Earth has cooled, researchers say

[cyyz]

Stop wasting, start recycling, encourage your government to stop protecting elite industries and allow for a fair market so that other greener energy sources can create jobs and stimulate the economy.

Penn and Teller did a BS episode on that.

It causes more pollution to recycle, you get a garbage truck to pick up trash another one to pick up bottles another truck to pick up composite and another one to pick up boxes.

These four trucks are all creating harmful emissions.
Then no one has a recycling plant in their city so those 4 trucks now need to drive to 4 different sites far away in butt fark no where again creating more pollution.

The recycling plant, is an incinerator/melter, that's right they melt recycling into rolls, so those plants give off pollution.

The only thing worth recycling is aluminum as it is a non-renewable resource.

Trees(paper) comes from tree farms, by recycling, tree farms go out of business no new trees are planted, so by recycling you're actually creating a shortage on TREES. That's right the things that give us clean air stop being planted because you're recycling....

Nuclear Plants, again, they'd need 100 to power North America for 1000 years. The tree huggers don't want nuclear plants, so we have coal generators, guess what, coal generators are BAD.

Not Penn and Teller, but just an "opinion" but if all of North America stopped it's consumption of fuels, guess what, our 400 million people pale in comparison to China who will have 1 billion cars sucking up gas and polluting, they're economy is so strong because of their industry, so if we shut down every factory, Canada still wouldn't meet it's Kyoto promise, but apart from that you'd have China and India burning away.

When the doctor tells you you need to....

So maybe instead of jumping on that "lets go green " band wagon, we should actually become a better economical force, produce some friggin funds for proper scientists to figure out a way to reverse all our woes with technology, rockets, gasses, whatever, but not on stupid studies...

Cause when the doctor tells you something, he doesn't tell you to stop, he tells you oh we'll need to give you these pills for this problem and that problem, operate for this and that, not give me a study....

Find a cure and a real solution not a study...

China and india will continue to pollute negating every little effort(in reducing) we make so how about we build up our own economies so we can afford a cure, build bio-domes, rockets, gasses, moving the earth or what have you. To END/Eliminate the problem...

[corporate joe]

It's about a lot more than recycling. But I don't have the courage to even start tackling this issue of what can be done and what should be done, because that is a far more complicated issue. If something as simple as getting some people to understand that global warming is real is this complicated, there is no way I even dare discussing the next steps.

Scientists ARE looking for alternatives and solutions to the problem. This is not just about observation. Obsvervation is the first step and that step is complete. Afterwards, what we need to do is to stop making it worst by pumping more CO2 in the atmosphere, and to remove the monopoly the fuel industry has on this world's economy (so may argue the monopoly extends beyond economics and trickles down into politics), so our "free market" can become free again, that way alternative sources of energy and solutions can actually have a chance of becoming competitive before being killed in the womb.

However, so much energy is wasted on proving the fact because mainly of the resistance of a select few industries and some individuals who end up hurting our economy as a whole. It is a little known fact that the millions of dollars of funding the oil industry put forth to try and prove that global warming was not real, played a big role in the amount of research done, and finally in the amount of data scientists have to back up their claims, because of all the funding the oil industry pumped into the research trying to disprove it. Today, even they don't deny it anymore.

I have said it once and I'll say it again, the first step is to stop denying.

[the_professor]

Again you prove the point I am trying to make, that the camp of denyers is a camp filled with simplistic non scientific views and beliefs, and populated with irrational ignorance. (which is quite unfortunate for those who are skeptic but not properly informed and who truly are trying to educate themselves).

The camp of those who do not believe the theory (I will not do an injustice to the Holocaust victims and survivors by using your pathetic "denyers" term, which was previously used almost exclusively with regard to that tragedy) include reputable climatologists like Tim Ball and a host of other climate scientists.

They have legitimate data that refutes and/or contradicts the paranoia being spread by those cited by Gore, and people like you. These people are not armchair Internet quarterbacks or crackpots. They have decades of experience in their field, and certainly have a much better understanding of the evidence that you or I ever will.

