Automotive Deals BOTYSFKT Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it $5 Albums Fire TV Stick Happy Belly Coffee Ruby jewelry Amazon Cash Back Offer TarantinoCollection TarantinoCollection TarantinoCollection  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Segway miniPro
Customer Discussions > Science forum

Global warming is nothing but a hoax and a scare tactic

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 7451-7475 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Aug 18, 2012 2:26:35 PM PDT
Lisareads says:
"
Why else would so many constantly argue that the environment doesn't exist, environmentalism isn't important, it doesn't matter that entire species and what the represent are ended forever, global warming couldn't possibly be a real or a problem....or if it is.....it couldn't be anything we are responsible for....or could ever possibly do anything about?"
==================
Because the subject is to market so you get winners and losers. In the end the real problem is growth and everyone will lose with negative growth. Few want to hear that the solution hurts everyone. So why bother when you are going to get hurt anyway.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 18, 2012 2:28:41 PM PDT
Lisareads says:
"Why do millions today think that war is a great thing and the way to solve their personal frustration with some event or other?"
======================
The same reason people buy lottery tickets. After war you have survivors that have a bigger piece of the pie.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 18, 2012 3:23:01 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 18, 2012 3:29:40 PM PDT
Birds of prey are probably rather good at this too. I think that most of what we pride ourselves on as intelligence started as some sort of "proto-ability" that helped our survival in other ways first. This is partly how I imagine our current abilities developed. Calculating where prey will be in the next few seconds or knowing how to "calculate" a lead for a projectile involve a lot of instantaneous thought. I imagine that this combined with an ability to use symbols and later appreciate concepts (which could have something to do with communication, which involves imagining what is being experienced by someone else) were gradually combined and developed to form things like mathematics, writing, music, art, etc. These are higher order products of a developing culture and include "standing on the shoulders of giants". Not everyone is going to develop calculus (even though Archimedes, we only now know, had started on that path 2,000 years earlier) but they can learn it. Cultural evolution enables people to form new concepts and build on what came before and have overtaken physical evolution.

I think that animals also have cultures and societies of their own that are different from ours. Chimpanzees may have some degree of knowledge of medicinal plants and may teach that to others. Teaching involves communication. It is also the basis of culture. Similarly, when gorillas or chimpanzees learn American Sign Language they didn't evolve that but they have the latent ability to learn and use it. Something like communication or any of our other abilities are really based on other abilities that evolved and which we slowly found other uses for.

So, I see learning to solve problems like global warming, or even being able to imagine that they are real, are natural tests that every dominant species on every planet (they probably exist but who knows where or when) must pass or else.

We now know of many similar and simultaneous potential problems and they will force a kind of evolution. Or not. For example: as long as we continue to lob cruise missiles or start needless wars to ease some public frustration and don't particularly care who actually gets hit as long as our vague collective frustration is eased we haven't learned a thing.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 18, 2012 3:25:40 PM PDT
Yes, clearly the most important human invention of all time was writing. Once it was possible to write things down, human cultural development went into warp speed, so to speak. Now anyone who discovered something could write it down for anyone else to learn.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 18, 2012 3:28:03 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 18, 2012 3:33:17 PM PDT
No. Unarrested development and applying no intelligence to growth and population lead to endless growth.

The simple but unbelieved fact is that this is a finite planet. There are a finite amount of resources and solutions. There are in fact limits to growth. Our economic models though don't seem to appreciate that though. Soon they will have to. One thing is that there can be types of growth and new industries that are creative and part of a sustainable economy like recycling, developing safer chemicals, etc.

The closest thing we have to an infinite (actually, very, very large and very, very long lasting) supply of anything is solar energy. A form of nuclear energy, which can be highly polluting when used here in the form of fission reactions.

Posted on Aug 18, 2012 3:47:49 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 18, 2012 3:52:55 PM PDT
Also, how much does human thought actually depend on speech? How much thought is done by thinking with words and silent word concepts (meanings)? Do people who could never speak and could never be taught to speak (like Helen Keller before a method was developed to laboriously teach her) think differently? Is their thinking less coherent, conceptual, or meaningful, or more chaotic? Do they have the same conceptions of memory or time or do they live more in the present moment?

