Senate Report: Gore Lies, Media Biased, Advocates Misrepresent

[Ned]

Originally posted by Aeson


You have been saying we don't know what the effects of global warming will be or even whether it will occur or not. We already have a pretty good idea of the health effects of air pollution.

If we accept those two givens, promoting the idea that we keep pollution known to cause health problems because it might be a mitigating factor in GW which might be a factor in detriments to humanity is obscene. You are arguing that we should continue to contribute to the premature deaths of millions of people, and who knows how many other non-fatal sickness... so that we can avoid a potential problem who's effects are unknown.

But to go further, the aerosols you are saying stop GW by blocking sunlight are also facilitating ozone depletion. It's not a simple 2 way interaction we're talking about here.

Yes, there are other reasons, such as health, to reduce some polutants. But, if GW is as dangerous as they say, shouldn't we be very cautious about the degree of reduction of "good" polution?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Park Avenue


Market prices will see to that in the most efficient way.

Right.

But besides this, oil is being produced in situ by the Earth. We are not running out of oil and never will.

http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Theory/SustainableOil/index.html

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Aeson


I'm not sure I agree as to what is most likely to fix the problem. For most people "air pollution" is a homogenous category. They aren't generally going to be consciously differentiating between CO2 and SO2 for instance, or any of the countless other harmful compounds. If the potential problems with CO2 motivate the general public to be more environmentally conscious in other areas, it's a good thing.

CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas either.

I must disagree about the awareness of dangers of different pollutions. Most people has the knowledge that CO2 is a GH gas and that other emissions is locally dangerous (SOx making acid rain, particle emissions causing cancer etc). Well, that is here - may be otherwise at other places.

My guess is that people no longer cares about CO2 because scaremongers has been too busy, so they block this out.

Reduction of pollution/emissons is a generally good idea and it even gives a good payoff. Lots of companies have discovered that doing things smarter reduces costs and gives a better environment.

You are quite rigth, CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas - it's actually one of the minor ones, but it has one major plus in the climate debate - humans are a big contributor.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Aeson
Environmental groups are pushing plenty of different issues. It's not really up to them which ones gets picked up by the media as the "in" cause, or which vibes with the general public.

If we reduce greenhouse gas emissions, there will at least be some linked health benefits regardless of whether you accept the climate issues or not. There's no telling if there would be actual benefits if some other cause were taken up, or even that there would be an environmental issue in the public eye.

Sure it would be best if every important environmental issue got it's exposure and had public backing... but realistically that's not going to happen. And anyways, to pretend GW is a non-issue is as (if not more) ignorant as to pretend we know everything about it already.

I don't see what is harmful about CO2. It increases vegetation and food, for example. In fact, if the Earth is cooling as the data suggests, we might need a lot more CO2 to ward off an Ice Age.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Ned


Right.

But besides this, oil is being produced in situ by the Earth. We are not running out of oil and never will.

http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/...Oil/index.html

Oil froms as a result of fosils from dead animals, the oil is mostly likely the remains of animals, plants and other organisms that live millions of years ago. I dont buy that theory one bit. Even if the earth is producing oil, it is in so small quanities that it wont make much of a difference.

[Ned]

Jack, well for one, the article says that depleted oil wells have become again filled with oil.

The dinosaur theory is just that.

Besides, Titan has no dinosaurs, but it does have abiotic methane. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47675

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Ned


I don't see what is harmful about CO2. It increases vegetation and food, for example. In fact, if the Earth is cooling as the data suggests, we might need a lot more CO2 to ward off an Ice Age.

If the earth gets too hot, the polar ice caps will melt. This in turn could stop the Gulf Stream that brings warm water from the equator to Europe, this is because sea water would cause the consentrations of salt in the sea to go down and would dirrupt many of the ocean currents including the Gulf Stream. This in turn would cause tempuratures in the Northern Hemisphere to drop and may cause an ice age.

The earth's atmosphere has to maitain a carefull balance of all the gasses to maintain temperatures that are comfortable to life on earth.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ned


Yes, there are other reasons, such as health, to reduce some polutants. But, if GW is as dangerous as they say, shouldn't we be very cautious about the degree of reduction of "good" polution?

