posted on July 19, 2001 09:34:41 AM newBorillarSo where is YOUR evidence -- all of you claiming there is no evidence?
Borillar, I'm curious if you can explains something on a level where I'm able to grasp it. You made this statement in your opening post.
the small island of Tarawa, Kiribati is sinking beneath the waves of the Pacific Ocean. Not because the island itself is sinking, but because of Global Warming.
I'm no scientist, but I have poured water into the tub and noticed that it didn't have any lumps on the surface, it seemed relatively flat to my uneducated eyes. Can you give me any theories on why one island is affected by the Global Warming and others aren't? You said the island isn't sinking, so then the water must be rising, right?
Your theory (or any theory) on the localized rising sea level please.
What I get is a mish-mash of things. Of note are scientists who caution that the whole subject matter is so complex that no one can be absolutely sure that global warming is man-made or not; others do have some proofs; and others who call it a hoax seem to have only one oar in the water. But none of them are saying that the science isn't there -- just that it's too complex to make international policy on.
All I can find about it being a "hoax" or "bad science" and such are from unreliable sources, by which I mean those who complain about "those environmentalists" destroying our economy. http://www.americasfuture.net/1997/nov97/97-1123a.html
No one is suggesting WHY there is a hoax, only that there is one. In the above article, the writer suggests the make-up of these hoaxers are "those who seek to control the world economies, dictate development, and redistribute the world's wealth."
Communists at large not-so-secretly controlling the world and everyone in it? Wasn't that supposed to be the Bavarian Illuminati? Or was it the G8?
In order to save us all some time, perhaps, you could point to the link that ties Freon to global warming. I'm sure that would be appreciated by your loyal readers. Thank you for your time in doing this.
posted on July 19, 2001 11:35:39 AM new
Any ideas how many car tailpipes and powerplant smokestacks emissions the last eruption of Mt. St. Helens put into the atmosphere?
Not to mention just a minute amount of heat energy....
How many active volcanoes are there in the world? How many have become active in the last century?
posted on July 19, 2001 04:37:00 PM new
Well, as I said, I'm willing to change my mind. But so far, all I can find are articles about the effects of freon on the ozone layer, scientists who caution international bodies from basing decisions on what they know right now, but no where -- no one is sugesting that absolutely no evidence exists. It's too soon to be called a Theory, but any investigation is based upon some facts. To say that there are no facts whasoever brings to mind paranoid theories, which I am aquainted with true, but I know what is likely and what is not.
So, show ME where there is someone crediable stating that there are no facts.
posted on July 19, 2001 04:39:13 PM new"n order to save us all some time, perhaps, you could point to the link that ties Freon to global warming."
Tex1, I'm not the one making incrediable, seemingly absurd claims here! It isn't up to me to prove or disprove anything. I didn't write the article in question and I surely didn't respond by claiming that there is no evidence whatsoever of Global Warming being caused by humans.
posted on July 19, 2001 04:43:44 PM new
FWIW, Borillar...
I've listened to several PBS programs (Science Friday) on this subject. They always have scientists from credible institutions on both sides of this issue...some say global warming is a fact...the others say it's nonsense and without any scientific merit.
So...there you have it. Scientists are in disagreement on the subject.
posted on July 19, 2001 05:18:32 PM new
Borillar, you, not an article, stated that Freon was a cause of global warming. Can you show just one article that ties warming to Freon? Time to put up, or.... Well, we won't go there.
posted on July 19, 2001 11:17:22 PM newhttp://www.niehs.nih.gov/external/faq/freon.htm '"Freon" is not a chemical per se, "Freon" is actually a trade name that describes a whole class of chemicals used in refrigeration. Most of the chemicals included under the trade name of "Freon" are known as "chlorofluorocarbons." '
http://www.uos.harvard.edu/ehs/factsheets/ea_cfc_recycling.html Ozone depleting substances used in refrigeration and air conditioning appliances include chlorofluorocarbons and hydrochlorofluorocarbons, collectively referred to in this Factsheet as CFCs. This group of chemicals has been demonstrated to be harmful to the stratospheric ozone layer and is subject to a production phaseout.
http://process-economics.com/Reports/peprpt201.htm Production and use of chlorofluorocarbons are being phased out under international agreements to protect the ozone layer, which reduces the amount of ultraviolet radiation reaching the earth's surface.
http://www.nawcwpns.navy.mil/techtransfer/whitpaps/cfcreduc.htm CFCs, however, fall into a category called ozone-depleting compounds (ODCs). Scientists have estimated that each CFC-113 molecule has a lifetime of 100 years in the stratosphere and that each chlorine atom (of which CFC-113 has three) can destroy 100,000 ozone molecules. A 1% ozone depletion in the stratosphere equates to a 2% increase in ultraviolet radiation reaching the Earth. Because of the potential global impact of stratospheric ozone depletion, the Montreal Protocol of 1987, to which the United States is a signatory, called for a worldwide reduction of CFC by the year 2000.
posted on July 20, 2001 01:28:23 AM new
OK If we are going to throw out conspiricy theories...