Don't waste your time trying to discredit Ball and others in your follow-up post. I won't buy it, and nor will anyone else who has legitimate doubts about this. It is a free country, and we're not all required to share your opinion.

Find something else to type a 10,000 word essay about.

[corporate joe]

Ah yes Tim Ball. He's well known in the scientific circles. Actually he's ridiculed.

"Ball's particular niche is the argument that since 1940, the world's climate has actually been cooling. The conclusion of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, reached by over 2,000 climate scientists, that the world is heating up is wrong, he says, because it used "distorted records."

Undistorted records in hand, Ball is promoted by the National Center for Public Policy Research ($225,000 from Exxon Mobil), and Tech Central Station (which also receives support from General Motors). He's a hot topic on the Coalblog web site, sponsored by the coal companies. "

http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2006/05/02 ... alWarming/


His "studies" are ancient and have been completely disproven many times. Actually to be more accurate he has never done any studies, he is only quoting out of date ones.

So, for every one "scientist" claiming global warming is a doubt there are 2000 contradicting him. The are also scientists claiming the earth is flat, but they are an isolated minority. Just as there are shady scientists that claim global warming is still a doubt, and just as they are an isolated minority. Yet the overwhelming and crushing majority holding all the most recent data and evidence is all on the side of global warming. So, what's the rational argument for ignoring thousands of scientists and their up to date studies, but believing a small shady minority who's arguments have all been proven wrong.

[Hedley]

So, you're saying the truth can always be derived using the majority votes of scientists?

Using your own example, years ago all the scientists believed that the earth was flat. Using your logic of majority votes, the earth really was flat.

Hold it. The earth really isn't flat. Something's wrong with your reasoning.

[corporate joe]

So, you're saying the truth can always be derived using the majority votes of scientists?

Using your own example, years ago all the scientists believed that the earth was flat. Using your logic of majority votes, the earth really was flat.

Hold it. The earth really isn't flat. Something's wrong with your reasoning.

No Hedley that's not my reasoning. We need to act, yet we will never have a complete and utter unanimous decision. So what do we do? Stand there and let the boat sink?

In the past, it was "belief" that made the majority think the earth was flat, not data or research. This is not an accurate comparison. The science was wrong once argument can not apply mainly because there wasn't such a methodology at the time but mostly because this is the first time in man's history that such an extensive research is done, that so much data is gathered. Do you prevent yourself from getting inside a plane, because a plane in the past has crashed? If we used that logic in science we could never discover anything new ever again, because all someone would have to say is: you were wrong before, maybe you are wrong again. If all it takes for someone to deny any findings is one scientist claiming doubt, we'd never get anywhere and get anything done. Think of it as a house of commons where one vote cancels any actions.

The majority argument serves a purpose in this case for those who can not and will not read the evidence per say to draw their own conclusions. The overwhelming majority serves to show how irrational and dangerous is it to not act. There are probably still doctors out there who claim smoking is not dangerous. Yet, we use the majority argument in that case to allow those of us who are not doctors to know who to believe.

So, on one side there is a ton of empirical data and research and on the other there is almost nothing. Who should the non-scientist believe?

Also, remember this is critical because of the consequences of being wrong. With the amount of evidence gathered, it's a stupid risk to take, there is no other way around it.

It pretty much boils down to this:

Option A) keeping going on this path, while our air gets dirtier, our rivers become polluted and RISK screwing up our species and our climate, all while allowing a few select industries to get richer (at the expense of others)

Option B) change our heading, clean up our act, our environment and our lives, and allow alternative technologies to rise and stimulate our economy, all while maintaining a balance between city comfort and woods comfort (by that I mean having the amenities in cities, while having the option to have a clean enough river to go fishing on the weekend).

Seriously, why is it such a big deal?

[the_professor]

"Ball's particular niche is the argument that since 1940, the world's climate has actually been cooling. The conclusion of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, reached by over 2,000 climate scientists, that the world is heating up is wrong, he says, because it used "distorted records."

