Senate Report: Gore Lies, Media Biased, Advocates Misrepresent

[Ned]

Aeson, the kind of polution you are talking about actually reduces global warming by putting aerosols into the atmosphere and reducing sunlight. So, reducing polution increases global warming, but increasing polution decreases global warming.

The actual data shows the amount of sunlight reaching Earth is declining and that temperatures are declining. Why? Could be polution.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

"Figure 11 compares the trend in atmospheric temperatures predicted by computer models adopted by the IPCC with that actually observed during the past 19 years those years in which the highest atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and other GHGs have occurred.

In effect, an experiment has been performed on the Earth during the past half-century an experiment that includes all of the complex factors and feedback effects that determine the Earth's temperature and climate. Since 1940, atmospheric GHGs have risen substantially. Yet atmospheric temperatures have not risen. In fact, during the 19 years with the highest atmospheric levels of CO2 and other GHGs, temperatures have fallen."

I'm fairly certain this is 100% BS, Ned. Why do you hate America?

[Ned]

Actually, Che, if you read the article, the data is NASA's.

What you waht to do is ignore the data and substitute belief. This is vey much like your belief in the benefits of communism.

[Solly]

Originally posted by Aeson
I'm not sure what affect we are having on global climate, but regardless... air pollution sucks. The cleaner our air the better.

I completely agree. We ought to be looking to reduce air pollution of the most harmful sort. We're most likely to do this when we focus on the most damaging pollutant/s, rather than C02.

[Solly]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZSqXUSwHRI

[Ned]

Originally posted by Park Avenue


I completely agree. We ought to be looking to reduce air pollution of the most harmful sort. We're most likely to do this when we focus on the most damaging pollutant/s, rather than C02.

Slow down. What if the polution offsets GH Gasses?

[Jack_www]

I dont think any one has post this point, but is not better to be safer then sorry? Should we not reduce CO2 levels just to be on the safe side? What would be the harm? I know that many would say that it could harm the economy, but would it really?

I dont think anyone would argue that the earth is warming, jus that the cause of it is in dispute.

[Solly]

Originally posted by Jack_www
I dont think any one has post this point, but is not better to be safer then sorry? Should we not reduce CO2 levels just to be on the safe side? What would be the harm? I know that many would say that it could harm the economy, but would it really?

Oh dear.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Park Avenue


Oh dear.

What do you mean "Oh dear?" Even if Gobal Warming is not a problem, we cant go on forever buring fossil fuels. We are going to run out of oil. We might as well start to reduce consuption of Oil and find new technologies to stop using it. It will in the end reduce air pollution and avoid a big problem when we start to run out of oil.

[BlackCat]

Poor sod if Odin ever sees that

[Solly]

Originally posted by Jack_www


What do you mean "Oh dear?" Even if Gobal Warming is not a problem, we cant go on forever buring fossil fuels. We are going to run out of oil. We might as well start to reduce consuption of Oil and find new technologies to stop using it. It will in the end reduce air pollution and avoid a big problem when we start to run out of oil.

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

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Ned
Aeson, the kind of polution you are talking about actually reduces global warming by putting aerosols into the atmosphere and reducing sunlight. So, reducing polution increases global warming, but increasing polution decreases global warming.

The actual data shows the amount of sunlight reaching Earth is declining and that temperatures are declining. Why? Could be polution.

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.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
I completely agree. We ought to be looking to reduce air pollution of the most harmful sort. We're most likely to do this when we focus on the most damaging pollutant/s, rather than C02.

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.

[Solly]

"If the potential problems with CO2 motivate the general public to be more environmentally conscious in other areas, it's a good thing."

I think the public only have the appetite for one environmental cause at a time, so picking an erroneous one for political rather than health reasons has been rather foolish of environmental groups IMO.

[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.