Global warming - more bad news !

[davereid]

Turns out biofuels are not such a great idea.

Reported in the Dom this morning, Nobel prize winning chemist Paul Crutzen has calculated that making biofuels produces up to 70% more greenhouse gas than diesel.

The sky is falling what wll we do ?

[Hitcher]

Biofuels are evel (sic). The best hydrocarbon is one that is pumped out of the ground. When those are exhausted hopefully somebody will have figured out how to manufacture and distribute hydrogen cheaply enough to make fuel cells commercially viable for everyday use in vehicles.

[Swoop]

Also the biofuel production is resulting in farmers planting biofuel crops instead of food crops.
Another famine on the horizon already.

[vifferman]

... and the latest is that many people in Mrka are jumping on the "grow crops for biofuel" wagon to make a big/quick buck, and the results are a big glut of ethanol (so prices have dropped) and the distribution infrastructure can't cope with getting the stuff distributed. D'Oh!!

[Ocean1]

Biofuels are evel (sic). The best hydrocarbon is one that is pumped out of the ground. When those are exhausted hopefully somebody will have figured out how to manufacture and distribute hydrogen cheaply enough to make fuel cells commercially viable for everyday use in vehicles.

One economic evaluation demonstrated that if the current annual budget for just the distribution of petrolium based fuel were available for the development of hydrogen fuel cells they would be available and price competitive within two years. Doesn't fix the problem of distribution and the lack of available vehicles, and that industry is quite happy with the current set-up thanks very much.

Personally I think hydrogen is a great idea, as a nation we would no longer be at the economic mercy of others with regards to fuel. The fundamental arguement behind global warming however I do question, far better qualified people than me have also questioned it: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6650329384813546196&q=Global+warming+swindle&total=177&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=8

[Hitcher]

Also the biofuel production is resulting in farmers planting biofuel crops instead of food crops.
Another famine on the horizon already.

Even worse, marginal land that should not be cultivated or even farmed, will have to be brought into production. And a lot of the crops suggested, e.g. maize and beet, are seasonal and dependent on climate or, even worse, irrigation and artificial fertiliser application to optimise their yields.

Biofuels are not a sustainable option.

[idleidolidyll]

who cares?

i have a diesel 4wd and i'm about to start running it on biodiesel that i've made from collected used fish and chip oil.

costs me about 30c per litre all up

if there was a viable diesel sportbike out there I'd be interested

[Joni]

There are always 2 sides to every story.

Bio fuel in theory is great, however the way they are making the corn based bio fuel is what is causing questions to be raised. If they made the entire cycle more sustainable, it would be a very viable option... but that takes reponsibility from the point go.

Besides. There are other ways of making bio fuel than just using the common corn option.

Animal fat can also be used. This can be removed from what would have been the waste stream to make it.

Some guy in Canterbury is also looking at using other sources too...

Blah blah blah etc etc etc

[Krusti]

who cares?

i have a diesel 4wd and i'm about to start running it on biodiesel that i've made from collected used fish and chip oil.

costs me about 30c per litre all up

if there was a viable diesel sportbike out there I'd be interested

How do you get the oil out of the Fish and Chips? :bleh:

[idleidolidyll]

How do you get the oil out of the Fish and Chips? :bleh:

i suck it out and spit it into a bowl of course

how else do you do it?

[idleidolidyll]

There are always 2 sides to every story.

Bio fuel in theory is great, however the way they are making the corn based bio fuel is what is causing questions to be raised. If they made the entire cycle more sustainable, it would be a very viable option... but that takes reponsibility from the point go.

Besides. There are other ways of making bio fuel than just using the common corn option.

Animal fat can also be used. This can be removed from what would have been the waste stream to make it.

Some guy in Canterbury is also looking at using other sources too...

Blah blah blah etc etc etc

It's not biofuel per se that's a problem; it's the decision of what crop to grow on what land that is the issue. The Argies grow it from sugar cane and that's viable in their climate. Yanks seem to want to make it from corn and corn is a problem because it uses heaps of water and chemicals. It's recently been suggested that thew best way for Yanks to make biofuels is to use the grasses of the Great Plains, a natural crop that would not need massive amounts of chemicals or water to regrow.

Biofuels made from waste products are excellent but the problem is supply. There just isn't enough for all. Of course that leads to the same conclusion as power generation: the best solution is not just one but a wide range of different sources.

I'm looking into Hydrogen generation too and there's even a possibility of using it on a bike to 'subsidise' petrol.

[Hitcher]

Interestingly tallow (animal fat) is a lucrative product for purposes other than biofuel, to a point where it's probably too expensive an option for fuelling vehicles. It's used for all sorts of purposes in food production, including manufacture of some margarines.

In the greater scheme of things too, there's not really that much of it to make a significant difference. This is also true of waste vegetable oils. While the odd individual may be able to adapt and run a vehicle on it, there's probably only enough of the stuff in New Zealand to power a few thousand vehicles.

[Ocean1]

There are always 2 sides to every story.

Bio fuel in theory is great, however the way they are making the corn based bio fuel is what is causing questions to be raised. If they made the entire cycle more sustainable, it would be a very viable option... but that takes reponsibility from the point go.

Besides. There are other ways of making bio fuel than just using the common corn option.

Animal fat can also be used. This can be removed from what would have been the waste stream to make it.

Some guy in Canterbury is also looking at using other sources too...

Blah blah blah etc etc etc

Yup, but conditions here aren't good for any of the crops that can be optimised for ethinol production. South America is doing well with that industry but both growing conditions and the economic environment there are favourable.

We could turn left over bits of sheep and cows into fuel and, (there's a lot of small interests doing just that) but political ineptitude prevents a more widespread uptake of the technology. On one hand the gubmint mandates a requirement for diesel to contain 5% biofuel by next year sometime, on the other hand environmentally driven regulations make it extraordinarily economically unatractive to do so. So we're exporting tallow to Aus, where they do it for us, and buying back the blended diesel at premium prices...

[Joni]

So if the yanks or kiwi's or who ever grew a crop that could make bio-fuel that is appropriate for their climate etc, and grew it in a more sustainable way? None of the shit you mention Idle, plus no removing of other crops to create these crops etc... then it would be viable?

Its taking responsibility, not just having a theory of being more sustainable, and then taking the quickest, nastiest route to get there.

Fore-thought and planning can make a huge difference.

On a personal note: I dont really care about the debate about this on KB. I do care about the environment, I would not call myself a greeny, but I do my bit and I educate myself on this kind of stuff.... I dont really care if people agree with me or not, I know from my personal moral stand point I am happy with what I am doing... call me a freak, a do-gooder, what ever I dont care. Not directed at anyone at all... just all the people who flame people who care about the environment.

[idleidolidyll]

Here's the info on using grasses. There's no reason we couldn't do the same in NZ, we have plenty of good grasslands and lots of water in the right places:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn10759-humble-grasses-may-be-the-best-source-of-biofuel-.html

Of course I'd still rather see the water powered hydrogen motor.............

[Ocean1]

Interestingly tallow (animal fat) is a lucrative product for purposes other than biofuel, to a point where it's probably too expensive an option for fuelling vehicles. It's used for all sorts of purposes in food production, including manufacture of some margarines.

In the greater scheme of things too, there's not really that much of it to make a significant difference. This is also true of waste vegetable oils. While the odd individual may be able to adapt and run a vehicle on it, there's probably only enough of the stuff in New Zealand to power a few thousand vehicles.

All true, but it is an alternative fuel source, no matter how small. The main by-product is glycerine, at far higher volumes than current demands require, (mostly soap and make-up) so you've got disposal costs to worry about also.

[idleidolidyll]

So if the yanks or kiwi's or who ever grew a crop that could make bio-fuel that is appropriate for their climate etc, and grew it in a more sustainable way? None of the shit you mention Idle, plus no removing of other crops to create these crops etc... then it would be viable?


who knows for sure here? none of us are biofuel scientists and we all have to rely on what we are told or what we can research ourselves.

big business is terrified of some ideas because the same ideas could be used to generate energy locally and take power out of their hands. that kind of self serving capitalism sadly drives a lot of research: "what can we design that will give us a monopoly?"

btw: what specific 'shit' i mention? none of it was shit

[idleidolidyll]

All true, but it is an alternative fuel source, no matter how small. The main by-product is glycerine, at far higher volumes than current demands require, (mostly soap and make-up) so you've got disposal costs to worry about also.

actually glycerine is a very useful product and has a large number of uses:
http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_glycerin.html

[Joni]

btw: what specific 'shit' i mention? none of it was shitits a term, not a reference to the content of your post which I felt was good...

shit = stuff

Old fella... sheeesh! :bleh:

[Mr Merde]

III and Joni almost agreeing on something

run for cover the sky is falling

[Ocean1]

actually glycerine is a very useful product and has a large number of uses:
http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_glycerin.html

Yup, high grade glycerine is marketable, but the prices are already dropping as a result of over-supply. Also, the un-processed by-product of biofuel manufacture from animal fats is far from pure. It can be made so, obviously, but the cost of doing so makes it cost-negative for all but large industrial process systems. The market within NZ is also shrinking, with Colgate Palmolive and several other major users disappearing offshore.

