Top Climate Scientist: arrest Oil CEOs for spreading global warming disinformation - Page 9 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #81 of 105 (permalink) Old 06-25-2008, 08:20 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Smackrattle's Avatar
 
Date registered: Nov 2005
Posts: 12,533
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 211 Post(s)
@ Botnst

Yes precisely,but since Adam was a lad and you were a boy the ability of the current science to give us practical insights into global climate at the current 'boundary' have now reached a point where we can predict an anthropological source of change.

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" - Seneca
Smackrattle is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #82 of 105 (permalink) Old 06-25-2008, 08:34 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dope View Post
@ Botnst

Yes precisely,but since Adam was a lad and you were a boy the ability of the current science to give us practical insights into global climate at the current 'boundary' have now reached a point where we can predict an anthropological source of change.
Predict, not prove.
Correlation, not causation.

B

The biggest problems we are facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all and that’s what I intend to reverse.

~ Senator Barack H. Obama
Botnst is offline  
post #83 of 105 (permalink) Old 06-25-2008, 08:39 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Smackrattle's Avatar
 
Date registered: Nov 2005
Posts: 12,533
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 211 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst View Post
Predict, not prove.
Correlation, not causation.

B
Yeah,my bad,I should have put 'practical' in bold.

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" - Seneca
Smackrattle is online now  
post #84 of 105 (permalink) Old 06-26-2008, 05:54 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dope View Post
Yeah,my bad,I should have put 'practical' in bold.
Don't misunderstand, I believe that there is a significant anthropogenic effect. I believe that it is something that we have control over should we choose to do so. But that belief is based on correlations, not a demonstrated causal mechanism. Many well-intentioned people, including most scientists, believe that the correlations are sufficiently compelling to warrant mandating change in our energy-intensive and dependent culture.

IN addition to causality, what I have not seen demonstrated is a cost estimate. What will it cost society to continue as it is? What if we reduce our rate of increase in energy usage? What if we go to zero increase? How much does X decrease in greenhouse emission affect global temps? How long will it take?

Do we know enough to answer any of these questions or are we just pissing in the dark hoping to hit the toilet? That's where I believe we are in this thing. I hate policy based on pissing in the dark.

B

The biggest problems we are facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all and that’s what I intend to reverse.

~ Senator Barack H. Obama
Botnst is offline  
post #85 of 105 (permalink) Old 06-26-2008, 07:20 AM
Will Moderate For Cigars
 
cmitch's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2005
Vehicle: 2002 ML320, 2005 S430 4MATIC, 2010 F150 Crew Cab
Location: City on the TN River
Posts: 10,691
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 204 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear View Post
Hey, there are teachers all over America who are trying to teach that the earth is only 6500 years old and that Intelligent Design is a "Science". Just because they have their teaching certificate does not mean they are right.

I am guessing your Chem teacher had a preconceived notion about Freon. It showed.

Did your teacher demonstrate for you, again and again what happened after that Freon balloon fell to the ground and the chemicals decomposed? Or was everyone too busy laughing at the BS those "eco-scientists" were trying to spread?
The point is, the Freon NEVER made it to the upper atmosphere. Scientists drew a correlation to finding ClO (chlorine monoxide) in our upper atmosphere as a by product of FREON, instead of an obvious natural occurrence of chlorine gas. FREON is 8.5 times HEAVIER than the largest component of our atmosphere, nitrogen. Study your periodic chart, mcbear.

As for this Global Climate Change, as it's now being called (WHY the modification from Global Warming? Did they discover Global Warming was a misnomer?), there is plenty of suckers to go around to believe that man is powerful enough to destroy this planet with carbon dioxide. It's the arrogance of this position that I so willingly point out that you just breeze right by. When arrogance and pride get intertwined into 'scientific' studies, then the scientific studies are tainted and are no longer valid.

I agree we have climate change. I disagree, for many of the reasons you know I've already stated, that it is NOT a man made phenomena. It is a naturally occurring event that has been going on long before the invention of the internal combustion engine.

