13-12-2004 06:36									#91
	Got spare money?

Just to be sure i'm understood right (i know it's without hope, but anyway ). Both private persons and companies should be as clean as possible. That means neither of these can claim they have to pollute, because then they can't exist - that is BS. No, when i am talking about sane pollution, i'm talking about when it's reaching limits.

In denmark it's a political choice that all water must be delivered from clean sources. That means that if a well is in any kind infested by f.ex. traces of insecticides, then the well is closed. This happens even though the measured amount is far beyond any safety limits and not even the possibilty of cleaning the water is accepted.

I certainly agree that water shall be clean, but not accepting the cleaning possibillity, because it may weaken the general idea that the source shall be clean, i find a little rediculious - several drillings has been closed even though a simple active coal filter could have solved the problem.

Well, maybe it's a luxury problem - with all that damn rain we have, we don't run out of clean water for several centuries

	13-12-2004 06:37									#92
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Ted Striker With that line of thinking, we would still be using leaded gasoline and lead based paint.

Who's talking about toxins? This is about global warming.

	13-12-2004 06:48									#93
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Who's talking about toxins? This is about global warming.

No, it's about MC claiming that global warming may NOT be an issue.

Do you have anything else than those meaningless singleliners you up till now has made you want to express, then please do it.

	13-12-2004 06:54									#94
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I combatting Ted's meaningless singleliners.

	13-12-2004 06:55									#95
	Put an end to popups!

My one liners are meaningful.

Yours are not.

	13-12-2004 06:57									#96
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Anyway, the point is that, whether or not global warming is real is irrelevent.


The underlying "fixes" to global warming are what we should be shooting for anyway.


I would say many in power are being hypocrites when they are claiming the sky would falling by actually doing something astonishing as eliminating dependence on foreign oil.

It's bascially a case of people in power trying to protect their own financial interests.


It is common knowledge that the original diesel engine was designed to run on clean vegetable oil. The introduction of crude oil came after the fact. And that was well over 100 years ago.

EDIT: It was actually peanut oil, not vegetable oil

Last edited by Ted Striker on 13-12-2004 at 07:07

	13-12-2004 06:59									#97
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Ted Striker My one liners are meaningful.

The election has turned you from a serious poster into an inane caricature.

	13-12-2004 07:00									#98
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Kuci : You are in the lead with six meaningless singleliners to one from Ted, then i declare you as a winner. Now, since you have won this battle, please get back to subject.

	13-12-2004 07:01									#99
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker The election has turned you from a serious poster into an inane caricature.

Wrong, I was already a caricature, you are just slow on the uptake.

	13-12-2004 10:17									#100
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by DanS Gatekeeper: Perhaps so, but from what I've seen, "concensus science" rests on "evidence" gleaned from mathematical models.

It depends on the field.

quote: Originally posted by DanS As Crichton points out, many of the components of these models are unknowable and therefore the models have no real scientific value.

This shows how much Crichton knows about science. Really, a model needs to be predictive to be of any value.

	13-12-2004 10:19									#101
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by The Mad Monk No, he just knows that nobody knows that much about global warming.

He thinks he knows, which doesn't count for anything.

	13-12-2004 10:24									#102
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Thirty years ago it was OMG WE'RE GOING TO HAVE AN ICE AGE RUN FOR YOUR LIVES. Why should we pay attention now?

30 years ago dioxin was harmless. Want to have some?

	13-12-2004 10:31									#103
	Suffering from ads?

quote: As Crichton points out, many of the components of these models are unknowable and therefore the models have no real scientific value.

I'm curious, which components are you referring to?

	13-12-2004 10:46									#104
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Reading through his lecture, he spends maybe a couple paragraphs talking about globalr warming. It's just a bunch of other crap, and he's trying to tar global warming with the same brush.

I also found it amusing that he quoted Edward Teller in a lecture about criticizing politically motivated hack science.

	13-12-2004 10:48									#105
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Has anyone read the book? Is it any good?

	13-12-2004 16:56									#106
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Ramo I also found it amusing that he quoted Edward Teller in a lecture about criticizing politically motivated hack science.

Woohoo, talk about delicious irony!

	14-12-2004 01:20									#107
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I find it funny that the fossil fuel industry calls climate change a hippie liberal conspiracy when the first western leader to say global warming was a problem was MARGRET THATCHER.

I am not one of those econuts, like conspiracy therorist Art Bell (one of his books was the inspiration for The Day After Tomorrow), who think it's the end of the world. We (well, our decendants) will have to learn to adjust to the new conditions. I don't think we can't do anything to stop it because China and India will whine and b!tch if we try.

