Da Weatherman Sez...

[Donn]

Donn, let me ask it to you virtually the same way you asked it to me:

What if "made-made global warming" DOESN'T exist? Can we afford to spend several trillions of dollars (thus destroying our economic system, our personal freedoms, and all that we and our ancestors have toiled over ...

OK, let's start with that, the economic impact. Largely, we're talking about reduced use of fossil fuels. Well, yeah - our economic system is based on unsustainable exploitation of fossil fuel, so like it or not, we're going to have to face this some day, and the sooner, the less catastrophic. So on this point, we can't afford not to. I mean, seriously, oil and coal aren't being created at the rate we burn them, correct? I know just the word "sustainable" makes me a commie, but how was I going to fool you anyway.

Will our economy be eviscerated by this change? I don't accept that premise. I don't spend a lot of time reviewing climate change literature so that I can argue about it on this tuba bulletin board, but - at least, less of our oil money goes to all those friendly countries around the globe, right?

...and (OK...if indeed it DID exist) hasn't even been undeniably demonstrated (ie: a few degrees rise in average world temps.) that it will be anti-beneficial to plants, animals, and humans?

As I understand it, the change is already proving beneficial to some animals, unfortunately insects that damage spruce trees. The notion of "undeniably demonstrated" is of course vacuous if there exist large numbers of people who are so dedicated to denial, and I'm not really motivated to dig up the details on as much of the scenario as we know, but the way I've heard it, expect catastrophe. Even if the temperature change itself didn't matter to any organism (though it will), there will be changes in weather patterns that are bound to seriously disrupt agriculture, for example.

the "COMING ICE AGE"...?!?!

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... ling-myth/

[steve_decker]

Well, yeah - our economic system is based on unsustainable exploitation of fossil fuel, so like it or not, we're going to have to face this some day, and the sooner, the less catastrophic. So on this point, we can't afford not to. I mean, seriously, oil and coal aren't being created at the rate we burn them, correct?

Time to dip my toe in after watching this (largely) three party "discussion" for months.

Donn, your assertation about our "unsustainable exploitation of fossil fuel" hinges primarily on your belief of the age of Earth. Many folks, myself included, read the Bible as factual and literal. In doing so, Earth is roughly 6000 years old. From that perspective, our use of fossil fuel is NOT unsustainable.

That being said, I also believe that we are to be good stewards of this world... which entails reducing consumption when it makes sense.

[SRanney]

I will no longer poke holes in your religion. It simply hurts many parishioners' *feelings too much.

You've poked no holes in any "religion," Bloke. You've brought no scientific evidence to the table with which to debate the facts that carbon dioxide retains heat longer than water vapor, that an increase in the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide will--over time--continue to increase the mean global temperature of the earth, and that carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing (and will continue to increase) for many, many years. What part of this is so hard for you to accept? Perhaps your overlords (i.e., Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh) have roped you into their religion of "everyone who thinks different than you is WRONG." Is that what it is? Now that you've been living in the country, you automatically have to buy into the "hate all them environmental nut jobs" argument? You're automatically more knowledgeable than the akadimiks, profesurs, and siuntises that have lived their jobs for decades because you're an acolyte of the Beck, Hannity, and Limbaugh trinity with Sarah Palin as the virgin mother and Ann Coulter as Mary Magdalene?

You've danced around waving your hands asking people to hear your argument, based not on scientific evidence at all but solely on your political beliefs.

Now you've linked those of us who agree with the evidence we've been presented as similar in mindset to those who would issue death threats against individuals who wear fur. Really? Is your argument so weak that you must refer to calling us names?

I've tried to stay away from this "discussion" thread before, Bloke, but you continue to produce anecdotal evidence that has no bearing on the long-term trend of increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. You assert that you are right and that those who "buy into the religion" are Marxists and socialists. Name calling is what you've reduced yourself too.

That, Bloke, is the argument of grade schoolers.

...I also believe that we are to be good stewards of this world... which entails reducing consumption when it makes sense.

This is the best sentence that can be found on this thread. Thanks steve_decker.

[Thomas Maurice Booth]

Here is a clip of Rachel Maddow interviewing Bill Nye on February 10, 2010. Most of the points they make are common sense, but the way in which they present the information is excellent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYvk1OtI0H0" target="_blank

Enjoy.

