Is Global Warming a Sin?

[CygnusX1]

*looks for another thread to hijack*

Yeah, what's up with that? I post this article that breaks all the current political boundaries and instead of commenting on it you guys go all Beavis and Butthead on me!

Sorry dude....lemme comment.

As far as that goes, no one addressed the issue of polar icecap melting 30 years ahead of schedule. I guess that's even MORE sinful. YIKES.

I'm outtahere. I have to cash in my surplus carbon credits ASAP.

[Me]

You guys crack me up to no end with all the cockamanie anal spelunking comments.

Elf feel blessed at least they respond to your threads, mine they just ignor.

I think you need a ((((HUG)))

Surely there is more going on than industry farts. Oh, I know... there's this huge leak of the core under the sea from the crust not being able to scab over, rising the ocean's temp. creating multible heat loving orgasim's all over the world. Plus all the travel we do running after ring dings that we all crave is creating yet another cause and we all know for each cause there's going to be an equal effect.
Ya' that's it and elephant shit.

[Me]

Now this is the cause of it all

[zepboy]

I think that there will come a time, and perhaps in my lifetime, where there will be great laughter at those who got their knickers in a twist over this global warming hubbub. Personally, I think it is feuled by a major global shift in economics, not solid science.

[wcp17]

Alright, I read the article and I have a few comments, not relating to Cockburn, though i can't say I envy the man.

The first problem stems from the authors conviction that since CO2 emissions have been cut by 30% and there has been no significant drop in atmospheric CO2 levels the hypothesis that we are causing global warming must be false. It takes years for CO2 to reach the uppermost portion of the atmosphere where it becomes most effective for green house gas syndrome. If we were to cut CO2 emission's by 100% this year, the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere would continue to rise for the next 5 years as at a minimum, due to the over accumulation of CO2 already acceding from past exposure. There is also a problem with his belief that because we have cut CO2 emissions by 30% that CO2 levels should drop in the atmosphere. Though we may be lessoning the accumulation of CO2 up there, we are doing nothing to remove what is already there. CO2 lasts for quite some time in our atmosphere, therefore even if we cut back we are still adding to the overall accumulation because we are releasing SOME CO2's even if it is a reduced amount. There are currently no active projects to remove the amount of CO2 already in the atmosphere therefore it will just continue to accumulate and will be forced to dissipate on its own, which again could take years.

So his belief that our CO2 percentage should drop in the atmosphere is unsupported and unreasonable because though we have cut back emissions, CO2 from years ago are still ascending, at high rates. also just because we cut back on emission, nothing is being done to get rid of the CO2 in the atmosphere already and as a result it will continue to accumulate until it dissipates on its own.

Now that, my friends, is a Cockburn.

[ElfDude]

You're leaving out a couple of factors. The biggest one is that, as he pointed out, CO2 is a very minor greenhouse gas. The biggest is water. Compared to water, our CO2 emissions are just a few "farts in a hurricaine".

Secondly, through ice core samples, CO2 levels throughout history can be examined, just like climate changes. It's been proven that CO2 levels follow climate change. They do not precede, nor drive it.

In another thread I quoted Alan Niezabitowski:

To be called science, things must stand up under a process called ?The Scientific Method.? Three steps are involved: One, observe a phenomenon. Two, devise a hypothesis to explain the phenomenon. Three, devise a test to prove or disprove the hypothesis. If the third step proves it, you have a scientific truth. Every global warming item I have read stops at step 2 or uses an argument like ?It started at the industrial age, therefore the industrial age caused it.? This is a common fallacy in logic known as ?Post Hoc ergo Propter Hoc? (After it, therefore caused by it) which is utterly invalid as far as the scientific method goes. Flat earth theories were not abandoned because of a shift in consensus. They were disproven by step 3 of the scientific method, and our current globe earth science stands up to the method. Most pro-global warming people think the hypothesis must be true so it is true. Even when a disproving step 3 happens (there will be more violent and numerous hurricanes this year because of global warming).