Undistorted records in hand, Ball is promoted by the National Center for Public Policy Research ($225,000 from Exxon Mobil), and Tech Central Station (which also receives support from General Motors). He's a hot topic on the Coalblog web site, sponsored by the coal companies. "

<yawn>

If Ball is part of a giant oil company conspiracy, as you suggest every time I bring up his name, then David Suzuki is part of a giant Greenpeace conspiracy. That organization is replete with communists and anarchists and G-8 haters, and would like nothing more than to see all industry wiped off the face of the earth.

So there. My guy is a puppet for the oil companies, and your guy is a puppet for the communists. Why does that make your "evidence" any more credible than that presented by the scientists I mention?

[corporate joe]

"Ball's particular niche is the argument that since 1940, the world's climate has actually been cooling. The conclusion of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, reached by over 2,000 climate scientists, that the world is heating up is wrong, he says, because it used "distorted records."

Undistorted records in hand, Ball is promoted by the National Center for Public Policy Research ($225,000 from Exxon Mobil), and Tech Central Station (which also receives support from General Motors). He's a hot topic on the Coalblog web site, sponsored by the coal companies. "

<yawn>

If Ball is part of a giant oil company conspiracy, as you suggest every time I bring up his name, then David Suzuki is part of a giant Greenpeace conspiracy. That organization is replete with communists and anarchists and G-8 haters, and would like nothing more than to see all industry wiped off the face of the earth.

So there. My guy is a puppet for the oil companies, and your guy is a puppet for the communists. Why does that make your "evidence" any more credible than that presented by the scientists I mention?

Well, let's see. The fact the Ball is on an island isolated with proof of funding (no conspiracies, just funding).

Suzuki (where did he come from?) and all of the other scientists are on the continent.

So, one guy claiming one thing, all whilst being incapable of disproving anything that constitutes the science of global warming, and on the other hand thousands of guys with data and facts to back up their claims.

Is that a good enough reason?

PS : greenpeace communist conspiracy? Napoleon at his best!

[Rockie]

So, you're saying the truth can always be derived using the majority votes of scientists?

Using your own example, years ago all the scientists believed that the earth was flat. Using your logic of majority votes, the earth really was flat.

Hold it. The earth really isn't flat. Something's wrong with your reasoning.

Scientists didn't believe the earth was flat, the church did. And back then the church ruled the roost and anybody disagreeing was harshly dealt with. But inevitably science prevailed and we now have a round earth.

The overwhelmingly prevailing scientific opinion today is that we are contributing to global warming and that it is a very bad thing. If we do what the scientists recommend and it turns out they were wrong, we will have cleaned up the earth, ensured permanent ecological survival, greatly increased living standards all over the world and eliminated our dependence on fossil fuels.

On the other hand if we do nothing and the global warming denyers are wrong, we probably kill billions, displace billions more, ruin our planets ecology for a really really long time and maybe even threaten the survival of our species.

Let me think about this for a minute...

[goates]

Scientists didn't believe the earth was flat, the church did. And back then the church ruled the roost and anybody disagreeing was harshly dealt with. But inevitably science prevailed and we now have a round earth.

Even then, only a few Christians opposed the spherical Earth idea. The modern misconception that no one before Columbus thought it was spherical apparently began with an American author by the name of Washington Irving in the 1800s. From there it was taught in US schools to the point that most Americans, and Canadians too, believed Irving's story. Apparently elsewhere people find this rather amusing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth (I know it's Wikipedia, but it is a decent summary...)

Now back to your regularly scheduled global warming "debate"...

[xsbank]

Warming, cooling, who cares. What is wrong with this planet is it is too crowded - there is simply too many of us.

How do you generate hydrogen? You need electricity. We are still making electricity with coal. Everyone use low-energy bulbs? They contain mercury. Battery-powered cars? Batteries contain toxic components and need to be charged by another fuel source. Organic food growing practices? Might be unable to feed the third world without huge food price hikes. Wind energy? Changes the pattern of the winds and causes temperature changes due to the law of conservation of energy. Use larger fish boats to catch more fish and conserve energy? Fish caught faster than they can reproduce.

