| Pages:
1
..
5
6
7
8
9
..
11 |
k-rico
Super Nomad
Posts: 2079
Registered: 7-10-2008
Location: Playas de Tijuana
Member Is Offline
|
|
Gnu,
You're definitely a high bandwidth guy. I think it could be true that the carbon credit idea and other economic engineering that is associated with
the increase in anthropomorphic greenhouse gases is for the sole purpose of creating another economic bubble to make people rich. If so, I hope I can
figure out what to buy and when to sell.
But I also think that climate change due to man-made global warming could be a correct theory. I mean if you were running Goldman-Sachs and putting
together another economic bubble in cahoots with world governments, is there a better way of doing it than using a new global event that is in fact
true?
I don't buy that there is some worldwide conspiracy with evil intent though. You too easy cross over from science to religion.
Let's stick to the science.
|
|
|
k-rico
Super Nomad
Posts: 2079
Registered: 7-10-2008
Location: Playas de Tijuana
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Taco de Baja
| Quote: | Originally posted by Crusoe
The circle graph is not accurate and very misleading depending on just how a person interpretets it!! |
Agreed!
Like the fact the graph ignores natural input of CO2, Methane, and Nitrous Oxides?
Like the fact it ignores water vapor? And shows CO2 as comprising 72% of the total….Neat trick when CO2 is actually on the order of 0.038% of the
atmosphere, or maybe 3.6% of all greenhouse gasses…Depending on where (over the land or over the sea) and what altitude you take your readings.
Sure CO2 is 72% of the greenhouse gas total when you take away water vapor, but that is not clear at all. Also, water vapor can’t be regulated by
governments, and based on an earlier post I made today may be largely controlled by bacteria and fungi living in their ecosystem in the clouds. That
simply doesn't fit the AGW model.
[Edited on 8-24-2009 by Taco de Baja] |
Taco, please don't take offense, but it's clear you don't understand the science.
Start here: http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229
What is The Royal Society?
http://royalsociety.org/campaign/timeline/index.htm
[Edited on 8-24-2009 by k-rico]
[Edited on 8-24-2009 by k-rico]
|
|
|
Bajahowodd
Elite Nomad
Posts: 9274
Registered: 12-15-2008
Location: Disneyland Adjacent and anywhere in Baja
Member Is Offline
|
|
Unfortunately it appears it's too late. Anything that happens in Washington is ONLY going to be about who can make money from it. If y'all want to
take up your waepons, and/or go on strike of commit civil disobedience, it might make a dif. Otherwise, poor souls, it is already lost. Big bucks
controls what we do and where we go. Ike may go down in history as the most important figure.
|
|
|
k-rico
Super Nomad
Posts: 2079
Registered: 7-10-2008
Location: Playas de Tijuana
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Bajahowodd
Unfortunately it appears it's too late. Anything that happens in Washington is ONLY going to be about who can make money from it. If y'all want to
take up your waepons, and/or go on strike of commit civil disobedience, it might make a dif. Otherwise, poor souls, it is already lost. Big bucks
controls what we do and where we go. Ike may go down in history as the most important figure. |
duh!! 
So how do we cash in??
|
|
|
Cypress
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7641
Registered: 3-12-2006
Location: on the bayou
Member Is Offline
Mood: undecided
|
|
Carbon credits? How do I get some? Will Wal Mart accept 'em?
|
|
|
Taco de Baja
Super Nomad
Posts: 1913
Registered: 4-14-2004
Location: Behind the Orange Curtain, CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Dreamin' of Baja
|
|
I beg to differ; in fact with a B.S. degree in geology from a UC school, and employment with a scientific company, I do science almost every day. I
get the science. People looking a couple decades in the past and trying to forecast centuries into the future and come up with scare stories are the
ones who don't get it.
I am also smart enough to know that anyone can find a site to "prove" their point. As evidenced by the misleading graph you linked to earlier clearly
shows.
I suggest you look a little deeper into the science yourself. I'll start you off with 3 sites:
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/about-us
Detailed Chronology of Late Holocene Climate Change Great site depicting how NATURAL climate change (warming and cooling) affected early
civilizations, all without the mankind being fingered as the prime suspect.
http://www.co2science.org/about/web_features.php
The debate is not over, and the planet does not have a fever. Better get on the band wagon now the tipping point is being reached as more and more
scientists flee from the AGW theory.
Truth generally lies in the coordination of antagonistic opinions
-Herbert Spencer
|
|
|
Crusoe
Senior Nomad
Posts: 731
Registered: 10-14-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Ok Taco....Got your drift. Now can you tell us scientificaly what you know about Ocean Acidification?? Just what is causing it?? Do we have any thing
to worry about?? Thanx ++C++
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 65408
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Crusoe
Ok Taco....Got your drift. Now can you tell us scientificaly what you know about Ocean Acidification?? Just what is causing it?? Do we have any thing
to worry about?? Thanx ++C++ |
'Worry' won't help anything but to give you ulcers... So why do you worry?
Live a good life, help others when you have an opportunitey, and haul out your trash from your camp...
|
|
|
wessongroup
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21152
Registered: 8-9-2009
Location: Mission Viejo
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suicide Hot line ... please hold
|
|
Ahhhhhhh maybe it is over
| Quote: | Originally posted by Taco de Baja
I beg to differ; in fact with a B.S. degree in geology from a UC school, and employment with a scientific company, I do science almost every day. I
get the science. People looking a couple decades in the past and trying to forecast centuries into the future and come up with scare stories are the
ones who don't get it.
I am also smart enough to know that anyone can find a site to "prove" their point. As evidenced by the misleading graph you linked to earlier clearly
shows.
I suggest you look a little deeper into the science yourself. I'll start you off with 3 sites:
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/about-us
Detailed Chronology of Late Holocene Climate Change Great site depicting how NATURAL climate change (warming and cooling) affected early
civilizations, all without the mankind being fingered as the prime suspect.
http://www.co2science.org/about/web_features.php
The debate is not over, and the planet does not have a fever. Better get on the band wagon now the tipping point is being reached as more and more
scientists flee from the AGW theory. |
There may be a few in the Scientic Community that still have unanswered questions... I would refer them to the following link.
I was reading about "Underestimating malaria risk under variable temperatures", and noticed in was "filed" under climate change.
http://www.pnas.org/ then do a search on climate change.. there are 59,144 Research Articles which deal with the issue
[Edited on 8-25-2009 by wessongroup]
|
|
|
k-rico
Super Nomad
Posts: 2079
Registered: 7-10-2008
Location: Playas de Tijuana
Member Is Offline
|
|
Guys, read the title of the graph and look at the three greenhouse gases that it considers. Sorry your were mislead.
Plus, all greenhouse gases are not created equal. Sure there is more water vapor. Pound for pound tho, CO2 is MUCH more worrisome.
As far as the first site you mentioned, it says this in the first paragraph:
man plays a role in climate change through urbanization, land use changes and the introduction of greenhouse gases and aerosols, but who also believe
that natural cycles such as those in the sun and oceans are also important contributors to the global changes in our climate and weather. We worry the
sole focus on greenhouse gases and the unwise reliance on imperfect climate models while ignoring real data may leave civilization unprepared for a
sudden climate shift that history tells us will occur again, very possibly soon.
I don't think the fact that the sun and the oceans are an important consideration is exactly a news flash.
"I am also smart enough to know that anyone can find a site to "prove" their point."
You certainly proved that.
I'll stick with what the Royal Society says, if they change their viewpoint, I'll change mine.
So where do we differ?
|
|
|
Taco de Baja
Super Nomad
Posts: 1913
Registered: 4-14-2004
Location: Behind the Orange Curtain, CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Dreamin' of Baja
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by k-rico
I'll stick with what the Royal Society says, if they change their viewpoint, I'll change mine.
So where do we differ? |
We differ on the blame game. Sure man changes his environment to make it more "livable" by building cities and farms. I accept that, and it's a good
thing. Sure we can go sometimes go overboard by polluting and that's a bad thing. But to outright lie and scare people into the environmental
movement by wrongly claiming mankind radically affects the climate by his actions, that's wrong. The major polluters aren’t going to give a damn
anyway.
Sure we should try to be prepared for climate change, but as history has shown ( Detailed Chronology of Late Holocene Climatic Change ) all cultures will not be successful in moving into the future; that’s just the hard
reality of the cycle of life.
We also differ on putting all your eggs in one basket and only changing your viewpoint based on one group's (or person's) analysis...I'll continue
look to many sources.
From your royal society:
| Quote: |
Professor Wunsch is Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physical Oceanography,Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
....it is very difficult to separate human induced change from natural change, certainly not with the confidence we all seek. It is probably true that
most scientists would assign a very high probability that human-induced change is already strongly present in the climate system, while at the same
time agreeing that clear-cut proof is not now available and may not be available for a long-time to come, if ever. Public policy has
to be made on the basis of probabilities, not firm proof.
link |
There is a probability that vaccinations cause autism, there is no clear cut proof, and may never be. Therefore to protect people from autism we
should stop all vaccinations....Right?
[Edited on 8-25-2009 by Taco de Baja]
Truth generally lies in the coordination of antagonistic opinions
-Herbert Spencer
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 65408
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
Nice to have some common sense and logic applied to the mix, thanks TdB!
Emotional hysteria (theories) vs. logical evaluation (observations)...
If the sea levels were rising, then all the beach homes that were built in the past 50 years would be in the water... The Bahama Islands, Maldives,
Florida, etc. would be gone or in serious search of relocation... etc. etc.
I just read that the polar bears that Al Gore used to scare kids in his movie have had a great increase in population because of the extended ice cap
permitted longer hunting season this past year... because of the COLDER conditions!  
 
|
|
|
k-rico
Super Nomad
Posts: 2079
Registered: 7-10-2008
Location: Playas de Tijuana
Member Is Offline
|
|
David K.,
Let's do a thought experiment.
Picture an inverted frisbee filled with water to 1/4 inch below the rim.
Your favorite baja beach is located on the rim above the water.
Directly across the diameter, which you can't see because this is a very large frisbee, is a "V" cut into the rim.
The bottom of the "V" is 1/4 inch below the rim, at the water line.
Water is pouring into the frisbee from whatever source, say a melting glacier.
Do you see the water level rising? No.
Why, because the water is pouring out the "V" on the other side.
The "V" represents the river deltas and other land areas that are barely above sea level.
Could be, ya know.
|
|
|
k-rico
Super Nomad
Posts: 2079
Registered: 7-10-2008
Location: Playas de Tijuana
Member Is Offline
|
|
"There is a probability that vaccinations cause autism, there is no clear cut proof, and may never be. Therefore to protect people from autism we
should stop all vaccinations....Right?"
Come on Taco, you can do better than that. Probabilites have a range from low to high. As you know there are only two things that are for sure.
|
|
|
k-rico
Super Nomad
Posts: 2079
Registered: 7-10-2008
Location: Playas de Tijuana
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Taco de Baja
We also differ on putting all your eggs in one basket and only changing your viewpoint based on one group's (or person's) analysis...I'll continue
look to many sources.
|
OK I'll put another egg in my basket.
Form the American Association for the Advancement of Science:
Read the first sentence:
http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_20070...
|
|
|
wessongroup
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21152
Registered: 8-9-2009
Location: Mission Viejo
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suicide Hot line ... please hold
|
|
Some don't think so
| Quote: | Originally posted by Taco de Baja
| Quote: | Originally posted by k-rico
I'll stick with what the Royal Society says, if they change their viewpoint, I'll change mine.
So where do we differ? |
We differ on the blame game. Sure man changes his environment to make it more "livable" by building cities and farms. I accept that, and it's a good
thing. Sure we can go sometimes go overboard by polluting and that's a bad thing. But to outright lie and scare people into the environmental
movement by wrongly claiming mankind radically affects the climate by his actions, that's wrong. The major polluters aren’t going to give a damn
anyway.
Sure we should try to be prepared for climate change, but as history has shown ( Detailed Chronology of Late Holocene Climatic Change ) all cultures will not be successful in moving into the future; that’s just the hard
reality of the cycle of life.
We also differ on putting all your eggs in one basket and only changing your viewpoint based on one group's (or person's) analysis...I'll continue
look to many sources.
From your royal society:
| Quote: |
Professor Wunsch is Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physical Oceanography,Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
....it is very difficult to separate human induced change from natural change, certainly not with the confidence we all seek. It is probably true that
most scientists would assign a very high probability that human-induced change is already strongly present in the climate system, while at the same
time agreeing that clear-cut proof is not now available and may not be available for a long-time to come, if ever. Public policy has
to be made on the basis of probabilities, not firm proof.
link |
There is a probability that vaccinations cause autism, there is no clear cut proof, and may never be. Therefore to protect people from autism we
should stop all vaccinations....Right?
[Edited on 8-25-2009 by Taco de Baja] |
National and international science academies and professional societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular recent global
warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 that
states:
An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger
evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]
Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-committal
positions.