[Joni]

:lol:
III and Joni almost agreeing on something

run for cover the sky is fallingYeah, I thought the same thing...

[Winston001]

The most efficient source of bio-fuel is cellulose - trees, but at present the technology is only at laboratory level. There is research being done to see if willow saplings will work here in NZ as a source.

One big problem isthe eficency of bio-fuel vs oil. A litre of oil provides 14 times as much energy as is required to produce it. Bio-fuel provides from 0.8 to 1.2 times the amount of energy. In other words depending on how efficent your plant is, it costs more energy or at best is just above a zero sum game for bio-fuel.

Why would rational selfish humans choose bio-fuel over oil? That is the big problem.

[idleidolidyll]

III and Joni almost agreeing on something

run for cover the sky is falling

don't worry; i'll find a point of difference to argue about..................:mad:

[Ocean1]

Why would rational selfish humans choose bio-fuel over oil? That is the big problem.

Ah, logic. Works bloody well for actually DOING shit, but don't bring it to a political bunfight eh?

Sorry, bit disenchanted with my fellow man today, probably somat I ate...

[Ocean1]

don't worry; i'll find a point of difference to argue about..................:mad:

Dude if'n ya can't find a difference between you and her you best shuffle off to the infirmery before advanced senility really sets in.

[idleidolidyll]

Dude if'n ya can't find a difference between you and her you best shuffle off to the infirmery before advanced senility really sets in.

well said

i wouldn't want to be her and i'm sure she feels the same about me

too late regarding the senility though.........

[idleidolidyll]

Why would rational selfish humans choose bio-fuel over oil? That is the big problem.

sad fact is that most people will only choose the easiest/cheapest option

[Pwalo]

sad fact is that most people will only choose the easiest/cheapest option

Yes, but that doesn't mean it's the wrong option. There will be alternatives to oil/petroleum, but it's not going to happen until it's commercially viable.

At the moment none of the alternatives(as far as I am aware), can't compete with oil on a cost to produce or energy storage capability.

Personally I think that economy and effeciency (conservation I guess) are what manufacturers can concentrate on. Besides if we were truly worried about the energy thing we wouldn't be riding motorcycles or sitting in front of PCs.

[Hitcher]

Here's the info on using grasses. There's no reason we couldn't do the same in NZ, we have plenty of good grasslands and lots of water in the right places

Well, no we don't actually. Many people presume that because it rains all the time and that the Waikato is generally green when they're trolleying down to Ruapehu for a weekend on the piste, that there is plenty of water around for irrigating agricultural production. And our "grasslands" are basically hydroponics. New Zealand's soils are geologically new, compared to those found in other countries, and often deficient in trace elements or contain soil minerals (e.g. allophane) that lock up essential plant-growing minerals like phosphate.

It is only really the west coasts or more westerly aspects of New Zealand that have comparatively reliable rainfall. Expansion of dairying and other water-hungry production systems into east coast regions is putting increasing pressure on scarce river-run and, more worryingly, groundwater aquifers, to a point where regions like Canterbury and North Otago are already overusing available freshwater. Indeed in many instances dairy farmers are overtly wasting water.

Countries like Brazil that have been manufacturing biofuels for many years rely fast-growing tropical crops like sugar cane. New Zealand does not (yet) have even a sub-tropical climate, so let's not get too far ahead of ourselves.

We need to be firmly committed to sustainability in everything we do. And the manufacture of biofuels should be no exception.

[Finn]

Two words regarding Bio Fuels in NZ. Resource Consent. It will never happen on a large enough scale.

[Ocean1]

Two words regarding Bio Fuels in NZ. Resource Consent.

Go wash your fekin mouth out, feck's sake there's wimen and kids in here dude.

[Hitcher]

Two words regarding Bio Fuels in NZ. Resource Consent. It will never happen on a large enough scale.

Three words as an antidote: National Policy Statement. If this Government is seriously committed to meeting the Kyoto targets it recently espoused, legislative restrictions such as resource consents can be made less of a hurdle.

[Ocean1]

Three words as an antidote: National Policy Statement.

Right, that's it, I'm fuken outa here, the language is fuken appaling.

[The Pastor]

Yup, but conditions here aren't good for any of the crops that can be optimised for ethinol production. South America is doing well with that industry but both growing conditions and the economic environment there are favourable.

We could turn left over bits of sheep and cows into fuel and, (there's a lot of small interests doing just that) but political ineptitude prevents a more widespread uptake of the technology. On one hand the gubmint mandates a requirement for diesel to contain 5% biofuel by next year sometime, on the other hand environmentally driven regulations make it extraordinarily economically unatractive to do so. So we're exporting tallow to Aus, where they do it for us, and buying back the blended diesel at premium prices...


Interestingly tallow (animal fat) is a lucrative product for purposes other than biofuel, to a point where it's probably too expensive an option for fuelling vehicles. It's used for all sorts of purposes in food production, including manufacture of some margarines.

In the greater scheme of things too, there's not really that much of it to make a significant difference. This is also true of waste vegetable oils. While the odd individual may be able to adapt and run a vehicle on it, there's probably only enough of the stuff in New Zealand to power a few thousand vehicles.


Hell yeah! animal products in petrol? THEM VEGANS WONT BE ABLE TO EAT ANYTHING(everything gets driven to the supermarket - even seeds are havested using machines)! they wont be able to go anywhere!!!


MUHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA its an evil plot to force vegans into hiding!

I love it.

[davereid]

There are a couple of things I can't really follow with global warming.

Lots of lies is the first thing.

Lets get over the idea that planting a tree is good for the world.

Trees are actually carbon neutral, just like pet rocks.

The only time a tree actually performs as a carbon sink, is if you cut it down, treat it and buils a house with it.

The second one that bugs me is the original claim that the artic ice was melting, and sea levels would rise.

Yeah right. Floating ice that melts won't have any effect on sea levels.

At least they have now added antartica and glaciers to the story to give it some credence.

Of course thoses of us alive in the 60s will remember the scientists telling us that another ice age was on its way.

But the real one is Kyoto. I just can't really see where the money goes. I'm sure once I work that out, I'll have a better idea of whats really happening.

By the way, I've got some pet rocks to sell. As they have exactly the same effect on world CO2 emmissions as trees, they must be worth a few bob..

[Mr Merde]

There are a couple of things I can't really follow with global warming.

Lots of lies is the first thing.

Lets get over the idea that planting a tree is good for the world.

Trees are actually carbon neutral, just like pet rocks.

The only time a tree actually performs as a carbon sink, is if you cut it down, treat it and buils a house with it.

The second one that bugs me is the original claim that the artic ice was melting, and sea levels would rise.

Yeah right. Floating ice that melts won't have any effect on sea levels.

At least they have now added antartica and glaciers to the story to give it some credence.

Of course thoses of us alive in the 60s will remember the scientists telling us that another ice age was on its way.

But the real one is Kyoto. I just can't really see where the money goes. I'm sure once I work that out, I'll have a better idea of whats really happening.

By the way, I've got some pet rocks to sell. As they have exactly the same effect on world CO2 emmissions as trees, they must be worth a few bob..

We are still comming out of an Ice Age, geologically speaking.

Its only been about 20,000 years which in the scale of the 5 billion years of the earths existance plotted to a 24 hour clock is what? 1/2 a second.

The dinosaurs lived in a world that was semi to sub tropical. Antartica had no ice and flora and fauna abound.


Surely that means things get warmer and will continue to do so.

The rift that runs down the Atlantic ocean pumps out more sulphur and polutants than all of humanity has in its existence. Shal we plug it?

[Ocean1]

There are a couple of things I can't really follow with global warming.

Lots of lies is the first thing.

Perhaps not lies exactly, as such. But it’s become a political football with possibly the highest spin rate we’ve ever seen. A function of the fact that environmental extremism has become the home of the rabid socialist left. The un-stated agenda is a direct counter to the economic power of the capitalist world and the control it's fiscal weight allows over international politics. Fear of extinction and the will to protect our children and descendants is the tool, a very effective one.

This, however:


Lets get over the idea that planting a tree is good for the world.

Trees are actually carbon neutral, just like pet rocks.

The only time a tree actually performs as a carbon sink, is if you cut it down, treat it and buils a house with it.

Is wrong. Flora locks up carbon in direct proportion to it’s class and mass, carbon is released when the tree (for example) is burnt, some is also released when it’s processed for timber. As a contributor to atmospheric Co2 it’s still a relatively minor concern, routine volcanic activity dumps far more into the atmosphere.

On the other hand while green plants help reduce Co2 they also increases the amount of vegetative decay, which increases the amount of methane released to the atmosphere. Methane is 21 times more influential as a greenhouse gas than Co2. Confused yet?

And this:


ThThe second one that bugs me is the original claim that the artic ice was melting, and sea levels would rise.

Is perfectly correct, best guess on the rise in sea levels caused by just the Greenland glacial ice mass is about 2 metres. The numbers aren’t hard to find, get your calculator out.

[idleidolidyll]

Much of the spin fighting the concepts of global warming and climate change have come from amerikan scientists and from projects DESIGNED to counter the so called anti-capitalist argumenst.