TMB

[SRanney]

.Further, I additionally heat my home with the wood from fallen trees (as there are so many of these, that it is silly to cut down living trees). Does this release CO2 into the air...?? I guess it does, but were those trees allowed to ROT, they would release the SAME amount of CO2, and I would 1/ receive none of the benefit of that release and 2/ waste more money on natural gas.

Of course you'd receive the benefits, just not directly. The carbon would be broken down by micro-organisms, assimilated by primary producers (i.e., photosynthetic organisms) and converted into sugars, consumed by herbivores (e.g., deer) and converted into body mass, then consumed by carnivores (e.g., you). Read up on the carbon cycle.

Something "scientific" that needs to be realized by some is this: Additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been found to be a RESULT (rather than a CAUSE) of additional heat.

This is a very simplistic view of looking at things and has been skewed to fit into your argument. Carbon dioxide retains infrared energy (i.e., heat) longer than do other molecules, thus resulting in higher levels of energy (i.e., heat) that is ultimately released at a slower rate.

Fossil fuels are consumed and carbon dioxide can be produced by this equation:

2(C8H18) + 25(O2) + Heat --> 16(CO2) + 18(H20).

This is the same equation that most of us learn in school: fuel plus oxygen plus heat source equals conversion. What you don't seem to understand is that once CO2 has been released, the structure of the carbon dioxide molecule itself is the mechanism by which energy is trapped. Is CO2 the result of heat? In a round-about way, yes, but only when the heat is great enough to break the carbon bonds.

In MY way of thinking, it seems to me that the person who is asserting that the sky IS falling in (whether this person is lone or legion) is under an INFINITELY HIGHER level obligation to come up with non-anecdotal (AS WELL AS NON-TAMPERED-WITH ) evidence than the person who suggests that perhaps the sky is NOT falling in.

Just because you and your holy trinity (i.e., Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh) are not convinced doesn't mean it isn't happening. The un-tampered with scientific evidence is there. You just refuse to believe it because your overlords have filled you full of their flavored kool-aid.

Bloke, you may be surprised to learn that I am a Christian and consider Christ as my Lord and Savior. I was raised in the church, sang in the church choir and played in the church quintet growing up (and was a bit shocked when a member of this board showed me that he emptied his spit valve on the church floor; thanks Al!), worked at that very church for many years while I finished up my undergraduate degree, and like you believe that the universe is much older than 6,000 years and evolution is all part of His big plan. In all honesty, I used to think that socialism, in theory, was a good form of government. However, after a few economics classes (thank you, liberal arts university) and discussions with a few professors, I formed new opinions.

By the way, I do not encourage anyone, ever, to work at a large, affluent church if they also plan on worshiping there. Having worked at the bottom of the totem pole (e.g., janitorial/maintenance) I was able to see just how many in the congregation (and on staff, for that matter) really treat their brother man.

[tbn.al]

that he emptied his spit valve on the church floor; thanks Al!

You put that in just for me didn't you. As a matter of fact, the spit rags are in my washing machine at this very minute getting cleaned for Wednesday night practice. I have reformed! Actually I didn't realize that the spit took off the floor wax until a wet behind the ears sometimes tuba playing maintainance man pointed it out to me. To all of you out there that regularly empty your condensate on a waxed hardwood floor, PLEASE STOP!, as it promotes global warming/cooling/status quo.

[Donn]

As an obvious attempt to "control the argument via control of the rhetoric", the term "climate change denier" has OBVIOUSLY been created by the shrill to hearken towards the anti-Semitic-describing term "holocaust denier" (ie: "climate change denier" is a term which emotionally resorts to name-calling-through-rhetoric - as a last resort - by radicals).

As one of those wily radicals who's always trying to drown the reasoned tone of this "debate" in shrill rhetoric, it's my duty to point out that the above is "denial denial."

Also thought it might be interesting for some of you that we're about due for a collision with the planet Nibiru, which we know from a woman with an implant in her brain that receives messages from the Zeta Reticuli star system. Siuntists scoff, but why would we start listening to those conspiring rascals now?

[tbn.al]

Unfortunately, I have other disappointing stories that could be told about several other large "churches" as well

What do you expect as these institutions are full of sinful human beings. Seriously! To expect anything else would be the ultimate nievety. A dear friend of mine left this very church when we had less than a thousand members because we were planning a huge expenditure on a new building. He thought we were way off base and should spend every extra dime feeding the poor and saving lost souls through missions. We now send more than that building cost us out every year in the form of charity aid and mission work. It's simply a matter of perspective. I honestly don't know where I could contribute my mere morsels of time talent and money to do as much good, even if I do get pissed off by the pettiness at times. There was only one perfect being ever and they crucified Him.

