A blog about Health & Wellness and Food & Eating.
Gender: male Member Since: February 09, 2007 Last Signed In: October 04, 2008 Profile Views: 2741 Blog Views: 6048 Hike in the Sequoia's What happened in BVS tonight? AeroGarden veggies 4th of July balloons Downtown's Fireworks This evening in my backyard Anybody know what these bugs are? Microscopic Parking Spaces Mission San Luis Obispo Stevenson Fire Pictures February 07 March 07 April 07 May 07 June 07 July 07 August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 October 08 
RSS 2.0    |
|
|
Global Warming Test
Here's a fun little test. Now, don't get all wound up about it, you don't have to believe it if you don't want to. :)
From the test page: "Caution: This section contains sound science, not media hype, and may therefore contain material not suitable for young people trying to get a good grade in political correctness" http://www.geocraft.com/WVF... 68 comments from 13 users
posted by
DLang
on May 12, 2007 at 11:43 AM
Cherry picked data, biased samples, loaded words, red herrings, this test is a joke - don't bother. It has tobacco lobby tactics written all over it. posted by
GuyPinestra
on May 13, 2007 at 09:51 AM
I scored a perfect '10'!!!
The 'Inconvenient Truth' is that this 'boogie man' is a creation of the fear-mongers, and has been so thoroughly debunked as to be laughable. posted by
rm6
on May 13, 2007 at 07:17 PM
Wow, this is like running to your mommy instead of facing the bully. It might all be scientific fact, but it conveniently leaves out other scientific facts that might work to prove that global warming is caused by human activity. DLang hit the nail on the head by saying. "Cherry picked data, biased samples, loaded words, red herrings, this test is a joke - don't bother. It has tobacco lobby tactics written all over it." posted by
kidswi
on May 13, 2007 at 07:51 PM
Why are there so many right wing folks in Tehachapi so hell bent on making livelihood changes to protect the environment? Despite the arguable causes of global warming, doesn't it just make sense to breathe clean air, drink clean water, eat clean food, and not pay $3.60 a gallon to companies making billions upon billions upon billions upon billions?
posted by
rm6
on May 13, 2007 at 08:21 PM
Very well put kidswi. I'm proud to say that I am not on of those "right wing folks in Tehachapi." posted by
robertcarter
on May 14, 2007 at 09:01 AM
I am one of those "hell-bent..." people in Tehachapi - and i think things are heating up. I am not so proud as to think that I am the cause. I try to help the environment - I had a compost pile in my backyard for 2 years but I had to give it up as I needed the space. I have been into recycling for a long time - it was easier where I used to live. I drive an SUV type vehicle that allows me to get in and out easier due to physical problems with my legs. I just don't think that we, humans, can make any changes that will reverse the current climatic trends. What really bothers me is when people that disagree with me start making harsh and rude statements about me and my intelligence. Many seem to think that if I disagree with them then I live in the pockets of big tobacco (I quit smoking 10 years ago) or that I want to pay more for gas (as I said I need the bigger vehicle due to physical problems) or that I am just not smart enough to be able to see the things that their giant brains allow them to see. I think we can and should try to make our world cleaner. I just don't want some political hack taxing me and then making laws that I must obey. Has any one studied how Yellowstone Park was seriously damaged by good intentioned people that just didn't know what they were doing who were put in charge? How about all the trees that were saved by the "save a tree" people in the mountains of Southern California which led to the destruction of the forests there? We need to protect the planet - but lets have the ideas come from people that are in for theplanet not to sell alternative products or an agenda of lowering our standards to theirs. posted by
GregL
on May 14, 2007 at 10:20 AM
Yes Robert, I agree. I am all for trying to live responsibly. I drive a hybrid for commuting and wherever else I go that doesn't require my truck for hauling, and I love it, it uses less than half fuel than my truck. My wife and I recycle as much as we can also. And I'm all for cutting down on the use of ozone depleting chemicals, and Styrofoam, etc. And I'm also in favor of whatever else society may come up with for reducing pollution. But I also believe that the global warming trend is not the cause of man, and not because of that silly test that I posted here! Can't we all just get along? We should do whatever we can to clean up the environment without the doomsday hype that goes along with the current global warming bandwagon. posted by
rm6
on May 14, 2007 at 07:27 PM
It doesn't take a giant brain to see that a substantial change is occurring on this planet in regards to the climate. It's easy for you to say or believe that man is not causing it because "global warming" is on such a huge scale that it is nearly unimaginable that man has caused or at least been a major contributor to it. Also, you won't be around when the true effects of such a change are realized, so you really have no motivation to believe that we need to change the way we live as a whole and we need to do it NOW. In an ideal situation, everyone would be willing to make a small change that would add to the overall effort. Unfortunately many people are driven by money, convenience, etc. and stubbornly refuse to do anything because it's not "their" responsibility, so those people must be MADE to change. Maybe not the individual so much, but the companies that those individuals run/work for. If you "don't want some political hack taxing me and then making laws that I must obey" then how do you suggest the government be run? how do you expect order to be maintained or the country to thrive? or do you support anarchism?
posted by
ShaneThePain
on May 14, 2007 at 08:35 PM
"substantial change is occurring on this planet in regards to the climate" Define substantial PLEASE. posted by
GuyPinestra
on May 14, 2007 at 10:24 PM
rm6,
You really should do a little research instead of believing all the muck you're getting fed by the MSM. 97% of 'greenhouse gases' is WATER VAPOR! That's right, CLOUDS! Global warming is nothing more than the latest attempt by 'Big Brother' to instill fear in the minds of the masses. In your case, it looks like it took. 30 years ago they were telling us we were entering a new Ice Age. I'll bet you're not even old enough to remember that, are you? posted by
rm6
on May 14, 2007 at 11:07 PM
I'd say the rise in the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide since the industrial revolution is substantial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...), the fact that global temperature has risen about 2 degrees Fahrenheit during the same period, the accelerating rate of glacial loss is substantial (http://www.heatisonline.org..., http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...), the fact that global temperatures are predicted to continue to rise between 2 and 11 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100 is substantial. The observation that the loss of glacial and polar ice will cause the sea level to rise, while only by 2-7 feet by 2100 but by hundreds of feet if all polar ice is lost, is substantial.
