Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Killer Joe, Apr 29, 2008.

  1. rokapoke Man Among Gods

    To add to DarthFerret's point about humans not being the cause of global warming...

    If human beings and our "civilization" are the cause of global warming due to excessive industrialization and pollution, what did the dinosaurs do to cause an ice age?

    Of course, this is unsolicited "help" to DF's argument, and may not help at all.
  2. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    I think the point is that mankind has been "accelerating" the global warming to the point that what would naturally occur in thousands of years is occuring in a hundred years.
  3. Mooseman Isengar Tussle

    It doesn't :D

    The Car I am talking about is from a company that started in 1919 and I doubt it's made of particle board......

    European Car of the Year awards
    * 1971: Citroën GS
    * 1975: Citroën CX
    * 1990: Citroën XM

    * 1971: Citroën SM
    * 1979: Citroën Visa
    * 1988: Citroën AX
    * 1994: Citroën Xantia
    * 2003: Citroën C3
    * 2005: Citroën C4
    * 2007: Citroën Grand C4 Picasso
  4. Oversoul The Tentacled One

    The Earth is about 4.54 billion years old.

    Climate is a much more complicated system. And because of that, I know that climatologists can be wrong when trying to make predictions about what will actually happen. But they certainly have a better idea about it than anyone else. Better than "environmentalists" and better than you too.

    In any case, you argument is a straw man. Climatologists aren't saying that the Earth is very young or that climate change hasn't been cyclical. They're saying that the raised amounts of carbon dioxide (from us) in the atmosphere are contributing to this complicated system in what's already a warming part of the cycle to have a warming effect. If you think they're wrong, you have to look at the data and what they're actually claiming, not concoct straw men.

    What you seem to be pointing out here is that sensationalism exists (and gets press), and people with political motivations cover those motivations under the guise of "environmentalism" (which I too find annoying). This doesn't actually undermine any scientific claims about global warming. Don't conflate the legitimate scientific research in with what the crazy hippies are saying.

    Oil is being produced all the time? I mean, that's not technically incorrect. Somewhere in the world, there must be oil forming, but that's a slow process. You make it sound like we won't eventually run out. We will.

    I'm tired of defending someone I don't like on this point over and over, but whatever. No, Al Gore did not invent the internet. He also didn't claim to invent the internet. If you want to bash Al Gore, there are plenty of things he's actually said or done that you could use, rather than toting that tired line.
  5. EricBess Active Member

    What Al Gore did claim is to have coined the term "Information Superhighway". Someone heard that claim and misrepresented it or misunderstood it and now it is a big joke that he claimed to have invented the Internet. All he did was try to give it a facier name, which didn't really stick around much anyway (though people will know what you are talking about if you say it).
  6. Mooseman Isengar Tussle

    Al Gore is a Ultra-Liberal environmental politico...... not a climatologist or a scientist (unless you consider politics a science), and all he does is raise the alarm.... unfortunately that alarm has been rung so many times.... some of them incorrectly.... that people are starting to become intolerant of it.... cry wolf too many false times and no one listens when the wolf is there.....

    That the earth is getting warmer is a fact....
    That mankind has the ability to change the environment is a fact.... do we need to light another river on fire?
    That the two are closely related..... not so much a fact, but a high confidence factor......
    Do we need to all live in tree houses and stop using technology..... no....
    Do we need to develop energy sources that are renewable.... yes.....
    Do we need to look ahead to the future and plan accordingly.... yes

    Has the US or any of the top industrialized nations had a real forward looking energy plan in the last 30 years? I doubt it..... unless Brazil counts....

    Now, back to my car debate...... Why is the US so far behind in fuel efficiency? ;)
  7. BigBlue Magic Jones

    In answer to you query... because of politics...

    There were tighter standards legislated for when GWB took office... Guess what was one of the first things he struck from the records... You know, to help out his oil buddies... I think it was right after he decided we didn't need a balanced budget anymore and got rid of that too... The US automotive industry has been able to float on the fact that fuel has been (and continues to be) considerably cheaper in the US than in Europe. Sure, it's gone up tremendously - and that's causing a cascade effect on other goods. But, it's still cheaper than it is in Europe.

    You are spot on w/ Gore too... He's raising the alarm... He isn't a scientist... (It is strange that they call it Political Science though, isn't it? They are afraid to call it what it is, an Art... The Art of Lying and Cheating your way into office.)

