additional gases while they produce artificial stuff such as plastics. Whether those billions of tons of additional gases are a problem for the Earth (not just in terms of climate, there are many other problems the Earth is facing such as pollution) is the very question of this thread and one which we won't be able to clarify beyond doubt, which is the problem and for some people their main hope.


You keep thinking it is Hollywood, fine with me. To me it is clear that we humans have the power to destroy the world, both deliberately and incidentally. We have been doing it for a long time. It has only become a problem since the human population started to explode, thus multiplying the destruction we have always been causing ever since we stopped living as hunters and gatherers. I am not promoting that life style though, it would be a catastrophe given our numbers. We should develop a modern, yet much less invasive and material way of life. That is possible if there is the willingness. It would not only be in nature's interest, but also in our own.


Doesn't have to do with superstition. You underestimate the role of intuition, common sense, vision etc. as opposed to science. Science is relatively unimportant in everyday life. We may use stuff based on science, but in the end it is always humans with their ancient feelings, desires, visions, etc. that decide what they do with that stuff. By the way, I hope you are an atheist, otherwise your objection to superstition would be kind of inconsistent
And forget about those references to Germany, I feel more Brazilian than German. Still, Germany as a country is doing pretty well and the world might learn something from it.

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by Neuling

It doesn't have to do with my agreeing with them, you would be just as save in those meetings as I would be. Now, if you give them a reason to think that you are only there to oppose them and fight their cause, naturally they would avoid you, just like among any humans regardless of the issue. But they would not hurt you. In such a scenario I would feel much more threated among tea party members opposed to me. Your view that activists who strongly believe in and fight for their cause would kill people opposed to their views is ridiculous. How many AGW deniers have they killed so far?

This is absurd and an evasion from the issue to wallow around in political partisanship. I have no interest in continuing a discussion of such infancy.

Originally Posted by Neuling

Actually, the CRU FOIA thing seems much more complicated.
Do CRU emails show FOIA wrong-doing? : Law is Cool
Apart from that it has already been established that some climate researchers don't share information as readily as they should. Still, they are a small minority, mainly those invovled in Climategate. Climate research is not limited to the US or Britain

You are trying to discredit the entire caste of climate researchers (except those few who share your views, of course) based on the behavior of a few of them. You won't succeed.

First off, I never stated ALL climate science researchers as such, only those relevant to the issue of my point. The CRU in point and NASA is also involved in a court case with the CEI over FOIA denials. While not "ALL" are evasive as such, that point is an evasion from the issue as you attempt to accuse me of an irrational claim I did not make. The CRU is extremely important in this issue as those members of such as well as those they were working with (Schimidt of realclimate.org and NASA, Trenberth of the IPCC, Mann, Saunter, Jones, Briffa, etc...) are the key foundations to the AGW position in the IPCC. Their work and the records to which Jones (CRU) was responsible for is primarily the core for the AGW position and the rock to which the IPCC stated its "conclusions" on.

The issue is not as "complicated" as you claim. It is only complicated if one is ignorant of the facts of the issue. Jones and those directly involved were found guilty of such conduct, but the statute of limitations for them was past and so no action could be taken. The primary offenders of hoarding their information have been the key players in the AGW position. Did you know that the NSIDC also is involved in poor behavior as such? For instance, you can not obtain their daily sea ice record data specifically, they refuse to release it even when they are calling out "death spirals" concerning the ice when it turns out that there is major discrepancies in the daily data.

You make comments as if there is this vast network of independent agencies and they all individually account and provide evidence to he claim. This is extremely ignorant of the climate science field. There are a limited number of agencies collecting the data, the CRU was one of the major ones and was the central repository for global data to which was used in the IPCC. The CRU being found corrupt in this manner is not simply a small piece that doesn't make a difference. The people involved are not simply one of thousands holding the position. These people were in charge of the reports, in charge of what was accepted and what was not in the IPCC reports. These are key players and very important figures in the position of the field.

