Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBS News)   After 17 years of dimming, Earth now reflecting more light in recent years. In other news, Al Gore hysterically screams warnings about the horrors of "global brightening"   (cbsnews.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

5206 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 May 2004 at 10:05 AM (12 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



247 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2004-05-29 01:09:51 PM  
2004-05-29 01:06:29 PM BiffDangler

I surely doubt it.
 
2004-05-29 01:10:10 PM  
BiffDangler: Yes. You are the only one. Well, you and David Icke and Lyndon LaRouche and Me.
 
2004-05-29 01:12:11 PM  
Actually, BiffDangler has a good point. Alot of eco-fanatics do try to impose some pretty harsh policies on third world countries trying to develop into industrial nations.
 
2004-05-29 01:12:19 PM  
2004-05-29 01:05:35 PM Weaver95
Maybe it be good to enlighten from both approaches, science and common sense.
 
2004-05-29 01:13:31 PM  
Here are two excerpts from Al Gore's 1992 book "Earth in Balance".

"It is not merely in the service of analogy that I have referred so often to the struggles against Nazi and communist totalitarianism, because I believe that the emerging efforts to save the environment is a continuation of these struggles."

"Adopting a central organizing principle one agreed to voluntarily means embarking on an all-out effort to use every policy and program, every law and institution, every treaty and alliance, every tactic and strategy, every plan and course of action to use, in short, every means to halt the destruction of the environment and to preserve and nurture our ecological system."


Al Gorebot, battery powered, manipulated by power.
 
2004-05-29 01:14:19 PM  
I have to wonder..
how did the dinosaurs live back before all this carbon was stored up as oil and coal and what not? Weren't they swimming in CO2?
Or was carbon stored in some other hydrocarbon at that time?
Or has there been an influx of carbon into our system somehow?
 
2004-05-29 01:15:39 PM  
Biff, what I find is funny is that the only communists left in the former Soviet Union are the old pensioners who have no other political philosophy left. The young communists are all over here now, too stupid to realize that communism isn't plausible, despite the fact that they tried it for 70 years, and killed better than 50 million people doing it.

They say "Russia was too primitive for communism to succeed. We'll do it better here." It makes me want to quote H. L. Mencken.
 
2004-05-29 01:15:44 PM  
Penn & Teller's show "Bullshiat" on Showtime gave us some pretty good perspective on the "Environmentalists".

Show details
 
2004-05-29 01:15:54 PM  
[Maybe it be good to enlighten from both approaches, science and common sense.]

Damn shame so many eco-nuts are devoid of both however.
 
2004-05-29 01:17:12 PM  
Weaver95
He's arguing science tho, something that alot of eco-fanatics aren't interested in these days.

Ergo, you weren't arguing science, you were just arguing?

The continuing denigration of your opponents does point in that direction.

As in -

"eco-fanatics"

"liberals and the poor reading comprehension skill set"


BiffDangler
Seems like it, oh wait, there's sataanbomb and the people he wants to add the list.

Have you got your house on Love Canal yet?

How about some vacation property around Copper Hill, Tennessee?

Damn communist environmentalists! I'm entitled to make my bucks any way I can!
 
2004-05-29 01:17:27 PM  
It's a buzz word, it's definition is meant to be elastic.

I gave you a very inelastic definition. Why did you ignore it?
 
2004-05-29 01:23:07 PM  
Vet_Curm: I've brought scientists with me too.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/
 
2004-05-29 01:25:45 PM  
I have to wonder..
how did the dinosaurs live back before all this carbon was stored up as oil and coal and what not? Weren't they swimming in CO2?
Or was carbon stored in some other hydrocarbon at that time?
Or has there been an influx of carbon into our system somehow?


The issue is not how much total carbon is in the system, but where within the system it is presently located. Theories of global warming hold that carbon which was previously trapped beneath the Earth's crust and/or which once composed vegetation has subsequently been emitted into its atmosphere, where it has the effect of trapping heat.
 
2004-05-29 01:26:56 PM  
[Ergo, you weren't arguing science, you were just arguing?]

No, just arguing from a logical, objective stance. I might get around to arguing the economic and moral impact of the deep green's policy initatives later, but it's too early in the thread to say if it's warrented.

[The continuing denigration of your opponents does point in that direction.]