I don't happen to agree with 'global warming' and I do know how to read. I also don't happen to believe that 'scientists' have the knowledge, the understanding or the right to frighten us with their latest funding issue. Eat eggs. Don't eat eggs. Don't get fat, you'll have a heart attack. Get fat, you'll survive an attack better. Eat milk. Don't eat saturated fats. Don't drink wine. Drink red wine.

Its all pop science and dovetails nicely into the scare-of-the-week and I don't buy it. Yes, China and India are scary, but we cannot stop them. The only way to stop them is an exogenous shock like a plague or a natural disaster. Humans are greedy and all the small dicks in China want what the small dicks have here, BMWs.

Most 'scientists' can't predict the weather for 24 hours or less. My mother's weather knowledge is always right. She says "I can see Vancouver Island, it's going to rain; I can't see Vancouver Island its raining.

Scientists change their tune weekly. We cannot even control a beetle infestation here - how the f*ck can you expect our 'scientists' to stop anything bigger? Most of the changes I've made in my life that might benefit us for 'global warming' also benefit me financially - that might be a clue, although recycling only takes effort.

I'm sceptical, cynical and completely ignoring newspapers and radio and tv news and much happier, thank you. Although you can be rational, C.J., you are becoming increasingly fanatical and I think you should take a week off the newspaper and watching tv and even posting here and see if you feel less frantic.

Fanaticism is scary. See exhibit A: Taliban

[Dash-Ate]

Fanaticism is scary. See exhibit b: christians in the USA


Is this a picture of headley on vacation checkin out the locals?

[the_professor]

we will have cleaned up the earth, ensured permanent ecological survival,

That's funny. The dinosaurs weren't polluters, and yet something wiped them off the face of the earth. Along with the Wolly Mammoth and a shitload of other creatures that have been unable to adapt to a world that is in a permanent state of change, regardless of our influence.

Your claim of ensuring permanent ecological survival has no legs.

[U/S]

I thought the world was supposed to be destroyed years ago by irrefutable evidence of acid rain?

[Rockie]

we will have cleaned up the earth, ensured permanent ecological survival,

That's funny. The dinosaurs weren't polluters, and yet something wiped them off the face of the earth. Along with the Wolly Mammoth and a shitload of other creatures that have been unable to adapt to a world that is in a permanent state of change, regardless of our influence.

Your claim of ensuring permanent ecological survival has no legs.

Excuse me. Perhaps I should have said "we at least wouldn't be resonsible for our downfall", as the dinosaurs weren't resonsible for theirs. That better?

[Rockie]

we will have cleaned up the earth, ensured permanent ecological survival,

That's funny. The dinosaurs weren't polluters, and yet something wiped them off the face of the earth. Along with the Wolly Mammoth and a shitload of other creatures that have been unable to adapt to a world that is in a permanent state of change, regardless of our influence.

Your claim of ensuring permanent ecological survival has no legs.

Excuse me. Perhaps I should have said "we at least wouldn't be resonsible for our downfall", as the dinosaurs weren't resonsible for theirs. That better?

[the_professor]

we will have cleaned up the earth, ensured permanent ecological survival,

That's funny. The dinosaurs weren't polluters, and yet something wiped them off the face of the earth. Along with the Wolly Mammoth and a shitload of other creatures that have been unable to adapt to a world that is in a permanent state of change, regardless of our influence.

Your claim of ensuring permanent ecological survival has no legs.

Excuse me. Perhaps I should have said "we at least wouldn't be resonsible for our downfall", as the dinosaurs weren't resonsible for theirs. That better?

Not really, because it has not been proven that pollution will cause our demise. Not in my mind, anyway. But you guys go ahead and keep laying awake at night worrying about it. Worry for me while you're at it, because I don't lose sleep over knee-jerk bandwagon science.

[xsbank]

What I said.

[Rockie]

That's funny. The dinosaurs weren't polluters, and yet something wiped them off the face of the earth. Along with the Wolly Mammoth and a shitload of other creatures that have been unable to adapt to a world that is in a permanent state of change, regardless of our influence.

Your claim of ensuring permanent ecological survival has no legs.

