BuffettNews.com

Quiet and Shy wrote:

SharkOnLand wrote:It seems that the 'experts' take the premise that CO2 is the cause, and fill in the gaps as needed. I haven't seen anything that looks at other possible factors, and with climate changes, there are many factors.

Does anyone know WHY CO2 is blamed so much for global warming? I've been wondering about this but haven't seen the rationale behind it. I know the proportion in the atmosphere has increased, but do we know that change has been the cause??? As opposed to, for example, the billions of people on the Earth and all of our industrial activities that all give off heat....

Since you asked...

The primary greenhouse gases that contribute to the bulk of atmospheric change (:lol: global warming) are, in order of appearance, carbon dioxide, chloroflorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide. CO2 is the most prominant because it is the result of human use of fossil fuels whereas the choloroflorcarbons are more from household products such as aerosols (although that is declining) and air conditioning. methane is mostly from the clearing/burning of rainforests and land to make it habitable for humans, and the nitrous oxide is primarily from fertilizers.

I think the big fear comes from individuals/groups/countries/companies who feel slowing down "business" by curbing greenhouse gases will constrain business, slow the economy, and increase the cost of living for US citizens having to pay for alternative, more expensive fuels ane the research/implementation of such things.

The opposing opinion, which is more agreeable to mine, is that a truly global stance needs to be made and kept, and unfortunately the US (being by and large the BIGGEST polluter in the world) is unwilling to cooperate.

I don't like Al Gore either, but I'm glad he invented the Internets.

Penn Prof Giegenback's views are based on the Milankovitch Theory which has been around since early in the twentieth century, and which links past ice ages with subtle changes in the Earth's orbit, and consequent variations in solar radiation reaching Earth.

Milankovitch's theory has itself been hotly disputed in the past, although it is now accepted as plausible, with some important caveats. The geological record doesn't always support Milankovitch's 100,000 year cycles. Also, while some scientists consider that orbital effects could play a part in climate changes, they also consider the effects to be only part of a complex interplay of factors driving long-term climate change.

Importantly, changes attributed to the Milankovitch theory happen over very long time frames (50,000 years or more) posing a problem for those wishing to explain significant changes in only the last 200 years.

Finally, as Al Gore pointed out in An Inconvenient Truth, and it is a fact which is NOT in dispute, levels of atmospheric CO2 have NEVER been as high as they are now in over 650,000 years of the geological record.

The fact that a Professor at Penn has beliefs that don't quite jive with those of Gore or most other climate scientists doesn't mean anything other than that there is scientific debate on this topic is alive and well.
But as the history of science shows, not all scientists turn out being right.

Last but not least, in spite of his differences with Gore over climate change, Giegenback still apparently prefers him to Bush.

MY answer to "global warming"-



NOW, if I could just get one with a gun turret on top.

Wino you know wrote:MY answer to "global warming"-



NOW, if I could just get one with a gun turret on top.

They have those...in Iraq....

Quiet and Shy wrote:

They have those...in Iraq....

And yet it's still cold there at night. (OH, MR. GORE-CALLING MR. GORE).

buffettbride wrote:

Quiet and Shy wrote:

SharkOnLand wrote:It seems that the 'experts' take the premise that CO2 is the cause, and fill in the gaps as needed. I haven't seen anything that looks at other possible factors, and with climate changes, there are many factors.

Does anyone know WHY CO2 is blamed so much for global warming? I've been wondering about this but haven't seen the rationale behind it. I know the proportion in the atmosphere has increased, but do we know that change has been the cause??? As opposed to, for example, the billions of people on the Earth and all of our industrial activities that all give off heat....

Since you asked...

The primary greenhouse gases that contribute to the bulk of atmospheric change (:lol: global warming) are, in order of appearance, carbon dioxide, chloroflorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide. CO2 is the most prominant because it is the result of human use of fossil fuels whereas the choloroflorcarbons are more from household products such as aerosols (although that is declining) and air conditioning. methane is mostly from the clearing/burning of rainforests and land to make it habitable for humans, and the nitrous oxide is primarily from fertilizers.

I think the big fear comes from individuals/groups/countries/companies who feel slowing down "business" by curbing greenhouse gases will constrain business, slow the economy, and increase the cost of living for US citizens having to pay for alternative, more expensive fuels ane the research/implementation of such things.