    The best answer is to drive less if you are able. Thanks to Walmart we've seen the disappearance of the local mom & pop store... Buy Local, reduce your consumption, and drive less. The situation we're in now has taken decades to create - it won't be solved overnight by any politician or legislative action.
  8. DarthFerret Evil Sith Weasel

    Agreed, no arguments. Al Gore is a non-issue anymore. Most people realize he is a hack!

    Yep, the warming trend began long before the industiralization of humanity which has really only happened within the last 100 years or so.

    Guess I am not as well educated as I thought as I do not know the event you are refering to. I would say that on a small segmented scale, yes a person(s) have the ability to change the environment (thus the house is born), however, from a global climatolgical scale, there has never been any hard proof that it has suffered a significant change due to any action(s) of man.

    Depends on who you talk/listen to here. It is a hotly debated topic, especially as of late.

    Thank place to plug in my laptop :D

    Ok, I agree with you for the most part. Oil is a renewable resource, however it does take a long time for the earth to renew it. Most everything, when you really look at it, is renewable. The big question is, do we consume at a faster rate than the source can be renewed? Not sure we have an answer to that one yet.

    Definately a good mantra for any aspect of life in general, so yes, i can accept its application here as well.

    Define forward looking? As I think it has already been stated, why would a company that is making a decent profit doing what it is, start changing to something less profitable? Any forward looking energy plan will have to come from some other avenue I am afraid.

    I might have partially answered this in the above paragraph. The US seems to rely on those that have already built up thier business to make these advances. Why should a car company pour out billions of dollars to research a product that will put thier current one in the pooper, thus scrapping millions of dollars of factories, machineries, patents, etc....

    It will have to come from a different source, most likely a poorer company that cannot keep up (Ford and Chevrolet come to mind...oops..sorry), or from a company that is not already in that market niche.

    It is the equivalent of saying that my company (which sells Forklifts and other mobile material handlers) should spend a ton of money researching a method of moving material without using pallets. That would make our lifts obsolete, and would put us out of business unless the one small chance that we could make a Huge Instant profit on this new technology. Fat chance of that happening overnight, especially enough to offset the cost of the research in the first place. Nope, think my company is more interested in making forklifts, and in trying to stay one step ahead of the competition so that we keep our percentage of the market share that we hold (and maybe even grab a little bit more of that share if we are lucky).
  9. Oversoul The Tentacled One

    Preach brutha!

    People keep saying that, and I'm sure in some cases somewhere just that sort of thing has happened. But it's certainly not happening all over the country and I doubt that it's happened as much or been as big of a problem as I keep hearing about.
  10. Oversoul The Tentacled One

    Didn't I already say we were in a warming cycle? That's not the argument.

    Science doesn't do "proof." But there certainly is evidence that humans can have serious effects on global climate. Furthermore, this isn't at all farfetched or even new. Other species before us have profoundly affected the global climate as well.

    No, it doesn't depend on who he talks or listens to. Reality doesn't work that way. No matter how many people you get to tell you the world is flat, those words and opinions won't even flatten an anthill.

    And it's easy, especially with a lot of money, to create the illusion of a reasonable debate about something. Sure, flat-earthers can't do that because they're just too crazy and don't really have anyone to pander to. But creationists have been doing it for decades. Manufacture a "controversy" and then appeal to the fact that there's a controversy.

    That's laughable. I'll tentatively agree with you that we really don't know how long it would take for the oil supply to be "renewed" by natural means. And to be fair, it is also possible for human beings to make oil from garbage (and that investment in technologies to do this is so disregarded is kind of depressing). But we do have an answer to that last question, and that answer is "yes."
  11. rokapoke Man Among Gods

    A car company (I'm looking at you, Detroit!) should put their time, money, and effort into oil alternatives not to drive down profits but to get there before the Japanese do. Honda and Toyota are already destroying the Big Three in sales of conventional cars -- and hybrids, too. The Japanese are also developing "alternative" fuel sources. The American companies are left with two options: develop new fuels, or go belly-up (but not before taking big government subsidies with them, I'm sure).

    If the government needs to create legislation that forces the American car manufacturers to keep up with the times, perhaps bankruptcy is the only option?
  12. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    I think I agree with you guys about Gore but I think also the scientists are glad someone who is high-profile is trying to raise the alarm. I mean, "everyone" knows Al Gore, but no one knows a scientist. It's kinda like celebrities lending their name to the cause like Leonardo DiCaprio - it's the name recognition thing.

    Due to mankind's relatively short lifespan with respect to the world and the studies needed to obtain such proof, our generation might never know, but like Oversoul said, there's certainly evidence.