Excuse me. Perhaps I should have said "we at least wouldn't be resonsible for our downfall", as the dinosaurs weren't resonsible for theirs. That better?

Not really, because it has not been proven that pollution will cause our demise. Not in my mind, anyway. But you guys go ahead and keep laying awake at night worrying about it. Worry for me while you're at it, because I don't lose sleep over knee-jerk bandwagon science.

Thankfully there are people with influence who do think about these things and countless other problems as well so that you don't have to. You can go back to sleep.

[cyyz]

My favorite time happens when they all fly over the globe to some convention centre and do a meeting on their findings, and they all display their reports and data...

Funny how all these "scientists" and supporters and fighters for a green earth, left their 30 room heated/air conditioned homes(susuki/gore) all jumped into a 1000lb/min burning private jets, took a cab to the hotel, filled all the hotels, restaurants and printed alot of paper for their convention.

When they could have all stayed home done the meeting over web-phone/camera and used e-files....

Live Earth 8 or whatever the latest one was, was a brilliant example of how the lemmings all work to craete a "greener earth" only did a few Euro bands express concern that the stages lighting was enough energy consumption to light a town for a year and refused to be part of a movement that was so detrimental to their own cause....

When you see an obese surgeon general telling you a big mac is bad for you and goes to BK for a whopper you got to wonder...

When the suzuki's and the gores tell you global warming is bad, and they all fly in their private jets(flying in general is bad) from their heated/air conditioned mansions you got to wonder(and this has been mentioned).

Also the sign that says "conserve energy" that lights up 10 blocks with lumination at night provided by some group, you have to wonder who's at the helm for all these activists/lobby groups...

"Do as I say but not as I do... " mentallity...

The guy getting paid by the oil companies driving a car is more credible atleast because he's doing and saying the same thing..

[Rockie]

So Al Gore has no credibility, so what. So my doctor says I shouldn't smoke but he does, so what. It's the message, not the messenger. If you refuse to heed a message just because you don't much like the messenger how smart is that?

If I tell you to jump off a bridge just before I do, what are you going to do? Follow me because I have no credibility in not jumping off bridges? Even Jack Layton has had good ideas in his life although none come to mind just now. But when he has one should we reject it just because of who came up with it. Not very smart if you ask me.

[cyyz]

If I tell you to jump off a bridge just before I do, what are you going to do? Follow me because I have no credibility in not jumping off bridges?

So my doctor says I shouldn't smoke but he does, so what. It's the message, not the messenger

Even Jack Layton has had good ideas in his life although none come to mind just now. But when he has one should we reject it just because of who came up with it. Not very smart if you ask me.

Ummm, the lemmings do follow the politicians global activists, etc. Penn N Teller, BS episode PITA, they got hundreds of people to sign their petition banning H20 at the rally...

Atleast we the few with opinions, right or wrong atleast have opinions... The others guys who slam everyone else as "deniers" non-believers and now those who are tarnishing their messengers message as wrong yet follow blindly are the pawns the same pawns that elected a certain WWII regime... You tell them to jump they will, they're almost as dumb as the guys who blow themselves up for 72 virgins...

It's not the message, it's the messanger, I don't know about anyone else, but when I see a rich liberal/ndper wanting to raise taxes for the homeless while he's living in rosedale in a 5 million dollar 20 room house I have to wonder... He wants to help the homeless he can put them up...

It's been noted that if we had a pay tier system, no one would pay for social programs, because they don't use or want them... So it's some rich yuppy who forces the rest of us to pay, while he doesn't do or support his own propaganda...

If Jack had a "great" idea we wouldn't listen, they're NDPers, notice even simpsons, and the capitalists will tell you "communism looks great and works great in.... theory..."

Well guess what.... If it's so great in theory, why aren't all our banks, corporations, politicians, etc trying to go the way of communism, I mean no more poor, no more starving, everyone is an equal, no more glass ceilings, no more pollution cause we all ride the train to work.....

If your doctor tells you to stop drinking and yet drinks himself, don't you ask him "why do you drink???" Guess what these tree huggers are lemmings, they don't ask anything of their fearless leaders they follow blindly....

