One of the sites I hang out on is called TreeHugger.com. People who know me in person know that I’m pretty into helping the environment. However, I just don’t find the evidence of humans materially affecting the climate to be persuasive.
Most of the discussions are about things like making your home more energy efficient or how to improve your local environment.
But every now and then, you get a global warming discussion and the militancy of the global warming advocates comes out.
For example, one post entitled “How do we get through to these people?!” discusses the frustration they have in convincing people of the need to pass legislation that drastically reduces our carbon footprints because of the way carbon is affecting climate (in their opinion).
After numerous people responded pointing out how dumb the average person was and that was the reason I came on and wrote:
The reason so many GW advocates get the cold shoulder is because of the sheer arrogance many of them show. The GW issue is one I've followed since before it was remotely mainstream (like many here I presume) and there's nothing more aggravating than having some family member see 'An inconvenient truth" and then have them talk down to me as if they suddenly became climatologists because they watched a movie. I think the best path is simply to try to get people to want to reduce their footprint (Carbon or otherwise) on the earth's resources. But having people who really are often come across as being brain washed insulting people who are skeptical or disagree (I mean really, how infantile is it to call people like me "climate change deniers" as if we're akin to holocaust deniers). Incidentally, during the little ice age, heads of state officially blamed witchcraft as the cause of the earth cooling. Humans have always believed that they had the power to control the weather whether it be from gods or controlling CO2 emissions.
The reason so many GW advocates get the cold shoulder is because of the sheer arrogance many of them show. The GW issue is one I've followed since before it was remotely mainstream (like many here I presume) and there's nothing more aggravating than having some family member see 'An inconvenient truth" and then have them talk down to me as if they suddenly became climatologists because they watched a movie.
I think the best path is simply to try to get people to want to reduce their footprint (Carbon or otherwise) on the earth's resources. But having people who really are often come across as being brain washed insulting people who are skeptical or disagree (I mean really, how infantile is it to call people like me "climate change deniers" as if we're akin to holocaust deniers).
Incidentally, during the little ice age, heads of state officially blamed witchcraft as the cause of the earth cooling. Humans have always believed that they had the power to control the weather whether it be from gods or controlling CO2 emissions.
Another user had then come on and said that the environmental movement needs to combine its efforts to get effective legislation passed:
My proposed solution today is to bring all the fractured factions of the environemntal movement under one umbrella and provide a warm welcome for converts to join in and participate with a grass-roots effort that allows them to buy-in to it. This may be accomplished by clearly demonstrating affordable and viable sustainable energy solutions and other ways to save money at home with energy efficiency in the short run that offer them immediate returns. In essence, such an effort involves buying the hearts and minds of the people, which is a common business ploy many comapnies use today to gain a customer base. Then, with a ground-swell of support in shear numbers that can't be ignored, a meaningful lobbying block may be created to rouse the attention of Congressional leadership. Finally, the entire effort must have a feeling of inclusion and provide the necessary money motives that converts and supporters alike can appreciate. It may be high-time to put aside self-righteous indignation and environmental snobishness that serves no purpose in fulfilling our unified goals.
My proposed solution today is to bring all the fractured factions of the environemntal movement under one umbrella and provide a warm welcome for converts to join in and participate with a grass-roots effort that allows them to buy-in to it. This may be accomplished by clearly demonstrating affordable and viable sustainable energy solutions and other ways to save money at home with energy efficiency in the short run that offer them immediate returns. In essence, such an effort involves buying the hearts and minds of the people, which is a common business ploy many comapnies use today to gain a customer base.
Then, with a ground-swell of support in shear numbers that can't be ignored, a meaningful lobbying block may be created to rouse the attention of Congressional leadership. Finally, the entire effort must have a feeling of inclusion and provide the necessary money motives that converts and supporters alike can appreciate. It may be high-time to put aside self-righteous indignation and environmental snobishness that serves no purpose in fulfilling our unified goals.