How about if the government knows that global warming is happening and probably irreversible but was told most of the 3rd world nations will all die off but the technologically advanced nations will survive who can live 24 hours in air conditioning.
How much reason would they have to engage in a huge effort that would hurt the industrail economies when the opposite action would hand them the other two thirds of the world's resources on a platter and put their own populations into a situation where it would be easier to maintain control over them?
You are absent from your own thread. We stll await your ideas and documentation on Freon (CFC's) and how it affects global warming.
Allow me to help you out. It doesn't. Next time you choose to post an article, in order to, bash the president, big bad corporations, and the government in general; you may want to consider facts in evidence.
[ edited by Tex1 on Jul 20, 2001 08:02 AM ]
posted on July 20, 2001 08:31:22 AM new
Gravid, here's a different "conspiricy" theory. Sorry it's so long, I've tried to keep a good pace though..
There are two important forces of control over people: money and government. This implies that people with money have power over people without money. Governments have power over everyone.
People without money resent the equation. They want to be powerful too.
People with money also seek even more power, sometimes directly by running for political office, but more often indirectly, by working for political causes, donating.
In America, there is a well trodden path from having no money to having enough money to end up at least balanced, power wise. No one pushes you around with money. However, this path takes time and work. The young are constantly seeking a shortcut, and lots of people never save money, and remain resentfully in the control of the force of money even later into life.
Thus, we find a political coalition, made up of people seeking more power without the hassle of making money, and older, moneyed people seeking even more power through an influence of government.
The media is the natural ally of this coalition, for more than the well known phenomenom that the media are highly skewed, money wise, toward the lower middle class. Just as important, if not moreso: the media feel that they have more influence over government than over money, thus they reliably seek more power for government.
This natural coalition needs an issue or two to serve as an internal catalyst, a motivating factor, and the issue must appeal to at least a few people who are otherwise on the fence.
For a long time, the hot issue was the plight of the poor in America. The force of government was used to shield such people from the power of money. However, by 1980, the limits of the issue's success had been solidly encountered, and the issue began to fade as the fence sitters started becoming skeptics. It's never really gone away, but it just doesn't pack a real punch anymore.
Enter New Environmentalism.
Environmentalism has been with us for some 125 years, the first real success was the creation of Yellowstone Park. During the 1890s the loggable western forests were brought under the control of the Forest Service, with some being perserved in the National Park System.
Environmentalism started gaining real clout during the late 50s and particularly the '60s. Rivers started getting cleaned up. DDT was banned because it caused birds real problems. Cars became pollution controlled. The most polluted cities, air wise, became much better.
But even this was lacking punch. We had succeeded, you know. So New Environmentalism was born.
New Environmentalism is a religious and political movement, not a scientific one. Its issues have no scientific basis, which isn't to say that we find all scientists pointing that out. New Environmentalism claims that all species are of equal value to the human species. And, as we see clearly here, New Environmentalists seek to control world capitalism by getting goverenment control over both industry and individuals. This, above all else, is what motivates the true believer of New Environmentalism: capitalism is bad because it creates a life situation which requires work and sacrifice. In the True Believer's mind, industry and SUV's are evil, much the way that non-marital sex is evil to many Christians. Thus, the True Beliver accepts uncritically what appear to be plausible claims of human caused global warming (much the way that some Christians uncritically accept claims of the effect of prayer). The True Beliver accepts the statements of the priests in this regard, without question. Skepticism is as unwelcome in this religion as it is in any other.
So there you have it. Not everyone in the coaltion is a True Beliver, just like many who belong to any church are social members rather than hard core. However, this issue serves along with the species one as the core of the coaltion's claim to moral superiority, and thus justification for government control other people.
[ edited by roofguy on Jul 20, 2001 08:39 AM ]
posted on July 20, 2001 08:47:50 AM new
Borillar, I think the differences in our analysis come down to this.
I see a fundamental difference between "many scientists say" vs "scientific evidence".
In particular, I believe that many scientists state claims which lack scientific evidence.