Yeah, but calling them what they are (terrorists) tends to wear out the impact of the term. algore is what I'd call an eco-fanatic - he advocates some extreme green policy decisions based on sloppy logic, pseudo-science and socalist rhetoric. And while he's pounding the pulpit, radical greens are out there torching parking lots full of SUV's, threatening the lives of researchers and burning down buildings 'for the cause'.

What would YOU call those folks?
 
2004-05-29 01:27:58 PM  
[I gave you a very inelastic definition. Why did you ignore it?]

Well, at least you can say I tried to get across to you. The fact that you completely missed the entire point of the discussion is on your head, not mine.
 
2004-05-29 01:29:29 PM  
Light polution is still POLUTION! When will you people wake up and CARE about the condition of our biosphere? Light polution causes cancer and is melting the polar ice caps, increasing competition among trees, not to mention destroying the ozone layer.
 
2004-05-29 01:30:13 PM  
Well, at least you can say I tried to get across to you. The fact that you completely missed the entire point of the discussion is on your head, not mine.

So do you believe that an increase in greenhouse gasses is causing the earth's surface and/or atmosphere warm?
 
2004-05-29 01:32:36 PM  
Here's an interesting blast from the past:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/08/12/asia.haze/

No HTML, i'm lazy today.

A quote from the article link in question:

""Biomass burning" from forest fires, vegetation clearing and fossil fuel was just as much to blame for the shrouding haze as dirty industries from Asia's great cities, the study found."

'biomass burning' is the politically correct phraseology for 'dung fire'. Oddly enough, nobody seems to be yelling at asia for producing it.
 
2004-05-29 01:33:24 PM  
>My point was that a good sized burn produces as much or >more greenhouse gases in one day than most major cities do >in a year.

Let's assume you are correct. How much carbon storage did that forest do before it burned? Assuming that acerage is left to grow another forest, what will change? On the other hand, how much carbon storage is your furnace, car or refrigerator doing?

While one forest is burning, others are growing, so left to their own grow/decay/grow cycle won't change the net CO2 at all. Your hypothetical city on the other hand doesn't have every other city on earth produce negative atomospheric CO2 to help it out.

/I'm beginning to understand why conservatives are so bad with budgets.
 
2004-05-29 01:33:33 PM  
Talint

Valid points. I'm not a climatologist but I did a few semesters of graduate study with a rather well respected atmospheric scientist a few years ago (my degree is in Remote Sensing and Geographic Information Systems) - enough to have a better-than-average understanding of how these phenomena are measured and analyzed, and enough to be skeptical of arguments on both "sides" of the issue (not that I believe matters of scientific inquiry are (or should be treated as) partisan affairs).

That said, phrases like "very minor impact" and "proven in any detail" need to be quantified or they are meaningless to me.

As far as greenhouse gasses go, only about 6% are directly tied to any human influence, such as methane and CO2

I don't know that this is insignificant. Do you?

In reality, we're probably not having that large of an effect on the overall temperature dynamics, but may be affecting the short term changes significantly.

Significantly enough to be a cause for concern?

Humans having sole responsibility or being able to stop it, pretty damn unlikely.

Agreed.
 
2004-05-29 01:35:24 PM  
Vet_Curm and Weaver95

I wish paleoclimatology would become recommended reading for anyone who decides to spout off about global warming. Not going to happen of course, as the human caused global warming contingent rarely does true research and play on fears and pseudoscience to bait and hook the masses. At least most scientists know about the difficulty we're having with this subject. The more you know the more you know you need to know before making decisions on this level. (say that five times fast) The truth is pretty damn scary all to itself without the grandstanders and ecofreaks trying to use pseudoscience to blame humanity. Less land, rapid climate change, famines, and extreme weather are all side effects of the global climate warming.

I wish we were responsible, then we could mitigate the oncoming troubles. However, we are just going to have to deal with the changes. I only hope we have the technology and perserverance to pull our species through this. We may be the first widespread and dominant species to survive a mass extinction event, but only if we can keep it together and work towards the greater good of the species and worry less about our luxeries.

It is going to get ugly, probably not so much in our lifetime, but our granchildren will definetly be facing problems we only see in movies.

Distendedpendulusfrenulum

Methane ice is something we're really going to have to watch. The amount of methane locked up in that unstable clathrate makes every cow fart ever to happen a minor puff in a hurricane. While that may be our next great fossil fuel resource, it has the potential to be a greenhouse gas homicidal maniac hell bent on worldwide catastrophe.

