An inconvenient truth

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

That took 20 years!

Science doesn't happen overnight.

[Hippikos]

Cool, you can <Ctrl+V>

Yep, that's why I mentioned the source...

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

Yep, that's why I mentioned the source...

I didn't catch your point, you just dumped it there in the middle of our conversation...

[Hippikos]

I didn't catch your point, you just dumped it there in the middle of our conversation...

I can read the paper and watch TV at the same time...

Science doesn't happen overnight.

For some people, it does...

[Hippikos]

and THAT is a direct result of humans burning petroleum and petroleum-based products.

Where's the proof? Man produces only 7 of 150 Billion tons of CO2 annually, which is only 4%.

BTW 1% more terrestrial vegetation could take the whole problem away.

[headsplice]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

Where's the proof? Man produces only 7 of 150 Billion tons of CO2 annually, which is only 4%.

BTW 1% more terrestrial vegetation could take the whole problem away.

The problem being that the CO2 that mankind produces comes from outside the current carbon cycle (it's been locked underground for millions of years). So, 7 billion tons extra to the carbon cycle each year adds up quickly.
And, speaking as the SO of a scientist: NO. Science does not happen overnight (well, technically speaking, it does happen over the nighttime, but it doesn't happen in a single anything [day, night, month, year, whatever]).

[Hippikos]

So, 7 billion tons extra to the carbon cycle each year adds up quickly.

Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are only about 4% of the natural carbon cycle and less than 1% of the atmospheric reservoir of carbon, so adding up quickly is not really the case. Correlation does not prove causation and that cause must precede effect.

[headsplice]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

Correlation does not prove causation and that cause must precede effect.

Um...duh. I direct you to my long-ass post.
We aren't going to prove anything either way until we have enough data to make that proof. Unfortunately, if we prove that global warming is, in fact, caused by man, it will (probably) be too late to do anything about it because we waited too long for proof. I'm in favor of erring on the side on continuing human existence, because, you know, I like living.

[mrnoodle]

It's been a few pages since this question was asked:

So what?


What are we supposed to do about this menace? Stop driving? Stop heating our homes? Stop eating red meat? Where's the evidence that it would do any good, anyway?

I don't have a chart made by some omniscient group of scientists, but the whole issue feels manufactured, like one of those "clinical studies" done by a company that wants to sell beauty products on TV.

I realize that statement reveals what a lowbrow I am. But 99% of us don't care what levels of ADHSF4C9D2 are present in the 8th level of the atmosphere during a full moon. We care whether or not we should put on a coat when we go outside.

The only hard evidence I see is that despite our best efforts, we have failed miserably at destroying the planet. It just keeps doing its thing while we wail about how important and impactful we are.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

I don't have a chart made by some omniscient group of scientists, but the whole issue feels manufactured, like one of those "clinical studies" done by a company that wants to sell beauty products on TV.

If it were real, how would they handle it differently?

[tw]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

What are we supposed to do about this menace? Stop driving? Stop heating our homes? Stop eating red meat? Where's the evidence that it would do any good, anyway?

Wow - I thought myopic rationalization died back in the early 1970s when same MBAs were complaining how we would all have to drive Pintos to average 20 miles per gallon. They did that because they were - by definition - anti-American. Also called quitters. mrnoodle, you are doing a same extremist and anti-American logic.

You were provided sources for answers. Even my short posts offered some solutions to your questions. Short? Yes. Sound byte posters hope you are as stupid as to, for example, not demand numbers and underlying reasons why. Those with a quitter’s attitude cried, "woe is me, we are doomed, so we should not try". That attitude is my exact definition of anti-American.

Like 1960s air and water pollution, 1980s water toxins, 1990s ozone layer depletion - in each case the 'woe is me' problem was solvable even as the liars among us denied the problem exists - because their anti-Americanism fears change, innovation, and solutions. Each solution created more jobs, more wealth, healthier lives, less energy consumption, less poverty, pdoucts that stopped failing ..... And yet still we have quitters who once said we would all have to drive Pintos to average 20 miles per gallon.

Article in September 2006 issue of Scientific American called "A Plan to Keep Carbon in Check" defines a 15 slice pie. Any nation that provides any of maybe five slices will be a wealthy and well employed nation. Those who innovate will be selling the future to others with an MBA (quitters) attitude. Only thing that creates jobs, wealth, stability, and better lives is innovation. Those who deny global warming are same type who also said we would all have to drive Pintos to average 20 miles per gallon. They also hyped fears of no more meat, stuffing into tiny boxes, homes without heat, and other lies. All this when, for example, homes were built without insulation. Zero – nada – none. Those who fear had to even proclaim that we could not insulate buildings – because they were that anti-American – and had no science knowledge.

Mankind is contributing adversely to a problem called global warming. Environmental changes are so great that this situation cannot be ignored. Notice how xoxoxoBruce ignores the problem by even denying a simple chart - and posts by never providing numbers. But again, the real questions are not found among those trained to be professional liars such as MBAs, salesmen, lawyers, politicians, communication and English majors, and anyone who sees answers in the words "conservative" and "liberal". The answer is among those whose job means no political agenda. Whose system is structured to find reality despite human nature. The answer is found in a question that only patriotic Americans would be asking: ie how fast and how destructive.

And still we have people lying to all - proclaiming what their peers also did in 1972. They said, using Rush Limbaugh logic, that we would all have to drive Pintos to average 20 miles per gallon. Those were and are the classic anti-innovative, anti-Americans.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

Oh... I'm sorry Flint dear, did you feel left out?

No, sweetie-pie, I simply asked for clarification of your apparent non sequitur. "lack of meaning relative to the comment it follows"

[mrnoodle]

Al Gore would take the proceeds of the movie and use them to buy as many people solar-powered bicycles as he could afford. They believe it enough to make political hay, but not enough to affect their own actions. Someone who yells 'incoming!' yet doesn't duck, is probably just trying to see if you'll jump.

The metaphor store was closed today.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

Al Gore would take the proceeds of the movie and use them to buy as many people solar-powered bicycles as he could afford.

With the popularity of SUVs, affordability is not the reason for the lower popularity of fuel efficient vehicles. For the price of an SUV, you could get a hybrid and several bicycles. A bicycle giveaway would be nothing but a stunt if all of the bicycles went straight into the garage and were never used. The money has to be spent wisely. Education is what is needed.

They believe it enough to make political hay, but not enough to affect their own actions. Someone who yells 'incoming!' yet doesn't duck, is probably just trying to see if you'll jump.

Al Gore and the entire Inconvenient Truth movie production/promotion are carbon-neutral. All of Gore's profits go back into the education effort.

What is a serious example of something Gore would do differently if it were real?

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

What is a serious example of something Gore would do differently if it were real?

Has he gotten his families money out of Occidental yet?