Global Warming NOT caused by CO2
Posted: Mar 17, 2007 1:26 amThat is very interesting, but either way Industry is very unhealthy for many reasons. I think that there are ways to live primitively, healthfully and have a long good life.
Cavechat.org
The Official Caving Forum of the National Speleological Society
http://forums.caves.org/
Global Warming NOT caused by CO2
Page 1 of 3
Posted: Mar 17, 2007 1:26 amRe: Global Warming NOT caused by CO2
Posted: Mar 17, 2007 3:28 pmThat is very interesting, but either way Industry is very unhealthy for many reasons. I think that there are ways to live primitively, healthfully and have a long good life.
Posted: Mar 18, 2007 11:27 amI'd suggest if people have broadband, that they watch this program, especially if they've seen the Al Gore presentation. It presents another perspective on this whole controversy. Grit your teeth if you are a pro-warming true believer--and chill out if you think GW is a bunch of overblown hype.
At that point, you will have seen both the pro and con extremes. The truth likely lies somewhere in the middle, although the conclusions that GW research was initiated by Margaret Thatcher to put down the coal mining union and that the US gov't has 'caved' and is now rabidly pro-green are both a little hard to swallow.
At that point, you will have seen both the pro and con extremes. The truth likely lies somewhere in the middle, although the conclusions that GW research was initiated by Margaret Thatcher to put down the coal mining union and that the US gov't has 'caved' and is now rabidly pro-green are both a little hard to swallow.
Posted: Mar 18, 2007 7:24 pmYou might want to learn a little more about the producer of this show: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Dur ... n_director)
Posted: Mar 18, 2007 7:57 pmActually, I didn't need to read anything about the producer to see his bias--it was evident in the first 3 minutes. Just as one doesn't even need to see more than a similar bit of the Gore-arama to know what its bias is likely to be. Everyone on the planet with an opinion, scientists and me included, has a bias on the topic. It is always good to see what others are saying, and assess their veracity.
Any issue which does not have at least two sides is not really at issue. A number of lines of inquiry brought up in this British programme are things which I've independently found in arcane GW literature, and which the popular US media play down as 'unimportant'--because it requires complex analysis to account for, and they are just into the sound-bite of global warming.
Listen to 'em all and make up your own mind...isn't this the wonderful privilege we enjoy?
Any issue which does not have at least two sides is not really at issue. A number of lines of inquiry brought up in this British programme are things which I've independently found in arcane GW literature, and which the popular US media play down as 'unimportant'--because it requires complex analysis to account for, and they are just into the sound-bite of global warming.
Listen to 'em all and make up your own mind...isn't this the wonderful privilege we enjoy?
Posted: Mar 18, 2007 11:08 pmI am not sold on the whole Global Warming thing yet. Sure man-made source contribute a small percentage. But natural sources do FAR more damage than humans ever could.
The average HS Science book says that one volcanic eruption puts out more polutants than all mad-made sources....Ever....
Just my two cents.
Oo and I am saying it doesnt exist, Just saying that I havent seen it. Specially when it was like -5degs here for like 2 weeks.
-Jeremy
The average HS Science book says that one volcanic eruption puts out more polutants than all mad-made sources....Ever....
Just my two cents.
Oo and I am saying it doesnt exist, Just saying that I havent seen it. Specially when it was like -5degs here for like 2 weeks.
-Jeremy
Posted: Mar 19, 2007 1:07 amBobatnathrop wrote:
Oo and I am saying it doesnt exist, Just saying that I havent seen it. Specially when it was like -5degs here for like 2 weeks.
-Jeremy
that's the funny thing. Global warming would actually cause another ice age.
Posted: Mar 19, 2007 5:45 amHere's one of the scientists who appeared in the show, saying his views were misrepresented, and he does not agree with the premise of the film:
He also responded directly to the producers in a letter.In the part of the "Swindle" film where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous---because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important --- diametrically opposite to the point I was making --- which is that global warming is both real and threatening in many different ways, some unexpected.
. . .
Channel 4 now says they were making a film in a series of "polemics". There is nothing in the communication we had (much of it on the telephone or with the film crew on the day they were in Boston) that suggested they were making a film that was one-sided, anti-educational, and misleading. I took them at face value---clearly a great error. I knew I had no control over the actual content, but it never occurred to me that I was dealing with people who already had a reputation for distortion and exaggeration.
Posted: Mar 19, 2007 5:58 amAnd then producer Martin Durkin goes all Dick Cheney at some other scientists who criticize the film.
Posted: Mar 19, 2007 7:01 amnot to go off topic but I do feel that society as a whole is begining to come around. There is a community being built now here in las vegas that is going to be "eco-friendly" in that there will be no motorized vehicles allowed and it will be powered through "alternative" methods.
Posted: Mar 19, 2007 7:09 amWhat sort of "eco-friendly" method will they use to get water in Las Vegas?
Posted: Mar 19, 2007 7:19 amlol, probably the eco-friendly method the rest of the state is talking about... stealing it from northern nevada and utah...in reality my grotto is helping a study establishing a baseline water level for the region. by drawing down the water level even further in this desert region most ecologists locally believe that the mohave desert will likely expand 200/300 miles north into central nevada ie ecological disaster
Posted: Mar 19, 2007 8:05 pmBobatnathrop wrote:Sure man-made source contribute a small percentage. But natural sources do FAR more damage than humans ever could. -Jeremy
Got the same opinion on the ozone hole?
Posted: Mar 20, 2007 5:58 amThe average HS science book seems to be wrong.Bobatnathrop wrote:The average HS Science book says that one volcanic eruption puts out more polutants than all mad-made sources....Ever....
Just my two cents.
Posted: Mar 20, 2007 8:19 amI have an interesting wrinkle...
What about the increased exposure of limestone to surface and subsurface water?
How does that affect the CO2 content? hmmmm......
What about the increased exposure of limestone to surface and subsurface water?
How does that affect the CO2 content? hmmmm......