# An Inconvenient Truth



## michaeledward (May 15, 2006)

There is a new movie coming out. It recieved high praise at the Sundance Film Festival.

An Inconvenient Truth 

Information can be found here:

www.climatecrisis.net

Book your seats soon.


----------



## fightingfat (May 16, 2006)

I think it's amazing that so many people in the US still believe this isn't happening, or, that if it is, it's nothing to do with man's impact on the environment. I have to say the opinion in Europe is very much the opposite. It is seen as fact, and by many, as having consequences that are now virtually unavoidable.
What's the old Chinese proverb? May you live in interesting times...


----------



## Makalakumu (May 16, 2006)

fightingfat said:
			
		

> I think it's amazing that so many people in the US still believe this isn't happening, or, that if it is, it's nothing to do with man's impact on the environment. I have to say the opinion in Europe is very much the opposite. It is seen as fact, and by many, as having consequences that are now virtually unavoidable.  What's the old Chinese proverb? May you live in interesting times...


 
Heh.  There are people in this country that believe a whole bunch of rediculous things.  For example, did you know that the earth was 6000 years old?  Did you know that there were dinosaurs on the Ark?  Or did you know that Market solutions can solve every problem?  And here is my absolute favorite...did you know that a military large enough to take on three regional conflicts at the same time, constitutes 50% of the entire worlds military spending, and consumes over half of the federal budget is for "defense" purposes.

Global Warming isn't some kooky liberal fantasy...just ask the Inuit.


----------



## mrhnau (May 16, 2006)

fightingfat said:
			
		

> I think it's amazing that so many people in the US still believe this isn't happening, or, that if it is, it's nothing to do with man's impact on the environment. I have to say the opinion in Europe is very much the opposite. It is seen as fact, and by many, as having consequences that are now virtually unavoidable.
> What's the old Chinese proverb? May you live in interesting times...



Wasn't it in the 60's that they were talking about Global Cooling, and we were expecting glaciers to be knocking on our doors?

The environment changes from time to time. Its never been a stagnant systems. External (sun cycles) and internal (man, volcanic eruptions) influences always change things. I'm all for minimizing mans influence on the environment, but even if we totally stop our footprint on the earth, we are still going to have ups and downs. Thats nature. Minimize our influences, then realize that it won't make Earth a perfect Nirvana.


----------



## mrhnau (May 16, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> http://www.climatecrisis.net
> Book your seats soon.



I think I'll pass on that one. If I want a guilt trip on "how man is destroying everything", I can just turn on the National Geographic Channel for an hour or so, or perhaps NPR on the radio. Mission accomplished.

When you do see it, do let us know how it is. I am curious, but not willing to pay for what I can get for free elsewhere.


----------



## Monadnock (May 16, 2006)

There's a new threat to our environment - Global Raining.

Scientists anticipate it will soon be in your state.

Signed, Mike C. Soaking wet in NH.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 16, 2006)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> I think I'll pass on that one. If I want a guilt trip on "how man is destroying everything", I can just turn on the National Geographic Channel for an hour or so, or perhaps NPR on the radio.


 
Man isn't destroying everything.  We are changing everything.  For some forms of life and for many natural areas, this really is destruction.  Denying any form of guilt for this, won't change that fact.  Nor will it somehow erase that the fact that how we live is causing all of these changes.  Maybe all of this change is inevitable, maybe it isn't.  The simple fact of the matter is this...if you are going report about these changes, you need to talk about destruction and about the ultimate cause.  Humans.


----------



## mrhnau (May 16, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Man isn't destroying everything.  We are changing everything.  For some forms of life and for many natural areas, this really is destruction.  Denying any form of guilt for this, won't change that fact.  Nor will it somehow erase that the fact that how we live is causing all of these changes.  Maybe all of this change is inevitable, maybe it isn't.  The simple fact of the matter is this...if you are going report about these changes, you need to talk about destruction and about the ultimate cause.  Humans.



There are two ways to take your final two sentances:
1) if we talk about the changes humans made, then we have to discuss the human involvement

2) if we talk about changes in general, we have to discuss the human involvement, since they are the ultimate cause.

Which did you intend? Just trying to clarify.
thanks!


----------



## michaeledward (May 16, 2006)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> There are two ways to take your final two sentances:
> 1) if we talk about the changes humans made, then we have to discuss the human involvement
> 
> 2) if we talk about changes in general, we have to discuss the human involvement, since they are the ultimate cause.
> ...


 
No matter ... human beings are part of nature. Therefore, no action they take (individually or collectively) can be seen as 'independent' of nature.

The comforting thought to me is that the planet will go on, until the hydrogen has fused to helium, and when the helium starts fusing to carbon the planet earth will be consumed in a rapidly expanding sun. 

Human beings existence on the planet, at best will be an insignificant footnote, when compared to the reign of the dinosaurs. We've managed barely 11,000 years of agrarian society compared to the hundreds of millions of years for the giant lizards. I imagine the insects might do as well as the dinosaurs.

For all of our so-called intelligence, we can't seem to prevent ourselves from hurting ourselves.


----------



## mrhnau (May 16, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> No matter ... human beings are part of nature. Therefore, no action they take (individually or collectively) can be seen as 'independent' of nature.



Yes it does matter. If you are going to say that all the destruction in the world is a result of humans, I'll violently disagree with you. Species have gone extinct long before we arrived. Yes, we are all part of "nature", but we have some unique characteristics. We have mind, intellegence, and if you will, spirit. We have the ability to control our environment in unique ways. however, often what we are doing can be caused by other natural phenomenom. for instance, extinction of a species can come through disease, a misbalance of the food chain, global warming/cooling that is not human driven (yes! it can occur!), alteration of the environment by nature (flooding, beaver dams, earthquakes, fire from lightning, natural occuring radiation, etc.), and on and on.

Another unique characteristic of humans is the ability to feel guilt. I don't see lions crying when they consume their prey. I also don't see vegetarian lions, feeling sorry for their lunch. When a beaver builds its dam, I don't see much guilt. Animals have not gotten to the level of destruction that we could incur, but nature has other methods. New viruses, asteroids, solar flares... the list goes on. There are many ways the world can end, and not every one involves mankind.

I agree we should preserve what we can, but we don't have the ability to keep a stagnant environment. Thats all I'm saying. I'm not losing sleep every night I drive my car, nor am I going out of my way to destroy whats here.


----------



## Bigshadow (May 16, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> you need to talk about destruction and about the ultimate cause.  Humans.


That is not fact.  The fact is the earth is a very resiliant environment and is ever changing.  Yes, every living thing here affects the environment in one form or another.  Yes, humans have the capacity to effect more than their share.  I agree we should reduce our footprint, but I also face the fact that we as a species may not "live forever". Whether our demise is at our own hand or the cleansing forces of nature I do not know. But in reality what the film is about is not letting nature do as it wishes, but rather to bend and force nature to preserve the human species.  It is truely an inconvenient truth that the human species just may not live forever.

My take on the whole environment thing is that yes, we do some things to speed things along (in the worst of ways) but this isn't soley a creation of humans, I believe it is largely the natural cycles of the planet, the solar system, and the universe.

As for the film, I will pass on it.  I don't identify with Al Gore in any way, so it would be very difficult for me to watch it.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 16, 2006)

Bigshadow said:
			
		

> My take on the whole environment thing is that yes, we do some things to speed things along (in the worst of ways) but this isn't soley a creation of humans, I believe it is largely the natural cycles of the planet, the solar system, and the universe.


 
While it is true that the earth does go thru natural cycles of heating and cooling, as well as changes in weather patterns, what is also true is that the changes we are seeing now are happening at rates that far far exceed the rates shown in the geological record that the earth goes thru naturally.  These super-speeded up changes have been linked directly to the tremendous volume of pollution that we humans dump into our environment.

Yes, the earth is tremendously resilient, and over time it can cleanse and heal itself and adjust to new conditions.  However, if it is constantly polluted at ever-increasing rates, it will never cleanse itself, nor heal from the damage we are doing to it.  This damage adds up, and can push the natural balances of the globe beyond the point where it can heal in any period of time that would be meaningful to humankind, or many of the other species of plants and animals currently sharing space on this planet with us.  

Humankind may well go extinct at some point in time, but I would hate to live (and die) to see that happen some time in the next 50 years or so due to our own stupidity and greed as a species.

Another truth is that environmental scientists submit reports to the Whitehouse regarding these findings.  Before these reports are made available to the public they are carefully re-written by Whitehouse attorneys, to make the language less dire and imply that the reports are far more speculative than the authors intended.


----------



## Phil Elmore (May 16, 2006)

> what is also true is that the changes we are seeing now are happening at rates that far far exceed the rates shown in the geological record that the earth goes thru naturally.



Can you cite an objective source for this?


----------



## Bigshadow (May 16, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> we are seeing now are happening at rates that far far exceed the rates shown in the geological record that the earth goes thru naturally.


Oh, last time I checked geological records is not an exact science, it is like a guesstimate of time at best, an accuracy of 10s of thousands of years.  Additionally, we do not know enough about the history of this planet to truely state as fact that what we are seeing is not the natural cycle of the planet.  I don't disagree that what we do can be harmful, but I disagree with "The Sky is falling" charades.



			
				Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Another truth is that environmental scientists submit reports to the Whitehouse regarding these findings. Before these reports are made available to the public they are carefully re-written by Whitehouse attorneys, to make the language less dire and imply that the reports are far more speculative than the authors intended.


I seriously do not believe that either.  I am sure the government would JUMP at the chance to make it sound more dire than it really is.  They have nothing to gain by doing what you assert, but everything to gain by doing the opposite, which they do have a track record for.


----------



## elder999 (May 16, 2006)

Bigshadow said:
			
		

> Oh, last time I checked geological records is not an exact science, it is like a guesstimate of time at best, an accuracy of 10s of thousands of years. Additionally, we do not know enough about the history of this planet to truely state as fact that what we are seeing is not the natural cycle of the planet. I don't disagree that what we do can be harmful, but I disagree with "The Sky is falling" charades.


 
Where did you check, exactly?

Because isotopic fractions of the heavier oxygen-18 (18O) and deuterium (D) in snowfall are temperature-dependent and a strong spatial correlation exists between the annual mean temperature and the mean isotopic ratio (18O or &#948;D) of precipitation, it is possible to derive ice-core climate records. The record based on an ice core drilled at the Russian Vostok station in central east Antarctica was obtained during a series of drillings in the early 1970s and 1980s and was the result of collaboration between French and former-Soviet scientists. Drilling continued at Vostok and was completed in January 1998, reaching a depth of 3623 m, the deepest ice core ever recovered . The resulting core allows the ice core record of climate properties at Vostok to be extended to about *420,000 years.*

The strong correlation between atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations and Antarctic temperature,is confirmed by the extension of the Vostok ice-core record. From the extended Vostok record, scientists have concluded that present-day atmospheric burdens of carbon dioxide and methane seem to have been unprecedented during the past 420,000 years. Temperature variations estimated from deuterium were similar for the last two glacial periods 

At any rate, this method of reassembling the historic climate changes is considered to be accurate (isotopes don't lie, the government does!) to within plus or minus 5%.


----------



## ginshun (May 16, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Another truth is that environmental scientists submit reports to the Whitehouse regarding these findings. Before these reports are made available to the public they are carefully re-written by Whitehouse attorneys, to make the language less dire and imply that the reports are far more speculative than the authors intended.



So you know this because you have read both versions?

Or are you saying that every environmental study on earth is first filtered through the Whitehouse before anybody in the USA hears about it?

Come on, you just cheapened all the good stuff you said with your anti-government crap.


----------



## ginshun (May 16, 2006)

elder999 said:
			
		

> Where did you check, exactly?
> 
> Because isotopic fractions of the heavier oxygen-18 (18O) and deuterium (D) in snowfall are temperature-dependent and a strong spatial correlation exists between the annual mean temperature and the mean isotopic ratio (18O or &#948;D) of precipitation, it is possible to derive ice-core climate records. The record based on an ice core drilled at the Russian Vostok station in central east Antarctica was obtained during a series of drillings in the early 1970s and 1980s and was the result of collaboration between French and former-Soviet scientists. Drilling continued at Vostok and was completed in January 1998, reaching a depth of 3623 m, the deepest ice core ever recovered . The resulting core allows the ice core record of climate properties at Vostok to be extended to about *420,000 years.*
> 
> ...



I don't understand this.  How can the gases in the ice in Antarctica tell us about the climate around the rest of the globe?  And does the amount of methane and CO2 in the atmosphere directly coincide with global temperature?  Is the earth hotter now than it ever has been in its history? Or even in the last 420 thousand years?

Is that what we are supposed to conclude from that information?

And just for the record, I am honestly asking these questions too, not cocking you off or posing hypotheticals.


----------



## Bigshadow (May 16, 2006)

elder999 said:
			
		

> Where did you check, exactly?



Actually, I didn't because I am all knowing.... J/K   No, actually the first thing that came to mind is the wide swath of accuracy that surrounds carbon dating.  I was aware of the process you are talking about but it didn't jump to mind when I was reading.  Nevertheless, it doesn't change my opinion either way.



			
				elder999 said:
			
		

> At any rate, this method of reassembling the historic climate changes is considered to be accurate (isotopes don't lie, the government does!) to within plus or minus 5%.


The changing climate is not in question.  It is the "why"s that are though.


----------



## michaeledward (May 16, 2006)

ginshun said:
			
		

> I don't understand this. How can the gases in the ice in Antarctica tell us about the climate around the rest of the globe? And does the amount of methane and CO2 in the atmosphere directly coincide with global temperature? Is the earth hotter now than it ever has been in its history? Or even in the last 420 thousand years?
> 
> Is that what we are supposed to conclude from that information?
> 
> And just for the record, I am honestly asking these questions too, not cocking you off or posing hypotheticals.


 
The people who choose to argue that human actions are not having an impact on the environment *do not understand* what elder999's statement means. If they understood it, there would be no discussion on the effects of fossil fuel in the ecosystem. 

Very good questions. Follow up on them carefully. And try not to mess yourself when you gain understanding as to what the answers mean. 



			
				mrhnau said:
			
		

> If you are going to say that all the destruction in the world is a result of humans,


 
That is not what I said. To use the descriptive word 'all' your claim is disingenous, regardless of how violently you disagree. Those who look at the science do not state that human activity is responsible for everything that is being destroyed. As some have noted, species have been dying off for a variety of reasons for hundreds of millions of years. Sometimes, the die offs would happen rapidly, sometimes not so rapidly. What caused the destruction of species may be significant, or may be insignificant. 

If you were able to gather data about the average amount of extintion over, oh, let's say, every millenia, I believe you would be hard pressed to find a millenia in which that was more rapid die-off of more species than what we are experiencing right now on this planet. 

Mankind, in its cleverness, has discovered how to convert the potential energy in fossil fues into kinetic energy less than two hundred years ago. Is there a correlation between these two facts? 

