Jonann's World:

• Denier - denies global warming has occurred, is occurring or will occur.
• S[k/c]eptic - former denier who falsely concedes GW is a concern and doubt's man-made CO2 is a/the principal cause.
• Advocate - future alarmist.
• Alarmist - buys in to a religious belief that not only is GW occurring at pace, but that CO2 is the principle cause & that if we don't don't commit, within 50 days apparently, to destroying the developed & developing world we'll all die.

A rather idiotic analogy, unless you can show that man has the capacity to prevent earthquakes and that the developed nations of the world should pay for earthquake-proofing every building in the world.  If earthquakes were our 'fault' (he, he), maybe.

Yes, it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste

Ok believers... riddle me this one.. Co2 is heavier than air...(don't believe me spray a fire  extinguisher and watch how the gases fall no rise into the air) ...still don't believe it..its particulate matter you say break a Co2 cartridge and tell me where to you get cold at your feet... or your head when you do so...

Or better get a lab and test the air above where you break the cartridge before and after.. there won't be more co2 there..as its on the ground...

Global warming is not man made its sun and planet made...

http://www.iceagenow.com/

The problem here isn't that the GW advocates are being unreasonable...its that the people that back them fire the people that prevent evidence to the contrary... its a scary new scientific persecution.  So the only scientists that say anything are the ones that are financially secure?? WTF??

Politicians are saying.  I paid you for this grant to study X and I want X result.  If your data doesn't support this I fire you.

This is NOT science.

Politicians should be saying OH so sorry the data doesn't support the theory....

Next up discussion how the polar caps of mars are affected (melting at the same rate as earth's ) by the traffic in LA...

Please people.  Don't be stupid.

Don't be unscientific.

Moosetek13: Have you looked into the French system of reusing radioactive waste. most of the country is powered by nuclear power plants, which is weird for the froggies to be so non-liberal on the issue

iirc they reuse the waste 3 or 4 times, buy which time the isotopes are either very short or long lived and can be stuck in the ground somewhere and forgot about. This is a very viable option to increase our nuclear power usage. 

Don't get me wrong. I am not against nuclear energy, just concerned about very dangerous waste products that can take hundreds of thousands of years to decompose to safe levels.

And I also learned of that which you speak from the link I provided. India is also using those same techniques of recycling the waste into less dangerous forms.

so u r sayin that if we would say, stuff it all in an uninhabited area, all would b good?

The solution to the population problem is wealth.  Wealthy areas actually shrink in population, it's the bloody immigrants hiding the decline.

The cause is simple.

I'm rich, I'm set for life.  What the fuck do I want a little bag of shit running around the house for?  A woman is going to have to brow beat me into wanting kids.

I'm dirt poor, I live by the skin off my ass, when I get to old to work, I'm fucked.  Half my kids wont live long enough to see me die of starvation either.  I need to start producing a lot of them and put them to work so we have more food and I have someone to take care of me later.

Poor areas breed like rabbits for security.  Security negates the need to breed like rabbits, and kids are a lot of work.  Not to mention we have child labor laws, even if they could pay for the time they take, it's illegal.

Yeah...  It actually does circulate quite a bit.  Almost none of it makes it into the stratosphere, but plenty floats around in the mid and lower troposphere.  Air motion will carry heavier particles quite a bit, and the heated gases expelled by power plants are shot up into the mid troposphere before they've equalized.  It is a nice joke that it's going to stay up there forever though.

Pretty darn sure that it's an ancient greek word...such words are always k.

Boggles the mind eh...who would have thought geometry could offer so much comfort.

I'd always liked the idea that plants go to seed when they've reached their limit.

this.

"sceptics" ARE deniers. the whole point of being a sceptic is that you don't subscribe to an idea without a certain level of evidence with which to support it. well guess what? there is mountains of evidence to support AGW, far more than is necessary to convince any HONEST sceptic.

global warming deniers aren't sceptical, because no amount of evidence will convince them.

global warming is silly, although it does sell plenty of newspapers and make lots of folks watch the news on tv every night.  plus in no way could al gore be attempting to stay culturally relevant by taking up this particular cause  

What are you trying to say here? Are you inferring the all science is junk science? If not, what is junk science? How do you identify it?

What you are claiming here is that the climate changed in the past due to various natural causes, which is true. It does not mean that the change that is happening now is natural. Just because it has happened naturally in the past doesn't automatically mean it can't be induced by human behavior.

Hm. So this is wrong? Point out how - educate us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

Well, the CEOs of companies in canada and the US actually care about shareholder return, because they are legally required to. Many of them are 'going green' to promote their image with the general public. I've met a few of these guys: High level staff at Maxtor and NBC (long story), interestingly enough they actually did care, and were convinced that sustainable behavior was actually more profitable.

Interestingly enough, they can also make a ton of money off of oil, coal, and other 'dirty' businesses. Banks are opportunists, and will make money in any way they can. Besides, whether or not they are pushing for global warming has no real bearing on the realness of GW.

Check out cryosphere today. It's a picture of the artic for every day since the early 80's. You can watch the entire sequence from 1980 until now. In 2002 or so, it get very interesting.

It's not an unknown amount. You can calculate it. The data is available. Look up the number of barrels of oil extracted, look up the amount of carbon dioxide generated by burning the barrel. Do the same for coal. It amount to about a 1% increase in atmospheric CO2 per year. The oxygen used up isn't as significant, because CO2 is about 3% of our total atmosphere.

It seems clear cut to me that our actions are doing something. To decide, as a physics-educated person, I computed the amount carbon we were digging up and burning. It's an easy calculation to do, and the data is all over the web. It turns out that we are putting a lot up there - quite an amazing amount actually. Did you know 1 gallon of gasoline generates about 19 lbs of CO2? That doesn't include the CO2 generated in the extraction and refinement process.