It makes me gasp that people think our last 150 years of industrial revolution HASN'T had any effect on the planet. I suggest you guys and gals look up the tonnage of waste and pollutants dumped into the environment, look up their toxicity and ask yourselves where they go when we pump them out in such vast quantities.

Many of you remind me of a conversation I had in China a few years ago. I was on a bus and struck up a conversation with a young Chinese woman (I speak the ling0). I specifically asked her about a project in Gansu province to chop the top off the mountains at the end of a cul de sac valley so that the pollution could be blow downwind and clean up the air in the city. I asked her where she thought the pollution went and she answered that it went up into the sky and got so thin it disappeared forever.
That is basically the argument many here are making and I suggest you carefully examine the 'science' you're reading. Look at who is behind it and what their possible motivations are. You'll find that quite often it is corporate sponsored research in which case it will be designed to give the answer the company wants. In other cases it will be US Govt research on behalf of corporations with the same result.

there are many sources but here's a good place to start when looking for REAL science on climate change and global warming:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change

[davereid]

This, however: Is wrong. Flora locks up carbon in direct proportion to it’s class and mass, carbon is released when the tree (for example) is burnt, some is also released when it’s processed for timber. As a contributor to atmospheric Co2 it’s still a relatively minor concern, routine volcanic activity dumps far more into the atmosphere.

On the other hand while green plants help reduce Co2 that increase also increases the amount of vegetative decay, which increases the amount of methane released to the atmosphere. Methane is 21 times more influential as a greenhouse gas than Co2. Confused yet?

And this:
Is perfectly correct, best guess on the rise in sea levels caused by just the Greenland glacial ice mass is about 2 metres. The numbers aren’t hard to find, get your calculator out.

Hmm I'm not convinced...but I'm not big on tree stuff, I'll certainly take a tree dudes word.

It just seems to me, that a tree grows and absorbs CO2 in its biomass. Then it dies, falls to the forest floor and decays, releasing the CO2.

I completely agree about Greenland and other land based ice, rising water levels.

But I never remember Greenland being quoted, it was always the floating ice cap that was talked about. But (sigh) I can't find any of the early stuff to quote so I'll just have to shut up !

I guess it comes down (for me at least) to some skeptical questions

Is it really getting warmer ?
If it is, is it really human activity ?
If it is human activity can will Kyoto reverse it, or just cost a lot of money ?
Do we want to reverse it - is it really that bad ?
Lots of money in Kyoto - where does it all go ? (suspicious bastard)

[idleidolidyll]

Dave

google greenland ice and you'll be very afraid.

it's been out there a long time now but the media is owned by corporations by and large and THEIR motivation has been to prevent this info reaching the cowed masses

[BIGBOSSMAN]

Global Warming = load of bollocks.

[Ocean1]

Much of the spin fighting the concepts of global warming and climate change have come from amerikan scientists and from projects DESIGNED to counter the so called anti-capitalist argumenst.

Correct, a good reason to ignore any opinion which can be seen to have any but purely scientific interest.

It makes me gasp that people think our last 150 years of industrial revolution HASN'T had any effect on the planet. I suggest you guys and gals look up the tonnage of waste and pollutants dumped into the environment, look up their toxicity and ask yourselves where they go when we pump them out in such vast quantities.

Many of you remind me of a conversation I had in China a few years ago. I was on a bus and struck up a conversation with a young Chinese woman (I speak the ling0). I specifically asked her about a project in Gansu province to chop the top off the mountains at the end of a cul de sac valley so that the pollution could be blow downwind and clean up the air in the city. I asked her where she thought the pollution went and she answered that it went up into the sky and got so thin it disappeared forever.
That is basically the argument many here are making and I suggest you carefully examine the 'science' you're reading. Look at who is behind it and what their possible motivations are. You'll find that quite often it is corporate sponsored research in which case it will be designed to give the answer the company wants. In other cases it will be US Govt research on behalf of corporations with the same result.

No doubt. Plenty of unqualified opinion available. Discriminate between "toxic" and "environmental" impact though.

there are many sources but here's a good place to start when looking for REAL science on climate change and global warming:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change

Did you bother to look and see what Nigel Calder had to say in the clip I posted?

[Ocean1]

Hmm I'm not convinced...but I'm not big on tree stuff, I'll certainly take a tree dudes word.

It just seems to me, that a tree grows and absorbs CO2 in its biomass. Then it dies, falls to the forest floor and decays, releasing the CO2.

I'm not a tree dude. I'm perfectly happy to be advised by them, although there's more than one discipline required to get the full picture.



I completely agree about Greenland and other land based ice, rising water levels.

But I never remember Greenland being quoted, it was always the floating ice cap that was talked about. But (sigh) I can't find any of the early stuff to quote so I'll just have to shut up !

I guess it comes down (for me at least) to some skeptical questions

Is it really getting warmer ?
If it is, is it really human activity ?
If it is human activity can will Kyoto reverse it, or just cost a lot of money ?
Do we want to reverse it - is it really that bad ?
Lots of money in Kyoto - where does it all go ? (suspicious bastard)

Look at the quantity of ice above mean sea level dude, that's the only important stuff.

Good look at historical temperatures: http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

[Ocean1]

Dave

google greenland ice and you'll be very afraid.

it's been out there a long time now but the media is owned by corporations by and large and THEIR motivation has been to prevent this info reaching the cowed masses

Meh, who gives a fuck, it'll happen tolerably slowly.

As for the media? who the hell listens to 'em, at least for more than to learn which particular social angst is fashionable... If you don't like their product you've got the same choice as anyone else when it comes to supporting them.

[idleidolidyll]

Meh, who gives a fuck, it'll happen tolerably slowly.

As for the media? who the hell listens to 'em, at least for more than to learn which particular social angst is fashionable... If you don't like their product you've got the same choice as anyone else when it comes to supporting them.

obviously a lot of people here listen to the media. If they didn't they wouldn't have such whacked out opinions.

free choice is an illusion; we are presented with a selection of choices by other people and they therefore control our thinking.

A long time ago an honest journalist made a famous statement and that is even more true today:

John Swinton:


" There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, as an
independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you
who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know
beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for
keeping my honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. Others
of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who
would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the
streets looking for another job.

If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper,
before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of
the journalist is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to
vilify; to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell the country for his
daily bread. You know it and I know it and what folly is this toasting
an independent press. We are the tools and vassals of the rich men
behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and
we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the
property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes. "</pre>

[Ocean1]

obviously a lot of people here listen to the media. If they didn't they wouldn't have such whacked out opinions.

free choice is an illusion; we are presented with a selection of choices by other people and they therefore control our thinking.

A long time ago an honest journalist made a famous statement and that is even more true today:

John Swinton:


" There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, as an
independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you
who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know
beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for
keeping my honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. Others
of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who
would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the
streets looking for another job.

If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper,
before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of
the journalist is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to
vilify; to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell the country for his
daily bread. You know it and I know it and what folly is this toasting
an independent press. We are the tools and vassals of the rich men
behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and
we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the
property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes. "</pre>

Oh bollox. If you get your facts from what passes for news in your daily rag you don't deserve to vote let alone breed. And if you base your opinions on what's on the box you don't deserve to breath. I'm perfectly free to form my own opinions, and I've got a far more independant and powerful source of fact than anyone's previously ever had access to right here in front of me.

[idleidolidyll]

Oh bollox. If you get your facts from what passes for news in your daily rag you don't deserve to vote let alone breed. And if you base your opinions on what's on the box you don't deserve to breath. I'm perfectly free to form my own opinions, and I've got a far more independant and powerful source of fact than anyone's previously ever had access to right here in front of me.

i'm not going to enter a new argument at the moment (I'm already engaged in far too many).

however, i have studied the media within a degree and that viewpoint is not mine alone.

i'll leave it up to you to do the leg work if you can be bothered but i'm not gonna demand it; it's just not that important to me

esides, i actually kinda respect you

[Ocean1]

i actually kinda respect you

But will you still be here in the morning? :oi-grr:

Sounds like you need to find a way to respect your own opinions dude. There may well be reds under the bed, and possibly greens in the woodpile, but there's plenty of people prepared to look further for their edification.

[idleidolidyll]

sure, and i'll make you brekkie too honey

i DO respect my own opinions but i'm also aware that i only know what i'm allowed to know. looking further doesn't mean you're thinking independently; you're just reading more people's words

it's a philosophical argument that will never be proven or disproven so frankly it's not worth wasting time trying to convince people of it. You either believe or you don't, like religion

[Ocean1]

sure, and i'll make you brekkie too honey

i DO respect my own opinions but i'm also aware that i only know what i'm allowed to know. looking further doesn't mean you're thinking independently; you're just reading more people's words

it's a philosophical argument that will never be proven or disproven so frankly it's not worth wasting time trying to convince people of it. You either believe or you don't, like religion

Philosophy is it, religion yet?… Dude I am the ultimate concern for the truly paranoid, the embodiment of all things omnipotent and fearful, I'm a devout solipsist. You, your opinions and your very existence are mere figments of my fevered brow. Away with ye, begone, or I’ll bury you in an alcoholic coma.