The opposing opinion, which is more agreeable to mine, is that a truly global stance needs to be made and kept, and unfortunately the US (being by and large the BIGGEST polluter in the world) is unwilling to cooperate.

I don't like Al Gore either, but I'm glad he invented the Internets.

The main reson the USA did not get behind the Kyoto treaty to curb the use of fossil fuel is because India and China would be exempt. They are a growing economy with over 10 billion people looking to drive thier own cars. The planet is a living breathing life form that will go on with us and someday without us. I'm not saying we should trash the place just don't start planning the "Party at the end of the World".

one of my favorite Carlin bits...

There is nothing wrong with the planet. Nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are f@%ked. Difference. Difference. The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. Been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We've been here, what, a hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand? And we've only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we're a threat? That somehow we're gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that's just a-floatin' around the sun?

The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles...hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worlwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages...And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet...the planet...the planet isn't going anywhere. WE ARE!

I don't know what all the fuss is about. I am quite happy with the climate being a little warmer. Margaritaville...................worldwide!!!!!!!!!

Quiet and Shy wrote:Someone needs to ask the polar bears about this...oh that's right; there aren't many left because their habitat (ice) is disappearing....

That statement is not true ask the Inuit hunters in Canada. Mitch Taylor, the GN’s polar bear boss, says the latest findings confirm what Inuit hunters have said for a long time: polar bears who live along the southeast coast of Baffin Island, Ungava Bay in northern Quebec, and the northern coast of Labrador are healthy, and growing in numbers.

captenuta wrote:

buffettbride wrote:

Quiet and Shy wrote:

SharkOnLand wrote:It seems that the 'experts' take the premise that CO2 is the cause, and fill in the gaps as needed. I haven't seen anything that looks at other possible factors, and with climate changes, there are many factors.

Does anyone know WHY CO2 is blamed so much for global warming? I've been wondering about this but haven't seen the rationale behind it. I know the proportion in the atmosphere has increased, but do we know that change has been the cause??? As opposed to, for example, the billions of people on the Earth and all of our industrial activities that all give off heat....

Since you asked...

The primary greenhouse gases that contribute to the bulk of atmospheric change (:lol: global warming) are, in order of appearance, carbon dioxide, chloroflorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide. CO2 is the most prominant because it is the result of human use of fossil fuels whereas the choloroflorcarbons are more from household products such as aerosols (although that is declining) and air conditioning. methane is mostly from the clearing/burning of rainforests and land to make it habitable for humans, and the nitrous oxide is primarily from fertilizers.

I think the big fear comes from individuals/groups/countries/companies who feel slowing down "business" by curbing greenhouse gases will constrain business, slow the economy, and increase the cost of living for US citizens having to pay for alternative, more expensive fuels ane the research/implementation of such things.

The opposing opinion, which is more agreeable to mine, is that a truly global stance needs to be made and kept, and unfortunately the US (being by and large the BIGGEST polluter in the world) is unwilling to cooperate.

I don't like Al Gore either, but I'm glad he invented the Internets.

The main reson the USA did not get behind the Kyoto treaty to curb the use of fossil fuel is because India and China would be exempt. They are a growing economy with over 10 billion people looking to drive thier own cars. The planet is a living breathing life form that will go on with us and someday without us. I'm not saying we should trash the place just don't start planning the "Party at the end of the World".

So the US shouldn't do it because so-and-so isn't going to do it instead of doing it because globally it's the right thing to do?

buffettbride wrote:

captenuta wrote:

buffettbride wrote:

Quiet and Shy wrote:

SharkOnLand wrote:It seems that the 'experts' take the premise that CO2 is the cause, and fill in the gaps as needed. I haven't seen anything that looks at other possible factors, and with climate changes, there are many factors.

Does anyone know WHY CO2 is blamed so much for global warming? I've been wondering about this but haven't seen the rationale behind it. I know the proportion in the atmosphere has increased, but do we know that change has been the cause??? As opposed to, for example, the billions of people on the Earth and all of our industrial activities that all give off heat....

Since you asked...