If they can't communicate what conception do they have of other people's motives, actions, etc? This all ties to how much thinking may be linked to communication, speaking, using language (meaning) symbols, which may relate to our ability to be conscious of concepts.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 18, 2012 4:03:53 PM PDT
So, it makes sense?

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 18, 2012 4:06:13 PM PDT
The issue is: is there an option that involves sustainability and minimal hurt? I think there probably is. If not, look out.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 18, 2012 5:57:39 PM PDT
Lisareads says:
"That energy also heats the earth and has magnetic winds that can destroy the earth. It is very polluting collecting that energy to use unless you are a plant. Solar collectors of today's vintage are not an answer to a 7 billion planet population. Energy is only useful between very specific parameters. Most solar energy is just entropy.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 18, 2012 5:58:51 PM PDT
Lisareads says:
"So, it makes sense? "
==================
Why would you expect humans to make sense?

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 18, 2012 6:00:40 PM PDT
Lisareads says:
"The issue is: is there an option that involves sustainability and minimal hurt? I think there probably is. If not, look out. "
==========================
Humans do not operate that way. Remember 50% have below 100 IQ.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 18, 2012 6:28:17 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 18, 2012 6:29:30 PM PDT
Lisareads said:
"That energy also heats the earth and has magnetic winds that can destroy the earth. It is very polluting collecting that energy to use unless you are a plant. Solar collectors of today's vintage are not an answer to a 7 billion planet population. Energy is only useful between very specific parameters. Most solar energy is just entropy.

BDD: That solar energy and heating make life possible on the Earth.

The solar wind hasn't destroyed the Earth so far, hopefully our magnetic field will last for a long time, it should. Another reason to avoid damaging our atmosphere.

We can also collect solar energy the way plants do.

Most of the available energy on the Earth is actually stored solar energy.

The sun is the ultimate source of most of our energy besides nuclear fission that we do here.

7 billion people are apparently just too many.

Solar energy is part of the solution.

One way or another we will have to develop other energy sources that aren't as polluting as what we use now or the population will be decreased against our will when other finite sources are depleted.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 18, 2012 6:50:19 PM PDT
Roeselare says:
I'm not getting what that has to do with cyclogenesis. Anticyclonic storm circulations in the US?

And what does friction have to do with cyclogenesis? We never consider it. Storms are stacked almost 10 miles high. But maybe you're referring to viscosity?

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 18, 2012 7:12:47 PM PDT
What population is the earth capable of supporting?

It seems even the MIT 'experts' predictions, though seemingly reasonable 40 years ago failed to consider the ever growing ingenious nature of man working efficiently and tirelessly under the capitalist system. http://reason.com/archives/2012/04/18/the-limits-to-growth-40-year-update

I have to wonder if the dire predictions made today will be any more accurate... ??

Imagine how biotechnology will lead to immense improvements in the human condition in the near future. I like to think of biotechnology, free to develop new genetic solutions to future human overpopulation problems as a type of 'liberation biology'... biology flourishing under the capitalist system!! Shouldn't adults be free to decide for themselves (and their children) whether to employ biotechnology to enhance life.. or will any of you argue, as true liberal scientists might be expected to argue, namely for government controls on genomic research??

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 18, 2012 7:29:45 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 18, 2012 7:33:58 PM PDT
EB: http://reason.com/archives/2012/04/18/the-limits-to-growth-40-year-update

TS: Reason.com is run by a hard right Libertarian group, that has about as much connection to "reason" --> as Pravda {Russia's newspaper that mean truth} had to do with real truth.

EB: Imagine how biotechnology will lead to immense improvements in the human condition in the near future. I like to think of biotechnology, free to develop new genetic solutions to future human overpopulation problems as a type of 'liberation biology'... biology flourishing under the capitalist system!!

TS: Actually, if we could live more simpler through energy sources that do not ecologically harm the planet, there would be some truth here. And sources of water for agriculture; sustainable fishing in oceans are other issues.