Fortuneately, man's lifespan is too short to give a damn. Really, what does it matter if there are snows on Killamanjaro, anyway?


----------



## Makalakumu (May 16, 2006)

Bigshadow said:
			
		

> The changing climate is not in question. It is the "why"s that are though.


 
Even that isn't really a question.  Take a look at this argument.  Greenhouse gasses scatter photons in the infrared wavelengths...effectively trapping them.  If one adds greenhouses gasses to the atmosphere, then temperatures will increase globally.  This phenomenon has been demonstrated in a number of studies, including the ice core studies portrayed above.  So, when we take a long look at the data and see that there has been an unprecedented rise in greenhouse gasses in our time with a subsequent rise in temperature...it's simple cause and effect.

Furthermore, if we look around on the earth for sources of greenhouse gasses, the only measureable, verifyable, and demonstratable source large enough to account for the climate change we've already seen are the gasses produced by the industrial burning of fossil fuels.  There may be other sources out there, but we don't know, for sure, if they are major players.  This is our BEST explanation.

The hardest thing about climate change is that it's predicatibility is limited.  Too many variables.  The relationships are not A +B = C.  Reality is that we will have large changes in some places and small changes in others.  For example, we may not ever be able to predict exactly how climate change will affect MN.  One prediction is that it's climate will start to resemble Iowa.  Another is that it's climate will start to resemble SD.  Despite this uncertaintly, we know that MN's climate will change.  And we know that humans, by adding greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere, are (at the very least) part of the cause of this change.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 16, 2006)

Bigshadow said:
			
		

> That is not fact. The fact is the earth is a very resiliant environment and is ever changing. Yes, every living thing here affects the environment in one form or another. Yes, humans have the capacity to effect more than their share. I agree we should reduce our footprint, but I also face the fact that we as a species may not "live forever". Whether our demise is at our own hand or the cleansing forces of nature I do not know. But in reality what the film is about is not letting nature do as it wishes, but rather to bend and force nature to preserve the human species. It is truely an inconvenient truth that the human species just may not live forever.
> 
> My take on the whole environment thing is that yes, we do some things to speed things along (in the worst of ways) but this isn't soley a creation of humans, I believe it is largely the natural cycles of the planet, the solar system, and the universe.
> 
> As for the film, I will pass on it. I don't identify with Al Gore in any way, so it would be very difficult for me to watch it.


 
When you look at the sum total of the changes that humans have wrought on the environment in the last 100,000 and attempt to imagine what the Earth would have looked like if our species went extinct, what do you see?  Do you see an earth as it looks now, or is it completely different?

That is what I'm talking about.  Global changes and natural processes can occur very quickly or very slowly.  Humans, and the environmental changes that we have wrought are a natural change that is happening very quickly.  And I would wager that it is far quicker then our ability to know how it will affect everything.

Incidentally, 80,000 years ago, a supervolcanic eruption at Toba did, nearly, wipe our species off the face of the Earth...


----------



## Flying Crane (May 16, 2006)

ginshun said:
			
		

> So you know this because you have read both versions?


 
No, actually there was an interview a few weeks ago with one of the scientists who was writing the original reports and submitting them to the Whitehouse.  He resigned from his post over it.  Unfortunately, I can't remember his name.  It was a 60 Minutes piece, I believe.

According to this piece, the head attorney at the Whitehouse who was doing the revising has also left his post, and is now working for one of the big oil companys.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 16, 2006)

Bigshadow said:
			
		

> I seriously do not believe that either. I am sure the government would JUMP at the chance to make it sound more dire than it really is. They have nothing to gain by doing what you assert, but everything to gain by doing the opposite, which they do have a track record for.


 
No, you are incorrect.  If they made is sound more dire than it is, then we would all need to stop driving and burning petroleum, stop buying cars, stop shopping for crap that is not made to last and will end up in a junk heap, basically stop doing everything that we do and that our economy is built upon.  It would destroy the economy.  It would be political suicide, so they downplay it and make it sound like conjecture so that we keep on with our merry lives, spend money on junk, and keep buying gas.


----------



## Marginal (May 16, 2006)

ginshun said:
			
		

> So you know this because you have read both versions?
> 
> Or are you saying that every environmental study on earth is first filtered through the Whitehouse before anybody in the USA hears about it?
> 
> Come on, you just cheapened all the good stuff you said with your anti-government crap.


 
This isn't a secret.  It's not dismissable as a conspiracy theory. Philip Cooney, (Former lobbiest for API then appointed as chief of staff on the White House council on environmental quality.) resigned in June 2005 after the New York Times revealed he had edited government reports to challenge the link between carbon emissions and global warming. (Seems like a bit of an admission of wrongdoing...) Thankfully he landed on his feet. He's working for Exxonmobile now. 

College drop out and political appointee to NASA, (hey, he worked the Bush campaign) George Deutsch also for some reason elected to keep NASA scientists from publicly discussing global warming trends. (Also insisted that they edit mentions of the Big Bang on the NASA web site etc.)


----------



## Flying Crane (May 16, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> Can you cite an objective source for this?


 
Well, I just did a 30 second search on Yahoo for _Polar Icecap Melting_, and discovered this article from the New York Times in 2000.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/081900-03.htm

This is one of many readily available examples that indicate the globe is changing in measurable ways, in years and decades, instead of the tens and hundreds of thousands of years that changes usually take when they are not speeded up, probably by human activity and pollution.


----------



## crushing (May 16, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Well, I just did a 30 second search on Yahoo for _Polar Icecap Melting_, and discovered this article from the New York Times in 2000.
> 
> http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/081900-03.htm
> 
> This is one of many readily available examples that indicate the globe is changing in measurable ways, in years and decades, instead of the tens and hundreds of thousands of years that changes usually take when they are not speeded up, probably by human activity and pollution.




It sure looks like people have taken the place of those darned hairosol-spraying -SUV-driving wooly mammoths that ended the last major ice age.  

But, even those that refuse to believe that there is a man-made impact on climate surely can't use that 'non-impact' to justify continued human mass pollution of our environment.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 16, 2006)

http://science.hq.nasa.gov/directorate/04review.html

Here is another link, to an article by NASA.  This one has satellite images that show the Arctic icecap as it was in 1980, compared to how it was in 2003.  The size difference is stunning.  The article contains some good information to help understand what impact this will probably have.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 16, 2006)

crushing said:
			
		

> But, even those that refuse to believe that there is a man-made impact on climate surely can't use that 'non-impact' to justify continued human mass pollution of our environment.


 
Very good point.  No matter how you look at it with regard to global warming issues, the pollution levels that we pump into our environment is just unacceptable.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (May 16, 2006)

All those thousands (if not more) years of burning wood, coal, whale oil, manure.those were the good old "clean days"? The last what, generation or two (my grandmother remembered horse drawn wagons when she was a child). And we are responsible for "destroying the world"? I dont buy it. We do need to be mindful in our consumption but the rest of this crap reeks of politics, money (gotta get that funding) and sky is falling hand wringing. As if Americans arent neurotic enough what with bird flu, meteors, tsunamis and what all bearing down to kill us all too.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 16, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> All those thousands (if not more) years of burning wood, coal, whale oil, manure.those were the good old "clean days"?


 
Yes, actually they were.  The global population is much larger today than it was then, so use has increased dramatically.  When I was a kid, a mere 25 or so years ago, I remember the global population was estimated at about 4 billion.  I believe it is now estimated at or above about 6 billion.  That is just 25 years.  Go back a hundred or two hundred years ago, and global population was much much smaller, with demand also much much less than it is today.

By the way, we still burn plenty of coal today.  that hasn't stopped.

And I don't think that burning manure emitted the same kind of poisonous and greenhouse causing gasses that burning coal and oil does.  That might actually be considered a cleaner alternative, if it was viable.

Wood and whale oil have obvious problems of their own.


----------



## michaeledward (May 16, 2006)

In the old days ... more photosythesis, less CO2.

Population growth, to a great extent, could not occur as it has in the last two centuries without improvements brought about by burning fossil fuels. They are intricately linked.

Now we are clear-cutting rain forests around the globe, short-sighted though it may be. For the incredibly rich rain forest soil, when cleared and planted, is good only for a growing season or two.

Much of the photosythesis on the planet; the lungs of the planet if you will; exist in the phytoplankton is the oceans. How will a minor temperature change in the surface of the oceans affect these plants? 

An interesting study took place after the aircraft were grounded over North American; post 911. Mathematical models predicted that the amount of gases in the atmosphere should be gerenating more greenhouse effect than was measurable. For the three days there were no jet plain contrails after 911 .... measurable temperature changes were observed. The best science available is telling us that condensed H2O from jet engines is reflecting much of the solar energy.

Things that make you go "hmm".


----------



## Monadnock (May 16, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> http://science.hq.nasa.gov/directorate/04review.html
> 
> Here is another link, to an article by NASA. This one has satellite images that show the Arctic icecap as it was in 1980, compared to how it was in 2003. The size difference is stunning. The article contains some good information to help understand what impact this will probably have.


 
That looks more like photoshop than an actual satelite image. Maybe they were only showing certain thicknesses of the icecap, but Google Earth shows a lot more ice cover than that when you zoom in to some of the arctic islands. Of course I don't know how old Google's images are for that area. I'm just surprised to see something that appears to be that distorted from NASA. Then again they need a lot of "good stuff" to justify their budget, for things like going to Mars.  


I think the ice has been melting for eons. It's only recently that we can track it. I think that has to be considered.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 16, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> http://science.hq.nasa.gov/directorate/04review.html
> 
> Here is another link, to an article by NASA. This one has satellite images that show the Arctic icecap as it was in 1980, compared to how it was in 2003. The size difference is stunning. The article contains some good information to help understand what impact this will probably have.


 
Albedo is a ratio of reflectivity of the Earth's surface.  This figure measures how much heat is reflected off of the Earth's surface and back into the atmosphere...and space.  Areas that have alot of snow and ice cover have high albedo.  Areas that can absorb lots of heat like oceans and darker colored land have lower albedo.  

I've seen some studies that show that within my lifetime there will be no more north polar sea ice.  The reduced albedo in that region from global warming will (is) creating a positive feedback system that is acting like a double whammy on the region.  Say good bye to your polar fauna.  They depend on the sea ice.  Another human caused extinction...except this time entire Taxonomic Orders will dissappear.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 16, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> All those thousands (if not more) years of burning wood, coal, whale oil, manure.those were the good old "clean days"? The last what, generation or two (my grandmother remembered horse drawn wagons when she was a child). And we are responsible for "destroying the world"? I dont buy it. We do need to be mindful in our consumption but the rest of this crap reeks of politics, money (gotta get that funding) and sky is falling hand wringing. As if Americans arent neurotic enough what with bird flu, meteors, tsunamis and what all bearing down to kill us all too.


 
The population of the world has risen exponentially since 1900 and so has our usage of resources.  "Chicken Little" is one thing, but I really believe that we are approaching an honest to God bottleneck.  Fossil fuels are nothing but the Earth's reserve of trapped sunlight.  Humans have learned to tap that source of energy and THAT is the fundamental reason for our exponential growth.  Within the next few hundred years, a Die Back is not out of the question.


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 16, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> http://science.hq.nasa.gov/directorate/04review.html
> 
> Here is another link, to an article by NASA. This one has satellite images that show the Arctic icecap as it was in 1980, compared to how it was in 2003. The size difference is stunning. The article contains some good information to help understand what impact this will probably have.



Not argueing that Global Warming is in progress.

Yet at one time there were theories that all costal cities would be flooded with that much polar cap melt. 

So, while I agree it is happening, I am the cautious type versus the sky is falling type. I would like to see more trend data as well before we can get a better fix on this.

In the mean time, the EPA driven by CARB, has created more and more strict requirements for emissions. With the new SULEV (* Super Ultra Low Emisison Vechile standard *), the start up is critical and you know that drop of gas that always falls when you pull the nozzle out of your tank after filling it? Well that is more than the new requirements for start up which is one of the hardest points to control, as the catalyst is not heated and the system is not running and gone "Closed Loop", to be able to adapt to its; changes from the environment and also from driver input. 

More and more Hybrids have hit the street, look at the "Magic Bus" by GM in Seattle and in other cites as well. Not only have the draxtically reduced the amount of fuel to pay for themselves in the first year of usage, they also have less wear and tear and this means the fleet size can be 20% to 30% smaller as the number of busses down to get new asbestos brake pads or rotors has decreased. 

Also for what you can do, READ you Owners Manual for Oil Change recommendations. (* Of course check it for foriegn content and burnt smells but follow the receomendation of the manufactures which is about 7500 to 12000 miles now. *) If you have an up level vehicle you may have Oil Life % remaining on your display. NOTE: The engineers plan on people running it to 0% and then getting an oil change.  This may be longer then what is in the Manual as this is a measure of time at temperature.

Go out and buy a new lawn mower (* Get rid of your old two-cycle one *) and get one that is much mroe efficient and even more likely better on fuel economy. 

Get better long lasting energy saving light bulbs, as this energy will also save the energy that the energy company has to make. Turn down you temperature in the winter and turn it up if you have AC in the summer. 

More emmisions are put into the air by sulfur bruning coal at the pwoer plants then per vehicles. Yet the vehicles are easy to legislate and also woudl have emissions in the city where people can see and smell and feel the SMOG. 

Recycle all your paper and plastic and glass ware.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 16, 2006)

Monadnock said:
			
		

> I think the ice has been melting for eons. It's only recently that we can track it. I think that has to be considered.


 
We can measure the melting of sea ice by measuring the corresponding melting of glaciers.  Also, varve counts in glacial lakes can also give us a good handle of what was happening in the past.  Basically, for the last 500,000 years, the Arctic Ocean has been covered in ice.  This is why entire orders of mammals evolved and now depends on it.  In the next 50, that ice could be gone...


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 16, 2006)

Any thoughts on this: http://www.psc.edu/science/glatzmaier.html

The Magnetic Pole shifting ? 

What happens when it shifts towards 45 degrees declination? 

What happens as it gets closer to 0 degrees?

Does this cause a change in the core temperature? 

Does this cause extra heat from the core into the oceans? 

Once the heat is in the oceans does this cause more storms?


Another Article: http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/03/20/north.pole/



This Article: http://deeptow.whoi.edu/northpole.html states that Magentic North is shifting even further North.


Another Article tracking the Magnetic North in Canada: http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/geomag/nmp/northpole_e.php


This article states Magnetic North could end up in Siberia in 50 years: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4520982.stm



***********

And a Rock Band by the name of Magnetic North. http://www.myspace.com/magneticnorth   Do we think this could be having an effect on the enviroment.


----------



## elder999 (May 17, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> No, actually there was an interview a few weeks ago with one of the scientists who was writing the original reports and submitting them to the Whitehouse. He resigned from his post over it. Unfortunately, I can't remember his name. It was a 60 Minutes piece, I believe.
> 
> According to this piece, the head attorney at the Whitehouse who was doing the revising has also left his post, and is now working for one of the big oil companys.