	14-12-2004 02:06									#108
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by The Mad Monk You have an odd definition of celebrity.

I sure do: the dictionary definition, of "famous person". What's your definition of celebrity- someone who's been on a reality TV show for a couple of weeks, or has a big pair of boobs that they show off lots?

	14-12-2004 02:09									#109
	Inflate your Upload Space

It really doesn't even matter much if global warming is real or not. If it was real and all the evidence was there to prove it, and required a political solution to solve it, you can rest assured that such a solution would not be implemented. It would take rather intense pressure from the public to make a politician go against the corporations they're sleeping with, and the public won't pressure the government unless the problem is so obvious everyone can see it's real.

As for the consensus issue, I've heard of consensus of scientients agreeing that evolution is real. I think the term is used is more often when the general public has a very different opinion on an issue then those who research the subject in question. Of course the scientists aren't always right, but they're usually closer to the truth then the general public.

	14-12-2004 02:12									#110
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Well, Maggie had her flaws - maybe she needed some green voters at an election

At the moment we don't even have the faintest idea about what the conditions will be in the future - we neither have any idea of wether human actions has any influence on it.

It is based on computer models not including all factors and based on historical data which there certainly isn't any scientfic consensus behind.

Just take your local weather forecast. You trust it for the first 2-3 days; having confidence in the 4 and 5 day, but don't belive what they say about day 6 and 7. It's not because you don't trust the meteorologist, but because he/she says that they can't do it better.

If the prediction of weather conditions has problems looking 5 days ahead, what problems can you imagine looking 100 years ahead ?

	14-12-2004 02:22									#111
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by BlackCat Well, Maggie had her flaws - maybe she needed some green voters at an election At the moment we don't even have the faintest idea about what the conditions will be in the future - we neither have any idea of wether human actions has any influence on it.

What do you think that CO2 is doing? CO2 absorbs infrared radiation, hence "greenhouse gas". More CO2 = more heat traped, that is a proven chemical FACT. Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, that is why humid summer nights tend to be warmer than dry summer nights if I remember right.

	14-12-2004 02:25									#112
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Thucydides As for the consensus issue, I've heard of consensus of scientients agreeing that evolution is real. I think the term is used is more often when the general public has a very different opinion on an issue then those who research the subject in question. Of course the scientists aren't always right, but they're usually closer to the truth then the general public.

Not a quite fair comparison. Evolution theory is based on evidences upon evidences (fossiles etc) and biological experiments.

The theory that humans is to blame for global warming is based upon the assumption that since humans is doing something to the environment, then they are to blame for anything. This haven't been proved, and the primary thing for science, measurements and experiments, doesn't clearly support this theory. As i see it, the consensus on global warming isn't based on fact but on belief.

	14-12-2004 02:30									#113
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Odin What do you think that CO2 is doing? CO2 absorbs infrared radiation, hence "greenhouse gas". More CO2 = more heat traped, that is a proven chemical FACT. Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, that is why humid summer nights tend to be warmer than dry summer nights if I remember right.

You are right, but noone have any idea about how much. Especially if you think about the fact that wapor are the major cause of "heat trapping" where CO2 is a minor. That means that changes in wapor has quite more impact than CO2 but nonetheless this is ususally ignored.

	14-12-2004 02:49									#114
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by BlackCat The theory that humans is to blame for global warming is based upon the assumption that since humans is doing something to the environment, then they are to blame for anything. This haven't been proved, and the primary thing for science, measurements and experiments, doesn't clearly support this theory. As i see it, the consensus on global warming isn't based on fact but on belief.

While your argument cuts a few corners, I would like to say something related to it.
For many people (including me) global warming, polution etc. are not about blaming humans for everything. It's more that we are aware that we DO have an impact on our environment, and that we could do much more with it, if we were to look a bit farther beyond the length of our noses. It's called sustainability. While many 'environmentalists' are being portrayed as hippies who think we should return to the Stone age and start hunting-gathering again, this view does not hold truth.

While I certainly cannot prove Global Warming, the theories on a sustainable CO2 cyclus makes a lot of sense to me, and I think we should put a lot of effort in it to make it work. Also the notion that we should conserve energy wherever we can makes a lot of sense. I simply hate it for anything to go to waste, and there is certainly no reason to waste for the hell of it.

	14-12-2004 02:55									#115
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Odin What do you think that CO2 is doing? CO2 absorbs infrared radiation, hence "greenhouse gas". More CO2 = more heat traped, that is a proven chemical FACT. Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, that is why humid summer nights tend to be warmer than dry summer nights if I remember right.

