Antarctic glacier melt maybe 'not due to climate change'

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst


.... WE are changing the planet and having a huge effect by NOT conserving energy and reducing emissions. If there were no people at all -- the cycle would be MORE NATURAL -- you know, the earth with just primitive creatures pooping and farting. Not destroying swamps and trees and acidifying the oceans.

While it is a great goal to be more ecological sound, and I commend you for it, you are relating our carbon usage and translating it into the warming that has been occurring. Just because the two happen at the same time does not correlate into one causing the other, there are hundreds of variables at work causing the "climate change".

You contend that the warming is primarily human caused, there is much evidence to the contrary that the side you represent dismiss or even worse try to hide and cover up.

If you think this whole global warming hysteria is about humans making the Earth warmer, think again. It's about control. If we were in such dire shape, the governments of the Earth would stop us from consuming rather than just redistribute the wealth. The carbon tax is just a way for those in power to leech more blood from the masses of humanity.

The carbon dioxide level is measurable and has been proven to be historically very high -- the last time it was this high, there were dinosaurs on the planet. They had a different lifestyle -- but they weren't playing God I assume.

Short term geologically speaking, CO2 levels have increased. Actually, when dinosaurs were around, CO2 levels were MUCH higher.. they ranged from about 1,500 PPM of CO2 to almost 3,000. Life thrived in those situations. Current levels of CO2 averaged about 387.35 PPM of CO2 for the Year 2009. CO2 doesn't drive Temperature, records indicate the opposite, an increase in Temperature precedes an increase in CO2. But that little point doesn't matter, does it?

But of course I'm too dense to understand such high mental concepts......I would be better served watching An Inconvenient Truth.

reply to post by pavil


Just check out 350.org -- that's all I want to discuss about Carbon Dioxide.

Human impact creates OVER 100 times what Volcanoes on the earth do -- regardless of what Dr. Rush Limbaugh has said. Though CO2 is benign -- it stays in the atmosphere for over 100 years before it is reduced -- Methane is a stronger greenhouse gas, but it's reduced about 50% in 4 years (off the top of my head).

Anyway, I'm more concerned right now with what to do about the Corporate takeover of this country. It's seriously annoying to rehash all these stats -- when it's pretty basic, and the Anti Global Warming side just keeps repeating the same absolute crap and hodge-podge scientific nonsense.

This one guy keeps using BIG WORDS -- and thinks that we know how much CO2 we can get out of a gallon of gas because of the number of carbon atoms. No, it's kind of an estimate based on chemical molarity and lots of real world testing. When you don't know, how much you don't know -- it's a seriously troubling situation. The various gases and compounds produced by gasoline are too numerous to mention and depending on so many factors and conditions. You don't get a complete burn. There are spontaneous conversions to other gases and ozone created and those compounds break down and combine at various levels of the atmosphere. Some fuels create smog in winter and that's not good, so fuel is reformulated for hot and cold seasons.

I don't need to debate this -- when people destroy swamp land and add a road, they've reduced the carbon uptake cycle by an unknown million tons a year, and added new producers of pollution.

The important thing for corporations seems to have been to get lots of people into church. Get them thinking that "Faith" is a virtue -- but not stopping wars. And now, anyone who fights for the planet, can't be virtuous enough. They have evangelicals preaching that Satan will bring peace to the middle east. And somehow, their fuzzy thinking has us wondering if we've been too mean to 3 corporations that raked in profits and killed an ocean.

Talking to these people is depressing. It's like arguing with 5th Graders who know everything -- but they've got a support group that says they are geniuses when they parrot back Supply-Side economics theory.

For crying out loud; we are on the brink of ecological disaster, the world economy has been hollowed out and the portion of wealth in the US has consolidated so that .5% own 50%. We've DONE all the Reagan suggestions, and now we've got Democrats like Obama saying things even more Conservative and wondering why the marketplace is shrinking.

I really hope that ignorance is over represented -- because there seems to be a heaping pile of it amongst the people I meet in the South East. I work at a Financial Services company, by the way, and most people seem to understand economics from the point of view of what those selling it want you to think. The stock market is massively manipulated by companies like Goldman Sacks, the oil prices are manipulated by speculators and companies like BP that cap wells and never build a new refinery and blame everything on Environmentalism and people buy it.


>> If you listen to Conservatives, listen to what they complain about -- it's nothing but Amnesty International, the UN, and people who do Documentaries about war profiteering, health care profiteering, the wrecking of the eco-system. And what have they done to make the world a better place? Preach tough love and building fences on the Mexican border.

I think the stupid person is me sometimes -- because I should know that I'm not dealing with people who want to make the world a better place -- I'm dealing with people who just want to WIN and have no clue what is going on but feel like all problems are created by people who don't think as they do. Which means they are shut off to any solutions.

>> And this NEW THEORY -- while interesting, will be just another excuse to support the status quo.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by maybereal11

And, finally, I have to mention that CO2 is not 'pollution'... it is a necessary part of the life cycle of the planet, and already exists in the atmosphere.TheRedneck

I don't neccessarily appreciate the snarky tone of the video, but from previous research I can find no fault in the science.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by maybereal11

OK, let's go with that example...

I'll sum this up as succinctly as I can.

Double taxation...not part of the Cap and trade.

You have blended two things to create your proposed disadvantage for small, start-up energy companies.

You have assumed that a small or large business would be liable for the pollution that is emitted by the energy they purchase in order to operate.

That energy that any company purchases for operations...they aren't responsible for the carbon credits associated with that energy, the producer of that energy is. In your example you have counted it twice...either confusion or a logical slight of hand.

If those energy prices that they purchase for operations rises...it rises for all consumers of that energy equally, big and small alike.

The small, start-up energy innovator is only responsible for the pollution they create via output...and any energy purchased for that production process has already been taxed if it's manufucturer has pollution associated with it.

[edit on 24-6-2010 by maybereal11]

[edit on 24-6-2010 by maybereal11]