Independant, forsooth…

[idleidolidyll]

that's OK, i'm off to drown myself all by myself

and don't get me started on religion; I REALLY upset people when I start on that crock o shit

[Sanx]

Is it really getting warmer ?
Possibly. Possibly not, depending on whose research you read and how far you go back. Climate change advocates like to start records in the 1850s, a period described by other climate scientists as a mini ice age. Climate change sceptics like to go back to the middle ages, a time known as the medieval warm period. The world's warmer than in the 1850s, and cooler than it was a thousand years back. Go figure.

If it is, is it really human activity ?
It's got fuck all to do with human activity. Billions and billions of dollars spent in research trying to prove it is related to human activity (entirely the wrong rational for scientific research) and they've come up with ... erm ... well, vague theories that no-one can prove one way or another.

If it is human activity can will Kyoto reverse it, or just cost a lot of money ?
The latter.

Do we want to reverse it - is it really that bad ?
The world survived climate changes before. Many of them. And it will survive them again.

Lots of money in Kyoto - where does it all go ? (suspicious bastard)
Into pockets, both corporate and governmental. Like Uncle Helen's new carbon tax plan, where they'll tax emissions and with the money do ... erm ... wel, they're not saying right now, but no doubt they'll be a treaty claim asking for the money as the CO2 is actually a taonga.

[Sanx]

Dave

google greenland ice and you'll be very afraid.

it's been out there a long time now but the media is owned by corporations by and large and THEIR motivation has been to prevent this info reaching the cowed masses

Like the BBC you mean? What have they got to gain by preventing information reaching the masses?

[canarlee]

global warming?









bring it on, i hate being cold!

[idleidolidyll]

Like the BBC you mean? What have they got to gain by preventing information reaching the masses?

even the BBC is beholden to advertisers.

a bit of research would show that the labour party in britain has moved so far to the right since the 70's, it cannot be honestly described as the workingmans party. it is now a corporate lapdog like all right wing parties.

no surprise then that even auntie serves fascist corporate agendas.

and to back up my opinion i offer these chart:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/extremeright

look at where the Labour party was in the 70's and where they are now. They are almost as right wing as Bush

[scumdog]

The holidays will be finished soon and this will all be over........

[Grahameeboy]

The holidays will be finished soon and this will all be over........

Yeah, it rained last nite and now it is not and it looks sunny so even the climate is not sure about Global Warming.

[Ocean1]

even the BBC is beholden to advertisers.

a bit of research would show that the labour party in britain has moved so far to the right since the 70's, it cannot be honestly described as the workingmans party. it is now a corporate lapdog like all right wing parties.

no surprise then that even auntie serves fascist corporate agendas.

and to back up my opinion i offer these chart:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/extremeright

look at where the Labour party was in the 70's and where they are now. They are almost as right wing as Bush

Dude that's pathetic, both the faux-paranoia and the reference. It's also wandering seriously off topic.

[Ocean1]

The holidays will be finished soon and this will all be over........

Back to school dude?

[idleidolidyll]

Dude that's pathetic, both the faux-paranoia and the reference. It's also wandering seriously off topic.

it was a well referenced post in direct relation to the post it replied to.

as for faux-paranoia: YAAAWWWNNN!!!

[Joni]

Dude that's pathetic, both the faux-paranoia and the reference. It's also wandering seriously off topic.There are at least half a dozen threads going seriously off topic at the mo... and they all have one common denominator!

[idleidolidyll]

There are at least half a dozen threads going seriously off topic at the mo... and they all have one common denominator!

In relation to climate change and global warming, governments' political positioning is an important indicator with regard to how they approach the issue or even if they give credence to it.

if a government is more right wing (an indicator of obedience to commercial or corporate interests above those of ordinary people), they are more likely to be denyers and to do bugger all to ameliorate the problem if it is likely to have any impact on profit margins.

Any conversation has a raft of approaches and ideas and it is human nature to wander around a bit.

Moderators who fail to grasp or understand typical conversation are most likely to overreact and ruin interesting discussion/debate

[Grahameeboy]

In relation to climate change and global warming, governments' political positioning is an important indicator with regard to how they approach the issue or even if they give credence to it.

if a government is more right wing (an indicator of obedience to commercial or corporate interests above those of ordinary people), they are more likely to be denyers and to do bugger all to ameliorate the problem if it is likely to have any impact on profit margins.

Any conversation has a raft of approaches and ideas and it is human nature to wander around a bit.

Moderators who fail to grasp or understand typical conversation are most likely to overreact and ruin interesting discussion/debate

I am glad I have a simple approach to life.....this stuff gives me a headache

[idleidolidyll]

Meh, who gives a fuck, it'll happen tolerably slowly.

says you. legitimate scientists on the other hand, are suggesting that a relatively sudden tip is likely and a rapid acceleration of melting is quite likely.

I posted a link to science as opposed to hearsay, have a read


As for the media? who the hell listens to 'em, at least for more than to learn which particular social angst is fashionable... If you don't like their product you've got the same choice as anyone else when it comes to supporting them.

Sadly far too many people do. Others discuss issues amongst their buddies, who get their ideas from the media, and fool themselves into thinking they have had some kind of epiphany and are more knowledgeable than legitimate experts.

Media owners understand all too well how to manipulate public debate without the public even knowing that it's happening.

[Winston001]

It just seems to me, that a tree grows and absorbs CO2 in its biomass. Then it dies, falls to the forest floor and decays, releasing the CO2.

Not exactly. The carbon mainly remains bound up in biomass which makes fertile soil. Methane is released which is a problem but a lot of the carbon remains in the earth.


I completely agree about Greenland and other land based ice, rising water levels.

But I never remember Greenland being quoted, it was always the floating ice cap that was talked about.

That's because the Arctic cap contains the North Pole and kind of captures journalists imagination. There is also the result that the Gulf Stream will move away from Europe if polar waters warm up. Tundra thaws and releases frozen organic carbon. Wildlife adapted to the northern climate dies.


I guess it comes down (for me at least) to some skeptical questions

Is it really getting warmer ?
If it is, is it really human activity ?
If it is human activity can will Kyoto reverse it, or just cost a lot of money ?
Do we want to reverse it - is it really that bad ?
Lots of money in Kyoto - where does it all go ? (suspicious bastard)

Excellent questions:

The trend of global temperatures over 100 years indicates the Earth is warming.

Humans have been burning coal and oil at fantastic rates for 150 years. The proposition that this has no effect on the environment is a theory - just as climate change is also a theory. Change is supported by myriad studies.

Kyoto cannot reverse it - it will take 100 years for present emissions to reach stability = some warming. The point of Kyoto is to restrain future emissions adding to the mix.

Is it that bad? For NZ, probably not. For most of the 6 billion (who live in the Third World) starvation, disease, floods, war, displacement of huge populations is certain.

By Kyoto money I assume you mean the cost of carbon credits. Christchurch City sold carbon credits to a Dutch company a couple of years ago because of the City's green waste recycling scheme. It was real money and Christchurch received it.

At the root of the problem is the Earth's burgeoning population. 6 billion is too many. Everyone wants a Western lifestyle and fair enough. That takes energy.

I have no doubt mankind will survive - but a lot of species will disappear and billions die very unpleasantly.

[Pixie]

So when the hippy greenie arseholes get all excited about biofuels,it suddenly becomes ok to rip out rain forests to grow fuel crops?
Or maybe they are just so ignorant of the real world that they don't even realise this is what is happening.



The best/only answer for the environment?

...kill 6 billion humans

[Mr Merde]

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/1996/ph123/vostok.gif

According to these ice core samples, CO2 as measured in parts per million , was higher 140,000 years ago than it is today.

Please note that in comparrison to the figures from 20,00 years ago and about 140,000 years ago the rise is very similar.

Now please answer me this


140,000 years ago.

Who was depleting the rain forest, driving around in hydrocarbon burning vehicles and poluting the atmosphere with great amounts of CO2.

Merde

[Pixie]

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/1996/ph123/vostok.gif

According to these ice core samples, CO2 as measured in parts per million , was higher 140,000 years ago than it is today.

Please note that in comparrison to the figures from 20,00 years ago and about 140,000 years ago the rise is very similar.

Now please answer me this


140,000 years ago.

Who was depleting the rain forest, driving around in hydrocarbon burning vehicles and poluting the atmosphere with great amounts of CO2.

Merde
Ask a greenie and he'll probably tell you it was the saucer people

[Ocean1]

Now please answer me this


140,000 years ago.

Who was depleting the rain forest, driving around in hydrocarbon burning vehicles and poluting the atmosphere with great amounts of CO2.

Merde

Oldrider??!!

.

[Mr Merde]

Oldrider??!!

.

Of course, how remiss of me for not actually thinking of the most obvious reason. I thank you for a very plausible answer to my question

Oldrider you have some questions to answer.


Merde

[Mr Merde]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=400 border=0><TBODY><TR vAlign=top><TD id=csmWas400>http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0318/csmimg/p17a.gif</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Are we just going into another cold cycle as indicated by the above graph?

[N1CK]

Who was depleting the rain forest, driving around in hydrocarbon burning vehicles and poluting the atmosphere with great amounts of CO2.

Merde

Dinosaurs...? ;)

[N1CK]

This site is quite interesting, the guy is a New Zealand scientist.
Have a read...
http://www.predictweather.com/global_warming/index.asp

[Mr Merde]

Dinosaurs...? ;)


Apparently they died out about 65 million years ago.