If we actually knew what was happening, then perhaps a short burst of such emissions could be good, but since we have no idea about what makes GW, there are no reason to keep what you call "good" pollution. It's much better to make a clean slate and when we know what we are doing, then maybe "pollute" in the right way. There are no excuse to not reducing pollution just because it may have a positive effect concerning GW.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Ned
Jack, well for one, the article says that depleted oil wells have become again filled with oil.

The dinosaur theory is just that.

Besides, Titan has no dinosaurs, but it does have abiotic methane. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47675

I dont trust that website. I see no sources to back up what they are saying. Anyone can put anything they want up on a website. Sorry I dont buy that.

[Jack_www]

I read that thing about Titan moon. From what I read, it is most likely was traped deep in the Moon crust when it was first fromed, and it is just releasing it into the atmosphere. Titan is not producing methane.

[Solly]

Originally posted by Jack_www


If the earth gets too hot, the polar ice caps will melt. This in turn could stop the Gulf Stream that brings warm water from the equator to Europe, this is because sea water would cause the consentrations of salt in the sea to go down and would dirrupt many of the ocean currents including the Gulf Stream. This in turn would cause tempuratures in the Northern Hemisphere to drop and may cause an ice age.

The earth's atmosphere has to maitain a carefull balance of all the gasses to maintain temperatures that are comfortable to life on earth.

The Gulf Stream is a wind-driven phenomenon (as explained in a famous 1948 paper by Henry Stommel). It is part of a current system forced by the torque exerted on the ocean by the wind field. Heating and cooling affect its temperature and other properties, but not its basic existence or structure. As long as the sun heats the Earth and the Earth spins, so that we have winds, there will be a Gulf Stream (and a Kuroshio in the Pacific, an Agulhas in the Indian Ocean, etc).

Shut-off would imply repeal of the law of conservation of angular momentum. The primary mechanism of heat transport in the ocean is the wind-forcing of currents that tend to push warm water toward the poles, cold water toward the equator. Widely disseminated and grossly oversimplified pictures showing the ocean as a “conveyor belt” have misled people into thinking ocean circulation is driven by a sinking motion at high latitudes.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ned
Jack, well for one, the article says that depleted oil wells have become again filled with oil.

The dinosaur theory is just that.

Besides, Titan has no dinosaurs, but it does have abiotic methane. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47675

This really doesn't say anything. Methane isn't an unknown entity in space and noone has ever claimed that it was the result of biological activity. Methane isn't a complex structure and can be produced in several ways nonbiological.

Next, what the hell (excuse my language ) has methane to do with oil ??? That is two very different entities.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Jack_www


If the earth gets too hot, the polar ice caps will melt. This in turn could stop the Gulf Stream that brings warm water from the equator to Europe, this is because sea water would cause the consentrations of salt in the sea to go down and would dirrupt many of the ocean currents including the Gulf Stream. This in turn would cause tempuratures in the Northern Hemisphere to drop and may cause an ice age.

The earth's atmosphere has to maitain a carefull balance of all the gasses to maintain temperatures that are comfortable to life on earth.

Possibly. But again, the atmospheric temperature data and sunlight data collected by NASA says the Earth is cooling, not warming. That is why I say we should be cautious about shutting off production of GH Gasses, as they actually might be helping stabalize the Earth's temperture.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Park Avenue


The Gulf Stream is a wind-driven phenomenon (as explained in a famous 1948 paper by Henry Stommel). It is part of a current system forced by the torque exerted on the ocean by the wind field. Heating and cooling affect its temperature and other properties, but not its basic existence or structure. As long as the sun heats the Earth and the Earth spins, so that we have winds, there will be a Gulf Stream (and a Kuroshio in the Pacific, an Agulhas in the Indian Ocean, etc).

Shut-off would imply repeal of the law of conservation of angular momentum. The primary mechanism of heat transport in the ocean is the wind-forcing of currents that tend to push warm water toward the poles, cold water toward the equator. Widely disseminated and grossly oversimplified pictures showing the ocean as a “conveyor belt” have misled people into thinking ocean circulation is driven by a sinking motion at high latitudes.

You dont think massive amounts of fresh water flowing into the oceans would not affect ocean currents? I dont know if it would stop the Gluf stream, but I dont think it would be a good thing. Not to metion that the rising water levels could also make areas where millions of people live now impossible to live because of the rising sea levels.

[Solly]

Jack,

How much water do you think flows out of the world's major rivers into the oceans? The volume of ice that melts per year is miniscule in comparison.