You continuously talk about "complexity" and then turn around and wipe off one of the largest contributors to the AGW position and act like it simply makes no difference? Your ignorance of the issue is showing here.

As for discrediting them, I don;'t need to. You see, while you play games of source dismissal and avoidance of the facts through political tactics to promote your view, you miss the point that it is the behavior of these particular scientists and organizations as well as the faults in their research which are discrediting them. The IPCC isn't in serious issues because of ad campaigns, but because the idiots used over 5000 pages of grey literature to which they pawned off as peer reviewed. They are in trouble because they stone walled inquiries to the problems with their research. They are being discredited by none other than themselves.

Originally Posted by Neuling

My country? I am no stupid patriot, Germany is not my country, I just happen to be born on that piece of land. If you think I have anything to do with Nazis, you are obviously a slaveholder because of the history of your country.

Yet you go on about how great Germany is and how terrible the US is? You go on about how we do everything backwards and how you and your countrymen are so enlightened, intelligent and how your systems are so much better than ours. I find that odd considering your countries contributions over the last 150 years has been genocide and war mongering.

Originally Posted by Neuling

"No, you have already stated you have no problems with holding a double standard."
Sorry, my memory is not as good as it used to be. Can you tell me the post number where I wrote that? Sounds more like your simplified conclusion of a more complex discussion.

We were talking about Hansen and his political activism (being arrested at protest rallies on the very topic he researches) and how that would be considered a conflict of interest which could lead to promotion of a bias to which you said you had no problems with and believed it was good he was getting involved.

I asked you then about how that relates to for instance those who have been funded or have worked with in some past relation oil companies and the suggestion that they were biased. You claimed Hansen was an acceptable exclusion while the others could not be trusted. I asked you to verify this point again by clarifying that you are stating a double standard and you said you were fine with that, it was your opinion.

Go back through the thread if you wish and read your own words. I am not going to chase after your poor positions quoting them back to you when you can not even properly quote myself in a discussion.

Originally Posted by Neuling

Some unnatural things would be cars and factories, which produce additional gases while they produce artificial stuff such as plastics. Whether those billions of tons of additional gases are a problem for the Earth (not just in terms of climate, there are many other problems the Earth is facing such as pollution) is the very question of this thread and one which we won't be able to clarify beyond doubt, which is the problem and for some people their main hope.

And are those gases the issue? I thought it was Co2? If it is the other gases, why are they not the driver to which this movement is placing its entire position on? Why do you claim the others as the problem, but then point to Co2? Would it not then be more appropriate to place ones case on the issue of contention? If Co2 isn't the problem, what is and why isn't it at the forefront?

Originally Posted by Neuling

You keep thinking it is Hollywood, fine with me. To me it is clear that we humans have the power to destroy the world, both deliberately and incidentally. We have been doing it for a long time. It has only become a problem since the human population started to explode, thus multiplying the destruction we have always been causing ever since we stopped living as hunters and gatherers. I am not promoting that life style though, it would be a catastrophe given our numbers. We should develop a modern, yet much less invasive and material way of life. That is possible if there is the willingness. It would not only be in nature's interest, but also in our own.

Sounds like a Marxist position to me. Humans are the problem, populations are out of control, we need to find a way to deal with it right? Well Marx though a human death gas would be a nice way to deal with it. Should we expect your bright and shiny new world to contain such solutions? I mean, they are talking about blowing people up in the video, a gas would be much more humane, kind... you know... like Marx said.

Originally Posted by Neuling

Doesn't have to do with superstition. You underestimate the role of intuition, common sense, vision etc. as opposed to science. Science is relatively unimportant in everyday life. We may use stuff based on science, but in the end it is always humans with their ancient feelings, desires, visions, etc. that decide what they do with that stuff. By the way, I hope you are an atheist, otherwise your objection to superstition would be kind of inconsistent

All observational tools to which can distort the facts, which is why science contains processes that attempt to reduce those distortions through proper testing and validation. Many things are not intuitive. Common sense can not properly explain many scientific processes and your vision.. you should know that sight is not a good way to make a valid determination if you had any grade school science courses. The eyes lie quite often in many situations which is again, why proper scientific process does not rely on your tools.