This rise was 140,000 years ago.

[Ocean1]

OK, much as I hate serious I dislike the direction we’re taking on this more….

Rising temperatures are a long term concern. One we probably should address as far as is consistent with an even longer term view. Global environmental conditions change continuously, perfectly normal, it’s just that we’re now here to notice. We do have the power to moderate,(but probably not completely stabilise) such changes. However, get used to the idea that over timescales of hundreds of years minor variations in weather occur quite outside of any influence we might have had. Changes large enough to alter sustainability of some species will continue to happen over periods of some thousands of years, also perfectly “natural”.

What causes the most angst in discussions like this is not the actual changes themselves, (which everyone’s data show happening anyway) but the degree that we might be contributing to, (or mitigating) such changes. OK, we can make what minor “corrections” possible for our technology, and thereby minimise changes to those species, (including us) only if we clearly understand the facts, the mechanisms that drive such change. The real risk to any such attempt is the sabotaging of scientific principle by political interests. There exists serious and widespread scientific doubt about most of the proposed measures currently suggested for adoption, including the idea that human generated Co2 can be used as a viable control, even at the extremely minor effects it’s suggested likely to make.

Global warming proponent’s own data puts human influence at only 6% of the total greenhouse effect, and the greenhouse effect is only a part of what heats the planet in any case, thus making human influence an even smaller portion of the total. The ice caps on Mars are receding at a similar rate to those on Earth. Want to take a shot at that? The single largest contributing factor to global temperature is cloud cover. The single largest contributing factor to cloud cover is background cosmic radiation. If you feel the need to blame anything for global temperature change have a shot at local novae and their disruptive, destructive ways. Don’t forget to allocate some blame to our own extremely variable wee fireball, it’s impact on our weather is huge.

Most global warming alarmists fail to see the change in the environment from a broad enough time window to see that, in geologic terms, they are talking about mere seconds and judging millions of years by them. The period we are currently in is in geologic terms still regarded by many as the conclusion of the most recent ice age. Why wouldn't there be an overall warming?

Feet getting wet? There is very little agriculture conducted at below 25 ft above sea level, world-wide, and the past two centuries' nearly two degree rise in global average temperatures (measured for the first 100 years by equipment accurate to plus or minus much more than that amount), has raised sea levels by about 2 cm. On the other hand, over 60% of the land surface in the world is locked in perma-frost. A 3 degree rise in Global temperatures could produce a 50% or larger increase in arable land. 1100 years ago Greenland was… green. Briefly admittedly, but long enough for the Vikings to gain a toehold before the glaciers rolled down again.

There have been several Mass Extinction events on Earth, of which 5 to 6 are considered very major. However, the most dramatic example of sustained global warming one record, the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, was associated with one of the smaller mass extinctions, and didn't make the list. Not all of them have been thoroughly explained, but a couple are believed to have been caused by extraterrestrial impacts that produced craters in excess of 65 miles wide, and one is believed to have been brought about by a gamma ray burst from a supernova happening "nearby" (less than 6000 light years away). You still want to plant a few trees?

[Ocean1]

A study of these events since 600 million years ago, the approximate point at which life appeared (the planet is nearly 8 times older than life of any kind), shows a clear trend downward in the intensity of each. And all of these have occurred in our complete absence. The next one will occur whether we like it or not, and will not be because of us, unless we engage in a nuclear world war, which could cause a significant extinction event, but it will happen in spite of us, if we are here when it occurs. We are not going to be here forever. Nothing ever has been. Nothing ever will. We will, however, survive longer if we start by seeing global warming alarmism for what it actually is; a simple scam, with political and financial roots.

Make no mistake, the tools available to minimise ANY of the effects of global environmental change are rooted in our unique technological abilities. Tech advances have seen an exponential growth in both engineering power and sophistication since the industrial revolution, and I can't see that slowing down. I don't see us gaining control of solar output, (for example) any time soon, but I think our ability to manipulate huge quantities of mass and energy will grow to the point that we can have some control over it's effects.

Some general shit: (and no I ain’t referencing it to the above, do your own homework).

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Paleoclimatology_IceCores/

http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/icecore/review.php

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

http://www.smh.com.au/news/travel/climate-change-ended-angkor-report/2007/03/14/1173722550238.html











You still here?
Congratulations, work your way through this lot:

Statistics needed -- The Deniers Part I


Oh, if you want to get the biggest bang for your “oh crap I don’t wana die” budget then track down the remaining 5% of solar-orbit crap we don’t have mapped. We can’t do fuck all about it now but we will be able to shortly and we need to know where it is before we can prevent it destroying everything. Forever. And yes, you guessed it, the budget for the above projects has been cut every year for the last five years. Guess it’s just not scary enough…

[N1CK]

Did you write all of that? If you did, thats pretty impresive.
From what i could understand, i agree with what you said. :)

[Ocean1]

Did you write all of that? If you did, thats pretty impresive.
From what i could understand, i agree with what you said. :)

Not nearly as impressive as the sheer volume of dis-information it, (pitifully) attempts to counter.

The reason for my own concern in the matter is that I see the politicisation of the scientific principle as not just idle corruption. The anti-science and technophobic PR it generates is potentially a bigger threat to our civilisation than the corrupt conclusions it’s disciples preach from the comfort of their offices. Even the word “theory” is thrown back at genuine research literature, as in “is that the best argument you can offer? A theory?” These idiots have no idea what the concept means.

In the meantime our kids are failing to learn even the basic skills needed to form valid questions about real events, about things they need to know and about how to manage them. How many of them want to be biologists, chemists, engineers etc, let alone the more esoteric disciplines like climatology or molecular biochemistry or geophysics? It’s not fashionable.

We have just one shot at this civilisation shit, get it wrong between the stages of potential species suicide and colonisation of other places and we will not get a second chance. Look around you, we’re there now, we have the power to fuck up badly, but not to place some of our eggs in another basket… yet. What gives us that power is technology, the power to both fuck up and to grow. Some see this as a reason to back away from technology, particularly those bits they’re scared of. Some of it scares me too, but I don’t personally see a return to the stone age as a valid alternative.

[N1CK]

In the meantime our kids are failing to learn even the basic skills needed to form valid questions about real events, about things they need to know and about how to manage them. How many of them want to be biologists, chemists, engineers etc, let alone the more esoteric disciplines like climatology or molecular biochemistry or geophysics? It’s not fashionable.


Im looking at being a biologist.

And I agree with you on the rest you said. You do seem to know what your talking about.

[Sanx]

even the BBC is beholden to advertisers.

Except that in its biggest market - the UK - the BBC has no advertisers. The BBC's not government-owned, like TVNZ. Rather it's paid for by the television licence fee, which every household that owns a TV has to pay. The BBC doesn't have to keep anyone happy - not even the government - as there's no-one they're beholden to.


a bit of research would show that the labour party in britain has moved so far to the right since the 70's, it cannot be honestly described as the workingmans party. it is now a corporate lapdog like all right wing parties.


I lived under that criminal regime for a number of years - that's really not news. Or, for that matter, not relevant to this discussion.

[Sanx]

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/1996/ph123/vostok.gif

According to these ice core samples, CO2 as measured in parts per million , was higher 140,000 years ago than it is today.

Please note that in comparrison to the figures from 20,00 years ago and about 140,000 years ago the rise is very similar.

Now please answer me this


140,000 years ago.

Who was depleting the rain forest, driving around in hydrocarbon burning vehicles and poluting the atmosphere with great amounts of CO2.

Merde

There's a very interesting relationship to that graph, if you look closely. According to all the climate change advocates, more CO2 results in higher temperatures. Whilst it's obvious (going by those figures) that there's a definite correlation between the two, it's clear that CO2 concentration lags temperature. So, does increased CO2 concentration cause higher temperature, or does higher temperature cause increased CO2 concentration?

Now, the biggest carbon sink on the planet is not the rainforests or Siberian grasslands, it's the oceans. Water absorbs carbon dioxide. The colder the water, the more CO2 it can absorb. This is something you can actually verify at home. Get a bottle of soda water and refrigerate it before you open it for the first time. Pour two glasses. Keep one in the fridge and leave the other somewhere until it gets to room temperature. Then try both of them and see which one has more fizz left. It'll be the cold one.

None of this is to say that the world isn't getting warmer. It might be. But then, the temperature has flucuated massively in the past and it will continue to long after humans have moved on. Scientific research would be better aimed at trying to find the real cause of this warming and cooling cycle, rather than wasting billions of dollars on research based around a hypothesis that has not been proven and is not accepted by a large proportion of the scientific body.

[idleidolidyll]

Except that in its biggest market - the UK - the BBC has no advertisers. The BBC's not government-owned, like TVNZ. Rather it's paid for by the television licence fee, which every household that owns a TV has to pay. The BBC doesn't have to keep anyone happy - not even the government - as there's no-one they're beholden to.



I lived under that criminal regime for a number of years - that's really not news. Or, for that matter, not relevant to this discussion.

indeed and that is the point of my next point: the brit governments who direct Auntie are both right wing and beholden to their corporate sponsors.

it is entirely relevant and i have lived under brit regimes 3 times including that of perhaps the worst in recent memory: thatcher

[Wolf]

A study of these events since 600 million years ago, the approximate point at which life appeared (the planet is nearly 8 times older than life of any kind),
But, but, but, the whole Universe was created only a few thousand years ago and it was created solely for us to live on this one little planet and all those mass extinctions and supposed geological records are just god's little tricks to fool us...

:devil2:


Some see this as a reason to back away from technology, particularly those bits they’re scared of. Some of it scares me too, but I don’t personally see a return to the stone age as a valid alternative.
With satellites and rockets hurled
about us willy-nilly
The trouble with our "Brave New World"
is that it scares us silly.

Some of the technology can be a bit scary, but even scarier is the political neo-Luddite bullshit that gets bandied about by the special-interest groups.

There was an article in The Register lately about one bunch of greens kicking up a stink because another bunch of greens want to build a tideal power station - because it'll ruin the ecology of where it's put!

So where do these greenies want their fucking "clean-green tidal power"? On the moons of fucking Jupiter?

[Ocean1]

But, but, but, the whole Universe was created only a few thousand years ago and it was created solely for us to live on this one little planet and all those mass extinctions and supposed geological records are just god's little tricks to fool us...

:devil2:

Go ahead, laugh. Some 74% of the USA believe in God, 65% believe he created the universe, well over half believe the bible's is historically accurate, literally, even with regard to creation. These people vote. They control large hunks of our future.


So where do these greenies want their fucking "clean-green tidal power"? On the moons of fucking Jupiter?

Damn fine idea, either they can build it or I can. I'd love to get some serious distance between us...

[Ocean1]

Im looking at being a biologist.

A field that will see huge advances within your working life. Go hard dude.

[Winston001]

Gotta give you big ups for excellent posts here Ocean. They are very well written and rationally constructed. If fact you've covered so much that I am daunted to comment - and in fact agree with you on most points.



The ice caps on Mars are receding at a similar rate to those on Earth. Want to take a shot at that? ..........

Yeah ok, what the hell.

Mar's orbit eccentricity is 5 times that of the Earth meaning that it wanders around quite a bit as it perambulates around the Sun. Closer at times, further away at others. The solar radiation thus varies in intensity.

Furthermore the atmosphere on Mars is thin and is unable to hold heat in , unlike our own thick atmosphere. Thus changes in tempertaure can be quick.

The thin atmosphere and light gravity lead to dramatic duststorms which affect both the trapping of heat and blocking of solar radiation.

The shrinking icecap is at the south pole and is occuring at an edge of instability observed over 30 years since Viking went to Mars. It is a regional variation and while interesting, has nothing to do with the warming of the Earth.

[Winston001]

The anti-science and technophobic PR it generates is potentially a bigger threat to our civilisation than the corrupt conclusions ......Even the word “theory” is thrown back at genuine research literature, as in “is that the best argument you can offer? A theory?” These idiots have no idea what the concept means.

In the meantime our kids are failing to learn even the basic skills needed to form valid questions about real events, about things they need to know and about how to manage them. How many of them want to be biologists, chemists, engineers etc, let alone the more esoteric disciplines like climatology or molecular biochemistry or geophysics? It’s not fashionable.


Amen to that brother. I cannot figure why people are so turned off science while enjoying all of the benefits it has brought them. IMHO the biggest problem with discussing climate change, environmentalism, genetics, nanotechnology etc etc is the abject ignorance of most of the population.

Heck every kid does general science and should by rights have a fundamental understanding but as adults they revert to dolts.

Rant over.

[Ocean1]

Mar's orbit eccentricity is 5 times that of the Earth meaning that it wanders around quite a bit as it perambulates around the Sun. Closer at times, further away at others. The solar radiation thus varies in intensity.

Furthermore the atmosphere on Mars is thin and is unable to hold heat in , unlike our own thick atmosphere. Thus changes in tempertaure can be quick.

The thin atmosphere and light gravity lead to dramatic duststorms which affect both the trapping of heat and blocking of solar radiation.

The shrinking icecap is at the south pole and is occuring at an edge of instability observed over 30 years since Viking went to Mars. It is a regional variation and while interesting, has nothing to do with the warming of the Earth.

You would pick on the one topic with the shortest data set... Nonetheless, you suggest Mars's seasons are more extreme than ours, true, that doesn't explaing a linear trend over 3 decades. Regional? of course, polar ice rarely manifests itself elsewhere. Far less evidence seems required of Earth's weather data to declare that the sky is falling.

[Ocean1]

A good guage of the validity of the multitude of diverse opinions about global warming can be had by closely questioning the qualifications of those who hold them and the level of interest they have in the outcomes those opinions might influence.

Rather than investigating every published opinion it's actually easier get a good picture by finding the most highly qualified and financialy disinterested sources and reviewing them. Those at the top of such a list tend to be very senior retired or independantly funded scientists. They've got little to prove and no interest in chasing funding with possible strings attached. If you review the list of such appearing in the clip I posted earlier you'll notice that the very cream of such experts stand against global warming as a scientifically valid premise.

One thing above all else convinces me that these gentlemen are right. Any system that's been around for as long as those that make up our ecology is an internally stable negative feedback system. If it's not then there's simply no way it would last as long as it has. This means that every significant change which can affect those systems has so far failed to destroy the global ecology. Those changes have failed to destroy the system because the changes themselves produce corrective effects which stabalise it. It's not reasonable to expect that there will be no change in that ecology, but so far it's successfully adapted to some very large changes in external inputs.

The changes we have made and continue to make to the stystems which make up our environment are historicaly tiny. The worst we have done so far is nothing compared to the changes some of the larger solar events, meteor strikes or massive volcanic activity have made. The planet's ecological systems have responded by changing, adapting, in short the system corrects those changes.

It's not reasonable to expect there will be no change. Climate changes happen in cycles of diffecent duration, short lived cycles overlaying longer ones. If we want to learn to mitigate the worst of those changes we need more science, and then more technology, not less. We need to tell political and commercial interest to fuck off and let those qualified to contribute without interfearance. That rules me out, I'm definitely no expert, just an interested bystander getting pissed off at the political bullshit.

[Winston001]

And again much sense Ocean, such that it is a shame to cut it up but needs must if the Devil drives........




Any system that's been around for as long as those that make up our ecology is an internally stable negative feedback system. If it's not then there's simply no way it would last as long as it has. This means that every significant change which can affect those systems has so far failed to destroy the global ecology.....

Exactement. No-one except maybe James Lovelock is predicting the end of life on Planet Earth. Indeed Gaia will prevail - including an ecological slot for humans. The problem is that there will be far fewer if climate change reaches a tipping point.

Now that isn't necessarily a bad thing. I firmly believe our population is triple what Earth can sustain.

What is a bad thing is the misery and turmoil faced by billions of people moving back from flooded cities, starving because clean water has run out, dying because diseases gain a hold on weakened people. The wars for land and water might be a bit harsh too.


The changes we have made and continue to make to the systems which make up our environment are historically tiny. The worst we have done so far is nothing compared to the changes some of the larger solar events, meteor strikes or massive volcanic activity have made. The planet's ecological systems have responded by changing, adapting, in short the system corrects those changes. Sanx has already pointed to the effect temperature has on Co2 absorption, one of the more powerful self correcting mechinisms which protect our climate from dramatic change. Not in fact the cause of global climate catastrophy, simply part of a very complex maplum Asimeteror strike dinasaurs
chine.

Yes and no. I'm unaware of any similar release of carbon and greenhouse gases within the geological instant of 150 years. Humanity is running a vast experiment. Have a look at the plume of pollution over Asia and its effects. http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118470650996069354.html

Certainly there have been cataclysmic events in Earth's history with dramatic effects on the ecology and the climate. No argument. The best known is the meteor strike that may have wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.

In fact 99% of all species which have ever lived are extinct. Which means what we see today including ourselves has come from a huge and brutally winnowed genetic pool.

However we rather like our small place at the end of pre-history. It behoves us to look after the planet for our own sakes as well as the biology. Our puny efforts may just be enough to cause many more extinctions and kill many humans. That some will survive is little consolation to my own modest contribution to the gene pool. :buggerd:

[Ocean1]

And again much sense Ocean, such that it is a shame to cut it up but needs must if the Devil drives........


:laugh: You planning on out-surviving me in this thread too dude? Shouldn't be hard, I'm fooked. Last shot eh?

The Gaia hypothesis is a wonderfuly romanticised biological version of the concept of negative feedback systems control. I like it, but it ain’t practically useful as a theory, no numbers. In any such system the so called tipping point you refer to represents the introduction of an input variable larger that that which the system can manage. As I stated earlier, the group of inter-related systems we call our ecology have sustained far larger variations than those we are responsible for. It’s ticked along quite nicely for far longer than we’ve been here sustaining an environment, parts of which we would have happily survived in.

Volcanic events have in the past produced Co2 levels within the span of mere months we couldn’t hope to match in centuries no matter how much evil technology we employed. Yes, the climate was affected, but not to the extent of any “tipping point”. Those puny efforts you refer to are just that, too minor to produce anything approaching instability.

I’d love to know exactly which variables might affect which outcomes, and which species would suffer as a result. I simply don’t have time to wade through all the bullshit. Still, I’m comfortable that a planetary climate system as sophisticated and powerful as ours won’t be damaged by us to the extent that we won’t be able to survive. I believe the scale and complexity of our planet genuinely confuses people's sense of scale. I’m not saying you’re all stupid, it’s just that we’re not experienced in thinking in terms of planetary engineering, it’s fucking scary huge.

Minor climate changes are inevitable, and won’t necessarily be contributed to by us to any great extent. They will however produce change that will require significant large scale intervention to minimise the loss of existing habitat and take advantage of new ones. Very small changes in cyclic oceanic currents can change atmospheric climate dramatically. We may over the next few centuries find whole ecologies changing or migrating, the evidence is there that this is a continual process, it’s been happening since well before we got here.

How we survive, and how far we can help other species survive depends not on how frugal we are how or guilty we might feel about our role here, but on technology and the will to deploy it to best effect. The techies are quite capable of doing their bit, are the diplomats and politicians? I fucking hope so, we’ll be needing those skills to tweak climates other than ours…

[crshbndct]

i just had a thought:
water expands when it freezes right? so if the north pole melts, doesnts that mean that the seal level will actually go down a bit?

i dunno i will probably be fossil fuel before this stuff affects me anyway

[idleidolidyll]

i just had a thought:
water expands when it freezes right? so if the north pole melts, doesnts that mean that the seal level will actually go down a bit?

i dunno i will probably be fossil fuel before this stuff affects me anyway

No, it's the mass of the water that displaces the oceans and that remains static regardless of temperature.

It's not the Arctic that's scary, it will have exactly zero change on the heights of the oceans as it floats already.
It's the Greenland and Antarctic ice that scares many scientists as this ice lies largely on land. Just the Greenland ice cap could raise sea levels by up to 5 metres or so. In the Earths warm periods, the oceans were up to 150 metres higher than they are now.

[Wolf]

We watched Waterworld a week or so back and, while it had some cool action, the post-melt world was ludicrous.

They only had legends of dry land and had never seen it. There would still be dry land but less of it and it would be a different shape - there would be chains and clumps of islands in place of some of the continents etc, but the dry land would be there.

When they found dry land it was an idyllic forested land with no visible occupants, just the remnants of one small family. In reality any land would be being used to its maximum potential by the survivors of the flooding - cities, farms etc. And they'd probably be hostile to any of the water dwellers who wanted a piece of their resources.

In reality, the waterborne cities/industries etc would be close to the shore-line of the "new" landmasses and tied to their economies. Think along the lines of all those boats around Hong Kong.

Coastal areas and some low-lying inland areas would be flooded (bye-bye to Holland :bye: and the Waikato :clap: ) but even with a 150m rise there would still be a fair amount of land in the higher areas. Everything would have to become more concentrated - cities, farming and ecological areas, industry etc.

Floating platforms would be built to reclaim useable area. Possibly houseboats would become popular, more bridges would have to be built to link some of the islands.

There would be a tremendous cost in resources, of course (salvaging stuff from the flooded areas would be possible but costly in resources).

As mentioned, there's potential for famine, war and overcrowding due to the dispossessed seeking higher ground.

I'm not going to be drawn into the likelihood of this happening and whether mankind making a few token changes can stave it off - as argued, we could all revert to living in unheated, unlit caves and eat our veges and animals raw while walking to work (making nets, growing crops for the local market, fishing and raising animals the way it was done pre-industrial revolution) and still not make enough of a difference to the climate to stave off a global warming and polar melt (Antarctica and ice-covered landmasses in the Artic Circle, ignore the floating Arctic ice itself.)

[Winston001]

:laugh: You planning on out-surviving me in this thread too dude? Shouldn't be hard, I'm fooked. Last shot eh?

The Gaia hypothesis is a wonderfuly romanticised biological version of the concept of negative feedback systems control. I like it, but it ain’t practically useful as a theory, no numbers.........

Yeah I'm no fan of Lovelock and Gaia but it is a useful image for considering the Earth as an entire biosphere.

Someone (you?) earlier decried the misdirected efforts of politicians and business.

Here is how I see it. Politicians are good at politics, not so good at science. Civil servants/policy wonks are good at bureacracy, but also not too good at science. Both are filters through which science tries to get messages across and unfortunately the information is dumbed down at each step. The media - with exceptions - are no brighter and don't research.

Politics is the art of the possible. If George Bush announced a 50% carbon tax on fuel the Republicans would be political history - it just ain't going to happen. All politicians know they have to lead voters to a point where they accept change and are simply too scared to make the hard decisions.

The NZ govt has vast resources and could establish tidal power stations, thermocline (ocean) stations, mandate solar panels on all new homes, push through wind farms, build 21st century clean coal plants etc etc. Frankly a couple of nuclear plants is the simple answer. We'd have to face tax rises but it can all be done.

I also believe technology will save us longterm but it might be our grandchildren who see it. Fusion generation is the future but is still in the lab at present.

[Winston001]

The oceans have risen about 300mm (1 foot) over the past 300 years which we know from old tidal gauges.

Sea level rises occur for two reasons:

1 Landbased ice melting and adding to the sea.

2 Thermal expansion. Water expands when it gets warmer.

This isn't all quite as simple as it looks. Pacific islands going underwater may be caused by the shelf of land sinking rather than water rising so we can't assume this alone indicates sea level rise. Soetimes land slumps because water has been pumped out from under it for centuries.

Nevertheless satellite data supports a continued sea level rise over the whole globe.

[Winston001]

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/1996/ph123/vostok.gif

According to these ice core samples, CO2 as measured in parts per million , was higher 140,000 years ago than it is today.

Please note that in comparrison to the figures from 20,00 years ago and about 140,000 years ago the rise is very similar.

Now please answer me this


140,000 years ago.

Who was depleting the rain forest, driving around in hydrocarbon burning vehicles and poluting the atmosphere with great amounts of CO2.

Merde

Ok. This graph is often pointed to by anti-warming skeptics. Fair enough.

The warming (melt) recorded by the icecores slightly precedes (by as little as 200 years) increases in CO2 levels. The gas bubbles trapped in the ice are always younger than the ice because ice is made up of snow which gradually compresses and pushes the bubbles down.

The warming itself is believed to occur when the Earth wobbles closer to the sun. Just like Mars, but less dramatically the Earth moves closer to and further away from the sun over thousands of years. This is one cause of ice ages.

When the planet warms, CO2 is released by oceans, and then amplifies the warming which increases even more until stability is reached. The point is that the release of CO2 as a result of an initial waming has been known for years. It is still a greenhouse gas and contributes to further warming.

[Finn]

The rising level of our seas is caused by all the fat people swimming. Keep them off the beach and we'll be fine.

[Mr Merde]

The rising level of our seas is caused by all the fat people swimming. Keep them off the beach and we'll be fine.

Maybe they are trying to revert back to the aquatic. Why deny them the boyancy they so badly crave.

All this from a fat, middle aged, bald, hetrosexual, married, Caucasian, middle income, male. A member of the most opressed and least represented minority in NZ.

Merde

[Hitcher]

Why deny them the boyancy they so badly crave.

What if it is girlancy that they crave?

[Finn]

All this from a fat, middle aged, bald, hetrosexual, married, Caucasian, middle income, male.

You should be ashamed.

[Mr Merde]

What if it is girlancy that they crave?

Sow mi speiling is shirt 2day.

I thank you for the correction.

At least you arent one of the nuns that used to cane me for not getting my grammer correct.

Or are you?


Merde

[Mr Merde]

You should be ashamed.

I am so ashamed I could................


Merde

[avgas]

Biofuels are more renewable than oil. Fact.
The sky is still falling, we will still drown and the earth will still die. But Biofuels have atleast given us and alternative to paying for George Bush to pick fights.

[BIGBOSSMAN]

If I was voted Emperor, I would re-establish Pangaea - thereby bringing the world closer together and reducing the need for nasty polluting international air travel.

[Wolf]

If I was voted Emperor, I would re-establish Gondwanaland - thereby bringing the world closer together and reducing the need for nasty polluting international air travel.
Merely requiring lots of nasty polluting cars instead :bleh:

[avgas]

If I was voted Emperor, I would re-establish Gondwanaland - thereby bringing the world closer together and reducing the need for nasty polluting international air travel.
Isnt that africa ;)

[Aurora]

i just had a thought:
water expands when it freezes right? so if the north pole melts, doesnts that mean that the sea level will actually go down a bit?


Hmmmm?:eek5:

[Ocean1]

The NZ govt has vast resources and could establish tidal power stations, thermocline (ocean) stations, mandate solar panels on all new homes, push through wind farms, build 21st century clean coal plants etc etc. Frankly a couple of nuclear plants is the simple answer. We'd have to face tax rises but it can all be done.

I also believe technology will save us longterm but it might be our grandchildren who see it. Fusion generation is the future but is still in the lab at present.

The NZ government has fuck all resources. They have a little of the cash they've stolen from us left, but not enough uncommitted to social experiments to maintain the infrastructure we've got let alone get all inventive with new stuff. Nor do they have the tech personel resources to do it, they're all in Aus or Europe on a wee extended OE. We do have a few old bits of lab equipment kicking around CSIRO and a few other broom closets, will that do?

I could argue climate all day. Except I can't be fooked.
I can be fooked arguing energy, I think, maybe... is it time for my afternoon dram yet?

A little planning and basic engineering might produce solutions like the ones you suggest. I'm a great fan of massive overkill when it comes to engineering though, it's just a bunch of fun. Most of your suggestions have some unfortunate side effects too, but there's some that don't.

Wave generators do work, so far they just don't work on the scale we need without a bunch of difficult maintenance issues (hard to gat at). Seaborn windmills work well, self-regulating (they keel over in high wind), a mature, well understood technology. Just string a few tens of thousands of 'em off the south west coast. More efficient than land-bourn ones, and a bloody sight prettier, just need a fekin' big extension cord. Likely ecological impact: minimal. Cost of energy: high-ish. One problem with a similar scheme in the UK was that the air force put the kybosh on the development prototypes. Turns out their radar can't see past all dem rotating blades to where the ICBMs are. They did develop more radar-friendly ones from carbon fibre but by that time the budget was gone.

I wonder how many cubic kilometres of seawater flow through the Cook Straight twice every day? There's several metres difference in height either side of NZ for a fair bit of the day, we could partially dam that, bung in a shitload of turbines and walk away from energy shortage concerns for fekin ages. Ecological impact: slight. Cost of energy: not sure.

One for a few years time: How about we drill a hole about 5 - 6 Kilometres into some of the oceanic trenches that lurk off our eastern coast and bung a big superconducting cable down there. The thermal gradient is huge, and the cable maintains the same temperature throughout it's length, make steam, drive turbines. Ecological impact: zero. Cost of energy: depends on where the platform for the turbines is, probably competitive if they’re on the bottom.

Like any other ideas these all rely on one of the only two possible sources of energy available, internal tectonic sources (the moon is considered part of our system, although lunar tidal energy isn’t strictly internal it is similarly finite) and Solar (external). One estimate has enough solar energy falling on a few% of the planet’s surface at the equator to power every energy requirement we currently have (Fiji might do nicely). The energy contained in the thermal and kinetic tidal systems of the planet and it’s satellite are many orders of magnitude more than we’ll ever use before we shuffle off elsewhere. We just need to work on cost effective and ecologically clean ways to plug in.

Imagination is more important than knowledge, for knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world - stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution. - Albert Einstein

[BIGBOSSMAN]

Merely requiring lots of nasty polluting cars instead :bleh:

Nope, I'd establish a vast network of 'Travelators' powered by methane from old landfills and active volcanos. It may take longer to get from A to B, but it'd be fun chatting to people coming the other way, wouldn't it! :niceone:

[BIGBOSSMAN]

Isnt that africa ;)

Gosh yes, I really meant Pangaea. I must get better advisors (a single gun shot is heard, followed by an 'arrgh', and the sound of a lifeless body hitting the floor).
Initial post edited.

[davereid]

The oceans have risen about 300mm (1 foot) over the past 300 years which we know from old tidal gauges.

Sea level rises occur for two reasons:

1 Landbased ice melting and adding to the sea.

2 Thermal expansion. Water expands when it gets warmer.

This isn't all quite as simple as it looks. Pacific islands going underwater may be caused by the shelf of land sinking rather than water rising so we can't assume this alone indicates sea level rise. Soetimes land slumps because water has been pumped out from under it for centuries.

Nevertheless satellite data supports a continued sea level rise over the whole globe.

Yes.. but according to Intergovernmental Panel on climate change it is 1-2mm per year ie it took the entire 300 years to rise 300mm

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/013.htm

[Zuki Bandit]

Global warming is unavoidable. It's been happening on it's own for billions of years. "BURN MORE FUEL" I say!!!:clap:

[Dilligaf]

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4GlQ6aTipbM"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4GlQ6aTipbM" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Some animals seem to enjoy it...

[Sanx]

Glad they're treating it with the seriousness it deserves.

Not a p/t.

[Finn]

Yes.. but according to Intergovernmental Panel on climate change it is 1-2mm per year ie it took the entire 300 years to rise 300mm

Excellent! In just another 18000 years, my cliff top property will be beach front. Woohoo!!! :woohoo:

[Wolf]

Excellent! In just another 18000 years, my cliff top property will be beach front. Woohoo!!! :woohoo:
And think of what house prices are going to be like!

Good to see you think in terms of long-term investment.

[Street Gerbil]

Personally I am a lot more scared of certain experiments with alternative energy sources, than with man-made global warming (in which I don't believe).
I find it scary when people accelerate two beams of gold ions and crash them one into the other at light speed (http://www.bnl.gov/rhic/heavy_ion.htm). Given the resulting temperature of 10000 times the temperature of the sun core, it sounds like a perfect way of setting the Earth atmosphere aflame.

[Wolf]

Personally I am a lot more scared of certain experiments with alternative energy sources, than with man-made global warming (in which I don't believe).
I find it scary when people accelerate two beams of gold ions and crash them one into the other at light speed (http://www.bnl.gov/rhic/heavy_ion.htm). Given the resulting temperature of 10000 times the temperature of the sun core, it sounds like a perfect way of setting the Earth atmosphere aflame.
As Douglas Adams always said: DON'T PANIC:

"But since the heavy ions in RHIC collisions are so small (see physics primer), the actual impact of the speeding ions on each other is about the same as the impact of a mosquito hitting a screen door on a summer evening. And, RHIC collisions last only a few billionths of a second.

In other words, RHIC collisions may be super-fast and super-hot, which makes them interesting to physicists, but they're too small and too brief to be dangerous."

If you want to worry, the core of a bolt of lightning is pure plasma and hotter than the surface of the sun and it lasts long enough to seriously fuck things up...

[Street Gerbil]

I am not concerned about this specific piece of hardware. This one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider) however may theoretically cause some cosmic trouble if something goes wrong. And they are seriously thinking about supersizing that one too.

[Ocean1]

I am not concerned about this specific piece of hardware. This one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider) however may theoretically cause some cosmic trouble if something goes wrong. And they are seriously thinking about supersizing that one too.

What do you think such a biestie might make that hasn't been manufactured elsewhere before? The object of such research is to replicate conditions that have most certainly existed previously, in order to explain how such events created the artifacts we already know exist.

[Street Gerbil]

What do you think such a biestie might make that hasn't been manufactured elsewhere before?
IMO that's part of the problem. Most of the cosmic processes are self-sustaining. It may be extremely interesting to reproduce physical conditions say inside a quasar, but how do you contain/extingush such a reaction?
Man they are talking about possible formation of black holes in the CERN collider and they are contemplating building an even bigger machine. I'd rather prefer they build one on the moon.

[Winston001]

IMO that's part of the problem. Most of the cosmic processes are self-sustaining. It may be extremely interesting to reproduce physical conditions say inside a quasar, but how do you contain/extingush such a reaction?
Man they are talking about possible formation of black holes in the CERN collider and they are contemplating building an even bigger machine. I'd rather prefer they build one on the moon.

Relax. The collisions and particles will be infintesimal. CERN already make anti-matter and that is the most dangerous stuff of all.

The point of the research is to construct a Grand Unified Theory of physics. Gravity doesn't fit at the moment but it sure as heck exists.

Also there are some puzzles arising from Planck Time - the moment when the Big Bang started. The Universe expanded faster than the speed of light at the beginning which isn't easy to explain.

[Finn]

Man they are talking about possible formation of black holes in the CERN collider and they are contemplating building an even bigger machine. I'd rather prefer they build one on the moon.

They've already built it. Don't worry about CERN zapping Earth, they know what they're doing. They invented the WWW. Bastards!

[Wolf]

They invented the WWW. Bastards!
A black hole we all seem to have fallen into...

[ManDownUnder]

They've already built it. Don't worry about CERN zapping Earth, they know what they're doing. They invented the WWW. Bastards!

World War Won? Clearly not French then...

[Finn]

World War Won? Clearly not French then...

And definitely not all black.

[ManDownUnder]

And definitely not all black.

LOL Caustic little bastard. Must spread meself around and all that.

[davereid]

RSS MSU: September 2007 was 7th coolest month in this century

According to the new RSS MSU satellite data, September 2007 was the 7th coldest month among 81 months since January 2001. It has made it to the 9% of the coolest months of the 21st century so far. Their gadgets measure temperature at latitudes between -70.0 (S) and +82.5 (N) - about 94.5% of the surface.

The Southern hemisphere was 0.015 Celsius degrees cooler than the long-term average, fifth coldest month since January 2001. Antarctica has cooled down by roughly 1 Fahrenheit degree in the last 50 years.

http://www.remss.com/pub/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_an d_Ocean_v03_0.txt


Sounds like an ideal time to ban cheap energy.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=187&objectid=10469349

Oops and ban big tellies.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10469468

[Ocean1]

RSS MSU: September 2007 was 7th coolest month in this century

Bringing directly relevant unambigous numerically quantifiable facts to a political squabble? Damn, that's bloody harsh dude.

Edit: And apparently irrelevant, Al Gore has just been awarded MVP for the opposition...

[avgas]

Global warming - some day we will be just like that other planet that you can see in the sky everyday. You know the big one.