posted by
GuyPinestra
on May 14, 2007 at 11:16 PM
And all the studies of atmospheric CO2 show that they rose AS A RESULT of global warming, NOT as the CAUSE of it.
posted by
rm6
on May 14, 2007 at 11:23 PM
Wow, does age really matter? I hope you're not using the "I'm older than you, therefore I am more right than you" excuse. If you can't see what's in front of your own eyes then you're screwed. I never denied that water vapor is the major greehouse gas. I am perfectly aware of what was claimed in the past, it was obviously wrong, we move on with better technology for actually monitoring changes on the planet. This is something you can't use the past to predict, you would have to assume that our understanding of the earth and it's process isn't improving, but it is. If water vapor is the vast majority of greenhouse gas and we're not adding any water vapor to the atmosphere and yet the level of carbon dioxide is rising rapidly while the temperature of earth is also rising, one tends to make the connection. Is it just coincidence that these trends accelerated away from natural rates since the industrial revolution? No way. I listen to the facts that are presented, and I make my own decision, I don't buy into what the mainstream media tries to feed us. I wish I was as blissfully ignorant as you are Guy, I remember that feeling, it was great, I was in elementary school the last time I felt that way. posted by
rm6
on May 15, 2007 at 01:08 AM
Really now, show me an example of one of those studies. While CO2 levels rise because of melting permafrost, which is melting due to global warming, such drastic warming wouldn't have started in the first place without some help from the burning of huge amounts of fossil fuels.
posted by
GuyPinestra
on May 15, 2007 at 05:05 AM
Inconvenient truths
By David Deming, Ph.D. The Sun The largest single factor driving the debate on global warming is the Al Gore film An Inconvenient Truth. The movie has been marketed as a scientific documentary, but in fact it is an artful and deceptive propaganda film. The claims made in An Inconvenient Truth are either wrong, disingenuous, or misleading. Gore frightens his audience by showing the breakup of the Larsen Ice Shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula. He then states that if the West Antarctic Ice Sheet were to melt it would raise sea levels worldwide by 20 feet. But Gore conveniently neglects to inform us that over the last several decades, 80 to 90 percent of Antarctica has been growing colder, in direct contradiction to greenhouse theory. The main ice accumulation in Antarctica is not melting, it’s getting thicker. Gore leads his audience to believe that for the last 650,000 years of Earth’s climate history, carbon dioxide has determined temperature. But it’s well documented in the scientific literature that changes in temperature preceded changes in carbon dioxide. Temperature controlled carbon dioxide by regulating the release and absorption of this gas from the oceans. An Inconvenient Truth fails to inform viewers that projections of future warming from carbon dioxide are based on computer models whose reliability and accuracy are completely unknown. As a scientist who has done computer modeling and studied geophysical inverse theory, I find it alarming that people are seriously considering restructuring our entire civilization on the basis of computer models that cannot even be tested. Gore’s claim that “zero percent” of scientists disagree on global warming is not true, and demonstrates a profound ignorance of science and the provisional nature of scientific knowledge. The former vice president of the United States could also use a lesson on basic economics. He makes the remarkable claim that we won’t damage our economy by switching from fossil fuels – which are inexpensive, reliable, and abundant – to alternative fuel sources that are expensive, unreliable, and scarce. Europe’s experience demonstrates otherwise. As reported in the Washington Post April 9, Europe’s attempt to reduce carbon dioxide emissions has proven to be a bureaucratic nightmare, with high energy prices, unforeseen consequences, and “significant economic costs.” European businesses are losing customers to Chinese competitors. Oh yes, China. The Chinese currently have 2,000 coal-fired power plants, and are proceeding to enthusiastically grow their economy by building a new plant every week. Incredibly, Al Gore says that China should get a free pass on carbon dioxide. He wants the average American to shoulder the responsibility for stopping global warming. The package for An Inconvenient Truth instructs us how to accomplish this. We are supposed to alter the composition of Earth’s atmosphere by switching from incandescent to fluorescent light bulbs, keeping the tires on our cars properly inflated, and planting trees. These recommendations are only exceeded by pop singer Sheryl Crow’s recent assertion that global warming can be stopped by restricting the use of toilet paper. On the morning of April 8, Charlotte, North Carolina, experienced a low temperature of 21 degrees Fahrenheit. It was the coldest temperature ever recorded in Charlotte for the month of April. But if you think record cold weather is going to falsify global warming, you're hopelessly naive. On April 11, a Purdue professor told the Christian Science Monitor that “this is what you might expect of global warming,” because global warming “isn’t necessarily always a warmer climate, but a more variable climate.” In other words, all weather variations are evidence for global warming. I can’t make this stuff up. Global warming has long since moved from scientific hypothesis to pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo. It is the latest and most successful in a long line of disingenuous excuses to wage war on technology, progress, and the human mind. The predatory demagogues who peddle this dangerous nonsense are enemies of the human race. — David Deming (Ph.D., University of Utah) is a geophysicist, an adjunct scholar with the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs and associate professor of arts and sciences at the University of Oklahoma. He has testified on global warming before the Environment and Public Works Committee of the United States Senate. http://www.mwcsun.com/opini... |