The primary greenhouse gases that contribute to the bulk of atmospheric change (:lol: global warming) are, in order of appearance, carbon dioxide, chloroflorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide. CO2 is the most prominant because it is the result of human use of fossil fuels whereas the choloroflorcarbons are more from household products such as aerosols (although that is declining) and air conditioning. methane is mostly from the clearing/burning of rainforests and land to make it habitable for humans, and the nitrous oxide is primarily from fertilizers.

I think the big fear comes from individuals/groups/countries/companies who feel slowing down "business" by curbing greenhouse gases will constrain business, slow the economy, and increase the cost of living for US citizens having to pay for alternative, more expensive fuels ane the research/implementation of such things.

The opposing opinion, which is more agreeable to mine, is that a truly global stance needs to be made and kept, and unfortunately the US (being by and large the BIGGEST polluter in the world) is unwilling to cooperate.

I don't like Al Gore either, but I'm glad he invented the Internets.

The main reson the USA did not get behind the Kyoto treaty to curb the use of fossil fuel is because India and China would be exempt. They are a growing economy with over 10 billion people looking to drive thier own cars. The planet is a living breathing life form that will go on with us and someday without us. I'm not saying we should trash the place just don't start planning the "Party at the end of the World".

So the US shouldn't do it because so-and-so isn't going to do it instead of doing it because globally it's the right thing to do?

I just did it and am ready to do it again.

buffettbride wrote:

captenuta wrote:

buffettbride wrote:

Quiet and Shy wrote:

SharkOnLand wrote:It seems that the 'experts' take the premise that CO2 is the cause, and fill in the gaps as needed. I haven't seen anything that looks at other possible factors, and with climate changes, there are many factors.

Does anyone know WHY CO2 is blamed so much for global warming? I've been wondering about this but haven't seen the rationale behind it. I know the proportion in the atmosphere has increased, but do we know that change has been the cause??? As opposed to, for example, the billions of people on the Earth and all of our industrial activities that all give off heat....

Since you asked...

The primary greenhouse gases that contribute to the bulk of atmospheric change (:lol: global warming) are, in order of appearance, carbon dioxide, chloroflorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide. CO2 is the most prominant because it is the result of human use of fossil fuels whereas the choloroflorcarbons are more from household products such as aerosols (although that is declining) and air conditioning. methane is mostly from the clearing/burning of rainforests and land to make it habitable for humans, and the nitrous oxide is primarily from fertilizers.

I think the big fear comes from individuals/groups/countries/companies who feel slowing down "business" by curbing greenhouse gases will constrain business, slow the economy, and increase the cost of living for US citizens having to pay for alternative, more expensive fuels ane the research/implementation of such things.

The opposing opinion, which is more agreeable to mine, is that a truly global stance needs to be made and kept, and unfortunately the US (being by and large the BIGGEST polluter in the world) is unwilling to cooperate.

I don't like Al Gore either, but I'm glad he invented the Internets.

The main reson the USA did not get behind the Kyoto treaty to curb the use of fossil fuel is because India and China would be exempt. They are a growing economy with over 10 billion people looking to drive thier own cars. The planet is a living breathing life form that will go on with us and someday without us. I'm not saying we should trash the place just don't start planning the "Party at the end of the World".

So the US shouldn't do it because so-and-so isn't going to do it instead of doing it because globally it's the right thing to do?

It's 10 BILLION VS 250 Million. The point is everyone should be doing it.

Conserving that is.

Or what ever else...

spoonerhizolehound wrote:

I just did it and am ready to do it again.

You're soooo the kid who did something 'cause all of his friends (and enemies) did it.

buffettbride wrote:

spoonerhizolehound wrote:

I just did it and am ready to do it again.

You're soooo the kid who did something 'cause all of his friends (and enemies) did it.

No...I did it WITH my friends.....Bambi and Can-Cans.

captenuta wrote:
It's 10 BILLION VS 250 Million. The point is everyone should be doing it.

Conserving that is.

Or what ever else...

Of course everyone should be doing it. I just think we should go first.

buffettbride wrote:

captenuta wrote:
It's 10 BILLION VS 250 Million. The point is everyone should be doing it.

Conserving that is.

Or what ever else...

Of course everyone should be doing it. I just think we should go first.