I fear the ocean's methane fart potential, and I have learned to swim.
 
2004-05-29 01:38:41 PM  
Theories of global warming hold that carbon which was previously trapped beneath the Earth's crust and/or which once composed vegetation has subsequently been emitted into its atmosphere

Right... it's trapped beneath the earth's crust (or under the ocean) now in the form of hydrocarbons (fossil fuels, methane ice, etc), but most of that was formed in the last several hundred million years. Before that, where was the carbon if not in CO2 form? And if it was in CO2 form, how did dinosaurs live with all that global warming?
 
2004-05-29 01:44:51 PM  
Going to go get a boat, already know how to swim.

btw, I see it the same, wish we were the cause 'cause then we could do something about it, or at least try.

Used to blame it on the Gods, now blame it on us.
 
2004-05-29 01:46:54 PM  
redbo: Look up "limestone" and then cross reference that with Venus' climate.
 
2004-05-29 01:49:07 PM  
I mean I can invent a plausible scenario, like the earth had a LOT of CO2 before there was any life around, and the first diatoms and algae locked a bunch of it into hydrocarbons that were convected into the core of the earth, then released by volcanoes at a reasonable rate that sustained life, in a nice little cycle that we're messing up by pulling out these hydrocarbons before they're melted down.
But I just pulled that out of my ass, so...
 
2004-05-29 01:51:46 PM  
pantropik: redbo: Look up "limestone" and then cross reference that with Venus' climate.

OK... you seem to be suggesting something like what I just made up. And it seems believable.
 
2004-05-29 01:53:15 PM  
Fecal Pandora

Never meant to attack, just point out the not so obvious information. As to our significant effect on the short term, it's pretty obvious we need to change some of our pollution controls. Look at the Adirondacks in New York state if you want evidence we've devastated the environment. Don't even get me started on mine drainage. That environmental fark up will linger for centuries. I just hate to see non-scientist lobbyists pounding the pulpit of pseudoscience to advance their agendas.

By the way, thats a great degree to have. I'll most likely be looking for work in a geological firm, and we rely on you guys for our information. I have high praise for remote sensing and GIS skills. I hope to have more experience with them in the future and I'm actually looking at the possibility of further studies in meteorology. On that note, have any good job leads? I'm going to need a good steady job to support any further degrees.
 
2004-05-29 01:53:39 PM  
Wow. People are stupid as far as their planet goes, but I figured Fark would have some idea. My head is going to explode. I've lost all faith in humanity (except for Howie Mandel, he's great).
 
2004-05-29 01:54:07 PM  
"Biomass Burning" ie "Cow Power". Burning your shiat to power your farm. BRILLIANT!

Cow Power
 
2004-05-29 01:56:25 PM  
Right... it's trapped beneath the earth's crust (or under the ocean) now in the form of hydrocarbons (fossil fuels, methane ice, etc), but most of that was formed in the last several hundred million years. Before that, where was the carbon if not in CO2 form? And if it was in CO2 form, how did dinosaurs live with all that global warming?

Well flora and fauna typically evolve such that they may adapt to the particular climatic conditions at a given time. I'm pretty sure that's what the dinosaurs did anyway...up to a point.

In any case, the issue isn't whether humans are capable of adapting to a warmer climate, but whether said adaptation would involve catastrophic social, political, and economic upheaval.
 
2004-05-29 02:10:57 PM  
Limestone is the greatest trap for carbon by orders of magnitude. Hydrocarbons and all biocarbon on Earth pale in comparison to the amount of carbon locked up as dolomite or calcite. Those are pretty steady though. It's the active hydro and biocarbons that cause problems. Limestone is a possible trap for the overabundance of carbon being released as fossil fuels are burnt. It's a natural process of pH in the ocean that controls limestone production along with marine invertebrates. It just takes a lot of time.

It's the spike of CO2 that many ecolobbyists with any sense point to as the problem. I just wish they realized that their favorite plants love the extra CO2 and lock it up as biomass. If we could reduce the heavy metals and other pollutants, CO2 would be a god send to plants. They breathe it like we breathe the oxygen they produce. Besides, vegetables and wheat products are pretty tasty anyways. More CO2 leads to more plant production that leads to more beer and other alcoholic wet stuff that we as farkers so adore.