Those type of variables make it very difficult to come up with a good guess.

Posted on Aug 18, 2012 7:29:56 PM PDT
PapaSmurerf says:
EB: What population is the earth capable of supporting?

We don't know, but there sure are lot of guesses.

Posted on Aug 18, 2012 7:55:34 PM PDT
PapaSmurerf says:
10 Years of Aqua Satellite's Incredible Images of Earth From Space
"The view of Earth from space has transformed our understanding of, as well as our admiration for, the planet."
~ http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/05/aqua-satellite-anniversary/


Beauty.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 18, 2012 8:20:44 PM PDT
So let me ask the ecologists here about abiotic oil... is the general opinion here that it is real or bogus? What does the science say? http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/on-energy/2011/09/14/abiotic-oil-a-theory-worth-exploring

Posted on Aug 18, 2012 8:35:48 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 18, 2012 8:40:55 PM PDT
PapaSmurerf says:
Couldn't tell you, (I could guess), what the general opinion here is, but what do you make of the oil field called Eugene Island in that article?

Good article, BTW, I was previously familiar with it.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 19, 2012 1:48:59 AM PDT
Acts5v29 says:
Good morning werranth413,

- and thank you for your explanation. I understand there is an "underwater bulge" - quite large - beneath the arctic ice area which is not moving anywhere, so as you say: the conventional models may not apply to the new circumstances. And yes, in light of the last few weeks' revelations, I don't think the title of this thread is altogether accurate.

By the way, has anyone seen the latest NSIDC figures? http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

NE/NW passages are open (seems normal now since 2007). There are two portions quite seperate now from the main ice cap - one is the size of Ireland, and one about the size of (not UK) England. There is also a hole the size of Leichtenstein in the main ice cap, which may indicate that the break-offs are due less to rim degredation and more to fragility of the cap.

What is of concern is the huge portion of the North Russian coast which is ice free, in view of the super-saturation with methane of the coastal waters.

Posted on Aug 19, 2012 2:22:36 AM PDT
Treehugger© says:
Decades ago they used to just vent out CFCs into the air but now it is captured. Same thing with the HFCs

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 19, 2012 6:23:09 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 19, 2012 9:16:50 AM PDT
EB: So let me ask the ecologists here about abiotic oil... is the general opinion here that it is real or bogus? What does the science say? http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/on-energy/2011/09/14/abiotic-oil-a-theory-worth-exploring

TS: Well sure, research it; But it is still a hypothesis with strong evidence AGAINST it forming in the large large quantities that have been found on the Earth.

Here is RationalWiki:

<<Abiotic oil

<<The abiotic oil hypothesis is an attempt to explain the source and formation of petroleum. As the name suggests, the hypothesis proposes that oil originates from non-biological origins.

The hypothesis is mostly Soviet, mostly archaic, and mostly debunked. In the Anglophone world, abiotic oil proponents tend to cite the work of the late astrophysicist Thomas Gold (also associated with the outmoded Steady State hypothesis for the creation of the universe.)

The theory's adherents believe that oil originated as carbon monoxide and hydrogen gas rising through the deep layers of the Earth's crust.[1] If this mixture was lucky enough to find zirconium-containing minerals, it could react and produce petroleum hydrocarbons. Some of these would move close enough to the surface to be exploitable by humanity.

This idea seems plausible because:
Carbon monoxide and hydrogen result from volcanic activity.
These chemicals will react and form petroleum under the right conditions. Modern 'coal to liquids' and synthetic motor oil are based on hydrocarbon transversion.

Creationists said no.

Immanuel Velikovsky suggested in his book Worlds in Collision (1950) that oil was extraterrestrial in origin and came from comets.
Velikovsky follower Robert W. Felix puts his own spin on this with hydrocarbon nano-diamonds raining down from the sky as a result of pole shifts.