[Donn]

can you just IMAGINE how these people (assuming their religion has not been disbanded by that time) will squawk when the next (ref: 1930's) "dust bowl" rolls around?

Actually I don't believe anyone's going to be very thrilled about it.

[bisontuba]

Joe-
Whatever newscast gave the Lake Erie thing as being 'frozen over' completely must be drinking something special--as I drive into Buffalo along Route 5, Lake Erie is to my left and I can see open water--in fact, two ice fisherman in the Buffalo Harbor on Lake Erie were rescued today as they tried to fish on thin ice and fell through.
mark

[timdicarlo]

It's snowed almost every day for almost a month in central Illinois where I go to school. The weatherman used the term "Snowpocalypse" yesterday. It was awesome. That is all.

[pierre]

114 degrees in Melbourne, Australia.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZO2E7YjAr0

[SRanney]

For the first time in nearly one-and-a-half decades, Lake Erie is frozen over solid - east-to-west/north-to-south...

...but, admittedly, it's not the biggest of the GREAT Lakes.

http://www.entertainmentandshowbiz.com/ ... 0021736740

Joe-
Whatever newscast gave the Lake Erie thing as being 'frozen over' completely must be drinking something special--as I drive into Buffalo along Route 5, Lake Erie is to my left and I can see open water--in fact, two ice fisherman in the Buffalo Harbor on Lake Erie were rescued today as they tried to fish on thin ice and fell through.
mark

You know those liberal media elites--always trying to put one over on the unsuspecting public!

[steve_decker]

The one that I find interesting is Superior. University scientists are saying that the surface temperature has increased 4.5 degrees in the last 30 years whereas the air temperature in that region has increased 2.7 degrees in the same timeframe. During that same 30 years, the frequency of a freeze-over has actually increased. Superior typically freezes over every 20 years or so. Most recent was 2009. Prior to that was 2003. IIRC, it froze over (or came damn close) in '98. It definitely did in '94.

I am not a scientist nor do I pretend to be one. What I do know is there are countless tangible examples like this that make it real hard to believe the "data" (real or fabricated). To Bloke's point, the doomsday mentality, that seems to have a great number of evangelists, may very well result in creating much greater devastation through fear-mongoring, reckless policies, and reckless spending. Whether or not so-called climate change (aka global warming) is real, the only positive impact will be made through voluntary individual changes.

[bisontuba]

Hi-
For what ever it is worth, we had (as according to the weather service) 'Lake Effect' snow last night and today--Lake Effect snow is brought about when the lake (as in Lake Erie) has open water (not completely iced over) and it accounts for additional snow fall. That is why we always wish for the Lake to be frozen over-to avoid Lake Effect snow.
mark

[bisontuba]

HI-
Now THAT I agree with 1000%--big Utility bills stink-period!!
mark

[bisontuba]

Hi-
Well, let's see if Texas has the same kind of drought in Summer of 2010 as they had last year. The weather is wacky...
mark

[tbn.al]

My son in Austin tells me he is expecting to build a snowman in his front yard tomorrow. Austin TX, mind you. Wade, Joe get ready! It's a headed your way.

[Todd S. Malicoate]

Isn't anyone in this debate willing to admit that it simply CAN'T BE KNOWN with the available data (or lack thereof) what the global climate trend really is? After all, there has only been access to detailed satellite climate data for a couple of decades.

I'm really tired of the knee-jerk reactions of otherwise intelligent people to tying a particularly cold or hot DAY in one particular location as "proof" of their beliefs about climate change. It's ridiculous, and not particularly funny to me. Any idiot can produce anecdotal evidence (and very convincing evidence to most) to "prove" their view.

Both sides need to clam up and wait at least a few more decades for any sort of "trend" to emerge. The biggest difference between the two sides, though, that SHOULD be noted is that one side wants to get in my pockets and modify my behavior whilst the other would more likely leave me alone. I'll opt for the latter camp, thank you.

[SRanney]

Bloke, this one's for you:

"A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION, Calling for balanced teaching of global warming in the public schools of South Dakota..."

http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2010/ ... R1009P.htm