    Yeah we do - have any oil fields gone dry or has a drop in output? I'm pretty sure some have...
  13. DarthFerret Evil Sith Weasel

    What evidence? I realize that Oversoul was making a jab at me for the mathematical proof wording, however, I have yet to see an unrepudited evidnence to show that we are having an effect on the climate on a global scale.

    Yes, I am sure they have, however, so have water wells. Cities have to dig new wells all the time when the old ones go dry. But guess what, in about a decade, the well is replenished. Now, I am not suggesting that dry oil wells replenish that rapidly, however, I am sure that the earth is well on its way of making more oil. As I said, I do not know if we are consuming faster than the replenishing. I do not know what percentage of the earths oil we have even tapped into yet. Not sure anyone can answer that as oil is constantly being discovered in areas that we never figured to look in. (I.e. Minnisota, Idaho, Oregon, Anwar, etc....)

    Just as with water wells, eventually the oil will be replenished. We do not have global watershortages because of overuse, why would we run out of oil. In fact, if I remember right, the prediction about 10 years ago was that we were going to run completely out of oil in 2005 or so. know I just got gas yesterday. There are always people out there that will say anything. So please, back it up with a few facts. I don't need sources, just an idea of something that can be proven (not mathematically).
  14. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    I'm not sure what kind of "evidence" you HAVE seen, so let's start with the beginning. Do you believe scientific recording of world temperature when it started to be recorded?

    I'm not arguing that the earth is making more oil. That's certainly true. But I'm also sure that there's a reason why oil is being discovered in areas "we never thought to look": because it's harder to get to. If the oil is hard to get to, the cost of getting that oil is pretty much going to offset any benefit that getting an additional supply of oil is going to have on the world supply.

    Let me ask you this: Do you *know* how long it takes to make oil?

    Again, not arguing that oil will be replenished. But in our lifetime? With the world population AND usage increasing? Highly doubtful. And actually yes, we WILL have watershortages because of overuse - there's already arguments about water rights in the US, let alone the world. The Colorado River is running dry, if it hasn't already, because of so many people and states tapping it for use. There's disputes in the lower Mideast states (Carolinas and Georgia areas) about water sources.

    And memory is always a bad thing to rely on, as I have found out in a discussion with Oversoul.
  15. DarthFerret Evil Sith Weasel

    I believe that they recorded it. I guess that is what you are asking. I have heard from a couple different places that the temp of the earth was rising a bit (not drastically..but still it is there) in the last couple of hundred years. I am sure someone out there has evidence one way and someone has evidence the other way (that is just the way of things) however, for the purposes of this discussion, I will say that I believe that the earth has been on a warming trend for quite some a marginal amount if measured annually.

    Actually, one of the reasons is that with some of our advanced technology (mainly seismic, but there are other ways to be sure) we have the ability to discover these new fields of oil. I cannot believe that drilling in Montana or Idaho would be any harder (probably a lot easier) than drilling offshore.

    Nope. Have no clue. However, I am sure it is not a straight number as there are probably a billion extenuating circumstances for each area where it is being created. (not sure created is the right word, but can not bring myself to say the earth itself manufactures anything)

    Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Pretty sure I read that somewhere...

    Seriously though, water shortages? on a Global scale? I will never dispute that some areas have shortages (deserts, droughts, etc...), or that other areas have an abundance (the midwest this year....boy that Mississippi got huge...thank goodness I dont live in MO anymore). But I was talking from a global sacle. I think it was kinda humorous that it was predicted after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, that we humans were the cause of the weather shifts and increase in hurricane activity, then the next 3 years were the lowest amount of hurricanes on record in the gulf. (although the record is small as most recordings started because of Katrina and Rita). Can we affect climate? .. Sure, if we would nuke our oceans or black out the sky...yeah...i bet that would have an effect. However, I can pretty much assure you that my smoking a cigarette will not make it snow in Ecuador.

    Especiallyt for me, because I have a very small memory capacity. If you haven't noticed, just ask my wife. She can definately coraborate that.
  16. rokapoke Man Among Gods

    You may be recalling the law of conservation of energy. However, it isn't quite that straighforward. It's more a conservation of mass and energy.

    For instance, the fusion reaction performed on a constant basis in the sun produces one helium atom from two hydrogen atoms. If you consider the mass of these two atoms, it's basically the equation 1 + 1 = 1.99999999999. The loss of mass creates energy, according to the (quite famous) equation E=mc^2.

    So, long story short, energy can be created from mass and vice versa.