I responded by saying:
The problem is that there is no homogeneous environmental movement. I consider myself an environmentalist but am extremely skeptical about human induced global warming. And I'm not alone. Most of my colleagues who have a similar technical or scientific background are skeptical as well. That doesn't prove anything other than to say that there's a lot of people who fall into my category of being environmentalists but don't think humans are materially affecting global temperatures. In my opinion, having the government force us to do things "for our own good" is tyranny whether it's in the name of "security" or for "the sake of our planet". Moreover, environmentalists often strongly disagree on solutions or are totally impractical. Wind energy and solar energy, for instance, won't do the trick any time soon. But try to build a nuclear power plant (0 emissions) and suddenly they get creamed by the envirnomental movement (either reducing our carbon foot print is life or death or it's not - clearly it's not to a lot of people in the movement).
The problem is that there is no homogeneous environmental movement. I consider myself an environmentalist but am extremely skeptical about human induced global warming. And I'm not alone. Most of my colleagues who have a similar technical or scientific background are skeptical as well. That doesn't prove anything other than to say that there's a lot of people who fall into my category of being environmentalists but don't think humans are materially affecting global temperatures.
In my opinion, having the government force us to do things "for our own good" is tyranny whether it's in the name of "security" or for "the sake of our planet".
Moreover, environmentalists often strongly disagree on solutions or are totally impractical. Wind energy and solar energy, for instance, won't do the trick any time soon. But try to build a nuclear power plant (0 emissions) and suddenly they get creamed by the envirnomental movement (either reducing our carbon foot print is life or death or it's not - clearly it's not to a lot of people in the movement).
A user responded to this and my other post by saying:
Ultimately it doesn't matter what anyone believes about Global Warming, it's going to happen regardless of what anyone believes about it, and believers and deniers alike will suffer the effects alongside each other. Being a denier simply makes a person appear less intelligent in the meantime.
In other words, because I’m a “denier” I just appear less intelligent. He went on and said:
Well one thing we've learned is that denialists haven't actually looked at the same data. While we look at data put out by NASA, NOAA, USGS, and other scientific research groups, we've noticed that denialists get their data from oil industry lobbyists, and while some of the data is the same, the data they give has been cherry picked to leave out the data which makes it clear that A: rapid climate change is happening, and that B: human activity is a primary factor.
So you see, if you don’t believe in global warming, you're just not intelligent or you’re brainwashed by big oil.
Back in the good old times when the cavemen were killing sabretooth tigers and whatnot, they had had no technology besides a torch and sharpened stone to affect the environment like it is possible today, thus your argument is nullified. "Not knowing what will/could/might happen - thus be extracareful" is exclusively tagged to modern technology.
Just look at China and how they pollute all their freshwater because their industry does not seem to care the slightest as long as they can make a profit. It is possible to kill a healthy river in relatively short time if you let all your waste flow into it. This is a perfect example for what i was trying to say: Technology can be really harmful and that is why you need new rules. Just because the caveman could shit in the river without a problem does NOT mean that industry can just dump all their chemical waste into it in the same manner. But maybe the Chinese and everybody else who does it thinks like you.. the caveman did it, too!
I just remembered another interesting story that I heard - which I don't have prove for but it is too far out there to be made up. Birthcontrol pills work with hormones, and human waste from people that take medicine based on hormones is passed down in sewage system, which clears the water etc. Even though wasterwater process plants are very thorough, they can not clean out all traces of hormones from said waste from people who took the medicine (i dont even know if they can at all). Thus, the hormones stayed in the water and started to affect the aquatic environment. I have heard that there are male fish somewhere that developed extra female traits due to all the estrogen in the water that can't be cleared out.
So.. all the new drugs that people take end up in the environment sooner or later because some trace elements can't be cleared and over time accumulate and start to have effects on the environment that nobody foresaw. Nobdy could have thought about it - which does not mean that new drugs should not be developed, just that possible side effects like from that example have to/should strongly be considered while developing new drugs - with the possibility that maybe certain things are then out of the question. Is this principle really so hard to grasp?
And just where do you think all the cruise ships get rid of their trash? All big container ships and basically any ship that is big enough to cross the ocean just dumps the waste in international waters because there are no rules and laws that say you can't. Big oil tankers wash out their tanks there and nobody really cares, because evidently the ocean is big enough and can take it - until proven otherwise by the oh so demanded hard evidence. But maybe when evidence will be there it is too late to repair any damage. Maybe the fish eat toxic food, and the endproducer of fishingfleets end up buying toxic fish in their local grocerystore and are eating their own waste - in a manner of speaking. So once again, technology makes it possible to haul tons of freight all over the world, and the sideeffects of shipping like ocean dumping of oh well, anything really, are not considered because they are not visible at first. Out of sight - out of mind. It is so easy and kid can do it! But lets wait till there is undisputable evidence, shall we? I mean, whatever I said is so totally leftwing hippie treehugging crazy that it is not even worth listening to. Who cares if your kids might eat hormoneinfluenced fish in the future? Just develop a drug that cures that and all will be well. I wish everybody good luck with that.