I'm sure you remember that. Just last summer the media had their cameras out there on the beaches of Florida and in New Orleans waiting for the next Katrina to come along and wipe us all out... their predicted apocalypse. We were being told that because of global warming it's going to get worse and worse each year. And yet, we had no hurricanes to speak of in the United States last year.

He goes on...

When Einstein?s theory of relativity was thought to be insane, Einstein provided a step 3 method of testing it involving an eclipse and how light would behave. Things happened like he said they would, and we now accept the theory of relativity as science. The point is, if global warming theories were scientific fact, no scientist would be able to dispute it

But there are plenty of scientists who do dispute the current popular man-made global warming theories. There's still plenty to debate about, plenty to learn.

[schuette]

a silent CK whatever dude. he just tells people that.

He's Scottish, but raised in Ireland. Have you ever seen that last name, Schu?

I have seen that name over here..and to be honest I never gave it a 2nd thought when I seen it.. although I did know it was pronounced coburn so in my head that's what I read

[zepboy]

I'm kinda surprised by the fact that nobody has mentioned the number one global contributor to atmospheric CO2 . . . the Amazon rain forest! By allowing the forest to undergo late stage decomposition of organic matter, it has long since past the productive renewal stage, and the CO2 output has exceeded its oxygen replenishment rate over ten thousandfold. This has gotten to the point where many canopy dwelling species are being threatened with extinction due to unlivable conditions. This is something the wacko environmentalists refuse to accept, because their stand is based on religion, not science. If people are truly concerned about man's impact on "global warming," we should collectively stop contributing to it by allowing an Amazon clearcut.

[Big Blue Owl]

I think that there will come a time, and perhaps in my lifetime, where there will be great laughter at those who got their knickers in a twist over this global warming hubbub. Personally, I think it is feuled by a major global shift in economics, not solid science.

I truly hope you are correct. Otherwise we'll be laughing out of the other side of our pulverized faces.

I'm kinda surprised by the fact that nobody has mentioned the number one global contributor to atmospheric CO2 . . . the Amazon rain forest! By allowing the forest to undergo late stage decomposition of organic matter, it has long since past the productive renewal stage, and the CO2 output has exceeded its oxygen replenishment rate over ten thousandfold. This has gotten to the point where many canopy dwelling species are being threatened with extinction due to unlivable conditions. This is something the wacko environmentalists refuse to accept, because their stand is based on religion, not science. If people are truly concerned about man's impact on "global warming," we should collectively stop contributing to it by allowing an Amazon clearcut.

Environmentalists basing their stand on religion? That sounds like a contradiction somehow. I was sure that it was close-minded pseudo-religious people who stand on religious beliefs and put the silencing hand up to anyone who has any questions or even comments in relation to those beliefs. But environmentalists...aren't they the sinful, self-indulgent hippies who bravely give up their own bath to save a few gallons of water, etc?

[ElfDude]

Heh.

As far as me continuing to call the man-made global warming thing a religion... I don't speak disdainfully of religion, being a man of faith myself. What's getting my goat about this is the denial. If you've found your religion in man-made global warming, just admit it. Don't continue to hide behind science that has been debunked. Admit it's your religion. Mother Earth is your god, Al Gore (heh, heard him called "L. Ron Gore" the other day) is your prophet, fossil fuels are sins, and rising temperatures are your apocalypse. Admit this and I will not mock you.

Keep pointing to junk science and I'll continue to quote researchers who find the fallacies in it.

[Big Blue Owl]

The science of my junk has MUCH to do with my carbon imprint and will be discussed further in the Adult Thread

Seriously, though...how 'bout this;

We spend a billion-a-week on destruction and construction in the middle-east. I'll grant you that war is a sure thing, but if we can afford that we can afford to gamble that, even though we haven't seen it with our own eyes, the videos of the icecaps melting and disintegrating are real. That ocean warming is scientifically measurable, etc., etc. It's probably a good investment.