 
Rick Piltz, a government scientist for 14 years, resigned in March, 2005 over concerns that scientific documents were being amended for political reasons. Evidence released by Piltz was reported in the _NY Times_ on June 8, 2005. Philip Cooney, the White House official accused of editing the reports, resigned June 10, 2005.



> _from Rick Piltz's resignation memo_
> The U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) is the vehicle through which U.S. Government agencies coordinate their support for research on climate change and associated issues of global environmental change. From 1995 until my March 2, 2005 resignation, I served in responsible positions such as Associate Director of the U.S. Global Change Research Program Office (its name until 2002) and Senior Associate in the CCSP Office. Since it was first established as the U.S. Global Change Research Program under the Global Change Research Act of 1990, this program has supported thousands of scientists who have developed an extraordinary body of scientific research, observations, and assessments, dealing with issues of fundamental scientific and societal significance. The program currently has 13 participating federal agencies and an annual budget of about $2 billion.
> 
> Global climate change is a problem with great potential consequences for society. This administration has acted to impede honest communication of the state of climate science and the implications for society of global climate change. Politicization by the White House has fed back directly into the science program in such a way as to undermine the credibility and integrity of the program in its relationship to the research community, to program managers, to policymakers, and to the public interest. The White House so successfully politicized the science program that I decided it was necessary to terminate my relationship with it.
> ...


----------



## Makalakumu (May 17, 2006)

Heat from the core is insulated pretty well from the surface of the Earth by the various layers in the earth, especially the lithosphere.  Heat does escape the earth, but the process in which this occurs is through the highly viscous convection in the asthenosphere, which tears apart lithospheric plates and allows it to escape.

The shifting the magnetic poles is very complex.  If you remember you basic geophysics, the Earth has many layers.  The mantle - which is composed of dense rock, the outer core - which is composed of molten rock and iron and the inner core - solid iron and heavier metals are the main players that describe how poles shift.  

As the Earth rotates on its access, the mantle exerts forces on the liquid core that cause it to spin.  Fluid mechanics inside the liquid core cause the solid core to spin.  This is not a perfect process, however, so the inner core tends to tumble a bit.  This tumbling has been proposed as a possible cause for magnetic pole shifting.


----------



## mrhnau (May 17, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> As the Earth rotates on its access, the mantle exerts forces on the liquid core that cause it to spin.  Fluid mechanics inside the liquid core cause the solid core to spin.  This is not a perfect process, however, so the inner core tends to tumble a bit.  This tumbling has been proposed as a possible cause for magnetic pole shifting.



And occassional flipping. I understand we are about due for another pole flip, if I recall correctly. Wouldn't that be exciting LOL


----------



## Monadnock (May 17, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> This Article: http://deeptow.whoi.edu/northpole.html states that Magentic North is shifting even further North.
> 
> 
> Another Article tracking the Magnetic North in Canada: http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/geomag/nmp/northpole_e.php
> ...


 
Due to mounting litigation from upset customers accusing the Red Ryder BB Gun corporation of selling defective BB guns, the compass in the stock will no longer be a feature.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 17, 2006)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> And occassional flipping. I understand we are about due for another pole flip, if I recall correctly. Wouldn't that be exciting LOL


 
Maybe, maybe not.  During past magnetic shifts, the Earth's magnetic field has drastically weakened.  And in some cases, almost dissappeared.  This would let the solar wind blow directly onto the planet.  Radiation levels would get a lot higher and the usage of electronics would get much more difficult.


----------



## ginshun (May 17, 2006)

Is it well established that global warming is necessarily a bad thing?

Just wondering. 

 I personally wouldn't mind a longer summer, plus the growing season here in WI sure could be better suited for my Habenaeros.

Although I will miss the skiing and snowshoeing.


----------



## Bigshadow (May 17, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> No, you are incorrect.  If they made is sound more dire than it is, then we would all need to stop driving and burning petroleum, stop buying cars, stop shopping for crap that is not made to last and will end up in a junk heap, basically stop doing everything that we do and that our economy is built upon.  It would destroy the economy.  It would be political suicide, so they downplay it and make it sound like conjecture so that we keep on with our merry lives, spend money on junk, and keep buying gas.



That sounds plausible and down right insidious.    I would buy that.


----------



## Bigshadow (May 17, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> what does it matter if there are snows on Killamanjaro, anyway?


Mt Fuji as well.  I believe the snow has all but disappeared.


----------



## Bigshadow (May 17, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Yes, actually they were.  The global population is much larger today than it was then, so use has increased dramatically.



Actually, you have touched something that I believe is at the core of this.  The population.  Much like any other species that over populates in an area (the nutria in Louisiana come to mind), there is an over use of the resources.


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 17, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Heat from the core is insulated pretty well from the surface of the Earth by the various layers in the earth, especially the lithosphere. Heat does escape the earth, but the process in which this occurs is through the highly viscous convection in the asthenosphere, which tears apart lithospheric plates and allows it to escape.
> 
> The shifting the magnetic poles is very complex. If you remember you basic geophysics, the Earth has many layers. The mantle - which is composed of dense rock, the outer core - which is composed of molten rock and iron and the inner core - solid iron and heavier metals are the main players that describe how poles shift.
> 
> As the Earth rotates on its access, the mantle exerts forces on the liquid core that cause it to spin. Fluid mechanics inside the liquid core cause the solid core to spin. This is not a perfect process, however, so the inner core tends to tumble a bit. This tumbling has been proposed as a possible cause for magnetic pole shifting.


 

Recent events with Tsunami in the South East Asia caused by plate shift, which is either plates moving together or apart. If one is moving together usually the other side is moving apart which causes magma to release in some cases. 

Just curious if we can also add in other points for the discussion. Not trying to derail the discussion, with Red Rider BB guns and such. I am serious about there may be myltiple reason for this Inconvenient Truth to be occuring. I was just trying to keep an open mind and possible a scientific mind to look at the earth system and not spout politics only or personal faith in an unproven theory. (* NOTE: Many theories in Science are unproven just data suggests they are in the right direction. Hence the use of Theory *) 

If my discussion points and questions have caused any of you problems, then please accept my apologies and move on.

It was not my intention to be sarcastic but to be someone who would discuss possibilities. 

Peace


----------



## Flying Crane (May 17, 2006)

Bigshadow said:
			
		

> Actually, you have touched something that I believe is at the core of this. The population. Much like any other species that over populates in an area (the nutria in Louisiana come to mind), there is an over use of the resources.


 
Full agreement here.  We are overusing our resources, in large part due to tremendous population growth, but also due to greed and tunnel vision.  Population overgrowth and resource depletion lead to huge problems, including massive die-offs, until the population vs. resources regains a new balance, assuming that is possible.

In the natural world, we see this typically as an overabundance of a type of animal, with a scarce food supply.  The animal population starves to death until depleted to a point where the food supply can once again support it.

That isn't exactly the case with humans.  Instead, we consume other natural resources, many of which are petroleum based.  Science is showing us that this consumption is having other effects on the globe, that could lead to some massive problems.  Initially it may not be a question of food supply and starvation, but that will certainly come into play if global warming succeeds in changing climates enough to affect our ability to grow food, and if oil reserves crash, crippling our transportation ability and preventing food from getting to the populations that don't actually grow and produce it, like people living in cities.  If this happens, we actually could see massive starvation, including in first world countries like the US.

Most people today are very removed from the food producing process.  Many of us living in cities and towns do not grow a vegetable garden, do not grow livestock, and do not have fields of produce.  We don't even know how to go about creating or finding food for ourselves, if normal food supplies become scarce.

If the people who do know how to produce food, typically farmers, become compromised and taken out of the equation during a massive starvation and the political, social and economic chaos that would accompany such an event, then it will be even worse.  If this was a situation with animals, it would be somewhat different.  Every animal knows how to find food.  Once a new balance is struck, the animals can find enough food, and they begin to survive again.  With humans, because most of us have no idea how to make and find food, even if a new balance could be established, lack of food finding skills could lead to a more pronounced catastrophe than might otherwise happen.

I'm just thinking down the line here, about what could be the worse possible scenario.  Are we heading for this?  I don't know, and I hope not.  But it is something interesting to think about, and realize that our behavior could have some tremendous consequences.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 17, 2006)

elder999 said:
			
		

> Rick Piltz, a government scientist for 14 years, resigned in March, 2005 over concerns that scientific documents were being amended for political reasons. Evidence released by Piltz was reported in the _NY Times_ on June 8, 2005. Philip Cooney, the White House official accused of editing the reports, resigned June 10, 2005.


 
Thanks for finding this.  I think this is tremendously important for the public to know.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 17, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Thanks for finding this. I think this is tremendously important for the public to know.


 
And the media is silent...


----------



## elder999 (May 17, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> And the media is silent...


 
A group of 60 highly-respected senior scientists from the Union of Concerned Scientists accused the Bush administration of altering the facts to fit the views. A document signed by the group charges, "When scientific knowledge has been found to be in conflict with its political goals, the administration has often manipulated the process through which science enters into its decisions." It goes on to say, "This has been done by placing people who are professionally unqualified or who have clear conflicts of interest in official posts and on scientific advisory committees; by disbanding existing advisory committees; by censoring and suppressing reports by the government's own scientists; and by simply not seeking independent scientific advice."

According to USA Today, the signatures read like a who's-who of the scientific community with "20 Nobel Prize winners and 19 recipients of the National Medal of Science."White House Office of Science and Technology Policy chief John Marburger dismissed the document, calling it a "conspiracy report" because you just know how readily those crazy Nobel Prize winners buy into conspiracy theories and how poorly they reason.

The full report is available here .


and, yet another moronity in a like vein:

Bush places *limits* on science

The AP reported here in 2004 that government scientists must now be cleared by a Bush political appointee before they can lend their expertise to the World Health Organization (WHO), a change that a Democratic lawmaker said fits a pattern of politicizing science.

"I do not feel this is an appropriate or constructive thing to do," said Dr. D.A. Henderson, an epidemiologist who ran the Bush administration's Office of Public Health Preparedness and now acts as an official advisor to Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson. "In the scientific world, we have a generally open process. We deal with science as science. I am unaware of such clearance ever having been required before."

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) sees this as yet another attempt by the Bush [mis]Administration to " [tighten] their controls over their professionals and their scientists ... to favor its right-wing constituents". Waxman wrote Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson asking him to rescind this policy, but as expected Thompson rebuffed the request.


----------



## Phoenix44 (May 17, 2006)

Malthusian wall?


----------



## Makalakumu (May 18, 2006)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Malthusian wall?


 
aka...Peak Oil.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 18, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> (* NOTE: Many theories in Science are unproven just data suggests they are in the right direction. Hence the use of Theory *)


 
Actually, I believe that when the scientific community uses the term "Theory", it indicates that there is very strong evidence that the theory is in fact truth.  

Many people like to jump on the word Theory and use it to cast doubt upon the findings of the scientific community.  They claim that the term implies that it is, at best, an educated guess.  But this is really far from the truth.  When the scientific community accepts a scientific theory, it is their belief that, according to the evidence, this is in fact the truth.  Of course nothing can be known completely, 100% and in every detail, but we really are discussing truth, when discussing scientific theory.

Yes, I know, some scientific theories have been overturned with new evidence, but don't let the term itself fool you into thinking that the evidence is not rock-solid.


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 18, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Actually, I believe that when the scientific community uses the term "Theory", it indicates that there is very strong evidence that the theory is in fact truth.
> 
> Many people like to jump on the word Theory and use it to cast doubt upon the findings of the scientific community. They claim that the term implies that it is, at best, an educated guess. But this is really far from the truth. When the scientific community accepts a scientific theory, it is their belief that, according to the evidence, this is in fact the truth. Of course nothing can be known completely, 100% and in every detail, but we really are discussing truth, when discussing scientific theory.
> 
> Yes, I know, some scientific theories have been overturned with new evidence, but don't let the term itself fool you into thinking that the evidence is not rock-solid.



I agree there is evidence but can you explain light to me in the particle and wave and beam and have all three models or theories not contradict one of the others? No, I do not think anyone can. Hance the three seperate models to represent what we can "see" from observation. Nothing wrong with any of them it depends on how one is looking at the system and what you are trying to measure.

So I was trying to look at a system of the earth not just the of the earth, and jokes were made. Yet, these same people will condemn people for not believing in Global Warming. I never said I do not believe, what I said was I do not have enough data to show a specific single cause, so I tried to look at the whole system to better understand. 

But it seems everyone is just after the BUZZ words and knee jerk reactions and ready to condemn those who do not believe like them. 

Example: The world is Flat. I walk and it does not end, so it is flat. I do not see for ever so the horizon is not a good measurement of angle. Yet as soon as you look at objects that all you to move in a straight line and arive back one sees a globe, and then you can use the horizon to see the curviture of the earth, and then from there you can begin to understand more of the system. But if one just looks at a small optimized piece and tries to make sweeping global statements and not look at the global system then I try to point this out to continue a positive discussion.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 18, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> I agree there is evidence but can you explain light to me in the particle and wave and beam and have all three models or theories not contradict one of the others? No, I do not think anyone can. Hance the three seperate models to represent what we can "see" from observation. Nothing wrong with any of them it depends on how one is looking at the system and what you are trying to measure.
> 
> So I was trying to look at a system of the earth not just the of the earth, and jokes were made. Yet, these same people will condemn people for not believing in Global Warming. I never said I do not believe, what I said was I do not have enough data to show a specific single cause, so I tried to look at the whole system to better understand.
> 
> ...


 
I understand where you are coming from, and yes, there certainly can be additional, non-human caused contributors to the environmental changes we are seeing.  I just wanted to point out that when the Scientific Community referrs to a _Theory_, they are not referring to anything even remotely resembling a guess, even an educated guess.  They are referring to something that has a tremendous amount of evidence in support of it, and the scientific community has accepted the theory as the best, strongest explanation possible, supported by the evidence seen so far.

There are those who try to use this term to undermine the credibility of the Scientific Community, suggesting that they are really just making wild guesses based on little evidence.  This is a common tactic of those advocating things like Intelligent Design, or other Bible-based teachings regarding the beginnings of the universe and the earth.  I am not suggesting you are one of them.  I just wanted to clarify what the term means, when used by the Scientific Community.

If one does not understand the scientific community's intent when using this term, it is easy to assume there are glaring holes in the theory when this is really not the case.


----------



## heretic888 (May 18, 2006)

Actually, there are two different meanings of the term "theory" within scientific contexts.

The first definition sees a "theory" as a broad explanatory paradigm that makes sense of a number of existing hypotheses (testable predictions). An example of this is Freud's psychoanalytic theory.

The second definition sees a "theory" as essentially a time-tested hypothesis that has more or less been accepted as "fact" by the scientific community that studies it. An example of this is the cell theory in biology.