With few exceptions, scientific evidence can be comprehended by a layman, and thus subsequently explained. Consider the plate theory of Earth geology, which was controversial as recently as 1975. The reason we all, you and I included, came to accept this theory was not because "many scientists say", but because we were shown evidence that geologic features fit together if you back up time. The "many scientists say" caused us to look at the real evidence, rather than being conclusive in and of itself.
posted on July 20, 2001 06:11:52 PM new"Borillar, You are absent from your own thread." -Tex-
Whether you like it or not, Tex, I have two businesses to run as well as a personal life that does not include being on the computer. I'm sure your life is much different and you can't understand how it is for people with a real life.
Contrary to your insinuation that I'm hiding out, I *have* been doing a lot of reading. I enjoy science and I also enjoy conspiracy theories, so this is a lot of fun for me to research (although what I'll ever do with the information I have no idea).
So far, reading at about a dozen web sites so far, and submitting questions to environmental scientists which I am waiting for a reply on, I am at the same impasse. Apparently there is a body of data out there that everyone keeps referring to. I am trying to locate it. It is the original study done upon which the legislation that banned freon production was based on. That study was done several decades ago now and is not easy to find.
What I have found a lot of are detractors who foam at the mouth at Al Gore for leading the crusade to ban the coolant. I can agree that it has cost us dearly and that many replacements are out there, but none so cheap to make as freon is.
Of those web sites that claim that it is all a hoax, either the writer begins to quote the bible as references, or they begin to talk about conspiracies, or they point to a lack of concern by scientists who are out to protect their behinds, paychecks, and project grants. I've heard that hooey before and am not impressed.
So far, not a single detractor can point to any real, rational explanation as to why so many scientists would want to perpetrate a hoax. On the other hand, I do see anti-Democrats, anti-Clinton/Al Gore types, pro-corporation types and they admit such. I'm reading both the pros and the cons, but as I said: I have yet to hear a real reason why we're all having our legs pulled by the scientific community.
So, if it takes me days, or even weeks, you'll just have to be patient, Tex. That is, if you can keep from going to the bathroom that long.
edited for UBB
[ edited by Borillar on Jul 20, 2001 06:13 PM ]
One thought, and it may have been mentioned in the CNN article. You mention one small island in the Pacific. Geography shows thousands of small islands in this ocean. Is this a localized phenomenon specific to Tarawa or is this occurring in more regions?
It would be interesting to see if specific areas are going up (or down, depending on your perspective) or it is a near constant change globally.
v/r
Deuce
UBB...it's been a while
[ edited by deuce on Jul 20, 2001 06:22 PM ]
posted on July 20, 2001 06:33:26 PM new
Thank you camachinist, toke, gravid, bunnicula, and roofguy!
I have never stated that my mind was locked to the popular viewpoint of freon/ozone depletion/global warming by humans. I ahve only stated that I can find no reason as to why such a hoax would be perpetrated on us by the scientific community.
I am leery of these claims that science is wrong, the facts are wrong, that there are no facts. I'm an old Evolutionist and have had many an arguement with creationists, heard EXACTLY the same things that are being said concerning global warming and facts. It doesn't help the case against global warming that Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and the rest of the anti-Science religious program gang constantly goes on the air denouncing global warming just as they do with evolution.
That's not to say that my mind is closed on the issue -- it's just awfully skeptical -- it just doesn't 'sit right' somehow to say that its all a hoax.
I am not familiar with the "New Environmentalists" or their agenda. I am saddened that any political group would use science as a shield when in reality they do not use science at all.
Like I say, I'll keep looking and will follow bunnicula's links just as soon as I have the time this weekend to go follow them.
"Next time you choose to post an article, in order to, bash the president, big bad corporations, and the government in general; you may want to consider facts in evidence." -tex-
>>SIGH!<<
First Deuce, who ended up learning the truth about things, now this one. At least Deuce was intelligent and extra polite and I miss his posts and debates. Can we trade this one for Deuce? Anybody?
posted on July 20, 2001 07:17:16 PM newIt doesn't help the case against global warming that Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and the rest of the anti-Science religious program gang constantly goes on the air denouncing global warming just as they do with evolution.
posted on July 20, 2001 08:13:23 PM new
Hiya Deuce! I did miss your post -- sorry! Like I said to Tex - I've got a real life beyond the computer.
I thought the same thing as well, about other islands so near the water's surface. I have been seeing reports for years about some atolls that were used as WWII landing strips in the Pacific Ocean that are now under the waves due to rising water levels.
Also on the news lately, more evidence that temperatures are rising and that a 6 degree celcius rise (about 11 degrees f.) is possible by the year 2050. Detractors often point ou that is insignificant and can't see what the fuss is all about. but scientists do put it into perspective, with one single degree that equates (so they think) to so much rise in water levels, etc.
I thought that global warming was a pretty accepted fact, except among industrialists and oil producers who stand to loose from efforts to combat global warming.
extra polite?!?! Too much wine tonight?