Maybe if you asked him he'll say, "well yes, it'll shorten my life by 1 year but I'll have a happier life for 40 years, and actually timmy, a happier life means a healthier one so actually doing that one bad thing may actually increase my life...."

So lets see, buying a "green" car at an extra 50k mark up or riding a bike from peel region down to Toronto, lets see, spend an extra 50k go more into debt, stress, wake up at 1am so you can be at work for 8am with the bike, leave at 4pm get home at 10pm on your bike...

Lets see global warming = zero, but you die 20 years sooner, because of stress, no sleep, no free time, and you probably die 50 years sooner because a car will hit you...

Or you can drive your car from Peel down to Toronto in 30 minutes have 8 hours more productivity at home and doing other stuff, you can buy a cheap car and now you don't have so much debt now you don't work 8-4 but 10-4...

So yeah, we're killing the earth, mean while every other human on this planet is doing the same.. If the earth dies, it won't be today or tommorrow, it'll be in hundreds of years, think of your "great, great great great grand children" lets see WWI, WWII, Korea, Nam, 9/11, IraqInII, Iran and NK on the way, please, I don't need to be worrying about great great great because I'd be surprised if my great great make it to the planet.....

I got the message, but it doesn't concern me, won't be around in 1000 years, and thats why your messenger drives around in a lincoln, flies on a private jet, because he's sending out a pointless message, and he knows he won't be around when it(may or may not) hit the fan and enjoys his free money.....

[the_professor]

Thankfully there are people with influence who do think about these things and countless other problems as well so that you don't have to. You can go back to sleep.

I was sleeping well, but then rolled over and realized that the drivel from these "influential" idiots has got the population whipped into a frenzy over climate change. Politicians, having no balls, will try to appease the population by implementing measures that will cost us money and do little for the environment. I hate being taxed to fund measures that will be totally ineffective at stopping climate change.

Saying that we can stop climate change is equivalent to saying that we could stop the ocean's tides if we all just put our minds (and government policy) into it. It is a ridiculous notion. We have no such level of control over the environment, nor will we ever.

The climate is in a permanent state of change, will always be in a state of change, and no amount of Prius drivers and compact fluorescent bulbs will change that.

PS: China is now halfway to bringing over 500 new coal-fired powerplants online this year alone. Think your compact fluorescents are going to do a damn thing now? Think again.

[corporate joe]

Same old blabber. You don't get it, you probably never will. Same old, ignorance, same old confusion between facts and opinions. Verbal diarrhea caused by mental cramps.

If you can't be educated, and if you are incapable of assimiliting new facts as they are brought to you, if you are incapable of breaking free from the dark box you were raised in, then you are no use to society, you are one of so many other "blinded by inherited beliefs" who will live in mediocrity without ever knowing anything better than what's in your backyard.

I pity you, I truly do. I get comfort knowing that you are nothing but a pawn and that your kind, even though quite annoying through man's history, always finish by being proved wrong. Then you die, and the next generation kicks in and the whole process starts again. History never learns, neither do simple minded ignorants.

With that less than eloquent reply, my days of killing time are over, time to head back home, so I am done with this thread. For now.

***passes the torch

[cyyz]

History never learns, neither do simple minded ignorants.

If we go back to circa 1200s and we all go back to our mud huts, stone castles and horse and buggies, guess what, we'll get rid of all of our pollution woes...

Some scientist in the past decided that we should "evolve" and "better ourselves."

Save energy, heck, start using candles, stop flying and ride your horse or take a viking long boat.

Wasn't al gore the "creator" of the "internet" the guy who also promotes "globalization??" Isn't globalization another step towards polluting our planet, I mean if we stopped globalizing went back to our small tribes/clans/serfdoms we'd have no more pollution...

Even his own rhetoric contradicts his beliefs...

That's the best way to save our planet tree huggers, we digress back to a stone age/bronze age type world, no more internet, no more cars, no more power plants... You guys start, we'll follow...

If you want to be true to your words you best be able and willing to make the greatest sacrifices, I mean we are talking about our planet, a planet that is only 2 minutes away from midnight....