That is called saving money on electric bills, and all companies do what they can already. I reduce power consumption whereever I can, but I make calculations of consumption, cost to implement, and cost of electricity to determine if I save or waste money, and when its waste, I do not do it.
Yes. And it works well when it comes to electric consumption, doesn't it?
Now, we could do the same thing with carbon emission. If we could find a way to apply these things to other environmental problems, we would have an industry trying to optimise their environmental mark, since there is profit to be had out of it.
electric consumption IS carbon emissions...
And there is NO price benefit to reducing carbon emissions, none at all. Unless you start taxing carbon emissions, in which case there will be a "cost" per carbon and companies will calculate if its cheaper to implement a carbon reducing temp, or pay the fine.
And there is no GOOD environmental mark, you keep on making arguments based on the FAITH the CO2 is bad. Stop being so religious about this and get with the program.
Am I the only one who remembers the "cycle of water" and the "cycle of photosynthesis" from first grade (when you are 6 years old) biology?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cycle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_cycle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis
Dry air contains roughly (by volume) 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.038% carbon dioxide, and trace amounts of other gases.
Plants produce almost all the oxygen in the air. 20.95% of its volume, via photosynthesis of CO2... of which they have left less than 0.038% in the air. they are practically starved for CO2 from the massive amounts of plants out there.
This is why providing plants with more CO2 artifically causes them to grow better and be healthier.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=carbon+dioxide+enrichment
Increases in human emissions of CO2 have NOT increased the amount of CO2 in the air, they only increased the growth rather of photosynthesisers, specifically ALGEA. Which CAN be a problem actually with SOME algea species overgrowing. But overall I consider it to be a GOOD THING.
Finally, if we are worried about CO2 production we should be planting forests, not capping its emission.
I checked wikipedia - since you referenced it: Nobody says that Carbonmonoxide is poisenous, or that all greenhouse gases are bad. In fact, without them it would be very very very cold, and they are a natural part of the atmosphere. Even though humanproduced Co2 is only a small part of the whole Co2 that exists worldwide, the burning of fossil resources frees up Co2 that had been bound for millenia. which in turn causes the Co2 concentration in the atmosphere to increase. The Over time - since the start of the industrial revolution - it has increased significantly. The anual average increase of Co2 between the years 1960 and 2005 was 1,4 ppm (Article from "Proceedings of the National Accademy of Science of the United States" http://www.pnas.org/content/104/47/18866.full.pdf), and this average even increased after 2005. It upsets the balance and has an effect on the atmosphere and climate. There IS consensus about that (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/306/5702/1686.pdf), unless of course you mistrust every scientist in the world just because they are scientist and can't possibly know anything anyway.
Wow. You really are completely unwilling to look at the data too, aren't you?
First of all, it is virtually impossible to derive any kind of confidence from a regression analysis when your known data subset is a subset of an unknown subset of another unknown subset from an unknown and indeterminate population. The temperature data sets we have are "valid" within a small time window and only within that time window. Of more reliable interpretation (though once again within a very small time window) are the sunspot and sunspot group counts for the last few hundreds of years. But once again the sample period is a statistically meaningless set of data for any kind forward trending or regression.
There is as much STASTICAL and SCIENTIFIC evidence for "global cooling" as there is for "global warming". Anthro-historically speaking, more evidence points to extra-terrestrial influence (solar mostly), though the terran magnetic core flux changes may play some role as well as far as geo-thermal internal heat reaction go. The polar ice caps are changing, but not melting en-masse. The continental ice sheet depth in Antarctica has been increasing rapidly over the last couple of decades. The well publicized future ice shelf collapses on that continent are frequent and normal (geologically speaking) events.
The fact that there is a chain of volcanoes erupting for the last five years on the North Atlantic seafloor near the artic couldn't possible have any effect on the ocean temperatures and the north polar ice cap size, could it?
As for the 'starving polar bears'? The fact that their population has doubled in the last decade surely wouldn't put any strain on their food supply.
My point in all of this is that various 'facts' are use to contstruct an argument that shouldn't really even be raised to the level of a hypoothesis, much less a theory, and certainly not give the label of a "fact based on empirical data," when in actuality there is insufficient data to form any theory one way or the other.
First you draw a hypothesis. Then through experimentation and repetition, you form a theory. If you find even ONE result which contradicts your theory, you reduce your theory to a hypothesis, and start over. There IS NO such thing as a scientific fact, only theories which have yet to be disproven.
Sorry. Not in my homeland, where most of our electricity comes from non-carbon sources.
Anyway. The Carbon Credit Market I proposed in my earlier post (which no one seems keen to comment about) was a form of tax on excesses of Carbon emission, but also a way to promote carbon-catcher industries in economically-viable ways. Playing the market is always the most efficient way to deal with problems.
No, you're right. It is of course irresponsible to try to argue based on personal halfknowledge and assumptions, and statistical evidence is just a set of data that says neither nay nor yay. BUT it is fun.. and thank the lord, my oppinion has about as much importance as two joes drunkenly debating whether brown hens can only lay brown eggs or if fishsize determines how deep they can dive..
Your very valid point also negates the being religiously skeptic part, doesn't it though? Shouldn't people rather say - we don't know one way or the other, but lets not get carried away and use that as a free pass to do just about anything we want?
I am of the "If we aren't sure and we can't agree on definite answers, let's push gently the industry the right way anyway. It can only be good for us in the long run"
Now, would anyone disagree that, if you forget the economical implication of stopping Carbon emissions from our industries (actually, all the emissions), it would be a good thing?
Now, if it's a good thing anyway, how about starting to do things in a way that they will actually be the ones pushing for better standards?
@ Korwyn: The first argument I tried to make here was just scorned and laughed at because it was a philosophical and ethical one and has nothing to do with citing scientists or proving ones theory - even though I also did that in that and subsequent posts, maybe I should not have. But hey, it IS fun to spout slogans and to polarize.. I couldn't resist and it would hardly be so popular in the US otherwise.
Hans Jonas lived in the US and published his work in the US. He was a german philosopher that emigrated after the end of WW 2. The idea that nature has intrinsic value, the whole idea of being an environmentalist in the first place and the subsequent debate was kickstarted by his work. People like Peter Singer (animal liberation) and Paul Taylor (Respect for nature: a theory of environmental ethics) and many others laid the groundwork for ethical positions regarding the environment/nature. Everybody today that thinks that protecting the environment, being green etc. is normal and accepted as a norm in society owes it to him.
His idea does make so much sense to me, and it is not about cutting off all emissions or not advancing humanity in every way (technologically, scientifically ..), the contrary is the case. But he issued a warning regarding the effects technology could/can/might have on the environment in the future with the plea to act responsibly and to not do everything that is possible just because it IS possible.
It is normal procedure these days (at least in Germany) that hospitals have ethic comissions for exactly that reason - not everything that is possible with modern medicine should be done. In problematic cases this ethic comission is called in, and I bet that nobody here on this forum would argue that it is total nonsense to do that. Some decisions are difficult and have repercussions and consequences that have to be carefully considered and weighed against each other. Would it be so stupid to apply the same carefulness and consideration, the same principle while developing and using technology?
Firstly, you cannot just "forget the cost" because there is one.
Secondly, I do not agree to that. If industry emitted carbon affects the temperature, and we do not know the exact chance, then there is a 50% chance that lowering them prevents ESSENTIAL "anti ice age" emissions. Maybe our emissions are the only thing saving us from a global ice age catastrophe. It is EQUALLY as likely as it causing a global WARMING catastrophy.
Besides which, most emissions are not from industry.
There are underground coal fires and volcanos that produce more CO2 than the ENTIRETY OF HUMANITY COMBINED! And we DO have the technology to DOUSE those if desired. So if carbon is a REAL problem than what we should do is douse a few of those... of course then plants will start dying and so on...