2005 S430 4Matic 'Morton' W220.183 • 722.671 Rest in Peace

Bells and whistles are thorns and thistles.
cmitch is offline  
post #86 of 105 (permalink) Old 06-26-2008, 08:55 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Smackrattle's Avatar
 
Date registered: Nov 2005
Posts: 12,533
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 211 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst View Post
Don't misunderstand, I believe that there is a significant anthropogenic effect. I believe that it is something that we have control over should we choose to do so. But that belief is based on correlations, not a demonstrated causal mechanism. Many well-intentioned people, including most scientists, believe that the correlations are sufficiently compelling to warrant mandating change in our energy-intensive and dependent culture.

IN addition to causality, what I have not seen demonstrated is a cost estimate. What will it cost society to continue as it is? What if we reduce our rate of increase in energy usage? What if we go to zero increase? How much does X decrease in greenhouse emission affect global temps? How long will it take?

Do we know enough to answer any of these questions or are we just pissing in the dark hoping to hit the toilet? That's where I believe we are in this thing. I hate policy based on pissing in the dark.

B
Yeah,this guy most closely represents my attitude towards the situation:

Bjorn Lomborg | Profile on TED.com

Watch his lecture here,this one's only abt 16 mins.

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" - Seneca
Smackrattle is online now  
post #87 of 105 (permalink) Old 06-26-2008, 01:27 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmitch View Post
The point is, the Freon NEVER made it to the upper atmosphere.
You are correct, FREON never made it to the upper atmosphere - no one ever said it did or would, neither did the vinyl in all those vinyl seats in cars made in the 50-60-70s - they were too damned heavy. It was the byproducts after the FREON and vinyl breaks down that makes it into the upper atmosphere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmitch
As for this Global Climate Change, as it's now being called (WHY the modification from Global Warming? Did they discover Global Warming was a misnomer?), there is plenty of suckers to go around to believe that man is powerful enough to destroy this planet with carbon dioxide. It's the arrogance of this position that I so willingly point out that you just breeze right by. When arrogance and pride get intertwined into 'scientific' studies, then the scientific studies are tainted and are no longer valid.
It was always Climate Change in the science documents, it was only the popular media that tagged it Global Warming. It stuck.

Go back to the documents from the Seventies. Some areas will be getting colder, some warmer, some much warmer, some wetter and some dryer. Overall warmer is happening over time according to the models and the evidence.

As for the Carbon Dioxide, that is just one element of all of this. A BIG element, but not the whole thing. It is one that folks are looking at at this point because there are quantitative things that can be done.

Here is where you somehow see arrogance that I am bewildered. You said "...man is powerful enough to destroy this planet with carbon dioxide..." and that is arrogant. You base that on the premise that the earth is very old and does its own thing and produces its own CO2 and its own contributions. IT DOES.

What you don't take into account, what you consider arrogant from the GCC kids is the contribution of man. Let me try and show where man's footprint has changed the rules dramatically.

Trees. We all know that every tree is a little factory. It acts to generate oxygen, converts sunlight with its little photosynthesis engine, acts to hold soil in the ground for erosion protection and when the tree naturally dies, it provides nutrients back to the soil for new growth.

Since the mid 1800s, we as a civilization have removed nearly 75% of ALL trees from the planet. This has been to make room for farms, buildings, to make lovely hardwood floors, teak everything, building ever larger homes and just to make room for the explosion of population of 5.5 additional people in that time frame. It is projected that the number will rise to 90% by 2090 unless something is done to stop it. That is a lot of reduced photosynthesis and erosion protection.

Industrial Revolution. Again, mid 1800s. It's when the population started to pop. from 1 Billion to our present 6.6B to the 2050 10Billion. The Industrial Revolution has it all. Burning of coal and oil as it had never been done before. scraping off mountains to gain all those nice minerals that we use on a daily basis. Smoke stacks everywhere. Powerplants everywhere. Spewing every sort of chemical. Who cares if some fish have three eyes. We just charge more for those. Add in designer chemicals and plastics and all the good things that make life good and the Industrial Revolution has given the world a grand footprint, both very good and not so good.