The theory of evolution falls into the second definition of "theory"; it is a hypothesis that has survived the test of time. Darwinian evolution (the theory of evolution via random selection and natura/sexual selection) falls into the first definition of "theory"; it is a broad explanatory paradigm that tries to make sense of a number of evolutionary hypotheses.

This in no way condones pseudoscience like "Intelligent Design" (or what passes for "Biblical Scholarship" these days), but it's important to keep both of these definitions in mind when discussing a "theory".

Laterz.


----------



## elder999 (May 18, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> I agree there is evidence but can you explain light to me in the particle and wave and beam and have all three models or theories not contradict one of the others? No, I do not think anyone can.


 
Actually, I think I can _explain_ it-I just can't prove it.

That's for another thread, though.....


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 19, 2006)

elder999 said:
			
		

> Actually, I think I can _explain_ it-I just can't prove it.
> 
> That's for another thread, though.....



I can explain it in the three models as well but I cannot do so with out one asking what about this from one of the other two. 


As to global warming, I just wanted to get everything on the list for discussion and then people could make some quantified decisions based upon data on where to go looking to make improvements.


----------



## elder999 (May 20, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> I can explain it in the three models as well but I cannot do so with out one asking what about this from one of the other two.
> 
> 
> As to global warming, I just wanted to get everything on the list for discussion and then people could make some quantified decisions based upon data on where to go looking to make improvements.


 
Well, and I meant that I could reconcile all three; I just can't prove it.

No Nobel for me......


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 20, 2006)

elder999 said:
			
		

> Well, and I meant that I could reconcile all three; I just can't prove it.
> 
> No Nobel for me......


 

Good work!  We should share some beers and talk about it.

As to the Nobel I guess this is why they would still call your reconciliation a theory and not a law?


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 24, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> There is a new movie coming out. It recieved high praise at the Sundance Film Festival.
> 
> An Inconvenient Truth
> 
> ...


 
The movie is finally showing in my area ... going out right now to catch it in Methuen, Mass.


----------



## Brother John (Jun 24, 2006)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Wasn't it in the 60's that they were talking about Global Cooling, and we were expecting glaciers to be knocking on our doors?
> 
> The environment changes from time to time. Its never been a stagnant systems. External (sun cycles) and internal (man, volcanic eruptions) influences always change things. I'm all for minimizing mans influence on the environment, but even if we totally stop our footprint on the earth, we are still going to have ups and downs. Thats nature. Minimize our influences, then realize that it won't make Earth a perfect Nirvana.


 
To my understanding (limited at best) the Earth's climate/atmosphere goes through long-term macro-cycles and we don't have squat to do with it. Inluence? Some...but Not a 'cause'. 
I STRONGLY believe that we need to do all that we can to conserve and preserve, to clean up our impact on the environment. Polution and overconsuption is a grave concern........But I do not believe that we are causing what is being called "Global Warming".

Just my .02

Your Brother
John


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jun 24, 2006)

Brother John said:
			
		

> To my understanding (limited at best) the Earth's climate/atmosphere goes through long-term macro-cycles and we don't have squat to do with it. Inluence? Some...but Not a 'cause'.
> I STRONGLY believe that we need to do all that we can to conserve and preserve, to clean up our impact on the environment. Polution and overconsuption is a grave concern........But I do not believe that we are causing what is being called "Global Warming".
> 
> Just my .02
> ...



John,

Any thoughts on a macro scale about the core of the earth moving?


----------



## Brother John (Jun 24, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> John,
> 
> Any thoughts on a macro scale about the core of the earth moving?


Hey Rich...
Long time No Talk..

I'd read an article on that a while back but I really can't recall the main points right now. I remember thinking that it seemed to make sense, but I didn't look into it further.
Please, tell us about that angle.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jun 24, 2006)

Brother John said:
			
		

> Hey Rich...
> Long time No Talk..
> 
> I'd read an article on that a while back but I really can't recall the main points right now. I remember thinking that it seemed to make sense, but I didn't look into it further.
> ...



I know very little. 

I linked in some sites in earlier posts but most thought I was trying to deflect the issue from emissions or humans as being the fault. 

Like you I agree that we need to be cleaner. Today's cars are cleaner so much cleaner you could run them for about a year straight before you made the same emissions one of the "Classics" do in a cruise up and down Woodward about an hour to 3 hours of run time. 

Yet, people still want cheap electricity and most of that comes from Sulfur Coal and the emissions standards on the power plants are no where near that of what is required for vehicle including lawn mowers and motor cycles now in some states. 

California actually had a requirement that 2% of all sales had to be Zero Emissions at the tail pipe.  One company did it, and when none of the Japanese companies did it the state wondered why? Then they started to listen to the reports of the COST to the tax payer. It would have cost thousands of dollars to the infrastructure and then thousands more for personal equipement and your range may not take up the coast.  Once the people who made the laws realized it was a problem they could not spin and would take the blame for the cost. They dropped the plan.

California went to reduce the CO2 while Massachusetts went after NOx. The technology is out there to go after both to a certain point. And after that, you can optimize one way but not both. Now with a Federal ruling Only CARB or California may determine the direction and the other states can either join them or follow the EPA which usually lags CARB by a few years.  The cost of optimizing both would add too much to the cost of car that many do not understand the cost of now. 

As to Europe, they have less standards than the US, and allow a lot more NOx becuase they have a lot larger Diesel  penetration into the market, they do not want to force the cost there. So when people who are not in the business make comments about the USA not knowing about Global Warming because of emissions they are making statements they do not understand. So when people make the comments about other systems not counting tell me that they only care about the political agenda to push forward a certain idea that if you went back to is either a knee jerk reaction to the people they can get them to vote or those involved are going to make money from it. 

So, while I truly understand the issues at hand I was looking for an open ended discussion.

The Current Magnetic Pole has shifted from parts of Canada to be on its way to parts of Russia. This is a large shift in recent year as in ten years. 

http://images.google.com/imgres?img...rth+core&start=1&sa=X&oi=images&ct=image&cd=1

http://www.thetech.org/exhibits_events/online/quakes/inside/core.html

Since the core is moving and the Magnetic Pole is moving, maybe this is part of the cause of the Oceans heating up? 

Nope, Rich you are stupid for suggesting such as we all know it is your car that you drive is doing more damage. Get it right it is Global Warming. 

Then some state that the world will flood when the caps melt. I linked in a recent picture here as well that showed a lot of melt. Where are the floods? Oh yeah Rich your stupid comments about how Water as a solid displaces more then its' mass and thereby has a larger volume than as a liquid. So when the Ice melts that is in the water now it actually lowers the water table of the earth seas. Now the water on land still has to be counted for. But by then no one wants to talk about it as it is now a science problem and not a political issue. 

So if the core is moving which takes energy, could the earth be heating up?

Could some of the energy be escaping into the oceans naturally? 

Could some of the energy be the cause of the latest Typhoons and Hurricanes?

Could it also be the cause of a Tsunami?

Ah but Rich is nothing but a stupid stick jock who thinks he knows a little physics and just needs to be quiet. The questions he asks have no political agenda. He does not say no, he says possible but look at this as well and let us think about this. 

Yet to make people think for themselves has been stated to be one of the hardest tasks. Even though I am not asking for that of everyone just asking for a discussion. 


But I guess the INCONVENIENT TRUTH, does not matter when one is asked to look at the whole picture and the whole system. 

Hence why I asked you John, hoping you had some information, that I might be able to read or disucss.

My apologies, for my soap box.


----------



## tradrockrat (Jun 24, 2006)

oh Rich, you're so stupid that I have to go look up your links and read this closly before posting more here.


On second thought, movies never lie - I'll just watch An Inconvenient Truth.


----------



## Brother John (Jun 24, 2006)

RICH:
People Need to read and RE-READ your post there.
Much truth....


Your Brother
John


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 24, 2006)

At the end of the Movie, Mr. Gore asked us to encourage other to see this movie .... 
I will pay for any MartialTalk member that chooses to see this movie.

Send me your movie ticket stub:
Mike Atkinson 
4 Lynn Street
Nashua, NH  03060​I will send you a check back for the price of the ticket plus 2 bucks.
​


----------



## mrhnau (Jun 24, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> At the end of the Movie, Mr. Gore asked us to encourage other to see this movie .... I will pay for any MartialTalk member that chooses to see this movie.
> 
> Send me your movie ticket stub:Mike Atkinson
> 4 Lynn Street
> ...



I agree with almost nothing you have ever said, but at least you seem devoted LOL


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 24, 2006)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> I agree with almost nothing you have ever said, but at least you seem devoted LOL


 
Go see the movie ... It will cost you about two hours of your life.

P.S.

Some places you might be able to find it in North Carolina.

NC Asheville 6/30 Fine Arts 
NC Cary 6/23 Galaxy 6 
NC Chapel Hill 6/16 Chelsea 
NC Charlotte 6/16 Ballantyne 
NC Charlotte 6/23 Concord 24 
NC Durham 6/16 Carolina 3 
NC Fayetteville 6/30 Cameo Art House 
NC Fayetteville 7/7 Cameo Art House 
NC Greensboro 6/30 Carousel 15 
NC Raleigh 6/16 Colony 2 
NC Wilmington 6/30 Carmike 16 
NC Winston Salem 6/30 Wynnsong


----------



## Brother John (Jun 24, 2006)

Do the same for Wichita Ks??

I'm game.

Your Brother
John


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 24, 2006)

Brother John said:
			
		

> Do the same for Wichita Ks??
> 
> I'm game.
> 
> ...


 

As you wish ... 

KS...Lawrence.............6/23............*Liberty Hall*
KS...Merriam...............6/23............*Cinemark 20*
KS...Olathe.................6/16...........*Studio*
KS...Overland Park.......6/23............*Rio*
KS...Wichita...............6/30.............*Premiere Palace*



Full screen times can be found at ... 

www.climatecrisis.net


----------



## Carol (Jun 24, 2006)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> I agree with almost nothing you have ever said, but at least you seem devoted LOL


 
If you prefer, in lieu of cash...bring your ticket stub to NH and watch me beat on Mike the next time I visit his school. :rofl:

Sorry Mike, couldn't resist...


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Jun 24, 2006)

Dunno if Id post my address though.....


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Jun 24, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> But I guess the INCONVENIENT TRUTH, does not matter when one is asked to look at the whole picture and the whole system.
> 
> Hence why I asked you John, hoping you had some information, that I might be able to read or disucss.
> 
> My apologies, for my soap box.


 
Perhaps the politicians want us to believe its our fault so they can be responsible for passing more laws and exert more control over us (and busniess) thereby securing themselves more power and better platforms for election. (the "scare you all to death with disaster stories but dont worry we will save you" platform??)


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 24, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> Dunno if Id post my address though.....


 
It's in the phone book ... 

It ain't a secret ... 

http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=r3qy0s91c0nt&style=o&lvl=1&scene=1677001

Upper Right Corner .... third house down ... swimming pool .... black jeep in the drive.


----------



## Ceicei (Jun 24, 2006)

Carol Kaur said:
			
		

> If you prefer, in lieu of cash...bring your ticket stub to NH and watch me beat on Mike the next time I visit his school. :rofl:
> 
> Sorry Mike, couldn't resist...



Hey!  Fight, fight, fight!!!

opcorn:


----------



## tradrockrat (Jun 24, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Go see the movie ... It will cost you about two hours of your life.



2 hours I'll never get back.   I'd rather read scientific journals and draw my own conclusion.  Gore is a politician.  Enough said.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 25, 2006)

tradrockrat said:
			
		

> 2 hours I'll never get back. I'd rather read scientific journals and draw my own conclusion. Gore is a politician. Enough said.


 
You'll keep us informed on your progress through those scientific journals, right?


----------



## mrhnau (Jun 25, 2006)

tradrockrat said:
			
		

> 2 hours I'll never get back.   I'd rather read scientific journals and draw my own conclusion.  Gore is a politician.  Enough said.



Hey man, if you want the same effect as the Gore movie, just turn on the National Geographic Channel, the Discovery Channel, or NPR. Watch long enough, and you get enough guilt about destroying the world. I was joking with my wife about this. Watch long enough, you see three types of shows:

1) The world is going to end soon, and its our fault
2) Cute fuzzy animals are dying and its our fault
3) The world is going to end soon, and there is nothing we can do about it

You might see the occassional "I've got a 200 lb tumor" or "Look at this weird tribe in New Zealand", but somehow thats our fault too, or those tribes in NZ are wearing Coke t-shirts or something...

From my understanding of the movie, most of what he has said has been said elsewhere. Listen to the news, watch the above channels and radio, you will get it.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 25, 2006)

tradrockrat said:
			
		

> 2 hours I'll never get back. I'd rather read scientific journals and draw my own conclusion. Gore is a politician. Enough said.


 
Hey, and while you're at it ... maybe you could read your scientific journal under one of these :

http://www.energyfederation.org/consumer/default.php/cPath/25_44_168_197


----------



## mrhnau (Jun 25, 2006)

Some ideas: Discuss at will

1) Get states to agree to a consistent gas mixture. No more of this craziness at different cities, requiring unique mixtures every couple of weeks. Have perhaps two or three seasonal ones, and stop at that. Might need to a conservative one (that is, environmentally good and good gas milage) that costs a bit more, but thats ok.

2) Encourage recycling. I see alot of bottles and plastics with this annoying little stamp "10 cents refund in CA". Heck, I'd LOVE to get 10 cents back for some of the bottles I use on a daily basis. However, I don't want to drive 2000 miles to get it. Also, I don't want to pay $25 a month (non-optional) for a little recycling bin. Thats is not encouraging me to recylce, thats punishing me for it. Find some way to consistently encourage recycling across the states.

3) Encourage businesses to conserve, since alot of waste comes through them. Give tax incentives (and not meaningless ones) for companies that reach thresholds. This includes companies that research alternative energies, develop cars, have meaningful cuts in waste, etc. Those that are horrible, fine them like we already are, but make them proportial to where they have teeth. Fining some huge oil company 10k a day is nothing, but to a small business, thats crippling. Help those out of compliance get into compliance through tax breaks or programs that can inform them approporiately. Encourage those showing improvement.

4) Don't sign stupid treaties that single out the US for conservation (Kyoto). If we want to save the world, its got to be everyone participating, not just us. Other countries coming online have got to do it in a clean fashion too. Yes, I know the Us pollutes alot, but so do other countries (NO, Micheal, I don't want links about how horrible we pollute, how we are the biggest consumers, we already know that, thank you very much)

5) Realize that no matter what we do, its not going to insure paradise. Before man we had animals going extinct. I'm going to have a hard time believing you if we think dinosaurs were our fault too. Realize that the world goes through cycles, and we are in the middle of a solar maximum and possible pole flip over the next decade or two. These things are not meaningless. Do the best we can, then realize we as humans are not the ultimate deciders of the fate of the earth, or of some rare slug hiding out in Ghana. There will always be cycles, an asteroid, a volcanoe. We had ice ages in the past, we will probably have them again, with or without us here.

6) Be sensitive to business. People need to eat. Its great to have trees, but if that means my family has to starve, then by gosh, I'm going to cut it down. I love animals, but if I'm going to die by not hunting them, then I'm pulling out my gun. If you want loggers to stop cutting down rain forrests, then you better have some alternative other than "you are going to die of starvation now, but at least you have some pretty trees to look at". If your regulations are going to make business absolutely unreasonable for a large percentage of companies, then we are going to lose a significant portion of our economy. Hey, you have trees, but you don't have a job, you don't have a car, you don't have a house, you don't have anything. You have a huge portion of society that will need retraining. This does not come cheap. Who pays for it? Government aka taxpayers. Total modification of businesses in the US takes ALOT of time. We can't afford putting 100 million people through school to get a new job. It simply won't work. We take small steps and proceed from there. New fuels? OK, lets phase them in. It won't work next year. We can't get off of gas driven cars that easily. Lets be realistic about the problems we have, and see as a society we are too huge of an economy to move too quickly. Small steps, but lets start making some.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 25, 2006)

mrhnau

Go see the movie ... I'll buy.

There are two items in the movie that you might find compelling.

Item 1 - The scale balancing business and the planet earth

Item 2 - The human population chart, referencing Al Gore's lifetime

Maybe you won't find these items compelling, but I am pretty certain reading about what is discussed (specifically in these two instances) in a scientific journal just doesn't have the same impact.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jun 25, 2006)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Some ideas: Discuss at will
> 
> 1) Get states to agree to a consistent gas mixture. No more of this craziness at different cities, requiring unique mixtures every couple of weeks. Have perhaps two or three seasonal ones, and stop at that. Might need to a conservative one (that is, environmentally good and good gas milage) that costs a bit more, but thats ok.



This is very true, The current high end complaint area for fuel issues is the Madison, Milwaukee, and North Chicago area. 

Also realize that Ethanol does not have the energy per any unit of measurement, so by gallon or by percentage it decreases the efficeincy of the engine. Even the places that have it and are a few cents cheaper, run a mileage check on two different gas types, one with ethanol and one without. First tank that switches should be your cleaning tank and should be run as close to empty as possible. Then run three complete tanks and tank the average of them, and then repeat for other gas type. This avoids the special conditions that might skew a fuel economy average. Of course the larger the sample size the better also should be down with different ambients and humudity, but done at about the same time shoudl get you a good guess. Also avoid Spring and Fall during the switch from Summer Fuel to Winter Fuel and vice versa. 

Ethanol is a good idea, but do it as a complete ethanol system, so vehicles can operate optimized for this new fuel. Yes a sensor or some new algorithm maybe involved to get it to switch to the right operating points. The worse you can do is run E85 and then at a half take run E0 or E15, and keep mixing it at wierd percentages. Run a complete tank for better optimization.

Also not that distribution of E85 is not out there yet, and also the cost for the 30% reduction in energy per volume is not at the price break point yet. 

Is it green thinking? yes. Does it help reduce the amount of gasoline and oil used? Yes. Is it cheaper? Not yet.




			
				mrhnau said:
			
		

> 2) Encourage recycling. I see alot of bottles and plastics with this annoying little stamp "10 cents refund in CA". Heck, I'd LOVE to get 10 cents back for some of the bottles I use on a daily basis. However, I don't want to drive 2000 miles to get it. Also, I don't want to pay $25 a month (non-optional) for a little recycling bin. Thats is not encouraging me to recylce, thats punishing me for it. Find some way to consistently encourage recycling across the states.



Yes this is a negative re-inforcement. Since the company that collects it also gets to turn in their product for income and also can get recycle credits in certain areas. 



			
				mrhnau said:
			
		

> 3) Encourage businesses to conserve, since alot of waste comes through them. Give tax incentives (and not meaningless ones) for companies that reach thresholds. This includes companies that research alternative energies, develop cars, have meaningful cuts in waste, etc. Those that are horrible, fine them like we already are, but make them proportial to where they have teeth. Fining some huge oil company 10k a day is nothing, but to a small business, thats crippling. Help those out of compliance get into compliance through tax breaks or programs that can inform them approporiately. Encourage those showing improvement.



ISO 14000 and it subsections were created to have an international standard for how to meet a minimum level of certification for recycling and for being clean. So if you see a company with a white field and I think two greenhands with ISO 14000 on it then this company or this plant or location has taken the first steps in trying to be "green".



			
				mrhnau said:
			
		

> 4) Don't sign stupid treaties that single out the US for conservation (Kyoto). If we want to save the world, its got to be everyone participating, not just us. Other countries coming online have got to do it in a clean fashion too. Yes, I know the Us pollutes alot, but so do other countries (NO, Micheal, I don't want links about how horrible we pollute, how we are the biggest consumers, we already know that, thank you very much)



No Comment for I am not up to speed on the other treaties for toher countries. 



			
				mrhnau said:
			
		

> 5) Realize that no matter what we do, its not going to insure paradise. Before man we had animals going extinct. I'm going to have a hard time believing you if we think dinosaurs were our fault too. Realize that the world goes through cycles, and we are in the middle of a solar maximum and possible pole flip over the next decade or two. These things are not meaningless. Do the best we can, then realize we as humans are not the ultimate deciders of the fate of the earth, or of some rare slug hiding out in Ghana. There will always be cycles, an asteroid, a volcanoe. We had ice ages in the past, we will probably have them again, with or without us here.



Could both of these issue be skewing the local conditions? As the poles move could the Ozone holes become more unstable abd become larger?

I do not know, it would be an intersting discussion though. 



			
				mrhnau said:
			
		

> 6) Be sensitive to business. People need to eat. Its great to have trees, but if that means my family has to starve, then by gosh, I'm going to cut it down. I love animals, but if I'm going to die by not hunting them, then I'm pulling out my gun. If you want loggers to stop cutting down rain forrests, then you better have some alternative other than "you are going to die of starvation now, but at least you have some pretty trees to look at". If your regulations are going to make business absolutely unreasonable for a large percentage of companies, then we are going to lose a significant portion of our economy. Hey, you have trees, but you don't have a job, you don't have a car, you don't have a house, you don't have anything. You have a huge portion of society that will need retraining. This does not come cheap. Who pays for it? Government aka taxpayers. Total modification of businesses in the US takes ALOT of time. We can't afford putting 100 million people through school to get a new job. It simply won't work. We take small steps and proceed from there. New fuels? OK, lets phase them in. It won't work next year. We can't get off of gas driven cars that easily. Lets be realistic about the problems we have, and see as a society we are too huge of an economy to move too quickly. Small steps, but lets start making some.



Problem is that small steps are being made, Just in all directions as everyone thinks they ahve the "RIGHT" idea or course to follow. Not sure how to get all or most moving in the same direction so I cannot comment on how to help. Sorry.


----------



## shesulsa (Jun 25, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> It's in the phone book ...
> 
> It ain't a secret ...
> 
> ...



Is that your place, michaeledward?


----------



## tradrockrat (Jun 25, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> You'll keep us informed on your progress through those scientific journals, right?



nah, I'll just make a movie about it.  You can pay for everyone to see it.

but if you want to read the ones I am currently reading, go HERE http://www.esi-topics.com/gwarm/index.html


----------



## tradrockrat (Jun 25, 2006)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Listen to the news, watch the above channels and radio, you will get it.



yeah - I'll get what they're selling.  The problem is, I'm not shopping.  Here's an idea (with lightbulb and everything Mike)

One of you guys explain to me how come we came out of the "mini" iceage we wre experiencing a few hundred years ago with out industry or the global warming activities that are oh so clearly responsible for todays climate shift.  Cause if you can accept that the world is way more complex than Al Gore, maybe there's hope for you.


----------



## Lisa (Jun 25, 2006)

* Moderator Note. 

Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). 

Thank you.

Lisa Deneka
MartialTalk Senior Moderator*


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 25, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Is that your place, michaeledward?


 
Yep. There is no such thing as privacy.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 25, 2006)

tradrockrat said:
			
		

> nah, I'll just make a movie about it. You can pay for everyone to see it.
> 
> but if you want to read the ones I am currently reading, go HERE http://www.esi-topics.com/gwarm/index.html


 
Am I missing something?

I follow this link, and I get a list of references, but no articles themselves. There are some rather minor interviews with the authors of some of the articles. But there is not much on that link to actually read.

And, I'm sure you know, that this list of rankings was compiled for publication in January 2002.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 26, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> So, while I truly understand the issues at hand I was looking for an open ended discussion.
> 
> The Current Magnetic Pole has shifted from parts of Canada to be on its way to parts of Russia. This is a large shift in recent year as in ten years.
> 
> ...



And what about SNUs? Solar Nuetrino Units.

http://www.baen.com/library/067172052X/067172052X___7.htm

Very interesting book above written by a couple of guys with a ton of degrees by the name of Niven and Pournelle. Baen no longer prints the book, and so they seem to have put the entire thing on line. The above link leads to the discussion that might be of interest here. It is an interesting read. 



> "We live in an ice age-" began Gregory Lutenist. When he got to the words "ice age" three people had joined him, speaking in unison with him. Then came a voice from the crowd: "No ****!"
> 
> "-and we always have," he continued, imperturbably adjusting his glasses. "During the last seven hundred thousand years there have been eight cycles of cooling and warming. The glaciers retreat, but always they come back; and the warm, interglacial interludes last for only about ten thousand years. Since Ice Age Thirty-Five ended fourteen thousand years ago, the next one must have started four thousand years ago. Most of human history has been lived in an ice age. So why did no one notice?"
> 
> ...



So, do you think that the SNU output might have something to do with the warming going on? Or is it polution that happened before we invented the car? Or could it be something else?


----------



## Carol (Jun 26, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> So, do you think that the SNU output might have something to do with the warming going on? Or is it polution that happened before we invented the car? Or could it be something else?


 
SNU shortfalls are explained in the study below.  The appearance of SNU shortfalls are based on the belief that solar fusion happens in the sun's core ("Fusion stops, the sun cools a bit, shrinks a bit, the core gets denser and hotter, fusion starts again, the new warmth inflates the sun.")

The evidence in the link below provides a seemingly convincing theory that there are no SNU shortfalls...this and other solar anomolies is explained with evidence that, coronal mass ejections aside, solar fusion appears near the surface.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9604074.

Could other solar events be causing an increase in the earth's temperature?  Maybe so.  Sunspots are on a fairly consistent 13 year cycle.  Solar Flares can and do put out a lot of extra X-rays.  Coronal Mass Ejections are Mother Nature's e-bomb.  The Ejections put forth a tremendous amount of heat and radiation, causing geomagnetic storms that wreak havoc with telecommunications systems by crippling satellites and even affecting the service of some terrestrial switching equipment or even power plants.

Enough to raise the temperature of the planet?  Difficult to say.  But it is enough to mess up the telephone system and thats when my customers get _really_ cranky.


----------



## tradrockrat (Jun 26, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Am I missing something?
> 
> I follow this link, and I get a list of references, but no articles themselves. There are some rather minor interviews with the authors of some of the articles. But there is not much on that link to actually read.
> 
> And, I'm sure you know, that this list of rankings was compiled for publication in January 2002.



think of it as a guide for what to look for if you'd like to educate yourself about it.  And yes, they are from a few years ago, but thay do lay a good foundation and provide a jumping off point to reference the more recent journals and findings.  When I see a synopsis that I find intersting, I look for that article elswhere and read it in it's entirety.

such as this one: 



> Article Title: Much Ado about Warming: Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Will Do Little to Stop Global Climate Change or Solve the World's More-Pressing Environmental Problems. Contributors: Indur M. Goklany - author. Journal Title: Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy. Volume: 16. Issue: 4. Publication Year: 2002. Page Number: 40+. COPYRIGHT 2002 University of Tennessee, EERC; COPYRIGHT 2002 Gale Group



go out and track this one down.  You'll like it.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 27, 2006)

Carol Kaur said:
			
		

> The evidence in the link below provides a seemingly convincing theory



That is the thing- _theory!_

I bet you know that the last winter was one of the hottest for north America. Did you know that it was the coldest on record for Japan since the end of WWII? Did you know that some areas of antartica have seen an _increase_ in the thickness of ice?

Sunspots, magnetic pole shift and everything else. Isn't it a lot to try to pull together in a neat theory that can be fitted into a gew simple sentances?

Hell, I will admit that until Rich mentioned it, I did not even think of the fact that ice takes up more space than water, so that the melting of the ice caps would not be as great as I thought. How many people realized that the earth was warmer before man ever started planting crops and that the increased water in the world wide system _increased_ the amount of plants in the world and the number of deserts went up as more water was trapped at the poles?

Moreover, there are a lot of people running around saying that the goverment is trying to over state the danger posed by terrorism to centralize more power under their control in the name of protecting us from some non-existant threat. Many of these same people are also saying that we all must give them power to control us in the name of protecting us from a great big nasty threat.

Yes I am cynical. I do not trust anyone- much less someone like Gore.

But at the same time, I agree with Pournelle that petroleum is too usefull a substance to burn. I would like to see more nuclear plants and alternative power sources. But those that decry global warming don't seem to like that as much as setting us back to a time when we let people with illnesses like diabities die due to our lack of resouces.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 27, 2006)

Here is the website for the Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy:

http://forum.ra.utk.edu/index.htm​


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 27, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> But those that decry global warming don't seem to like that as much as setting us back to a time when we let people with illnesses like diabities die due to our lack of resouces.


 
Care to back up this statement? 

Or should we just mark it up to .... well ... whatever.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 27, 2006)

http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=d0235a70-33f1-45b3-803b-829b1b3542ef



> Albert Einstein once said, "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."
> 
> While the gods must consider An Inconvenient Truth the ultimate comedy, real climate scientists are crying over Al Gore's new film. This is not just because the ex-vice-president commits numerous basic science mistakes. They are also concerned that many in the media and public will fail to realize that this film amounts to little more than science fiction.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 27, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=d0235a70-33f1-45b3-803b-829b1b3542ef


 
Go see the movie ... I'll Buy.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 27, 2006)

> The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth,"       Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.
> 
> The former vice president's movie  replete with the prospect of a flooded New York City, an inundated Florida, more and nastier hurricanes, worsening droughts, retreating glaciers and disappearing ice sheets  mostly got the science right, said all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read the book and answered questions from The Associated Press.
> 
> ...





As seen  here


----------



## Monadnock (Jun 28, 2006)

Ugh. I just can't live with myself anymore. Please, please everyone...won't you join me as I retreat to my room, lock the door and wallow in my shame? Thank you Al Gore, and may you someday find it in your heart to forgive me and the rest of mankind's sinners.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 28, 2006)

tradrockrat said:
			
		

> One of you guys explain to me how come we came out of the "mini" iceage we wre experiencing a few hundred years ago with out industry or the global warming activities that are oh so clearly responsible for todays climate shift. Cause if you can accept that the world is way more complex than Al Gore, maybe there's hope for you.


 
Wasn't the mini ice age brought about by a very large volcanic eruption? It is also speculated that a large underwater landslide may have disrupted the oceanic conveyor belt system that may have also been a contributing factor as well. I would I imagine its ending had a lot to do with the clearing of the ash in the atmosphere and the conveyor reestablishing itself.


And yes the world is incredibly complex, but not having read the book or seen the movie, I cannot comment on Al's interpretation, although he did invent the internet (sorry, I can't talk about Al without that). However increased hurricane strength and numbers is not proof. This is a cycle that last ended, I beilieve, in the early 60s and I also believe the cycles are 30 to 40 year apart so this may be normal Hurricane activity. 


The complexities (to name a few) for example 


1) The Earths orbit is not set in stone. There are times that it is more elliptical and times it is more circular
	a) time of the dinosaurs it was more circular
	b) During major ice ages it is more elliptical


2) The Earth's Axis is not as stable as most believe
	a) time of the dinosaurs it was more vertical
	b) During major ice ages it is more tilted


3) Ice caps melting do more than raise sea level, although beach property in Southern Georgia may not be so bad for those that live there.
	a) Sea level rises
	b) large amounts of fresh water cause desalination of oceans
	c) Desalination can affect the oceanic conveyor belt system - this is very bad. Think of a HAVAC failure in a large office building. Some parts get very cold others get very hot. However if the system shuts down today likely none of us posting would probably be around to feel any major effects. Speculation is that it can take a long time to feel the effects&#8230;maybe.


4) Sun Sport activity affects the planet in many ways, but I cannot remember those off the top of my head, so look them up if you are interested. I believe one thing that can be affected can be the magnetic field of the planet


5) As the planet heats up, you get longer growing seasons in some areas, but you also get some areas once warm becoming to cold. Diseases that were once tropical and of little effect move to the new warm areas and cause some fairly major problems. There could also be planetary sifts of insect, and animal populations as well as plant life changes, not to mentions extinctions.


6) A warmer planet is generally a more humid planet. water vapor in the atmosphere begins to reflect sunlight back and your planet can cool, then we can be heading for another ice age. 


7) Also there are several volcanoes under Antarctica. Any one of those goes off instant fresh water in the oceans and lots of it. Not to mention potentially large chunks of ice in shipping lanes.


8) If the ice caps melt off on Antarctica ground tends to get compressed under heavy ice. Once the ice is gone it tends to push up a bit. This could cause volcanic eruptions. Large enough eruption, with enough ash, colder temperatures globally.


9) we get another ice age, not bad if you want Cliffside property next to the ocean in what is now the Chesapeake bay. But mile thick sheets of ice heading towards a city near you just can&#8217;t be good. 


There are a lot of things on the planet that can cause major catastrophes. part of the Hawaiian islands wants to shear off, can you say Tsunami. It will hit the West coast of the US. Another island off of Africa wants to do the same, Tsunami hits the east coast. This one could potentially put NYC under water


And yes, large amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere are a bad thing and we need to do something NOW!!!


----------



## Kensai (Jun 28, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> Wasn't the mini ice age brought about by a very large volcanic eruption? It is also speculated that a large underwater landslide may have disrupted the oceanic conveyor belt system that may have also been a contributing factor as well. I would I imagine its ending had a lot to do with the clearing of the ash in the atmosphere and the conveyor reestablishing itself.
> 
> 
> And yes the world is incredibly complex, but not having read the book or seen the movie, I cannot comment on Al's interpretation, although he did invent the internet (sorry, I can't talk about Al without that). However increased hurricane strength and numbers is not proof. This is a cycle that last ended, I beilieve, in the early 60s and I also believe the cycles are 30 to 40 year apart so this may be normal Hurricane activity.
> ...



Clap! Clap! Clap! Clap!... Finally, someone with a modicum of common sense. There are too many closed minded individuals on this planet as it is, without people denying that there's anything wrong with it.

Whether we're headed for an ice age next Tuesday, just after tea-time, or whether we're abusing the hell out of this incredible planet of ours is splitting hairs. We are, we have the power to change. A lot can't be arsed. The masses are too lazy. Will post more later.


----------



## mrhnau (Jun 28, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> Wasn't the mini ice age brought about by a very large volcanic eruption? It is also speculated that a large underwater landslide may have disrupted the oceanic conveyor belt system that may have also been a contributing factor as well. I would I imagine its ending had a lot to do with the clearing of the ash in the atmosphere and the conveyor reestablishing itself.
> 
> 
> And yes the world is incredibly complex, but not having read the book or seen the movie, I cannot comment on Al's interpretation, although he did invent the internet (sorry, I can't talk about Al without that). However increased hurricane strength and numbers is not proof. This is a cycle that last ended, I beilieve, in the early 60s and I also believe the cycles are 30 to 40 year apart so this may be normal Hurricane activity.
> ...



yeah, what he said


----------



## elder999 (Jun 28, 2006)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> yeah, what he said


 
IT's worse than that-the major reflectors of sunshine and heat are the polar ice-caps. No ice cap reflection means _more_ heat absorbtion by the darker water, and a cascading effect of all that "he said."


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 28, 2006)

elder999 said:
			
		

> IT's worse than that-the major reflectors of sunshine and heat are the polar ice-caps. No ice cap reflection means _more_ heat absorbtion by the darker water, and a cascading effect of all that "he said."


 
That too, as I said to name a few. 

No ice caps can lead you right back to greater humidity and volcanic eruptions.

Ash and water reflect/block sunlight and here you go again back to ice age.

Funny thing is that it may point to the possibility that the planet may be self-correcting regardless of who is populating it. But this is NOT saying do nothing and the planet will handle it. It IS saying you may not WANT the planet to handle it; it could be detrimental to your health and or existence. 

There are a lot of things that can happen because of this. There are also very nasty things that can happen, as previously said &#8220;next Tuesday, just after tea-time&#8221; that can be globally devastating, that we can do absolutely nothing about. How would a Tsunami hitting NYC or the West Coat of the US effect the planet economically, or agriculturally. Absolutely no doubt the Hudson would reverse flow for a bit, how does that affect the rest of NY. A volcano becomes active under Antarctica, global flooding occurs, just to mention one side effect. This to can reverse flow on rivers world wide. And then of course there is always the meteor thingy, but I am not going to go there. Oh and I recently had a conversatin with a geograpy grad student that claims we are running out of fresh water, we are not handling water well at all. 

Whether or not Al&#8217;s book slash movie is totally factual or partly sensational I do not know, however this stuff is real and can happen. And climatologists are for the most part speculating based on computer programs and simulations. However there are uncountable variables involved and you simply cannot program them all in. I do not believe something like the movie &#8220;the Day after tomorrow&#8221; is coming, but something is if we do not do something to fix it, if we can. And face, some things we can&#8217;t, all we can do is wait, if a large piece of rock shears off an island or there is a massive volcanic eruption from a super-volcano or a deep fault earthquake or an earthquake under the ocean there is not much we can do there. 

Damn, now I will have to read Al&#8217;s book to see what he is saying, as if I don't have enough to read already. All I can say so far is that the hurricane example is not a good one, Some things in weather are cyclical. 

Side note: I forget which ice age but the planet came dangerously close (geologically speaking), way back when, to total ice coverage. If that happens all sunlight is reflected back and then you pretty much have a lifeless ice ball.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 29, 2006)

Mr. Gore was on Jon Stewart's 'The Daily Show' last evening. I'm sure the interview will be available on the internet soon. 

Also, I just watched a John Stossel interview with Joe Scarborough over at Crooks And Liars. Mr. Stossel does not believe in human caused Global Warming.


----------



## shesulsa (Jun 29, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Mr. Gore was on Jon Stewart's 'The Daily Show' last evening. I'm sure the interview will be available on the internet soon.
> 
> Also, I just watched a John Stossel interview with Joe Scarborough over at Crooks And Liars. Mr. Stossel does not believe in human caused Global Warming.



Mr. Stossel doesn't "believe" in acupuncture, herbology, vaccine limitation, etcetera, so ... I, for one, am not impressed.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Jun 29, 2006)

Do you see a connection there?


----------



## shesulsa (Jun 29, 2006)

Sure. Everyone sees what they're comfortable seeing and what they want to see.  Truth is perspective.  And the myth that science is king.


----------



## mrhnau (Jun 29, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Sure. Everyone sees what they're comfortable seeing and what they want to see.  Truth is perspective.  And the myth that science is king.



So if the guy does not believe in accupuncture, he can't possibly be correct about global warming? Trying to see the connection here, but I'm missing it. Could I possibly make the opposite claim, that if someone does believe in accupuncture, they can't possibly be correct about global warming? Truth is perspective of course...

sorry, I'm missing the connection.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 29, 2006)

Mr. Stossel made a claim about those who believe in Global Warming are "all socialists". Connect that, if you can?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 29, 2006)

Global warming has happened before, it is happening now and it will happen again. Same goes for global cooling, just it is not happening now. I wonder if Climatologists and archeologists are a socialist and if they do or do not believe in acupuncture?

Global warming can be brought on by causes we cannot control and causes we can. CO2 emissions we can control, Earth axis and orbit we cannot. 

If Glaciers are melting globally (and they are) it is warmer. So global warming is a fact. However what is causing it is what the debate should be about. Not whether or not it is happening because it is. And by the way, I am not a Socialist, but I do believe that acupuncture works whatever that means.


----------



## crushing (Jun 29, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> Global warming can be brought on by causes we cannot control and causes we can. CO2 emissions we can control, Earth axis and orbit we cannot.


 
I thought global warming stopped when the last major ice age ended and those hair-spraying SUV-driving whooly mammoths went extinct!

Also, I don't understand the introduction of Stossel to this thread.  Does he hold more sway than a career politician?

Seriously though, cleaning up our act as humans, and being good stewards of our planet should NOT be dependent on the significance of our contribution to changing weather patterns.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 29, 2006)

crushing said:
			
		

> I thought global warming stopped when the last major ice age ended and those hair-spraying SUV-driving whooly mammoths went extinct!.


 
No actually although many believe that it was all the fault of wholly mammoths it was actually the fault of the Cadillac driving Saber-toothed cats and their bathroom cleaner.



			
				crushing said:
			
		

> Seriously though, cleaning up our act as humans, and being good stewards of our planet should NOT be dependent on the significance of our contribution to changing weather patterns.


 
Agreed


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 14, 2006)

My offer still stands ... I'll pay for you (martialtalk member) to see this movie ... Send me your ticket stub ... I cover the cost of the movie plus two bucks. 

I just replaced a bunch of incandecent bulbs in my home with compact flourescent bulbs. They're cheap, they're bright, and they convert much more electrical energy to light energy. Also, they generate much less heat than an incandescent bulb (We can appreciate that today in our house). 

This bulb can be estimated to save $10.00 per year.
(5 hours per day - $0.08 per kWh - 100 wt incandescent cost $14.56 @ vs 25 wt Flourescent cost $3.68)

Shop here .... www.efi.org


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jul 14, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> My offer still stands ... I'll pay for you (martialtalk member) to see this movie ... Send me your ticket stub ... I cover the cost of the movie plus two bucks.
> 
> I just replaced a bunch of incandecent bulbs in my home with compact flourescent bulbs. They're cheap, they're bright, and they convert much more electrical energy to light energy. Also, they generate much less heat than an incandescent bulb (We can appreciate that today in our house).
> 
> ...



Staying with SOTA (* State of the Art *) is a good way of helping to save money. This also includes ones' furnace and stove and refridgerator, etcetera.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 14, 2006)

Quite often, unfortunately, State of the Art, translates into status symbol purchases, because of the additional premium for the 'new' stuff .... an common example is the Prius, isn't it?

I am fortunate enough to have replaced a refridgerator two or three years back with an Energy Star rated device, however, it carried more than a 10% premium over a similar non-ES rated appliance. My Natural Gas Furnace (a Lennox Conservator 90) has a very high efficiency rating was purchased three or four years back, but it carried a considerable premium over other, less efficient models. 

The light bulb shown above costs $1.50. Any premium from a standard incandescent will be recouped in the first several months of usage. And the initial costs is not beyond the ability of any consumer who has need of a new illumination device.


----------



## Fluffy (Jul 14, 2006)

I've read through most of the thread and took a visit to the website.  I've gone from "O-God, another rant from the former vice-prez" to "Maybe I should at least watch".  

I think I'll do so.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 14, 2006)

This just in . . . 

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2006-07-14-2006-warmth_x.htm?csp=34



> The Associated Press
> The first half of the year was the warmest on record for the USA.
> . . .
> The government reported Friday that the average temperature for the 48 contiguous United States from January through June was 51.8°F, or 3.4°F above average for the 20th century.
> That made it the warmest such period since recordkeeping began in 1895


 
Co-incidences continue.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 15, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The light bulb shown above costs $1.50. Any premium from a standard incandescent will be recouped in the first several months of usage. And the initial costs is not beyond the ability of any consumer who has need of a new illumination device.



I use these in my place in several light fixtures (not all) but they cost me closer to 5 bucks each.


----------



## Don Roley (Jul 15, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> This just in . . .
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2006-07-14-2006-warmth_x.htm?csp=34
> 
> ...



And just for those of us living outside the US, the winter this year in Japan was the coldest since WWII.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 15, 2006)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> I use these in my place in several light fixtures (not all) but they cost me closer to 5 bucks each.


 
I just checked back at that efi website I posted, and that fixture is showing a $4.25 part price. The $1.50 price I quote is what I recently paid through the NHSaves web site. This is a web site sponsored by Public Service of New Hampshire - the electric company in my state. 

A New Hampshire billing account with PSNH is required to receive that $1.50 purchase price. Also, there was a pretty heafty shipping charge involved with my order. Further I order 12 of these bulbs, and two arrived broken ... I could probably get replacements at no cost, but for three bucks, I don't think it is worth it.

I guess, if there is a moral of the story, it is to check for available savings plans in whatever places are available. Check to see if your local electric company offers a similar purchase plan.


----------



## Ray (Jul 15, 2006)

> The Associated Press
> The first half of the year was the warmest on record for the USA.
> . . .
> The government reported Friday that the average temperature for the 48 contiguous United States from January through June was 51.8°F, or 3.4°F above average for the 20th century.
> That made it the warmest such period since recordkeeping began in 1895


 


			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> And just for those of us living outside the US, the winter this year in Japan was the coldest since WWII.


Does that mean that always every day somewhere in the world it is coldest and somewhere it is warmest?


----------



## mrhnau (Jul 15, 2006)

Ray said:
			
		

> Does that mean that always every day somewhere in the world it is coldest and somewhere it is warmest?



It would seem to imply that. Shhh! Don't tell Gore!


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 15, 2006)

Ray said:
			
		

> Does that mean that always every day somewhere in the world it is coldest and somewhere it is warmest?


