Founder of The Weather Channel Slams Global Warming "SCAM"

[Sorros]

He wroteThe current century and a half of warming correlates damned near perfectly with the rise in global CO2 and methane levels.

Cow Farts, we talking cow farts here.

Honestly, I use to be a total sceptic about global warming. Mainly because of the same people using scare tactic, to push their looney agendas.
But lately I'm beginning to come around a little.

 

[MBuzzy]

As said above...it is impossible for humans to be here WITHOUT making an impact on the environment. I also believe that the earth will be just fine with or without us and regardless of what we do...the question is - will WE still be here regardless of what we do?

In the grand scheme of things, humans require VERY specific climactic conditions. Luckily we have adapted with warm clothes, heating sources, etc so that we can survive in almost any condition. I'm sure that if the climate does undergo a drastic change, we will adapt to that as well.

I used to be a HUGE global warming sceptic, but then I started putting some serious thought into it. It is obviously true that we are impacting the environment...it is also true that there are A LOT better ways to do the things that we're doing.

So why not? Sky is falling or not, what is the real case for INACTION? cost is a big prohibitor, obviously. I've undergone multi million dollar energy savings projects for the government and they are not cheap...but here's the crazy thing....they pay themselves off. Just changing all of the light switches to motion sensors paid itself off within 6 months on one military establishment - it now saving the base and the government over $60,000 per year. So I say again....why not? We are saving money, lessening our energy demand, thereby lessening the use of fossil fuels, etc etc etc. So why not?

Now converting an entire existing building to a "green" establishment is HUGELY cost prohibitive....even building one is cost prohibitive. But look at the little things. Solar power for example, build it into a building, it increases the up front cost a bit, but in construction, up front is the time to put the money in....but over the long term, it will save a massive amount of money.

So I ask again.....why not?

It seems to me that whether there is or isn't a problem, it isn't a difficult fix and there's no reason not to. If everyone does a part, the problem goes away.

On another note, there is a lot of sceptisim about the issue...and most of it seems like excuses to me. "Well, there's no problem, so let's not change anything." Whether it is a global climactic problem or as simple as smog over cities - I think that everyone can agree that we have some problems in how we treat the environment.

 

[Sorros]

Well said Buzz, I was a E5 in the Air Force. I assume that is what your avetar is about.

I still think it's all about COW FARTS

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

As said above...it is impossible for humans to be here WITHOUT making an impact on the environment. I also believe that the earth will be just fine with or without us and regardless of what we do...the question is - will WE still be here regardless of what we do?

In the grand scheme of things, humans require VERY specific climactic conditions. Luckily we have adapted with warm clothes, heating sources, etc so that we can survive in almost any condition. I'm sure that if the climate does undergo a drastic change, we will adapt to that as well.

I used to be a HUGE global warming sceptic, but then I started putting some serious thought into it. It is obviously true that we are impacting the environment...it is also true that there are A LOT better ways to do the things that we're doing.

So why not? Sky is falling or not, what is the real case for INACTION? cost is a big prohibitor, obviously. I've undergone multi million dollar energy savings projects for the government and they are not cheap...but here's the crazy thing....they pay themselves off. Just changing all of the light switches to motion sensors paid itself off within 6 months on one military establishment - it now saving the base and the government over $60,000 per year. So I say again....why not? We are saving money, lessening our energy demand, thereby lessening the use of fossil fuels, etc etc etc. So why not?

Now converting an entire existing building to a "green" establishment is HUGELY cost prohibitive....even building one is cost prohibitive. But look at the little things. Solar power for example, build it into a building, it increases the up front cost a bit, but in construction, up front is the time to put the money in....but over the long term, it will save a massive amount of money.

So I ask again.....why not?

It seems to me that whether there is or isn't a problem, it isn't a difficult fix and there's no reason not to. If everyone does a part, the problem goes away.

On another note, there is a lot of sceptisim about the issue...and most of it seems like excuses to me. "Well, there's no problem, so let's not change anything." Whether it is a global climactic problem or as simple as smog over cities - I think that everyone can agree that we have some problems in how we treat the environment.

Now see, here is an environmentalist (pardon if you are offended by the term) that makes some sense.

We don't know what "negative" impact humans are having on the environment. But that doesn't mean the we can't do anything to clean up the air a bit. Absolutely. And I agree with you.

The problem is when you deal with it those who say that it is incontrovertible/undeniable/uncontestable that man-made global warming is a fact.

Let's look at some basic theoretical scientific principles, especially as it relates to epistemology:

Karl Popper denied the positivist assertion that scientist can "prove" a theory through induction, or repeated empirical tests or observations. One never knows if one's observations have been sufficient; the next observations might contradict all that preceded it.