Cars. We love em. They suck resources. They spew crap. Less than they used to [at least in the US] but you don't want to walk in downtown Beijing or Mexico City without a case of Visine. Do you notice all the brown trees on the side of the interstate? That is not due to poor irrigation. Do do notice the brown plants at intersections where cars idle a lot. That is not due to poor irrigation either.

Concrete. What would we do without concrete and blacktop. It's everywhere. Literally. And where it isn't, there is usually a truck heading toward it, to rectify that error. Have you ever walked barefooted in the summer? Do you walk on the concrete or the grass? Why?

Footprints Now, you consider it arrogant that the folks that look at the GCC issue look hard at the impacts that man have made on the environment in the past 150 years. Impacts that this earth have never seen in its millions of previous years. That is not arrogant. It is simple fact. And it is a series of facts that have been shown to negatively impact this earth and the people who live on it. Above were simply FOUR. There are hundreds.

Will it stop the Earth? Most likely not. Will it make our children and grandchildren much more uncomfortable and have to deal with more environmental problems than we have today, without question. Will our failure to have acted 25 years ago cost our grandchildren manifold more money than it should, every day we put it off, it costs them more and more, in more and more ways.

Read the IPCC report and glean what it actually says. It is not a big beast that tries to suck bunches of money. It is not a Corporate or Government sponsored report. It is an Academic report that is just about as important as can be. You will be hard pressed to find something in this lifetime that has more significance than this issue.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.

Last edited by mcbear; 06-26-2008 at 01:33 PM.
mcbear is offline  
post #88 of 105 (permalink) Old 06-26-2008, 04:07 PM
Will Moderate For Cigars
 
cmitch's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2005
Vehicle: 2002 ML320, 2005 S430 4MATIC, 2010 F150 Crew Cab
Location: City on the TN River
Posts: 10,691
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 204 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear View Post
You are correct, FREON never made it to the upper atmosphere - no one ever said it did or would, neither did the vinyl in all those vinyl seats in cars made in the 50-60-70s - they were too damned heavy. It was the byproducts after the FREON and vinyl breaks down that makes it into the upper atmosphere.
You seem to forget it was not the production of FREON that was the issue but the use of it. Hillbillies with their 'suicide' hoses pouring the cheap stuff into leaky systems. Air Conditioning techs releasing the Freon into the air, instead of recovering it. That's fine to pass laws restricting the irresponsible use of it but outright lying to the public about the cause of the 'ozone hole' in the arctic circle is not the way to do it AND THAT IS WHAT THEY DID! The ozone hole is still there, as always- in the WINTER! When there's NO SUN to produce ozone. But, when summer arrives, the ozone hole closes up. Hmmm.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear
It was always Climate Change in the science documents, it was only the popular media that tagged it Global Warming. It stuck.
You left off the 'man made' part.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear
Go back to the documents from the Seventies. Some areas will be getting colder, some warmer, some much warmer, some wetter and some dryer. Overall warmer is happening over time according to the models and the evidence.
You and other proponents assertion that this is a man made crisis by drawing parallels to the increasing use of carbon fuels is, at best, anecdotal. Less than 70 years of climate and weather trends is no where near enough data to determine what is really going on. BUT, there seems to be plenty of ignored data that suggests that increased activity on the SUN is the real problem. But, you never hear anyone talk about that. Why? Because it isn't politically correct to suggest that man isn't responsible for this. Rather, it makes liberals feel more comfortable believing that man is responsible and man can be controlled, so, therefore, that means the problem can be controlled.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear
As for the Carbon Dioxide, that is just one element of all of this. A BIG element, but not the whole thing. It is one that folks are looking at at this point because there are quantitative things that can be done.
Carbon dioxide, after all, is the focus of all the 'green house' gases, right? But, water vapor is actually a more efficient green house gas than CO2.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear
Here is where you somehow see arrogance that I am bewildered. You said "...man is powerful enough to destroy this planet with carbon dioxide..." and that is arrogant. You base that on the premise that the earth is very old and does its own thing and produces its own CO2 and its own contributions. IT DOES.
IT IS ARROGANT. For someone to believe that man can be so destructive. You are giving man way too much credit. We are little peons in a world much more mysterious than we'll admit. Man likes to believe he's in control of a helluva lot more than he actually is. Todays modern science is filled with these same kinds of arrogant people. They need to be knocked down a notch or two.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear
What you don't take into account, what you consider arrogant from the GCC kids is the contribution of man. Let me try and show where man's footprint has changed the rules dramatically.