And think of the energy, lives and pollution we could save if we got out of Iraq! We'd save Iraqis millions alone on IED construction and detonation!

China and India are still hold-outs, but will try to quickly jump on the train once it's rolling. I'm glad that, even though we dragged our heals at first, we, as a nation, are finally on board.

Oh, and Zep really made me snarf when he said to help with global warming by slicing down the rainforest

[ElfDude]

It's probably a good investment.

Well... that remains a topic for debate. I'm going to quote a professor of philosophy (from another forum in which I hang out) on this same topic.

Well, here's why: because it has costs. Producing more energy-efficient cars is costly, cutting down on total energy use is costly, changing from one form of fuel to another is costly, etc.

Let's suppose we knew for sure that unless we cut emissions by 50% next year, we're all going to die. In that case, it would be worth almost anything to cut emissions, and so we'd take on really high costs, more or less stopping the world economy and cutting production drastically to prevent the disaster.

Suppose we lived in a world where emissions had no effect at all on the environment, and oil was cheap and abundant everywhere. In that world, it would be bad to try to change from oil-based energy to something else. After all, the many billions spent on this needless change (as it would be needless in this imagined world) should have instead been spent on something else, like curing AIDs or even buying DVDs.

Now, even if we don't live at either of these extremes, the basic point is the same. We need to have a good idea of how dangerous our pollution is, or otherwise we can't make a rational calculation of what we should do, because we don't know how to measure the relative value of our opportunity costs.

You wouldn't buy insurance that protected you from being murdered by alien invaders. But there is logically possible that you will be killed by aliens. Still, it would be nutty for you to pay a high premium to be insured for this. You should instead spend the money on your kids braces, a new car, give it to Oxfam, or whatever. But it is reasonable to pay for expensive car insurance because there is a very good chance you'll need it (heck, the more it costs you, ceteris paribus, the greater likelihood you'll need it).

So, how high of a cost do we pay for the global warming insurance? It's going to depend on whether global warming insurance is akin to alien murder insurance or car insurance, i.e., whether the danger is ridiculously remote or real.

(P.S.: If we knew absolutely nothing about the probabilities, we couldn't act at all, because we could be living in a world where we would have a disaster unless we put out more emissions. Imagine a nearby parallel universe where we are on the verge of another ice age, and people start polluting precisely to avoid it.)

(P.S.2: Everything I said above takes no side whatsoever on whether global warming is happening or what causes it.)

(P.S.3: Avoid the following fallacy: From "It is possible that X", it does not follow that the probability of X is greater than zero.)

[Me]

I'm kinda surprised by the fact that nobody has mentioned the number one global contributor to atmospheric CO2 . . . the Amazon rain forest! By allowing the forest to undergo late stage decomposition of organic matter, it has long since past the productive renewal stage, and the CO2 output has exceeded its oxygen replenishment rate over ten thousandfold. This has gotten to the point where many canopy dwelling species are being threatened with extinction due to unlivable conditions. This is something the wacko environmentalists refuse to accept, because their stand is based on religion, not science. If people are truly concerned about man's impact on "global warming," we should collectively stop contributing to it by allowing an Amazon clearcut.

Actually the decomposition is not the number one contributer it's actullay the ocean's organisms. It's not one thing it's a combination of it all... cutting down the rain forests, burning fossil fuels, cows, the sea of asphalt holding heat in etc etc etc.... Nevertheless I think we should all try and do our part drive less plant more trees and use only one square when doing a number 2

[Walkinghairball]

Me said:"only one square when doing a number 2."


How much soap would we have to use then??????


I know, I'm being an ass.


Hey, I hear the talk about video proof about the ice caps melting and I wonder..............................It is JUST LIKE the ice melting in my drinking water.


Right.

[zepboy]

Hmmmmmmmmm