I don't mix the two, so there is no issue there. Though I know the difference between what is a belief and what is factually evident. Do you? By your last remarks of putting weight into hokey feelings and flawed human perception to ascertain fact, it seems that what you are really saying is that you don't care what the facts are, you and society will just make up what you want to believe. While I will agree that many people are guilty of such through their actions, understanding it and still promoting it... well... I think you just invalidated your position on the entire issue. That is, you just stated that you don't care about the science, you will believe that which you choose to as you choose to. And we wonder why wars start? hmmm.

Originally Posted by Neuling

And forget about those references to Germany, I feel more Brazilian than German. Still, Germany as a country is doing pretty well and the world might learn something from it.

I don't care where you are from, it is the ideal you hold to that is important. As it stands, you think like they do and you promote like they do.

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by Wicked Felina

Wow, do you actually talk like that? What a dandy (and completely aggressive) way to support your position; calling everyone who disagrees with you a liar, dishonest, devious, making "fallacious feign" (really, who the hell talks like that?), of poor behaviour, and completely devoid of actual fact. You, of course, have nothing but actual fact (is there any other kind of fact?) and are entirely devoid of an 'agenda.' Holy cow.

Are you at all capable of discussing issues without twisting everything into a personal assault? Chill out for god's sake [pun intended] ~

How about you do this first.

Go read this entire thread. Now, pay attention to the constant attacks of being called a denier, the arrogant drivel being spouted off, the accusations of intent and character being thrown around.

Do that, then you can come back to me and complain about how I am not nice to people who are devious in their discussions. I mean, get serious! /boggle

[Neuling]

You keep evading all the issues. Asking how many people those organizations you call terrorists have killed so far, is exactly on topic when you go around claiming I or other like me want to kill people. You evade telling me where I wrote exactly what you say I wrote, instead you repeat what you think I said and the words you have put into my mouth. When I write 5 lines to explain what I think, you are a unrealistic when you assume you can summarize it in one line or a half without dropping key aspects and subtle details.

You seem paranoid. There is no climate change conspiracy led by those oh evil organizations such as the IPCC. There are lots of independent climate researchers all over the world. And even those involved in the pseudo-scandal are not all wrong just because of that scandal. Their behavior has been found to be problematic and their results to be not always precise. But their findings as such have not been found to be wrong as you suggest.

Yes, indeed, I think by and large modern Germans (let alone some other countries) are way ahead of Americans in pretty much every aspect. Still, I don't identify with them. It is just a cold observation. It's like saying Maybach is the best car, but do I own or want one? Certainly not.

CO2 is one of those gases, an important one, I did not exclude it. I just mentioned that we are emitting lots of other gases as well, for instance all the methane coming from agriculture. Methane is 100s of times more active as a greenhouse gas than CO2 I read somewhere. Then there are all those sulfur gases, some of which are even toxic... The point is, our activities are a problem for nature and the Earth on many fronts. It is naive to keep staring at CO2 alone, trying to cast doubt on its consequences and then conclude there is no need for fundamental change.