If one looks at Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, it means that the act of observations heavily shapes reality. No single theoretical language articulating the variable to which a well-defined value can be attributed can exhaust the physical content of a system. Various possible languages and points of view about the system may be complementary. They all deal with the same reality, but it is impossible to reduct them to one single description. The irreducible plurality of perspectives on the sam reality expresses the impossibility of a divine point of view from which the whole of reality is visible.

Basically, these and other modern epistomelogical views of science show that nothing can be known for absolute certainty. So when scientist say that it is impossible that the major effects of climate change to be other than man-made, it is easy so see why one could be sceptical. Especially when it comes to open systems such as the environment.

 

[Senjojutsu]

One of the current weather perception problems is the AMAZING ADVANCES to weather reporting graphics and measurement readings during the past decade. The motion displays fed from satellites, Doppler radar displays that rotate 360 degrees etc. which you see today on American television broadcasts, almost causing you to take your sight off the hot weather chicks presenting it.

They can tell you so much better what is happening now - however in terms of forecasting have they improved that much even with supercomputer models analyzing raw data?

There is also the issue, as stated, about past warming/cooling changes within the earth’s history that had nothing to do with humans. 10,000 years ago is a blink in the eye for Mother Earth, for us modern humans it is pretty much the whole ball game.

Many here are skeptical because we know there are political agendas afoot.
It does not mean we skeptics believe in the wholesale degradation of the environment caused by humans, such as in say discussing commercial overfishing.

As and aside, society perceives the Personal Computer revolution as “clean” as opposed to past heavy industrialization, but now we have millions of obsolete PCs going onto our landfills each year. So maybe, for the environment we should all immediately log off, turn off and go back to using the abacus and slide-rule.

…and thus endeth the message board known as Martialtalk.com, but the pending Yellowstone Caldera supervolcano eruption was going to turn us all to ash anyway.
:uhohh:

 

[Sorros]

If we were all vegitarians, the world woud be a better place.

« BACK

Cow Farts: Global Warmers Or A Load Of Hot Air?

August 05 2005
Scientists and farmers around the world are debating a very serious subject at the moment. Cow farts. Yes, really, they're talking about farting cows. They're talking about cow burps as well, and sheep burps, and even sheep farts.

Why? Good question. Let's start with a look at the science behind wind.
Farts and burps are basically pockets of gas that get released from human and animal bodies. Some gas is swallowed, like oxygen, when we eat or talk. Some of it is created inside our bodies as we digest food.

This gassy mixture isn't useful, so our bodies push it out and away as best they can... in burps and farts. Got it so far? Hope you're not giggling by the way, this is very serious science.

One of the gases found in farts and burps is called 'methane'. A certain amount of methane in the atmosphere is natural, and is a good thing. Along with other so-called 'greenhouse gases' methane collects in the sky and traps warm air around our planet.



Problems begin when the layer of greenhouse gases gets too thick and traps too much heat. This is called 'global warming'. To find out more about global warming check out this factsheet from Defra.

It's now a proven fact that our planet is warming up very quickly. And, most scientists agree that this is because of greenhouse gases, including methane. Which takes us back to our farting farm animals.

A scientific report published in California last week claimed that dairy cows in the area were producing almost 20 pounds (in weight, that's almost 10 kg) of gas every year, each. That's a huge, huge amount.

If that figure is accurate, it could mean that cow farts were causing more global warming than pollution from cars in that region, as millions of cows live there. Trouble is, the local farmers don't believe the report. They reckon their cows are far less windy than that and are questioning the way the research was done.

 

[Cryozombie]

Correct me if I was misinformed, but back in the 70's wasn't the outcry about "global cooling" and the need for increasing greenhouse gases and a melting of the polar caps before they became too large?

I don't deny we are impacting our environment negativley, just look at the amount of non recyclable trash we produce... but the global warming debates, which many skeptics claim are based on "junk science" seem to remind me of a lot of other issues that "God Science" has proven... and 20 years from now we will flip back to "We have an epidemic of global cooling!"

 

[Sorros]

Correct me if I was misinformed, but back in the 70's wasn't the outcry about "global cooling" and the need for increasing greenhouse gases and a melting of the polar caps before they became too large?

I don't deny we are impacting our environment negativley, just look at the amount of non recyclable trash we produce... but the global warming debates, which many skeptics claim are based on "junk science" seem to remind me of a lot of other issues that "God Science" has proven... and 20 years from now we will flip back to "We have an epidemic of global cooling!"

Ted Dansen stated so boldly back then, "unless we do something about GLOBAL COOLING we'll only have ten years of oil left".
He must of had the same science teacher as All Gore.

 

[Cryozombie]

Ted Dansen stated so boldly back then, "unless we do something about GLOBAL COOLING we'll only have ten years of oil left".
He must of had the same science teacher as All Gore.

Well, Ted Danson isn't exactly the man I'd hold up as an example.