Buying a boat and fishing while sipping down some nice sea kelp fermentation is beginning to look a lot more likely.
 
2004-05-29 02:16:04 PM  
I need to stop the long posts, who really reads something that long anyways?
 
2004-05-29 02:17:22 PM  
There was a article on FARK within the past week using the same info as this article only they were using the info to state the opposite opinion, i.e. to prove global warming. The quotes in this article are verbatim to the quotes in this article. I believe the linked article had a headline like "Global warming so bad it can be felt on the dark side of the moon", or something very similar to that.

/apologizes to grammar nazis, one of the (whatever the plural of this is) is 'hot'.
 
2004-05-29 02:20:02 PM  
setaanbomb

I'm checking your referenced site, and I'm Google searching names on the petition of PhDs with unusual names so I don't get too much noise back in the search return, and I'm finding their doctorates to be in other fields.

Haven't found climatology, paleoclimatology, or even geology so far(I thought I would at least find that from the people working in the oil industry).

I don't care how many capital letters you can put after your name, when you move outside of your discipline, then you are just another layperson. I have been truly amazed at the numbers of PhDs I have met who were seemingly unaware of this and considered themselves to be experts on everything. (Generally they can always be identified by their wanting you to know first off that they have a PhD)

Thus I am saying a dentist has no more validity in his opinion on this than a civil engineer does, or anybody else for that matter.

I can't say they don't have anyone on their petitions that holds an advanced degree in a field which can encompass this. I am saying that it seems to be extremely difficult to locate those individuals off of the site you referenced.

Other than the blanket term "scientists", can you point to to where on that site said individuals might be identified?
 
2004-05-29 02:20:15 PM  
Ny-quilDriver:

Why does Al Gore keep taking hits for trying to protect the environment?

Probably because he does it in such an extreme way as to be rendered ridiculous. For example, in his splendid book Earth in the Balance, he claims that the internal combustion engine is the single greatest threat to mankind ever. Opponents of this view point to multi-megaton fission-initiated enhanced-radiation thermonuclear fusion bombs, and stuff like that.
 
2004-05-29 02:21:30 PM  
By the way, thats a great degree to have. I'll most likely be looking for work in a geological firm, and we rely on you guys for our information. I have high praise for remote sensing and GIS skills. I hope to have more experience with them in the future and I'm actually looking at the possibility of further studies in meteorology. On that note, have any good job leads? I'm going to need a good steady job to support any further degrees.

Damn, I wish I were half as ambitious as I should be at using my M.S., but I've only ever worked as a research assistant while I was working on my doctorate - really mundane stuff, mostly photogrammetry and supervised classification. About a year ago I decided I wanted to get more directly involved in politics than I could as an career academic, and I'm now applying to law school while my degrees gather dust. Most of the geologists I've known worked for the USGS, although some worked for land developers and a few were in agriculture. GIS is definitely good for a diverse range of jobs, but I'm afraid all my experience is research oriented.
 
2004-05-29 02:27:16 PM  
There was a article on FARK within the past week using the same info as this article only they were using the info to state the opposite opinion, i.e. to prove global warming. The quotes in this article are verbatim to the quotes in this article. I believe the linked article had a headline like "Global warming so bad it can be felt on the dark side of the moon", or something very similar to that.

Check the dates. The Guardian article describes a decrease in cloud cover that was observed prior to 2001. Today's article describes a subsequent reversal of that trend.
 
2004-05-29 02:29:01 PM  
Fecal Pandora:

Just curious...

Has a single climatologist ever disputed any of Gore's statements about global warming?


Has a single fundamentalist Christian ever disputed any of my statements about evolution?

Rather than argue about it, how about we just see the data? It's real simple, just put online which thermometers you are taking readings from, and show their readings online in real time. Makes you wonder why that's never been done, huh?
 
2004-05-29 02:30:21 PM  
Don't insult Gore! He has always railed against the unhealthy practice of smoking, even while he was a tobacco farmer...or something...
 
2004-05-29 02:33:26 PM  
Mars is currently undergoing global warming. And yet we're not causing that (although some environuts will try and blame us). Nature has this funny way of constantly changing... ever hear of the Grand Canyon? Used to be filled to the rim with water - way, way WAY before mankind ever got close to it. Now it's one big pit. Dry as a bone. How the heck could that have happened without man causing it????? 30 years ago the environuts were screaming about global cooling, now it's global warming. They don't need to be right, they only need a cause to keep the money flowing in.
 
2004-05-29 02:43:52 PM  
Knee-jerk anti-environmentalism is embarassing.
 
2004-05-29 02:44:52 PM  
Rather than argue about it, how about we just see the data? It's real simple, just put online which thermometers you are taking readings from, and show their readings online in real time. Makes you wonder why that's never been done, huh?

It's not that simple. Climate is composed of many other variables besides temperature. Furthermore, there are wide range of instruments that can be classified as "thermometers." They may be mounted on the ground, in satellites, on balloons... They may take direct readings or they may measure various electo-magnetic waves. And one needs to distinguish between surface and atmospheric temperatures, and again between the various levels of the atmosphere.

I don't think anyone on this board is qualified to determine which data set(s) should be used or how they should be analyzed. Better to review the academic literature on the subject and compare findings. If someone's got a reference for a peer-reviewed journal article that says "Al Gore is full of it" or something to that effect, post it.
 
2004-05-29 02:46:14 PM  
sonsofthunder
George Bush is not stumping for increased use of booze and drugs, so your logic is flawed

Your logic is flawed, you must have done poorly on the analogy part of the SAT. See here:

Gore was pro-fossil fuels : Gore is now anti-fossil fuels and actively stumps to limit the use of fossil fuels :: Bush was pro-drugs and pro-alcohol : Bush is now anti-drugs, anti-alcohol, and actively stumps to limit the use of both

Both situations are exactly the same, but neither men are hypocrites(on this matter, at least). For some reason, Republicans seem to think that changing your position on something is deeply evil, facts be damned. Changing your mind is a perfectly natural thing and indeed the right the right thing to do when you discover that your current position is wrong. Blindly "staying the course" when that course is clearly wrong is not only incredibly childish and moronic, it's also very damaging.
 
2004-05-29 02:48:42 PM  
Mars is currently undergoing global warming.

Yes, on a scale of hundreds of thousands of years. The one we are currently observing on Earth is on a scale of a few decades. Totally difference phenomena.
 
2004-05-29 02:50:11 PM  
Also, for those out there who deny global warming for political reasons, congratulate yourselves. You are somehow much smarter than the bulk of the scientific community and better at analyzing the data than specialists who are specifically trained in the relevant fields.

How do you do it?
 
2004-05-29 02:51:51 PM  
Fecal Pandora:

I don't think anyone on this board is qualified to determine which data set(s) should be used or how they should be analyzed.

Which is another way to say, "My research grant money hinges on keeping people fearful, and once I post the thermometer data, people will come to the obvious conclusion that it is fraud, and therefore, I find it more convenient to not list the raw data, so that I can every year change which set of data I use to pick and choose those which will show warming."

I live in Michigan, I am hoping and praying for global warming. Go global warming!
 
2004-05-29 02:55:25 PM  
How do you do it?

have you asked the 1970's scientific community that came up with global cooling that same question? i guess the bulk of the scientific community ain't too smart either by your standards.
 
2004-05-29 02:56:32 PM  
He-Hate-Me

No, my logic holds up. Bush no longer uses any drugs or booze because of the harm he caused himself and others, while Gore uses more energy in a week than I do in a year telling ME I have to use less energy. He is a hypocrite.
 
2004-05-29 02:56:54 PM  
He_Hate_Me:

Also, for those out there who deny global warming for political reasons, congratulate yourselves. You are somehow much smarter than the bulk of the scientific community and better at analyzing the data than specialists who are specifically trained in the relevant fields.

How do you do it?


Probably by using all the data, rather than picking and choosing which data I want to use to demonstrate what I want to show so that congress will think it is all really important and give me lots of money so I can have a big lab and get tenure and a decent salary.
 
2004-05-29 02:58:54 PM  
"The plain fact of the matter is that we don't have enough data to know that for a fact as yet."

Why is it that so many Conservatives refuse to believe that global warming is occuring because there are too few facts, and yet manage to believe in Jesus. Weaver... do you believe in Jesus?

Remember folks... the trick most commonly used by the Right is to deflect the arguement so that we get cause up in goofy little details. Instead of actually addressing what Gore says now, just talk about the time he shiat his pants in the fourth grade, and then post a funny snapshot of him making a face. This way we don't have to do anything so silly as consider the facts.
 
Displayed 50 of 247 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report