Trees. We all know that every tree is a little factory. It acts to generate oxygen, converts sunlight with its little photosynthesis engine, acts to hold soil in the ground for erosion protection and when the tree naturally dies, it provides nutrients back to the soil for new growth.

Since the mid 1800s, we as a civilization have removed nearly 75% of ALL trees from the planet. This has been to make room for farms, buildings, to make lovely hardwood floors, teak everything, building ever larger homes and just to make room for the explosion of population of 5.5 additional people in that time frame. It is projected that the number will rise to 90% by 2090 unless something is done to stop it. That is a lot of reduced photosynthesis and erosion protection.

Industrial Revolution. Again, mid 1800s. It's when the population started to pop. from 1 Billion to our present 6.6B to the 2050 10Billion. The Industrial Revolution has it all. Burning of coal and oil as it had never been done before. scraping off mountains to gain all those nice minerals that we use on a daily basis. Smoke stacks everywhere. Powerplants everywhere. Spewing every sort of chemical. Who cares if some fish have three eyes. We just charge more for those. Add in designer chemicals and plastics and all the good things that make life good and the Industrial Revolution has given the world a grand footprint, both very good and not so good.

Cars. We love em. They suck resources. They spew crap. Less than they used to [at least in the US] but you don't want to walk in downtown Beijing or Mexico City without a case of Visine. Do you notice all the brown trees on the side of the interstate? That is not due to poor irrigation. Do do notice the brown plants at intersections where cars idle a lot. That is not due to poor irrigation either.

Concrete. What would we do without concrete and blacktop. It's everywhere. Literally. And where it isn't, there is usually a truck heading toward it, to rectify that error. Have you ever walked barefooted in the summer? Do you walk on the concrete or the grass? Why?

Footprints Now, you consider it arrogant that the folks that look at the GCC issue look hard at the impacts that man have made on the environment in the past 150 years. Impacts that this earth have never seen in its millions of previous years. That is not arrogant. It is simple fact. And it is a series of facts that have been shown to negatively impact this earth and the people who live on it. Above were simply FOUR. There are hundreds.

Will it stop the Earth? Most likely not. Will it make our children and grandchildren much more uncomfortable and have to deal with more environmental problems than we have today, without question. Will our failure to have acted 25 years ago cost our grandchildren manifold more money than it should, every day we put it off, it costs them more and more, in more and more ways.

Read the IPCC report and glean what it actually says. It is not a big beast that tries to suck bunches of money. It is not a Corporate or Government sponsored report. It is an Academic report that is just about as important as can be. You will be hard pressed to find something in this lifetime that has more significance than this issue.
Trees: Have you noted that 'Old Growth' trees are 'Slow Growth' trees? Modern trees that we are replacing the supposed 75% elimination of our forests with, grow much faster. What does this have to do with anything? A forest with a dense population of trees will see a retardation of the growth of these trees, inhibiting their ability to produce oxygen and consume CO2. Trees that are growing further apart consume and produce 10 to 15 times MORE CO2 and O2. Ever noticed a tree in a forest is a long stick with a plume at top? Then, notice a tree in your yard. It will have 10 times the foliage as a forest tree. So, the cutting and elimination of these trees has no where near the detrimental effect you would like to imply.

Industrial Revolution: A good point, even if it's over emphasized. We need control of factory emissions and emissions from automobiles to improve air quality. It's not that we are destroying the planet but in large cities, we are concentrating too much in one place. You can travel less than 15 miles outside of NYC and the air quality is much improved. I'm not against good, responsible laws that control emissions. Again, pass the laws for the right reasons. Everyone wants cleaner air, hence why catalytic converters were placed on cars to begin with. But, cars are seen as the enemy, so it's a popular view to demonize their use because they create CO2.
Cars: See above.
Concrete: Could concrete and asphalt be an underlying cause? Possible. But are enough resources being exploited to address this? Not when they're being spent trying to prove that driving cars/ fuel usage is the main culprit. I could see a regional effect from this, but not a 'Global' one. It's like the NASA infrared photos that detect heat at night. You'll see the densely populated ares will show a projection of significant heat that's stored from the day's sunlight, but rural areas, which dominates the earth, show the coolest areas. Still no where near the evidence needed to even make a compelling argument.