Your constantly implying that I and others thinking like me are trying to kill anyone really makes you look like one of those ridiculous tea party member and Beck disciples. It's not me running around with and promoting the possession of with guns like most of your wacko countrymen and women.
Your implication that I suggest changing everything over night is also utterly wrong. I think a generation is a more realistic time frame. What I do suggest doing now is being brave enough to be honest to ourselves and rethink the long-term goals and priorities of humanity as a whole. By avoiding going green and sustainable, the US only hurts herself as other countries keep marching ahead. I think it is no coincidence that a German company is building the giant new solar power plant in California

I wrote visionS (meaning goals, objectives etc.) so why do you talk about eyes and senses? I was not talking about vision. Gee, I really am starting to doubt your senses Why am I even wasting my time with someone like you? You are a hopeless case with a dinosaur mindset. But you won't prevent your country from changing its ways, there are still progressive, wise Americans left you know, no matter how much the mob hates them

But really, since this whole discussion has become rather boring, dull, hateful, off-topic and simply pointless, you will have this thread all to yourself again from now on If you bother to respond, don't expect any reply as I will delete this thread from my favorites along with many others, 9 pages of favorites is definitely too many

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by Neuling

You keep evading all the issues. Asking how many people those organizations you call terrorists have killed so far, is exactly on topic when you go around claiming I or other like me want to kill people. You evade telling me where I wrote exactly what you say I wrote, instead you repeat what you think I said and the words you have put into my mouth. When I write 5 lines to explain what I think, you are a unrealistic when you assume you can summarize it in one line or a half without dropping key aspects and subtle details.

You are getting off point. The issue is not have you, it is that it is stated as such from a political organization. The issue is not that you will, but that the manner to which the content is displayed suggests that you want to. You call an ad of killing children who disagree with the political position of an organization comedy, I call it a message of intent, of mindset, of a personal view of those who disagree. If it were on the comedy channel, I would chalk it up to dark comedy, but this was on a political action site. There is a difference.

A terrorist organization disrupts and destroys its targets of contest. PETA has destroyed buildings, injured people in the process. That classifies that as a terrorist action. Green Peace has made statements encouraging violence to those who disagree (this was posted in the thread I mentioned to you, go look at it if you wish). And the talks on the boards and blogs at the climate sites are viscous. Now we see this video and you act confused? As I said, you don't see if because you agree with it.

Originally Posted by Neuling

You seem paranoid. There is no climate change conspiracy led by those oh evil organizations such as the IPCC. There are lots of independent climate researchers all over the world. And even those involved in the pseudo-scandal are not all wrong just because of that scandal. Their behavior has been found to be problematic and their results to be not always precise. But their findings as such have not been found to be wrong as you suggest.

I don't think a conspiracy, though I do think there is very poor behavior in many factions of the science which are allowing political influence to dominate the issue. as for your independent climate researchers, please provide them. I would love to show you how many point back to the IPCC. You keep evading all the facts I bring up concerning the issue and go off on general mention. Scared of what the details might provide or just too ignorant of them to care?

Originally Posted by Neuling

Yes, indeed, I think by and large modern Germans (let alone some other countries) are way ahead of Americans in pretty much every aspect. Still, I don't identify with them. It is just a cold observation. It's like saying Maybach is the best car, but do I own or want one? Certainly not.

*chuckle* Ahead in every aspect? I am not going to even bother. Glad you like it, I don't. I like my country. This begs the question though... what the heck are you doing on our boards trying to influence our politics? This isn't a "world board", it is a US board. Why on earth would you even want to come here? You don;t see me over on your countries board spouting off about how they are all stupid and should be like ours? Seriously, isn't this a bit narcissistic?

Originally Posted by Neuling

CO2 is one of those gases, an important one, I did not exclude it. I just mentioned that we are emitting lots of other gases as well, for instance all the methane coming from agriculture. Methane is 100s of times more active as a greenhouse gas than CO2 I read somewhere. Then there are all those sulfur gases, some of which are even toxic... The point is, our activities are a problem for nature and the Earth on many fronts. It is naive to keep staring at CO2 alone, trying to cast doubt on its consequences and then conclude there is no need for fundamental change.

But we need Co2 to live. The earth needs it. Explain exactly how it is harmful toxin as the EPA claims? Oh thats right, you can't! Remember, the EPA used the IPCC as its evidence, and the IPCC is being torn apart for all the garbage science it uses. So again, explain to us how it is toxic? Is it toxic like water is toxic? You know water can kill you from drinking too much, maybe we should ban its use as well?