Just something to add to the discussion... Global Scientific position on the issue
|
|
|
Taco de Baja
Super Nomad
Posts: 1913
Registered: 4-14-2004
Location: Behind the Orange Curtain, CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Dreamin' of Baja
|
|
Here's another egg for you from the NIPCC:
| Quote: |
The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come
together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change. Because it is not a government agency, and because its members are not
predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, NIPCC is able to offer an independent “second opinion” of the
evidence reviewed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The scholarship in this book demonstrates overwhelming scientific support for the position that the warming of the twentieth century was moderate and
not unprecedented, and that carbon dioxide probably is not the driving factor behind climate change.
The authors cite thousands of peer-reviewed research papers and books that were ignored by the IPCC, plus additional scientific research that became
available after the IPCC’s self-imposed deadline of May 2006.
|
link
Truth generally lies in the coordination of antagonistic opinions
-Herbert Spencer
|
|
|
wessongroup
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21152
Registered: 8-9-2009
Location: Mission Viejo
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suicide Hot line ... please hold
|
|
it's the population
| Quote: | Originally posted by Taco de Baja
Here's another egg for you from the NIPCC:
| Quote: |
The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come
together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change. Because it is not a government agency, and because its members are not
predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, NIPCC is able to offer an independent “second opinion” of the
evidence reviewed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The scholarship in this book demonstrates overwhelming scientific support for the position that the warming of the twentieth century was moderate and
not unprecedented, and that carbon dioxide probably is not the driving factor behind climate change.
The authors cite thousands of peer-reviewed research papers and books that were ignored by the IPCC, plus additional scientific research that became
available after the IPCC’s self-imposed deadline of May 2006.
|
link |
To think that 6 billion people have no negative impact on the planet seems to miss the point of "Global Warming". That is what it is all about
"people's negative impact on their environment".
This is an old one, we used to protest it back in the 60's Zero Population Growth
Consider what is continuing to be documented daily though systematic scientific analysis of population demands and their impact on existing resources
and/or infrastructure of the entire world.
These impacts have been quantitatively estimated, and based on these estimations, within a 100 years at the current rate of population growth, we will
need another planet to supply resources to maintain "everything" at the present levels.
Which assumes that no new energy source is found, and all continues as is.... everyone buying an auto which is the stated goal of China and India
I do agree there has been documented climate change historically, it's part of the evolution on the planet, which is part of "life as we know it",
however, the previous climate changes can be attributed to events of nature... we could argue that the human species is just part of the "natural
events", but then we can or could control our impact on the environment, which is not true of most other large scale events... St. Helens,
earthquakes, Tsunami, objects from space, solar flaresm orbital changes etc.
Good to see such strong feelings about the issue, as all are lovers of the Baja and such strong feelings will only make it better..
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4411
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Its funny that so many buy into the programming that people are bad or that a limit is needed, while a look at the earth shows that it is vastly
unpopulated and that climate change toward warming would presumably open up vast fertile land to the north where the most fertile land exists.
Now, would you also believe that increase in sea life is bad, or that increases in birds are inherently bad?
Its simply programming, the idea that YOU or anyone should determine the amount of people is an absurd notion, people exist on earth. Get over it. You
can not justify who should and who shouldn't live. The truth is Mexico city is an example, if you want to create a vast city of high density and live
there you can do it. In fact much higher density living is absolutely possible. Or if you want to live in remote baja you can do it.
It is not up to anyone else to decide whether you can live or die, what you can do or where you should live. The implications of this fallacious
argument, that populations are bad, is at the center evil.
|
|
|
wessongroup
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21152
Registered: 8-9-2009
Location: Mission Viejo
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suicide Hot line ... please hold
|
|
Has nothing to do with "programming" and last time I checked the animals in the Oceans are in steep decline.
And as to ME "programming" is absurd on its face... Maybe you should consider that you are shooting the messenger.
And at no point did I suggest that anyone has the right over life or death... only that the impact to our planet by the ever-increasing population
will continue to create problems for the planet.
If you want a 1200 floor condo in Cobo with twin Sears Towers... go fo it, but the quality of living I would venture would not be the same in Cobo.
And you can live anywhere you want, I do.... you can have as many children as you want, that too is your business.
Your conclusion is not what I stated... I only repeated what has been written by many, that we face continuing challenges from increased population
growth, particularly environmental and financial.. in that order..
That you do not accept these facts is moot, as it is happening as I write.
  :
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
..
5
6
7
8
9
..
11 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