Footprints: Making the basic assumption that man is the underlying cause of 'Global Climate Change' will force one to conclude that their grandchildren and great grandchildren will be saddled with this 'problem' because we refused to do something about it. First of all, establish that it's a 'problem' and not something that will alleviate itself. Base it in facts, not in assumptions, as is the predominate case, now.

You have to remember that some of these same scientists are the ones who were screaming 'Ice Age' 25 to 30 years ago when we were having record setting snowfalls and cold temperatures.

2005 S430 4Matic 'Morton' W220.183 • 722.671 Rest in Peace

Bells and whistles are thorns and thistles.
cmitch is offline  
post #89 of 105 (permalink) Old 06-26-2008, 06:04 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmitch View Post
You seem to forget it was not the production of FREON that was the issue but the use of it. Hillbillies with their 'suicide' hoses pouring the cheap stuff into leaky systems. Air Conditioning techs releasing the Freon into the air, instead of recovering it. That's fine to pass laws restricting the irresponsible use of it but outright lying to the public about the cause of the 'ozone hole' in the arctic circle is not the way to do it AND THAT IS WHAT THEY DID! The ozone hole is still there, as always- in the WINTER! When there's NO SUN to produce ozone. But, when summer arrives, the ozone hole closes up. Hmmm.
Yes, irresponsible use is part of that but not all. Leakage from AC units around the world, not just cars was much more of a consideration. And the problem is with breakdown, not freon in its commercial state. There was no lying. Sorry.


Quote:
You left off the 'man made' part.
I don't know what this one means


Quote:
You and other proponents assertion that this is a man made crisis by drawing parallels to the increasing use of carbon fuels is, at best, anecdotal. Less than 70 years of climate and weather trends is no where near enough data to determine what is really going on. BUT, there seems to be plenty of ignored data that suggests that increased activity on the SUN is the real problem. But, you never hear anyone talk about that. Why? Because it isn't politically correct to suggest that man isn't responsible for this. Rather, it makes liberals feel more comfortable believing that man is responsible and man can be controlled, so, therefore, that means the problem can be controlled.
there is much more than 70 years of data. READ the research, don't just guess what it says.

Quote:
IT IS ARROGANT. For someone to believe that man can be so destructive. You are giving man way too much credit. We are little peons in a world much more mysterious than we'll admit. Man likes to believe he's in control of a helluva lot more than he actually is. Today's modern science is filled with these same kinds of arrogant people. They need to be knocked down a notch or two.
In October 1962, man came within hours of destruction of the planet. To say we are not capable of that is asinine. To not believe all the things man does, both good and bad are capable of altering this planet is to live a very naive life. We do it every day and we prove it every day. We are the only species who is capable of this and the only species who seems unwilling to accept that we have that power. Is it an omnipotent power, NO. It is an insidious forward linking power of multiple events, decisions and designs. Most are fully benign in their motive. It is their cumulative effect that inflicts the damage. It is death by 1000 cuts.



Quote:
Trees: Have you noted that 'Old Growth' trees are 'Slow Growth' trees? Modern trees that we are replacing the supposed 75% elimination of our forests with, grow much faster. What does this have to do with anything? A forest with a dense population of trees will see a retardation of the growth of these trees, inhibiting their ability to produce oxygen and consume CO2. Trees that are growing further apart consume and produce 10 to 15 times MORE CO2 and O2. Ever noticed a tree in a forest is a long stick with a plume at top? Then, notice a tree in your yard. It will have 10 times the foliage as a forest tree. So, the cutting and elimination of these trees has no where near the detrimental effect you would like to imply.
You are drawing a very false conclusion from my remarks. I did NOT say that we cut the forests and replant them, I said that 75% of the forests in the World since the mid 1800s have been removed. PERIOD.