The fact is, you don;t know what is a problem. Sure, you have a lot of strong beliefs, but then some people believe they can fly and that doesn't work out so well. so, lets stick to the science, which by the way is inconclusive on the issue.

Originally Posted by Neuling

Your constantly implying that I and others thinking like me are trying to kill anyone really makes you look like one of those ridiculous tea party member and Beck disciples. It's not me running around with and promoting the possession of with guns like most of your wacko countrymen and women.
Your implication that I suggest changing everything over night is also utterly wrong. I think a generation is a more realistic time frame. What I do suggest doing now is being brave enough to be honest to ourselves and rethink the long-term goals and priorities of humanity as a whole. By avoiding going green and sustainable, the US only hurts herself as other countries keep marching ahead. I think it is no coincidence that a German company is building the giant new solar power plant in California

Here we go, the poor me feigned attack. /pats you on the head

Its ok, I don't think you are trying to kill me. In fact, if you had the integrity to actually quote me rather than deviously referring to something without example, you might be able to see that is not what I said. But, we have already come to the conclusion that you do not quote because it means you actually have to have your response sitting right next to that which you are responding to to which anyone who can read can see your fallacious comments and out of context claims. Sorry, but you are propaganda pushing now.

Originally Posted by Neuling

I wrote visionS (meaning goals, objectives etc.) so why do you talk about eyes and senses? I was not talking about vision. Gee, I really am starting to doubt your senses Why am I even wasting my time with someone like you? You are a hopeless case with a dinosaur mindset. But you won't prevent your country from changing its ways, there are still progressive, wise Americans left you know, no matter how much the mob hates them

you said:

Doesn't have to do with superstition. You underestimate the role of intuition, common sense, vision etc. as opposed to science. Science is relatively unimportant in everyday life. We may use stuff based on science, but in the end it is always humans with their ancient feelings, desires, visions, etc. that decide what they do with that stuff. By the way, I hope you are an atheist, otherwise your objection to superstition would be kind of inconsistent

The bold are evaluation aspects. Vision as you are using it is irrelevant in science. Vision is a goal or future projection. That isn't science. I explained the rest, but your correction actually makes your argument less credible (if that can even be) as you disregard everything that science serves. Thanks, but no thanks... I do not want to go back to European dark ages where your tools of assessment are considered more important to establish facts than that of scientific process. Feelings, desires, visions, etc... all are irrelevant to the scientific process. You should know this right? You have had even a very basic science class have you not? The scientific method exists to avoid the errors in assessement caused by those things you think are superior.

Originally Posted by Neuling

But really, since this whole discussion has become rather boring, dull, hateful, off-topic and simply pointless, you will have this thread all to yourself again from now on If you bother to respond, don't expect any reply as I will delete this thread from my favorites along with many others, 9 pages of favorites is definitely too many

Excellent! It is about time this discussion got back to details about the science rather than pointless emotional rhetoric that is illogical and based on nothing more than unfounded claims and speculations.

Maybe delete the entire board and visit your own countries forums for a while too? That way, you could be discussing with those who are part of your system rather than invading others that are not to inject your political opinions. Just a suggestion and you might have wonderful time talking to people who can all nod heads in agreement.

[shelby93]

I would think that a topic as important as Anthropogenic Global Warming would have a more prominent place here.

I understand that most people do not have the in debt knowledge That I have- whether they are believers or otherwise.

Nothing to say here about the owners of this site that is implied to be a slap in the face- since the media reports are not that ubiquitous (but in this case they are 'told' not to say anything)- since it may offend oil companies and ad time. So much for the concept of a free and open press & media in this country these days.

But considering what we will be facing this century- if we do not begin to drastically reduce C02 emissions- the planet and human civilization is certainly hanging in the balance.