No oil company has ever successfully found a well using the theory and it is generally considered pseudoscience on the order of global warming denial.[2] It originated in the Soviet Union, its major scientific supporters worked in Russia, and it has never gained a following anywhere outside the Soviet Union. Having largely passed with the USSR, it occasionally makes a comeback among less intellectual conservative elements,[3] where it is used as an excuse to continue ignoring the energy crisis of the future.[4] Russian creationists also favour it.

The Swedes, in fact, drilled in Siljan at Gold's behest and only came up with 80 barrels of oily sludge over a six year period, which easily may have been residue from oil lubricant used in the drilling machinery. Abiotic oil proponents, however, continue to cherry-pick minor increases in production at certain oil wells and declare it as "proof" of abiotic oil.[5]


<<

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Abiotic_oil

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

By the way, saw this response to your article by a conservative, pro-oil industry Texan, who was embarassed by it.

<<No amount of wishful thinking and magical explanations will cause petroleum to spring into existence from nothing. The abiogenic oil proponents are literally selling snake oil. There is no compelling evidence that any profitable wells in use today originated from abiogenic sources.

That doesn't mean hydrocarbon products can't form in the absence of organic material, as Saturn's moon Titan and the atmospheres of the gaseous giant planets have shown is possible. The problem is the conditions on these worlds are wildly different and there is little evidence to show that the same process is going on inside the Earth.

After all, you'd think that the clever scientists working for oil companies, who stand to gain the most from pushing abiogenic oil theory would be the ones pushing it, yet they're not. And that's because they understand geological science and organic chemistry.

Even the Soviets, who originally proposed the idea all but abandoned the idea after it failed time and time again to predict the location of wells.

In conclusion, please stop making those of us who are pro-fossil fuel and share a passion for laissez-faire economics look like a bunch of scientifically illiterate crackpots. I know that the populists nowadays do everything they can to validate the feelings of their constituents no matter how out there they are, but objective inquiry isn't about feelings.

chaucer's ghostof TX1:40PM July 07, 2012>>

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 19, 2012 9:26:36 AM PDT
10 Years of Aqua Satellite's Incredible Images of Earth From Space
"The view of Earth from space has transformed our understanding of, as well as our admiration for, the planet."
~ http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/05/aqua-satellite-anniversary/


TS: Nice, ever looked at what NASA's satellites show about global warming.
-- even applies to UAH, after all the "corrections" to Roy Spencer/John Christy errors (which he was slow to correct because of his ideology, seems obvious to me.)

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 19, 2012 9:37:13 AM PDT
Roeselare says:
Yes, less ice will change the Earth's albedo and the chain of events we've studied in paleoclimatology will begin in earnest, I expect.

There used to be a guffaw whenever the Snowball Earth idea came up, because it was difficult to imagine how with an albedo that high the planet could ever recover from total glaciation. Why weren't we still under ice?

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 19, 2012 2:17:29 PM PDT
af: This would assume that all intelligent civilizations share the same inability or unwillingness to apply known solutions to the problem.

BPL: Not all. Just most.

The galaxy may be littered with habitable planets with the ruins of dead civilizations.
Discussion locked

Recent discussions in the Science forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
spherical earth vs. flat earth 3509 11 minutes ago
The Science Behind Fetal Pain-related Abortion Legislation 819 1 hour ago
The New Truth 28 2 hours ago
Global warming is the most serious problem of our generation, part 4 (reboot) 6312 2 hours ago
Climate Change and Rising Sea Levels....Why do you guys deny the Science? 71 2 hours ago
Since no contact is possible, does it make sense to keep trying? 318 3 hours ago
Archaeology Plus Other Fohrbidden Sciences. 733 4 hours ago
Tesla deliveries, and lost money on every one! 422 7 hours ago
Wouldn't Cloning Reduce Sexual Crimes? 2 7 hours ago
Relativistic Effects on Particle Spin 7 15 hours ago
Did the Head Honchos know about Volkswagen cheating? 17 16 hours ago
If Dark Matter were everywhere all celestial motion calculations would be different? 27 1 day ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  130
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  Feb 19, 2012
Latest post:  Dec 5, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 11 customers

Search Customer Discussions