 
I'm not sure about that, Ray, but the movie does show a correlation between areas that suffer excessive rainfall and those that suffer excessive drought.

Currently, the continental United States is suffering in a widespread drought; more areas are reporting 'severe drought conditions' than were last year at this time.

Although, if you check the recent news from New Hampshire, you will see we have had excessive rainfall. 

Last fall, we had a 'Storm of the Century' flood event in Western New Hampshire that killed a handful of people and washed quite a few homes down the rivers. And about two months ago, we have *another* 'Storm of the Century' flood event in Central and Eastern New Hampshire that flooded out hundreds of homes. Fortuneately, there was only a couple of fatalities. But much property was damaged, and many are still digging out from that event.

Thngs that make you go "hmmm"?

See the movie ... I'll buy.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 15, 2006)

Ray said:
			
		

> Does that mean that always every day somewhere in the world it is coldest and somewhere it is warmest?


Weather patterns are cyclical, but things they are a changin'

Weather patterns are cyclical, but things they are a changin,

Also for all intensive purposes to answer your question, yes. 

Generally the North Pole and/or Antarctica are coldest and the equator is warmest.

And please do not take this the wrong way but Al Gore is not the Guru of global warming. At this point I still consider him a politician, albeit an environmentally conscious politician, that wrote a book to make money based on the findings, theories and work of others. If the book is all factual or partly alarmist drama I do not yet know.I have yet to read his book, and I will read it, once I do I can better comment on it. 

And yes global warming is an important topic and we should be aware of it.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Jul 15, 2006)

Almost as soon as the Kyoto Protocol on global warming came into effect on February 15, Kashmir suffered the highest snowfall in three decades with over 150 killed, and Mumbai recorded the lowest temperature in 40 years. Had temperatures been the highest for decades, newspapers would have declared this was proof of global warming. But whenever temperatures drop, the press keeps quiet. 

Things were different in 1940-70, when there was global cooling. Every cold winter then was hailed as proof of a coming new Ice Age. But the moment cooling was replaced by warming, a new disaster in the opposite direction was proclaimed. In the fields of engineering. medicine and technology science has been a boon. because you can actually make things and SEE if they work or not. This crap is still junk science IMO. I wouldnt throw away my winter boots just yet.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jul 15, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Quite often, unfortunately, State of the Art, translates into status symbol purchases, because of the additional premium for the 'new' stuff .... an common example is the Prius, isn't it?
> 
> I am fortunate enough to have replaced a refridgerator two or three years back with an Energy Star rated device, however, it carried more than a 10% premium over a similar non-ES rated appliance. My Natural Gas Furnace (a Lennox Conservator 90) has a very high efficiency rating was purchased three or four years back, but it carried a considerable premium over other, less efficient models.
> 
> The light bulb shown above costs $1.50. Any premium from a standard incandescent will be recouped in the first several months of usage. And the initial costs is not beyond the ability of any consumer who has need of a new illumination device.




Michael,

I never said there was not a cost. As a matter of fact that is the point I have been trying to make to lots fo people until we as a collective decide the cost is right some will proceed for they think it is best for themselves or the evironment, while others will wait until it is cheap or required by law. 

:asian:


----------



## fireman00 (Jul 15, 2006)

my own .02 - yes, the human race are little piggies taking as much more then we need , using less then we took and throw out whatever is left over. We need to become more self-reliant, find alternate energy sources for cars/ heating/ electircity.

BUT! There appears to be another side to this issue; the scientific community is not closing ranks on the out-of-control global warming disaster. It would seem that the ice packs in Antartica are getting thicker and its possible that undersea volcanoes are causing the oceans to warm.... interesting reading at http://www.iceagenow.com/


Here's another good article: 


*EARTH IN THE BALANCE*

[FONT=Garamond, Times]*Don't Believe the Hype*[/FONT] 
[FONT=Garamond, Times]Al Gore is wrong. There's no "consensus" on global warming.[/FONT] 
[FONT=Verdana, Times]
*BY RICHARD S. LINDZEN* 
_Sunday, July 2, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT_ 
According to Al Gore's new film "An Inconvenient Truth," we're in for "a planetary emergency": melting ice sheets, huge increases in sea levels, more and stronger hurricanes, and invasions of tropical disease, among other cataclysms--unless we change the way we live now. 
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597
[/FONT]


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jul 16, 2006)

When athletes say "it's not about the money"...it's about the money
When politicians say "it's not political"..it's political


----------



## arnisador (Jul 16, 2006)

The movie was well-done and certainly nudged my opinion more toward his side of the debate...but, I still believe that the earth, and the humans living on it, are quire resilient.


----------



## mrhnau (Jul 16, 2006)

arnisador said:
			
		

> The movie was well-done and certainly nudged my opinion more toward his side of the debate...but, I still believe that the earth, and the humans living on it, are quire resilient.



Always nice to see you posting :asian:

Thats the objective. You have a one sided debate, with view points strictly scripted out and well planned. Not only that, its a one sided debate that you pay to go see. You gang up a bunch of specialist with a bunch of degrees that see things as you do and you can compile a fairly impressive presentation.

Same things happens in many debates. You get your group of people on one side, and the other group gangs up too. End effect hopefully is a search for the truth. In this particular instance though, politics and the desire for distaster in the news pushes one side of the arguement (at least IMHO). I'm not willing to drink that cool-aid yet.

I do agree with on though, we are quite resilient. The Earth has its own unique ways of dealing with problems. We are not a one variable system, where an increase in CO2 emissions insures certain doom. Simply put, it ain't that simple.

I do think we have the power to destroy much of what is here. Lets deal with the issues that could cause the immediate and disasterous trauma such as nuclear war and nuclear weapons/bioweapons in the hands of those crazy enough to use them on a global scale (terrorist and rogue nations). Sure, we can get more environmentally friendly, but that does not insure an infinite existence. Lets look at the whole picture.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 16, 2006)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Lets deal with the issues that could cause the immediate and disasterous trauma such as nuclear war and nuclear weapons/bioweapons in the hands of those crazy enough to use them on a global scale (terrorist and rogue nations). Sure, we can get more environmentally friendly, but that does not insure an infinite existence. Lets look at the whole picture.


 
Is your argument that we need to spend all our energy on the things that will kill us fast, and we can ignore the things that kill us slowly?

Do you smoke? 

Why, or Why not?


----------



## mrhnau (Jul 16, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Is your argument that we need to spend all our energy on the things that will kill us fast, and we can ignore the things that kill us slowly?
> 
> Do you smoke?
> 
> Why, or Why not?



Is your argument that we should ignore the things that kill us quickly and focus on things that kill us slowly? You concern yourself with both. However, if a burglar breaks into my house with a knife in hand, I'm not planning on worrying about my cholesterol. I first deal with the situation, then I'll worry about cholesterol. On a global sense, its not as cut and dry, and while its logical to make constant steps to prepare for the future, I also think we should be more concerned about the immediate threat (burglar w/ the knife, or in this case the WMD's). While it is possible (and I stress possible) that CO2 and all that other nasty bad stuff could kill humanity, I also believe we could have it happen much faster via nuclear war, bioligcal weaponry, asteroid, shoot... that sounds just like the list of shows on the discover channel 

Do I smoke? Do you eat things that are bad for you? Do you drive a car? Do you realize you can get in a wreck and die every time? I'm not interested in living in fear the rest of my life. Take steps to eliminate the threats on a global scale, starting with the most immediate and dangerous.

Smoking is not relevant. Personal decision that affects you personally (well, for the most part). The destruction of the world seems to affect everyone. To answer your question though, I do not smoke. I find the smell revolting and need the lung capacity I have.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 16, 2006)

There have been a lot of things said here and I would like to address a few. Don&#8217;t get me wrong, I am not saying Al is right (I'm also not saying he is wrong) nor am I saying Global warming is a agreed upon fact, but if the temperature of the planet is going up, then that is global warming. As to the cause, good and important question. 

1) Greenland's Ice Sheet is thickening at the interior at an altitude above 1500 meters. However it is decreasing in thickness at altitudes below 1500 meters

2) Actually there are other tropical or warm climate diseases that will move in if the temperature goes up enough, but there is a lot more to global climate warming than absorption of infrared by the atmosphere. The ocean itself has a lot to do with it as well.

3) And if you introduce enough fresh water from Glacial melt into a sal****er system it can affect this is a very negative was. Not to mention the sea life extinctions it will cause. There are multiple oceanic systems that will be impacted by introduction of fresh water in a very bad way. Also the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can have and is having a negative effect as well. Ocean's acidity does rise with increased CO2, but at a slow rate. But this is not a good thing particularly for oxygen production

4) Antarctic Ice Sheet thickening: The big question does this change marks the end of the retreat, or is it just a short-lived reversal.

5) Under sea Volcanoes causing the oceans to warm... sorry that's just wrong. The oceanic system is way to complex for that to be the reason, particularly on a global scale.

6) Planet and peoples resilience: There is a theory that the planet is self-correcting. However you really do not want it to do that, it would definitely prove that the planet is WAY more resilient than the people on it. But the next species to master the planet would probably greatly appreciate it. 

7) Terrorism, Nuclear threat: Yes they are extremely important issues and are more than likely more of an immanent threat. But why can&#8217;t we work on both issues, I did not know working on one excluded working on the other. 

But if one of the (I believe 7) volcanoes under Antarctica goes off, then you may have water front property in Southern Georgia&#8230; possibly cold possibly hot&#8230; I&#8217;m not sure; that much fresh water introduced into the Ocean will cause major climate changes. 

Note: there are currently no signs of a Volcano in Antarctic becoming active. However if you remove enough of the ice it could be a possibility. Ice is very heavy and Glaciers put a lot of pressure on the ground they sit on.

My previous posts on this are here if any are interested. 

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=33965&page=7

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=33965&page=8


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 16, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> nor am I saying Global warming is a agreed upon fact,


 
This is the basic problem. 

Among people who study the planetary system, or weather, or the effects of weather on biology, the amount of dissent about human caused global warming is so small as to be insignificant. *The discussion is over.* 

You will always be able to find someone to believe that exception, but the science *is* an agreed upon fact.

That we, who do not study this data consistantly and regularly, may be sceptical of a source reporting the data, for whatever our own prejudices are, does not, in any way negate or effect, the data.

The argument that 'Al Gore is a Politician' in no way effects the data of the information he presents. It does, however, speak volumes about the arguer's inability to separate facts from non-facts


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 17, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> This is the basic problem.
> 
> Among people who study the planetary system, or weather, or the effects of weather on biology, the amount of dissent about human caused global warming is so small as to be insignificant. *The discussion is over.*
> 
> ...


 
You avoid the entire post I made and pull out one statement and go after it. To attempt to discredit me and strengthen your position... typical.

Yes humans have had an effect on the planet, no doubt. Yes global warming is a fact and it is happening as we speak. No I do not study the data on this now because it is not my job. Yes I use to study data on this; much of this sort of thing was my minor in college. 

But this begs the questions, and please do not avoid them, do you study this data consistently and regularly? Have you done research or study on this subject beyond Al's book and movie? Has that research been in depth from trusted scientific sources? 

Do I believe that humans and pollution as CONTRIBUTING to global warming? Yes. Is this the only factors involved? Doubtful.

Is it a serious situation we should be concerned about? Yes.

Is Al Gore the Guru of Global warming and or the environment? No.

Is his book completely factual, partially factual and partly dramatized to make money? I do not know yet, but I will. I am going to read this book and if it is factual I will say so if it is otherwise I will say so. But regardless of what it is Al did not do the research, someone else did. And Al is a politician that is out of work looking for a way to make money and this apparently worked for him, great.

And please if you are going to comment don't just comment on the convenient in order to make your point stronger. 

And if you actually read anything I posted you would of course already known all I just said.


----------



## mrhnau (Jul 17, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> This is the basic problem.
> 
> Among people who study the planetary system, or weather, or the effects of weather on biology, the amount of dissent about human caused global warming is so small as to be insignificant. *The discussion is over.*
> 
> You will always be able to find someone to believe that exception, but the science *is* an agreed upon fact.



This sounds alot like...
[sarcasm]
I'm right dang it. My friends are right. Everyone knows it, so just shut up and agree with me, you ignorant fool. Drink that cool-aid!
[/sarcasm]

Hardly. What IS being argued among some scientist is that global warming is being caused primarily by humans. The earth goes through cycles, and alot of previous posts have mentioned the possible non-human effects on global warming. Please feel free to go back and peruse and comment on some of the specifics. Xue Sheng made a good point, you ignore alot of specifics in the conversation here.

Repeating, writing in bold, or underlining won't make me believe you any more than if you did not.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 17, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> You avoid the entire post I made and pull out one statement and go after it. To attempt to discredit me and strengthen your position... typical.
> 
> Yes humans have had an effect on the planet, no doubt. Yes global warming is a fact and it is happening as we speak. No I do not study the data on this now because it is not my job. Yes I use to study data on this; much of this sort of thing was my minor in college.
> 
> ...


 
I am not attempting to discredit you, or strengthen my position. Actually, in that post, I was attempting to have a dialog.

You seem to want it both ways .. you seem to want to rely on evidence, but you don't want to accept the evidence that is out there. While that can be seen as 'Gee this is a complex issue, and I am not certain what to make of it all' ... it can also be seen as mucking up the water.

If you read my posts, you will see that I do not report Mr. Gore as an expert ... but mearly a messenger. Yet, some keep bringing him up, as you did, and claim that because he is a politician (or was), you aren't going to believe anything he says. 

Is his message accurate? I think there is an inability to recognize the accuracy of the message, and there is an unwillingness to recognize the accuracy of the message.

You know, I will say this about Mr. Gore. He is exhibiting the definition of leadership. Leadership does not require an individual to perform each and every study. But, it does require when sufficient evidence is available, you craft a message of change, and execute on that message.

Go see the movie ... I'll buy.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 17, 2006)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> This sounds alot like...
> [sarcasm]
> I'm right dang it. My friends are right. Everyone knows it, so just shut up and agree with me, you ignorant fool. Drink that cool-aid!
> [/sarcasm]
> ...


 
You're argument is the from the point of view of religion. It is what you believe, or want to believe, rather than the evidence available.


----------



## Kreth (Jul 17, 2006)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> What IS being argued among some scientist is that global warming is being caused primarily by humans.


I thought bovine flatulence had been shown as one of the major contributing factors... :uhyeah:


----------



## mrhnau (Jul 17, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> You're argument is the from the point of view of religion. It is what you believe, or want to believe, rather than the evidence available.



Wow... at what point of my post did I mention religion? I'm not going to go back through all 10 pages of this mess, but at what point in this whole repetative discussion did I mention religion?

Please describe to me the relevance of this. Are you so bold as to tell me that someone who believes in God can not accept science?

Perhaps this deserves another thread, because this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with global warming or Al Gores movies, which is why YOU started this thread.