IMO, our future isn't nuclear, but solar. Mostly direct solar. With a few plants in the arid areas of the world, you can easily generate all the power we'll ever need - even if we all started driving electric cars.

If you assume the average of 300 watts per square meter, and the best photovoltaics right now being about 40% efficient, you get about 120 watts per sq meter. The world uses about 16.8 trillion kw-h of electricity in 2005, and there are 8500 or so hours in a year, so that's about 2 billion watts on average - probably is a good estimate of the peak usage too because when USA is sleeping and using low power, the EU is daytime and using heavy power. At 120 W generated per sq meter, you can supply the world's demand for 2 billion watts with abour 16 million sq meters. That is a single solar power plant, 4 km square. Pretty tiny. Just for kicks, you'd build a few dozen of these around the world for redundancy and future scalability. Once they're built, no more emissions will be needed. It's sustainable - as long as there is sun there is power.

In space, it gets better, we get about 1200 w per sq meter up there. I think Japan is putting a solar power station up there now...

While this is largely true, you also have to consider the cultural perspective on familie. For some examples, my religion encourages large families, and that's a reason why I want to raise a large family. In some African nations, fathering many children is a sign of pride and masculinity. So while wealth does generally reduce population size, the culture of a people must also be considered.

On the subject of global warming, I have no real definite opinion. I'm open to the possibilty, but doubt that a large amount of it is man-made. Regardless, it can serve as an excuse to increase the energy industry, which should hopefully make more efficient energy sources cheaper.

A good reason to eradicate religion then.

Not pride and masculinity, reckless stupidity. Bearing children you cannot feed is an obscenity. What a miserable existence these children have. Yes, let a child suffer to satisfy your own pride

New Malthusians are we? 

@agent Kharma... you are pretty clearly a conservative denier.Claiming to not buy from the major parties, positioning yourself as neutral is obnouxious. If you are sceptic about global warming mmm ok, that you think abortion is murder, I understand that and I feel thats a very hard moral issue indeed, etc. Fine. But that you are so dumb to buy into creationist thinking that you repeat blatant lies about evolution. There ends to me our discussion. You're trying to refute science because it conflicts with your personal beliefs.

I am certainly a conservative, but I hesitate to classify myself as such these days, because in the popular culture the term seems to have degenerated into little more than "Bush supporter" (never voted for him), "war supporter" (I am not), republican (I am not), or, paradoxically, a supporter of big government (I am not).  Since the term seems meaningless these days, I don't use the term, but will certainly accept it if given, if you also accept the qualifications I just made.

I say again, I am not a major party person (I consider major parties to be a large part of what is wrong with the system), nor am I neutral on anything.  If you say that I am, then you are being irrational and stating something about me when you don't have any information otherwise, and simply don't know.  So why would I want to talk with someone who is irrational?

My views on this are a little more complicated than "skeptic" and I described them.

What ends the discussion is your irrational ad hominem attack.  So discussion ended.

What "science?"  What "personal beliefs?"

Evolution is most certainly supported. Claiming otherwise is foolish. Evolution is an observable phenomenon and I can only conclude that your refusal to disbelieve this originate out of personal beliefs.

Tell us how skeptic you are then. 

LOL.  You are like every other evolutionist I've ever heard (not that I expected you to be different).  Nothing but ad hominum attacks, and declarations of pure fiat such as "evolution is supported," "claiming otherwise is foolish," and "evolution is an observable phenomenon."  Saying anything further would be a waste of my time.

"Evolution is most certainly supported. Claiming otherwise is foolish. Evolution is an observable phenomenon and I can only conclude that your refusal to disbelieve this originate out of personal beliefs."

Just for fun, isn't the reason you believe in evolution based on personal beliefs?  in fact, is that not what most to all decisions and beliefs are based on? personal beliefs, which may or may not be based on evidence?

other than that, you should probably get back to the AGW topic unless you two decide to bring something more than "i'm right you're ignorant" to the disscusion, like evidence, or actual, factual debates.

(quoting Zehdon [google chrome])

I don't care if CO2 output, or the output of other gases, is causing the moderate increase in average tempretures that have been recorded, or the measured - albeit minute - increase in sea levels. As far as I'm concerned, anything that promotes a cleaner environment is a better thing. The renewable energies and cleaner living have additional benefits besides lessening the effects of 'Global Warming', and it's a massive, systemic shake down that is long over-due. Sure, it's probably 90% bullshit, but if it gets shit done, I'm all for it.

(/quote)

Exactly my sentiment! Well put.

No. 

Evolution is supported by evidence unlike creationism.

@kharma

go read wikipedia on evolution. its supported by evidence.

Which would likely result in the deaths of millions and cultural exterminiation on a global scale. And even then, religion wouldn't be eradicated unless the entire concept of culture was destroyed and individual thought actually supressed. Though it would reduce the human population, which some people want. For the environment, ya' know.

@lifekatana

Are you seriously asking us to go to wikipedia? You do know that that website can be altered by ANYONE. Yes ANYONE and EVERYONE has permission to change wikipedia entrys, so while common entrys on there that everybody knows about are going to be true most likely, I dont think going to wikipedia to learn about evolution would be a very smart idea.

I quit responding to the guy or taking him seriously.  I mean, I've studied evolution all of my life, and can recite all its tenents chapter and verse (even better than the evolutionists I debate), yet this guy refers me to some article on wikipedia, LOL.  I mean, what a joke.

I think all he know how to do is make ad hominem attacks, appeals to authority, and set up straw men, in addition to refering people to an article on wikipedia LOL.

lol, kmarma is a creationist. that explains a lot.

global warming deniers = holocaust deniers = creationists = 911 conspiracy theorists. all cut from the same mould.