Water vapor is not a greenhouse gas. Humid climates/conditions 'feel' hotter as your body cannot get rid of it's exess heat through sweating, as the sweat cannot evaporate, and thus cannot cool you by doing so.
For the same reason a strong wind in a cold environment makes you shiver, while the same temperature in a wind-still environment might feel comfortable to you.

	14-12-2004 03:15									#116
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by germanos While your argument cuts a few corners, I would like to say something related to it. For many people (including me) global warming, polution etc. are not about blaming humans for everything. It's more that we are aware that we DO have an impact on our environment, and that we could do much more with it, if we were to look a bit farther beyond the length of our noses. It's called sustainability. While many 'environmentalists' are being portrayed as hippies who think we should return to the Stone age and start hunting-gathering again, this view does not hold truth.

I gladly admit that i may not be that precise, but i am not an environmental researcher, i just tries to get as much info as i can. As far as i can see of this infogathering, then there are no decicive conclusion to make, but for many extreme environmentalists, the existence of humans are a thorn in their side.

Of course human actions has an impact, especially on the local environment, and i quite agree that this should be reduced as much as possible. I am in fact an environmentalist myself, but when somebody starts to talk about gaia, then i can't follow anymore.

quote: While I certainly cannot prove Global Warming, the theories on a sustainable CO2 cyclus makes a lot of sense to me, and I think we should put a lot of effort in it to make it work. Also the notion that we should conserve energy wherever we can makes a lot of sense. I simply hate it for anything to go to waste, and there is certainly no reason to waste for the hell of it.

Again, i must agree. Any ressource must be exploited sensibly - that including energy conservation. About the Co2 cyclus, then i have one big problem. It seems that nature varies the CO2 level quite independently of what humans are doing. If you look at the link there are in one of my previous posts, then we are in the middle of a cyclic spike where CO2 rises AFTER the temperature has gone up.

	14-12-2004 03:21									#117
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by germanos Water vapor is not a greenhouse gas. Humid climates/conditions 'feel' hotter as your body cannot get rid of it's exess heat through sweating, as the sweat cannot evaporate, and thus cannot cool you by doing so. For the same reason a strong wind in a cold environment makes you shiver, while the same temperature in a wind-still environment might feel comfortable to you.

Water vapor IS a greenhouse gas.

Of course the notion about how it feels has nothing to do with the way it act as a such. It is the general amount of water vapor in the atmosphere that acts as a greenhouse gas.

	14-12-2004 03:31									#118
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by BlackCat Again, i must agree. Any ressource must be exploited sensibly - that including energy conservation. About the Co2 cyclus, then i have one big problem. It seems that nature varies the CO2 level quite independently of what humans are doing. If you look at the link there are in one of my previous posts, then we are in the middle of a cyclic spike where CO2 rises AFTER the temperature has gone up.

Confessing I haven't looked at your links:

Climate changes have been drastic during earth' life. However, human civilization has not seen much of that. I don't think we could stomach a new Ice Age so easily, nor could we stomach the opposite that well.

Humans are here only for a short time, and written history is in the blink of an eye. It could well be that whatever we do will not matter in the grand scheme of things, but that is not really what we are interested in, are we?

How is the ozone layer doing? Did the CFC's didn't matter either?

We certainly don't know, but we do know that blasting the atmosphere full of dirt is not good for US, and that is why we should research, study and act to the best of our possibilities. And we have better posibilities then saying: Duh, we don't know nothing, let's make money and party.

	14-12-2004 03:35									#119
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

[RANT]

quote: Unfortunately we are cutting away the biggest CO2 receptors (the rain forests) at an alarming rate.

It used to be that the "rain forests" (notice the newspeak: "jungle" cannot be used, since it contains negative connotations) were the "lungs of the globe", and if bad western corporations wouldn't stop raping the glorious paradises in Brazil, we would all run out of air and die. However, recently, when a large portion of those jungles had been already cut; and nobody were still noticing any major O2 shortages (even with a govermente-funded top-notch equipment in use); and most importantly, when these "environmentalists" realised that no goverment was anymore paying any attention to their ridiculous theory, what did they do? Simple: they just changed it.

Now it is the colourful, cute plankton which defends, safeguards us from this horrible fate of slowly choking to death. That's why we should severely limit the industry along the coasts and pour billions of dollars of taxpayers money to protect that plankton.

Yeah, right. I call BS.

[/RANT]

	14-12-2004 03:43									#120
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by VJ [RANT] Yeah, right. I call BS. [/RANT]

So, what DOES absorb the CO2?