Ad Hominem


----------



## mrhnau (Jul 17, 2006)

Kreth said:
			
		

> I thought bovine flatulence had been shown as one of the major contributing factors... :uhyeah:



Watch out! If you claim this, and believe in God, it must not be true!

I like the arguement though LOL Eat more hamburgers! yay!


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 17, 2006)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Wow... at what point of my post did I mention religion? I'm not going to go back through all 10 pages of this mess, but at what point in this whole repetative discussion did I mention religion?
> 
> Please describe to me the relevance of this. Are you so bold as to tell me that someone who believes in God can not accept science?
> 
> ...


 
I did not mention God. I mentioned religion.

That you use the article 'some' scientists are debating "x", is disingenuous. The argument amongst peer-reviewed scientists is over.

You have a strong desire to have an unresolved debate on the issue. You believe there should be a debate on the issue. You feel the issue is not yet resolved. Religion is belief in the absence of evidence. Perhaps 'Faith' would have been a better word. 

The underlined words in the preceeding paragraph are words that describe faith or religion.

It is known, on this board, that I am an athiest. I came to that position through some very strong and personal religious experiences. So, I can appreciate what strength and community people gain from their affiliations with religion and faith. I am careful to not criticize anyone for their belief; right up to the point where their belief interferes with evidence.


----------



## mrhnau (Jul 17, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I did not mention God. I mentioned religion.
> 
> The underlined words in the preceeding paragraph are words that describe faith or religion.



Decouple faith and religion in the post then, and our problems are minimized. I don't have any element of religion influencing my belief or disbelief in science, though I might concede that faith would play a role. To me, those are distinct. You have faith too in science, in some manor or the other. Don't have time to write much more on this. busy day. I'll respond to the rest of your points soon.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 17, 2006)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> You have faith too in science, in some manor or the other. Don't have time to write much more on this. busy day. I'll respond to the rest of your points soon.


 
I do not have faith in science. Faith is belief in the absence of evidence. 

I can read the studies that show the Greenland glaciers are moving three times faster toward the sea than they were a decade ago. Those measurements are tangible. Faith is not required. 

Deducing from those measurements, a cause, requires reason, which also does not require faith. Given a set of datum, we measure against results received from previous observations, and apply logic and experience to the facts, drawing a conclusion.

When there is evidence, only the ability to recognize it as evidence is required; Faith is not.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 17, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> You seem to want it both ways .. you seem to want to rely on evidence, but you don't want to accept the evidence that is out there. While that can be seen as 'Gee this is a complex issue, and I am not certain what to make of it all' ... it can also be seen as mucking up the water..


 
No, I am just not agreeing completely with Al or you. Apparently you call that mucking. You seem to want it one way or another, but it is not that simple. The environment is extremely complex and made up of more than one system. I am not saying global warming is not an issue and I am not saying humans have not contributed. But once again if you had read any of my previous post you would know that. I am saying I do not trust Al&#8217;s book as being proof of anything without reading it first based on your assessment of the movie. 



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> If you read my posts, you will see that I do not report Mr. Gore as an expert ... but mearly a messenger. Yet, some keep bringing him up, as you did, and claim that because he is a politician (or was), you aren't going to believe anything he says.


 
If you read my posts, which it appears that you are not, you would see I never said I would not listen to him because he is a politician. I did however claim I would not take him at face value, without reading the book first, because he is a politician that did not do the research. Some one else did.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Is his message accurate? I think there is an inability to recognize the accuracy of the message, and there is an unwillingness to recognize the accuracy of the message.


 
Actually it is more of an inability to except his message without reading the book first based on my education on the subject. 



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> You know, I will say this about Mr. Gore. He is exhibiting the definition of leadership. Leadership does not require an individual to perform each and every study. But, it does require when sufficient evidence is available, you craft a message of change, and execute on that message.


 
This remains to be seen, as I have said I have not read the book, it could be sensationalized to sell books. Which by the way would be a bad thing if this is the case, and I do not yet know since I have not yet read the book.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Go see the movie ... I'll buy.


 

And please don&#8217;t offer me this again it is insulting. I do not need you to buy me anything nor am I asking you to do so. This is also proof to the fact that you have not read my posts. I have said time and time again that I am going to read the book. So please do not offer this to me again.

And as you are apparently not reading my posts I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you have not seen this question, from my previous post, and are not just avoiding it. Since you threw this in one of your post that I read I thought it was only fare to ask.

I do not wish to quote myself, but maybe you will read it if I do



			
				xue sheng said:
			
		

> But this begs the questions, and please do not avoid them, do you study this data consistently and regularly? Have you done research or study on this subject beyond Al's book and movie? Has that research been in depth from trusted scientific sources?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 17, 2006)

One more thing.

I have been all over the web today looking for a review of Al Gore's book and movie and what I have found is that there is anything but a consensus by scientists that Al is right. What I find is two sides of the extreme that either says Al is completely wrong or Al is completely right.

The more I read the more I realize I am going to have to buy the book and see for myself. I suspect he is partially right and partially dramatic. 

This hardly looks like a scientific consensus on Global warming.

"The National Post" "the gods are laughing"
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=d0235a70-33f1-45b3-803b-829b1b3542ef&p=1



> The gods are laughing
> Scientists who work in the fields liberal arts graduate Al Gore wanders through contradict his theories about man-induced climate change
> 
> Tom Harris
> ...


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 17, 2006)

Originally Posted by *xue sheng*
_But this begs the questions, and please do not avoid them, do you study this data consistently and regularly? Have you done research or study on this subject beyond Al's book and movie? Has that research been in depth from trusted scientific sources?_


No. 

I have enough of an experience in science to be able to have a measure of security in the results being posited by Mr. Gore's movie. Having a quality liberal arts education means that we can recognize evidence, and evaluate it, without actually having to take the samples. 


My offer to purchase the admission ticket for this movie has been extended to all MartialTalk members. My comments encouraging people to view the movie are intended for that audience, including lurkers, if they exist. If you choose to not take me up on that offer, or to be insulted by it, so be it. I will not be responsible for your offense. 

I continue to advance that offer because it seems an effective way to actually discuss something based on knowledge.



Oh, and I tend not to read articles that are infringments of copyrights. Copying and Pasting anothers work is, besides being illegal, in poor taste.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 17, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Oh, and I tend not to read articles that are infringments of copyrights. Copying and Pasting anothers work is, besides being illegal, in poor taste.


 
EXCUSE ME!!!

I have committed an illegal act. 

And where did I do this and not credit the author.

Accusations a great ploy to move the spot light off of your lack of background and lack of reading what has been previously posted in order to force your agenda down others throats if they dont agree they ate mucking it up or accused of illegalities.  And you claim to not be discrediting me.

You read one book by an author that may or may not be writing the whole truth and then use it to judge others an offer them a chance to go see it and think you are doing them a favor. If you want to learn about Earth systems I can suggest an old introductory textbook of mine. Read that and then look at the book you take as gospel. 

Actually you are because you can't refute any of what I am saying.

You can be assured I will report this one, and I have not done that in a very long time.


----------



## shesulsa (Jul 17, 2006)

_*Moderator Note:

Please review the copyright policy regarding republishing copyrighted articles even when credited.

Please also return this discussion to a polite, respectful exchange.

G Ketchmark / shesulsa
MT Super Moderator*_


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 17, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> the book you take as gospel.


 
Perhaps you missed the part where I said I was an athiest. But, where have you seen me make any statements concerning Mr. Gore's book as 'Gospel'. In fact, where have you seen me make any statements that the evidence presented in the movie 'An Inconvenient Truth' is correct, or incorrect or anything. 

What I have been advocating is that people see the movie. 

I *think *that I have pointed out two specific items from the movie that I said are of interest; meaning that to me, they bear special attention. Let me go back and check ... 



			
				michaeledward post #84 said:
			
		

> There are two items in the movie that you might find compelling.
> 
> Item 1 - The scale balancing business and the planet earth
> 
> Item 2 - The human population chart, referencing Al Gore's lifetime


 
I'm pretty sure those are the only *two* items I have referenced specifically from the film ... (other facts presented are not knowingly drawn from Mr. Gore's movie - such as, the rate of Greenland's Glacier's was drawn from the Los Angeles Times.)

And ... as you can read, I make no assertions to the a) validity or b) effect of these two facts. So, if you are going to accuse me of standing on the book or movie as 'Gospel', you are not reading my posts. 


Further, I make no assertions of my own scientific knowledge or experience. I am not justifying or defending any scientific knowledge. I am encouraging people to take two hours to see a movie ... at the request of the movie's star and producer. And you take insult from that. Good Grief.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 17, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Perhaps you missed the part where I said I was an athiest. But, where have you seen me make any statements concerning Mr. Gore's book as 'Gospel'. In fact, where have you seen me make any statements that the evidence presented in the movie 'An Inconvenient Truth' is correct, or incorrect or anything.
> 
> What I have been advocating is that people see the movie.
> 
> ...


 
Mike 

You missed this one just below where you stated the scientific discussion was over just a bit contrary to your previous statement don't you think.

So apparently I have read your post and you don't remember what you posted.




			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Among people who study the planetary system, or weather, or the effects of weather on biology, the amount of dissent about human caused global warming is so small as to be insignificant. The discussion is over.


 

And apparently not taking the time to read someone&#8217;s posts before you respond to them justifies accusing him or her of plagiarism is ok with you. Interesting, since to say that you would have had to read the previous posts... which you apparently didn't.

And instead of discussing or arguing against any of the point I have made you once again go the "lets try and discredit him" route, interesting. So basically you got nothing but a movie. 

And the insault was not from your offer to pay people to go it was your offer to pay for my ticket directly when you in fact had not read anything I previously posted. 

Sadly prior to this little spat I was leaning towards you side of the issue. Now I see you don't have any real understanding of the issue at all do you... beyond what the movie told you. 

Sorry about the Gosphel reference it was more of a metaphor, I did not mean to offend. 

Out of respect for the monitors I will go no further.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 17, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> You missed this one just below where you stated the scientific discussion was over just a bit contrary to your previous statement don't you think.


 
The assertion you list is not based on the work in Mr. Gore's film. Although, because there is very little actual dissent to the effect of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, Mr. Gore quite probably includes it in his film.



			
				Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> Now I see you don't have any real understanding of the issue at all do you... beyond what the movie told you.


 
You may believe that if you choose.

However,  you have stated that you have not seen the film, nor yet read the book. But you seem to be able to determine, without any evidence, what a person viewing the film takes away from it. Wow.... That's some serious kung fu there. 



			
				Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> Sorry about the Gosphel reference it was more of a metaphor, I did not mean to offend.


 
As an athiest, I am not the one the reference would offend.

Lastly, for approximately one minute, I had an edit in my post that included the word plagarism. That reference was deleted almost immediately, because it was an incorrect use of the term. If you managed to see that reference before the edit, I apologize. If, however, you take offense about copying and pasting anothers thoughts in your post, contrary to MartialTalk's copyright policy, be offended. Don't present an argument with anothers' thoughts as you primary case. If you choose to link to an article to support a position you hold, that is something entirely different.

But, in that case you are correct ... I am not going to read a post with someone's byline at the beginning of the post.


----------



## shesulsa (Jul 18, 2006)

_*FINAL MODERATOR WARNING

Please return to a respectful, polite manner of posting immediately.  Further disregard of in-thread moderator warnings will result in a locked thread and possible suspensions.

G Ketchmark / shesulsa
MT Super Moderator*_


----------



## Kensai (Jul 18, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> You're argument is the from the point of view of religion. It is what you believe, or want to believe, rather than the evidence available.



Religion? Where'd that come into it? Evidence is like "the truth", you can make it fit the facts depending on what research you do... I prefer to go on what I can see and feel. That is to say, the pollution in various UK cities being so strong that I can taste it in my mouth, or see the power stations in our local countryside belching out smoke and fumes. That can't be doing the environment any good, nor as a result ourselves. I don't understand this view that people have that everything is perfect, that we as humans haven't affected our world in any way shape or form. That it's as pure as the day humans first walked upon it. They strike me as the kind of people that vote for Bush, and have shares in oil companies. Hmmm....


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 18, 2006)

Kensai said:
			
		

> Religion? Where'd that come into it? Evidence is like "the truth", you can make it fit the facts depending on what research you do... I prefer to go on what I can see and feel. That is to say, the pollution in various UK cities being so strong that I can taste it in my mouth, or see the power stations in our local countryside belching out smoke and fumes. That can't be doing the environment any good, nor as a result ourselves. I don't understand this view that people have that everything is perfect, that we as humans haven't affected our world in any way shape or form. That it's as pure as the day humans first walked upon it. They strike me as the kind of people that vote for Bush, and have shares in oil companies. Hmmm....


 
The phrase 'religion' comes from the attitudes I perceive in others. Some arguments seem to be based on hopes and wishes rather than evidence. It seems some don't want human beings to be able to affect the atmosphere, therefore, we can't.

Certainly, being able to see and feel the effect of power generating plants is not good. But, we need to be careful not to limit the input of information to only those that we can perceive with our five senses. Natural Gas has is not detectible by human senses. The power companies add the 'odor' too the gas. They used to bring canaries into the coal mines ... to have a sensory input to dangerous gas - visual - the dead bird.

And, unfortunately, this goes far beyond those who would vote one way, or another. Perhaps all they way back to religion (or faith). Belief, in the absence of evidence, is the foundation of all religion. "It's a big world, and what can we possibly do to it."


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 18, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> However, you have stated that you have not seen the film, nor yet read the book. But you seem to be able to determine, without any evidence, what a person viewing the film takes away from it. Wow.... That's some serious kung fu there. .


 
No actually I am not saying what a person takes away from the film, I am saying that there are other sources and I, unlike you, have studies those.

I am saying I am willing to read the book to judge its validity. 



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Lastly, for approximately one minute, I had an edit in my post that included the word plagarism. That reference was deleted almost immediately, because it was an incorrect use of the term. If you managed to see that reference before the edit, I apologize. If, however, you take offense about copying and pasting anothers thoughts in your post, contrary to MartialTalk's copyright policy, be offended. Don't present an argument with anothers' thoughts as you primary case. If you choose to link to an article to support a position you hold, that is something entirely different.
> 
> But, in that case you are correct ... I am not going to read a post with someone's byline at the beginning of the post.


 
As for that one post, if you had read any of my other posts, which you obviously have not. You would see it is hardly my primary case. 

I have dealt with that post with MT. I was unaware of that policy since I had given the author of the article credit I saw no issue. And I certainly did not in any way try and say that the thoughts were my own.

But you were trying to avoid the argument and discredit me after all and you saw the opportunity and went for it, congratulations.


----------



## shesulsa (Jul 18, 2006)

_*MODERATOR NOTE:

THREAD LOCKED - This has turned into a two-person argument and is not what we like to see on MartialTalk from our members.

Please review the General Posting Rules, the complaint policy, familiarize yourselves with the RTM feature and it's proper use, and the ignore feature.

G Ketchmark / shesulsa
MT Super Moderator*_


----------