Are there any cash and prizes for the one who does it the most?

captenuta wrote:

Quiet and Shy wrote:Someone needs to ask the polar bears about this...oh that's right; there aren't many left because their habitat (ice) is disappearing....

That statement is not true ask the Inuit hunters in Canada. Mitch Taylor, the GN’s polar bear boss, says the latest findings confirm what Inuit hunters have said for a long time: polar bears who live along the southeast coast of Baffin Island, Ungava Bay in northern Quebec, and the northern coast of Labrador are healthy, and growing in numbers.

I don't know what "GN" is. I can't immediately quote sources but I've seen some credible reports on how the numbers appear to be in decline and the condition/health of polar bears overall has deteriorated significantly. The research points to a shortened hunting season (due to less polar ice) as the most probable cause. And, data could certainly vary by locale vs. overall...kind of like the rediculous argument people are making that global warming doesn't exist because it's cold outside today.

buffettbride wrote:

captenuta wrote:
It's 10 BILLION VS 250 Million. The point is everyone should be doing it.

Conserving that is.

Or what ever else...

Of course everyone should be doing it. I just think we should go first.

Ok lets go.

Quiet and Shy wrote:

captenuta wrote:

Quiet and Shy wrote:Someone needs to ask the polar bears about this...oh that's right; there aren't many left because their habitat (ice) is disappearing....

That statement is not true ask the Inuit hunters in Canada. Mitch Taylor, the GN’s polar bear boss, says the latest findings confirm what Inuit hunters have said for a long time: polar bears who live along the southeast coast of Baffin Island, Ungava Bay in northern Quebec, and the northern coast of Labrador are healthy, and growing in numbers.

I don't know what "GN" is. I can't immediately quote sources but I've seen some credible reports on how the numbers appear to be in decline and the condition/health of polar bears overall has deteriorated significantly. The research points to a shortened hunting season (due to less polar ice) as the most probable cause. And, data could certainly vary by locale vs. overall...kind of like the rediculous argument people are making that global warming doesn't exist because it's cold outside today.

Um...wouldn't the hunting season add to the decline in numbers?

captenuta wrote:

buffettbride wrote:

captenuta wrote:

buffettbride wrote:

Quiet and Shy wrote:

SharkOnLand wrote:It seems that the 'experts' take the premise that CO2 is the cause, and fill in the gaps as needed. I haven't seen anything that looks at other possible factors, and with climate changes, there are many factors.

Does anyone know WHY CO2 is blamed so much for global warming? I've been wondering about this but haven't seen the rationale behind it. I know the proportion in the atmosphere has increased, but do we know that change has been the cause??? As opposed to, for example, the billions of people on the Earth and all of our industrial activities that all give off heat....

Since you asked...

The primary greenhouse gases that contribute to the bulk of atmospheric change (:lol: global warming) are, in order of appearance, carbon dioxide, chloroflorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide. CO2 is the most prominant because it is the result of human use of fossil fuels whereas the choloroflorcarbons are more from household products such as aerosols (although that is declining) and air conditioning. methane is mostly from the clearing/burning of rainforests and land to make it habitable for humans, and the nitrous oxide is primarily from fertilizers.

I think the big fear comes from individuals/groups/countries/companies who feel slowing down "business" by curbing greenhouse gases will constrain business, slow the economy, and increase the cost of living for US citizens having to pay for alternative, more expensive fuels ane the research/implementation of such things.

The opposing opinion, which is more agreeable to mine, is that a truly global stance needs to be made and kept, and unfortunately the US (being by and large the BIGGEST polluter in the world) is unwilling to cooperate.

I don't like Al Gore either, but I'm glad he invented the Internets.

The main reson the USA did not get behind the Kyoto treaty to curb the use of fossil fuel is because India and China would be exempt. They are a growing economy with over 10 billion people looking to drive thier own cars. The planet is a living breathing life form that will go on with us and someday without us. I'm not saying we should trash the place just don't start planning the "Party at the end of the World".

So the US shouldn't do it because so-and-so isn't going to do it instead of doing it because globally it's the right thing to do?

It's 10 BILLION VS 250 Million. The point is everyone should be doing it.

Conserving that is.

Or what ever else...

I don't know where you got your figures from but there aren't 10 billion people in India and China. There aren't 10 billion people on the entire planet.