Considering that by the year 2030 the American southwest will be uninhabitable- and states like Kansas , Oklahoma, parts of Iowa, Missouri - and likely All of central and eastern Texas will be a dust-bowl- I find it enigmatic that the media fails to inform the public.

[shelby93]

Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record

The Geological Society has prepared a position statement on climate change, focusing specifically on the geological evidence (here's a pdf version of the statement (http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/webdav/site/GSL/groups/ourviews_edit/public/Climate%20change%20-%20evidence%20from%20the%20geological%20record.pdf - broken link)). The geological record contains abundant evidence on the ways Earth’s climate has changed in the past and give us vital clues on how it may change in the future. Their statement is based on geological evidence, not on recent temperature or satellite data or climate model projections. The statement is a must-read, featuring a wealth of information and many useful peer-reviewed references (my to-do list has just gotten longer). I've summarised some of their key points below:

The Earth’s temperature changes naturally over time scales ranging from decades, to hundreds of thousands, to millions of years. In some cases these changes are gradual and in others abrupt. Evidence for climate change is preserved in a wide range of geological settings, including marine and lake sediments, ice sheets, fossil corals, stalagmites and fossil tree rings. Cores drilled through the ice sheets yield a record of polar temperatures and atmospheric composition ranging back to 120,000 years in Greenland and 800,000 years in Antarctica. Oceanic sediments preserve a record reaching back tens of millions of years, and older sedimentary rocks extend the record to hundreds of millions of years.
Evidence from the geological record is consistent with the physics that shows that adding large amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere warms the world and may lead to higher sea levels, greatly changed patterns of rainfall, increased acidity of the oceans and decreased oxygen levels in seawater. Life on Earth has survived large climate changes in the past, but extinctions and major redistribution of species have been associated with many of them. When the human population was small and nomadic, a rise in sea level of a few metres would have had very little effect. With the current and growing global population, much of which is concentrated in coastal cities, such a rise in sea level would have a drastic effect on our complex society, especially if the climate were to change as suddenly as it has at times in the past.
Sudden climate change has occurred before. About 55 million years ago, at the end of the Paleocene, there was a sudden warming event in which temperatures rose by about 6ºC globally and by 10-20ºC at the poles. This warming event, called the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum or PETM, was accompanied by a major release of 1500 to 2000 billion tonnes or more of carbon into the ocean and atmosphere. This injection of carbon may have come mainly from the breakdown of methane hydrates beneath the deep sea floor, perhaps triggered by volcanic activity superimposed on an underlying gradual global warming trend that peaked some 50 million years ago in the early Eocene. CO2 levels were already high at the time, but the additional CO2 injected into the atmosphere and ocean made the ocean even warmer, less well oxygenated and more acidic, and was accompanied by the extinction of many species on the deep sea floor. It took the Earth’s climate around 100,000 years or more to recover, showing that a CO2 release of such magnitude may affect the Earth’s climate for that length of time.
When was CO2 last at today’s level, and what was the world like then? The most recent estimates suggest that between 5.2 and 2.6 million years ago, the carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere reached between 330 and 400 ppm. During those periods, global temperatures were 2 to 3°C higher than now, and sea levels were higher than now by 10 to 25 metres, implying that global ice volume was much less than today. The Arctic Ocean may have been seasonally free of sea-ice.
Human activities have emitted over 500 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere since around 1750. In the coming centuries, continued emissions of carbon could increase the total to 1500 to 2000 billion tonnes - close to the amounts added during the 55 million year warming event. The geological evidence from the 55 million year event and from earlier warming episodes suggests that such an addition is likely to raise average global temperatures by at least 5 to 6ºC, and possibly more. Recovery of the Earth’s climate in the absence of any mitigation measures could take 100,000 years or more. In the light of the geological evidence presented here it is reasonable to conclude that emitting further large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere over time is likely to be unwise, uncomfortable though that fact may be.