LOL! No! I made it a rule to not drink and post many years ago, back before the Internet became a place to socialize. It's just that your posts have been polite and have even gone out of the norm to try to be polite. Contrast that with others who find my posts fanciful and alarmist, and you can see why I mentioned it.
posted on July 20, 2001 08:16:30 PM new"That's not evidence one way or the other."
No. Not evidence. But when the source rants and quotes scripture to prove the point as to why science is wrong, I can't seriously take them at face value for what they are claiming. That these same folks say the same things about another field of science other than evolutionary sciences, geology, planetology, and astronomy it seems to be just one more science on their hit list of nonsense.
posted on July 20, 2001 09:03:20 PM newBorillarI have been seeing reports for years about some atolls that were used as WWII landing strips in the Pacific Ocean that are now under the waves due to rising water levels.
Just how much of a rise in the sea level have you seen reported. Shouldn't there be a number? Wouldn't a number go a long way to prove your case?
posted on July 20, 2001 10:25:51 PM new
Bring it closer to home:
http://www.whoi.edu/coastal-briefs/Coastal-Brief-94-02.html The results of a study that we completed several years ago for the Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management indicate that rising relative sea level is taking a far greater toll of Massachusetts coastal upland than most scientists and regulators had realized. Each year, on average, 65 acres of upland are passively submerged by a combination of rising sea and subsiding land.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/factsheet/fs102-98/ There is little awareness, however, that the rapidly rising relative sea level within the bay is also having dramatic and wide-ranging effects. Islands once populated in colonial time and during the past century have disappeared due to submergence and related shore erosion. The artifacts of early European settlers and prehistoric peoples are sometimes found by watermen working over land areas now covered by the shallow waters of the bay. Sharps Island, described and mapped by John Smith in 1608, has since disappeared, although it was shown on maps and charts as recently as the beginning of the 20th century.
http://www.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/03/06/sea.level.enn/ Policymakers, beware. And prepare for a rise in sea level of 20 inches and the inundation of 13,000 square miles of land by the year 2100, says the co-author of a report for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
posted on July 21, 2001 01:39:46 AM newAnd prepare for a rise in sea level of 20 inches and the inundation of 13,000 square miles of land by the year 2100
I've seen that prediction before. 1.5 ft in 100 years. Maybe. A lot of scientist feel that there is nothing man can do about it. Sea levels have risen and fallen without the EPAs permission in the past or even man to witness it.
You can bet one thing, the news services will report any scientists theory as long as it is gloomy enough. Personally I don't think we'll be around to see it. The Y2K bug will probably grind our little civilization to a halt. I'd supply you with some links on the Y2K threat, but I spare you out of the fear it would generate.
posted on July 21, 2001 09:21:10 AM new
Borillar, I've not seen anyone accuse a hoax here. I bring no such accusation.
A hoax requires insincerity on behalf of its proponents. The Christian belief in the second coming of Jesus is no hoax, and neither is the belief of human caused global warming.
posted on July 21, 2001 12:33:29 PM new"Borillar, I've not seen anyone accuse a hoax here. I bring no such accusation."
"There is no scientific evidence that humans have caused global warming. None."
Not an accusation that a hoax is being perpetrated. But using logic to follow through on your statement above and assuming that you are right, if there is no scientific evidence and scientists have been releasing sceintific evidence, then the scientific evidence being released is not science. A scientist who releases scientific findings and such findings are not science, such findings should be concidered -- what?
So then there are only two possibilities as to why a scientist would elease those findings: a) they did so unwittingly; and b) they did it on purpose.
I find that hard to believe that a professional environmental scientist would be so sloppy as to unknowingly release data that contained no science. What good is all of the years of academics, the years of internship, filedwork, and sound basis of procuring the facts then? At worst, the conclusions end up wrong, but the facts never lie.
The other option is that these scientists knowingly released faulty reports. To wit:
posted on July 22, 2001 09:05:38 AM newI find that hard to believe that a professional environmental scientist would be so sloppy as to unknowingly release data that contained no science.
Maybe you could take on the point, Borillar. There ain't no data showing humans are causing climate change,
"released" or not. That's why you haven't been able to find any.
Does it seem problematic that your entire analysis of this question rests, not on something you can understand for yourself, but rather something you must accept the opinion of an authority regarding? Do you observe the religious nature of your relationship with those authorities?
Directly to the point of this thread, did some environmental scientist "release data" that some particular island was "sinking amidst global warming" and the data shows we can logically hold Bush responsible?
Of course not. It just isn't there.
The "sinking island" example is classic, but it's beauty is in it's ineptitude. The author was so swept up by fervor that s/he forgot that sea levels must rise all over if they were to rise at some particular island. This author was not a skeptic, you know.