The reforestation process you speak of is correct. It takes place in managed forests and is a very good program. It is NOT what has removed 75% of ALL TREES in the World over the past 165 years.

Quote:
Industrial Revolution: A good point, even if it's over emphasized. We need control of factory emissions and emissions from automobiles to improve air quality. It's not that we are destroying the planet but in large cities, we are concentrating too much in one place. You can travel less than 15 miles outside of NYC and the air quality is much improved. I'm not against good, responsible laws that control emissions. Again, pass the laws for the right reasons. Everyone wants cleaner air, hence why catalytic converters were placed on cars to begin with. But, cars are seen as the enemy, so it's a popular view to demonize their use because they create CO2.
How can you overemphasize the most important historical movement in the history of man? Really?

You say it is the "big cities" that have the pollution because of concentration of population. It was written in the 1850s that, going West you could see the Rockies for 120 miles before getting to the base of them. Now, at least on the last four trips that I have driven, that is down to under 50 miles. And there ain't jack out there at that distance, except a level of pollution.

In the darkest deserts of this country, and on the top of mountains, I have gone to star parties with my Celestron C8 and C14 telescopes [though the C14 only goes out on special trips. Even in the darkest deserts, where there is NO light pollution, entire magnitudes of stars that WERE visible even 30 years ago are not as clear or even viable now. It is almost impossible to pick out Andromeda with the naked eye except in the best of conditions or locations.


Quote:
Cars: See above.
We can look forward or backward. It is time to make the shift that should have been made in the 1970s. Best part, it will be cheaper now on some levels.

Quote:
Concrete: Could concrete and asphalt be an underlying cause? Possible. But are enough resources being exploited to address this? Not when they're being spent trying to prove that driving cars/ fuel usage is the main culprit. I could see a regional effect from this, but not a 'Global' one. It's like the NASA infrared photos that detect heat at night. You'll see the densely populated ares will show a projection of significant heat that's stored from the day's sunlight, but rural areas, which dominates the earth, show the coolest areas. Still no where near the evidence needed to even make a compelling argument.
Remember, it's the subtle LITTLE changes. Doesn't have to be BIG changes.

And again, IF you had read the IPCC report you would know that they ARE addressing this on a daily basis, both due to heat, reduction of green space, water table issues, runoff issues, sprawl issues, reflectivity and everything else.

Quote:
Footprints: Making the basic assumption that man is the underlying cause of 'Global Climate Change' will force one to conclude that their grandchildren and great grandchildren will be saddled with this 'problem' because we refused to do something about it. First of all, establish that it's a 'problem' and not something that will alleviate itself. Base it in facts, not in assumptions, as is the predominate case, now.

You have to remember that some of these same scientists are the ones who were screaming 'Ice Age' 25 to 30 years ago when we were having record setting snowfalls and cold temperatures.
First, I don't make the assumption that man is the underlying cause of GCC. We are a significant contributor. We can only change the things we can control. Right now we have to base it on assumptions and models. If we wait for all the facts to get in, it will be too late to start. They would come from an autopsy. I am guessing the grandkids would not appreciate that particular procrastination.

And as I posted earlier, there ARE going to be places that get colder. Scotland is one of the places that is still projected to have a mini ice age. That is, again why is is called Climate Change, not Global Warming.

Everyone, take a zanaflex to relax the neck muscles as you go up and down while reading these two posts to try and make them glue together.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #90 of 105 (permalink) Old 06-26-2008, 06:26 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
I meant to stick this at the bottom of the last post. It goes with the Concrete concept.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    Forget Global Warming - Be scared of Global Cooling 430 Off-Topic 13 08-05-2007 08:36 PM
    Sure could use some global warming... Qubes Off-Topic 6 02-09-2007 05:08 PM
    Major report on Climate Change exposes Republican lies on Global Warming FeelTheLove Off-Topic 60 02-02-2007 07:16 PM
    Global Warming Over? 430 Off-Topic 30 01-06-2007 03:29 AM
    A refresher on Global Cooling. errrr Global Warming 430 Off-Topic 67 04-07-2006 06:55 PM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome