Global Warming/Climate Change Info Packet

[Dacre]

Albertan said

Remember people, in the 70's, the scam was global cooling...new ice age and other rubbish....now it is a new scam....meet the new boss...same as the old boss.....

What ever happened to acid rain destroying all of the lakes and killing the trees? How about the hole in the ozone layer? I guess it was time to move on.

[concan]

A recent Washington Post article gave this scientist's quote from 1972. "We simply cannot afford to gamble. We cannot risk inaction. The scientists who disagree are acting irresponsibly. The indications that our climate can soon change for the worse are too strong to be reasonably ignored." The warning was not about global warming (which was not happening): it was about global cooling!

The climate model was wrong, but the warning was just as true then as now: messing with the planet's atmosphere (which at this point no one denies we're doing) without understanding the climatological consequences (which we still don't fully understand, despite vast improvements in computer modelling) is irresponsible.

Speak for yourself.

I'm not accepting the logic that says we are messing with our planet's atmosphere.

At least not more or less than meteors would or volcanic eruptions.

Problem is as usual that mankind thinks they are way more important than God who is of course really in charge.

Our contributions to pollution and our use of resources is a drop in the bucket compared to seismic shifts, planets tectonic plates shifting, volcano eruptions, ocean rising / falling, El Nino, La Nina and so on.

We're not all that important you know.

[Dacre]

Cocan said

Problem is as usual that mankind thinks they are way more important than God who is of course really in charge.

This is the biggest problem we have today. This notion that we are evolving gods. We humans are in control of nature. The Dr. Frankenstein science that makes man feel as though he has the power of life creation and the fountain of youth to live forever is pure arrogant folly. We will pay for this and I think it's started.

[rwebb]

What ever happened to acid rain destroying all of the lakes and killing the trees? How about the hole in the ozone layer? I guess it was time to move on.

Yeah, time to move on because the environmentalists made their case -- in both instances the science is now accepted and steps are being taken to address the issues. Incidentally, the acid rain issue is being handled (not perfectly, but with some success) in the U.S. by an emissions trading system not unlike Kyoto.

Thanks for offering two excellent examples of humans undeniably messing with the atmosphere, by the way. Heads up, concan.

[Dacre]

Do you really think so? What's with the heads up concan?

[rwebb]

Do you really think so? What's with the heads up concan?

Sorry, I was referring to this:

I'm not accepting the logic that says we are messing with our planet's atmosphere.

[AlbertanFirst]

Dacre, you know what...I completely forgot about the Acid rain scam!!???

Hilarious....I remember that now in the 80's....we were all going to dissolve because of those evil factories from America were spewing out their killer toxins.....Ha ha ha...hilarious...so the eco freaks had to move onto something else when that didn't pan out either....hee hee hee.....

Seriously though....I think Cow Gas is probably more responsible for any climate problems we got....bovine flatuence.....

The bottom line still remains that their is zip for proof that humans have anything to do with the odd weather we are experiencing.......contrary to what dishonest liberals are spewing.....

[Dacre]

rwebb says

Yeah, time to move on because the environmentalists made their case

So we've solved these problems have we? I guess Russia, India, China, Mexico and all of the other great polluters cleaned up their act and made the difference or was it that Canada and it's contribution that made the difference. Or is it if the US does it then the rest of the world gets a free pass and David Suzuki and the rest of us feel a whole lot better. Ya we should continue to clean up and we are, but all the doomsday crap is just that crap. Keeping people in a constant state of fear and brainwashing our children to the point they believe we there is hardly any point in living is more a political agenda than an environmental one. Common sense and reason are helpful and so is honest science.

[rwebb]

Dacre, you know what...I completely forgot about the Acid rain scam!!???

Hilarious....I remember that now in the 80's....we were all going to dissolve because of those evil factories from America were spewing out their killer toxins.....Ha ha ha...hilarious...so the eco freaks had to move onto something else when that didn't pan out either....hee hee hee

I guess you weren't paying attention: the "eco-freaks" WON that round. Acid precipitation is now recognized as a serious and ongoing problem, and both Canada and the U.S. have programs in place to address it. The subject is no longer extensively debated in the media because there is no need to debate it. It's settled.

So we've solved these problems have we?

I didn't say we solved the problem. I said we (environmentalists) made our case, and there is no longer any serious scientific debate about it. I'm not sure, but I believe most/all countries have restrictions on the use of CFCs (the main threat to the ozone layer). As for acid rain, Russia has signed on to a couple of international treaties limiting sulphur emissions. I don't know about other countries, but the point is that progress is being made and the acid rain deniers have been silenced.

[conscience]

It would be great if everyone debating in this thread could, when their debate is largely settled or finished, summarize their arguments in point form in a new post. Your previous posts will then hopefully be deleted to keep the thread clean and readable.

styky: thanks very much for the sticky. (i giggled when i read that aloud)

Could you or the other fine mods keep this thread clean? e.g. deleting the non-info posts of those who have summarized them later?

concan:

God isn't a rational argument. For, or in, anything.

Winning the hearts and minds of people who don't believe in God isn't going to go well if you start with "But in the Bible..".

In the future, and this goes for anyone who tries to bring anything as ethereal as God into the already-ethereal global warming debate, try to use the word "nature"--you believe God created that, so just leave it at being dwarfed by it and you'll get better results.

rwebb: when you're done arguing with these fine gents, could you point form your arguments and post them? thanks.

[rwebb]

It would be great if everyone debating in this thread could, when their debate is largely settled or finished, summarize their arguments in point form in a new post. Your previous posts will then hopefully be deleted to keep the thread clean and readable.

Sorry, but I don't think anyone sees any purpose in doing so. It's the discussion itself that we find interesting, not just a dry list of points.

When you began this discussion you were hoping for a "list of talking points" on global climate change. But then you just posted a bunch of links to "aggregator.ca". (What is that, by the way? I still haven't got a response.)

Maybe you should get the ball rolling yourself. What are your talking points?

rwebb: when you're done arguing with these fine gents, could you point form your arguments and post them? thanks.

My only point was that we shouldn't be messing with the climate (which we clearly are) unless we know what we're doing (which we clearly don't).

[DrWright]

I didn't say we solved the problem. I said we (environmentalists) made our case, and there is no longer any serious scientific debate about it. I'm not sure, but I believe most/all countries have restrictions on the use of CFCs (the main threat to the ozone layer). As for acid rain, Russia has signed on to a couple of international treaties limiting sulphur emissions. I don't know about other countries, but the point is that progress is being made and the acid rain deniers have been silenced.

Never heard of an acid rain denier.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

19,700 don't agree with global warming though.

[styky]

It would be great if everyone debating in this thread could, when their debate is largely settled or finished, summarize their arguments in point form in a new post. Your previous posts will then hopefully be deleted to keep the thread clean and readable.

styky: thanks very much for the sticky. (i giggled when i read that aloud)

Could you or the other fine mods keep this thread clean? e.g. deleting the non-info posts of those who have summarized them later?

concan:

God isn't a rational argument. For, or in, anything.

Winning the hearts and minds of people who don't believe in God isn't going to go well if you start with "But in the Bible..".

In the future, and this goes for anyone who tries to bring anything as ethereal as God into the already-ethereal global warming debate, try to use the word "nature"--you believe God created that, so just leave it at being dwarfed by it and you'll get better results.

rwebb: when you're done arguing with these fine gents, could you point form your arguments and post them? thanks.

You're assuming that we live only to read every post

If people want to edit a post they are welcome to but moderators also have lives outside of FD and don't have the time to babysit one thread

[doggedlyright]

Rwebb;

I have provided on previous threads the hoax of the CFC and the ozone depletion scare.

To this day, they are still complaining about the hole in the ozone over the poles and that it is too big.

A CF molecule is too heavy to reach to the higher layers of the atmosphere. This was again an excerise by the socialist ilk to transfer funds to the third world countries. They were exempt form the Montreal accord for years allowing them to trade illicillity in Freon 12 and Freon 502.

The new gases that are supposed to be CFC free have their tanks labelled that they are non-flamable. However, many new gases that are substitutes may contain propane, butane and/or other highly flammable gases.

Now think of that danger in your home with refrigerants, freezers, bar fridges, air conditioners. They all have a potential to leak and with a open flame such as in your hot water tank or your furnance or some stoves and dryers there is a potential for explosions.

Think of a mechanic working on your car's air conditioning and there is a leak. To effect repairs, they need an open flame to solder. No matter how much one reclaims, there is always a little gas and poof you have a flame.

The prior freons had no too little effect on the ozone layer and the enviro whackos/communists won the day on that one. Now they are emboldened.

[Faith Hope and Love]

The opinions now coming out are not a new subject of debate:

http://www.theadvocates.org/freeman/8910tayl.html

THE FATAL CONCEIT

Hayek rejects the explicit, rationalistic construction of most ethical systems because such constructions rest upon the "fatal conceit" of human reason. Reason, Hayek argues, is incapable of commanding the information necessary to design an ethical system.

Hayek believes that ethics lie somewhere between instinct and reason. Ethics -- like language, the marketplace, and the common law -- are a spontaneous order that, in the words of Adam Ferguson, is the product of "human action, but not human design."

Won't we ever learn?