    But that may be going afield from the argument at hand.
  17. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    Do you believe that, according to recorded temperatures, the temperature of the earth in recent years has been rising faster than earlier recorded temperatures over a similiar period of time (i.e. given a 20 year period in say, the 1800's vs a 20 year period in the late 1900s)?

    I guess at this point we need to see exactly how many fields have been discovered with new technology.

    I agree it's not a "straight" number, but a range, but what exactly is that range? 10 years? 100 years? 1000 years? Etc... Is there a range you believe in or just don't know so anyone might show you a "range" and that would be good enough?

    Let's back up and make sure we're talking about usable, freshwater sources :) Is that what we're talking about?
  18. Mooseman Isengar Tussle

    Is this because of your religious beliefs?
  19. BigBlue Magic Jones

    DF, are you stating that man has not had any effect on global climate?

    I find that a pretty incredulous statement personally. To me it is polical rhetoric to argue that this is a natural course of events. Yes indeed there is a climate cycle which does not care what man does or does not do... Yes, most of the world of science as we know it is only theory... to state otherwise would be to proclaim ourselves as "God". Do you believe in Gravity? That's a theory - widely accepted, but it's only a theory. You seem to accept the conservation of energy 'theory'. What theories do you believe, and which ones do you choose not to believe?

    Energy - as far as the Conservation of Energy & Matter does not equate to Fossil Fuels... Once consumed, the fossil fuel of Gasoline has been forever changed into Carbon Monoxide, Carbon Dioxide, moisture, and other "stuff". It doesn't cycle back into the earth and become Oil again by some miracle of nature.

    Renewable energy is a misnomer... There is no such animal... The suns rays are consumed by solar panels in the creation of electrical energy. Harnessing Wind is not creating more wind. More correct terminology might be Low-Impact energy sources.

    Oil may run out some day - if it's truly the byproduct of fossils... But, it could also be a byproduct of magma - that theory has been researched. Either way, it doesn't hurt to research other technologies. This is what the 'NEW' US has to become, a land of technology... we've chosen to export our manufacturing and decided nature's beauty is more important than extracting many of our resources. What does that leave us with? Education, Agriculture, and a Service Industry to provide for our citizens. Sure we have "corporations", but those are mostly geared toward globalization anymore, rather than growing industry within the US.
  20. Oversoul The Tentacled One

    Well, I'm no climatologist and can't speak for them. I think in general, you're actually right. But sensationalism and alarmism isn't necessarily going to help us.

    And is that because you haven't looked? I mean, seriously. Look at ice core data, for one example.

    DF, just because both are wells doesn't really mean anything. The comparison is completely ridiculous: water is not chemically destroyed when pulled from wells. The wells may go dry, but the water is still water. It's just in a different place.

    I should note for the sake of accuracy that individual water molecules are broken up all the time in biological reactions, such as photosynthesis. But they're also formed in biological reactions like protein synthesis. This is trivial anyway, because the vast majority of the water on the planet isn't bound up in organisms. It's in this thing called the ocean. But oil used to BE organisms.

    No, you don't get away with the old, "Someone said this other thing and it turned out to be wrong, so the claim you're talking about could be wrong too." Who said we'd completely run out of oil in 2005? On what basis did they make this claim?

    Oh, and the 2005 year makes it sound like these people were really talking about peak oil (2005 or so seems to be a popular choice for peak oil claims, although I'm not sure why) and just misunderstood it as "we are going to completely run out of oil."

    Why are you sure someone has evidence one way and someone has evidence the other way? That's not "just the way of things." That's you invoking imaginary evidence.

    Energy isn't destroyed when oil is burned. It's dispersed throughout the environment and some of it is captured by us to do work. But the oil doesn't magically reform afterward and guess where the carbon that used to be in that oil went. Go ahead, guess.

    Of course, but with all the oil and coal being burned, that's a lot more carbon dioxide than just one cigarette. And we now have evidence that it's also a whole lot by global standards.

    Pretty much spot-on. But I would argue that the last part is a bit incorrect. Gravity is a force. We can observe its effects. The theory of gravity is our model for understanding and predicting gravity and is indeed a theory. But it does a pretty good job. And that's why I have a problem with "just a theory." It dismisses the theory as somehow unimportant. But scientifically, it's of the utmost importance.


    I may be a bit harsh with this, but I've found nothing to indicate that the scientists who still cling to the abiogenic hypothesis for petroleum are anything more than cranks. I don't want to be hasty about making such a judgment. Maybe someday they'll be vindicated. But I find it hard to reconcile the evidence for biogenic petroleum with their ideas, and the pollution by soil microbes cop-out just doesn't cut it.

Share This Page