BTW, CO2 is an extremely MINOR global warming gas. Water is much more effective, methane, etc... there are tons of gasses that capture energy in the atmosphere, and without CO2, which is 0.038%, we will NOT be frozen like you said. Since other, more effective, greenhouse gasses comprise a much greater portion of the atmosphere.
taltamir. Who said when and where that ALL carbonmonoxide all over the world has to be eliminated? Where do you get this idea? Your argument is plainly very very uncomprehensible. When talking about reducing CO2 in the media, it always referres to what is produced by manmade industry - which, it is assumed, accumulates in the atmosphere and could have an asof yet undetermined effect on the climate. As far as I have understood it (which is just in very basic terms) the atmospheric system works because it has a balance that has developed over time. If changes happen to the ratio of the gases in the atmosphere, it could have consequences on the climate. As far as I can tell now -after being corrected all over the place -the ongoing debate in the media is wether this potential manmade increase of CO2 in the atmosphere can have effect an since changes were normal and happened all the time (geologically speaking) or not. It is NOT about wether a natural gas necessary for life on this planet has to be eradicated all of a sudden.
Some folks seem to think CO2 is somehow created from nothing. All the carbon that is available was always here and much of it was airborne during the Carboniferous Period millions of years ago. Plant life thrived during this period and when the earth cooled (without man's help) this very same carbon was locked into the earth in the form of coal, shale and oil. It is doubtful that man have raise the level of CO2 to what it was then. And even if we did what would be the down size? Vegetables of huge size and proportion? I'm amazed that so many environmentalists would be against the earth returning to its greenest period ever.
Other forms of pollution are more worrisome, sulfur, carbon monoxides. Although these gases have always been around as well, there effects are much more serious in quantity. By all means lets minimize pollution, especially heavy metals and other toxins. But don't worry about CO2, after all we are carbon based and will go back into the soil after time.
A bit off topic but it relates indirectly. The history channel had a show on Modern Marvels about radiation. At the turn of the century people were taking radioactive pills to promote everything from hair growth to improved libido. Right up until the mid 1950's you could put your feet under an X-ray box and see the bones in your feet as they fit into your new shoes. These things leaked radiation in alarming doses. My point is science doesn't always get it right in hindsight. When I was a kid people where crying the earth was cooling, now it's warming how silly. If we look at trends we should be due for another Ice Age soon and I don't believe cavemen or woolly mammoths brought those on. It would be so easy for me to make a prediction now that may or may not come true hundreds or thousands of years after I'm dead. No risk at all.
It's all about separating you from your money by use fear, guilt, or sense of righteousness. Just like the hucksters selling the radiation pills to the gullible, someone wants to sell you carbon credits and why? To make money. Just a short look back should reaffirm what gullible animals humans really are. Remember bomb shelters and hiding under your desk during a nuclear attack, Bill Gates paying you to forward an e-mail, buying homes that people knew they couldn't afford? Too many examples to mention.
So yes, lets keep the planet clean, be good stewards and all, but cut the "sky is falling" scare tactics thats true goal is to make money selling, books, movies, and carbon credits. I guarantee the scheme that a few are pushing is going to make them billions from nothing but your fear. This will be the biggest fraud ever perpetrated because it is global in nature. Even if it is discovered years later the money will be lost and some new scheme will be in vogue.
its carbon dioxide not monoxide. And -I- said that if carbon is a REAL problem then we have the power to deal with it by douse some volcanos and underground coal fires which produce more CO2 than humanity does. Or we could douse one really small one that produces as much as humanities INDUSTRY combined.
You seem to think that CO2 is not the real problem, but that the problem is that there is some magical "natural balance" which is EXACTLY RIGHT and that anything humans do via corporate industrialism is upsetting this balance. Well, you are wrong.
Yeah, thanks for the correct terminology. Ok so please correct me if I got this totally wrong: 1. There is a greenhouse effect caused be greenhouse gases that causes some of the energy from the sun that reflects from the surface to reflect back. Co2 is one of those gases. Its molecules react in a certain way to heat from the sun. This greenhouse effect theory is generally not disputed, or I haven`t heard it.
2. Theories of global warming (greenhouse effect) link Co2 with this process because the more co2 molecules you have the more molecules can reflect energy back to the surface the warmer it gets. If the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is indeed influenced by worldwide industry, then that can be linked directly with the greenhouse effect. That is the theory of global warming.
3. The "magic balance" as you called it, not me, developed over time as the planet evolved. And there are alot of balances just right that made it possible for life to develop at all. The right distance from the sun, the moon, the tilt of the axis, other huge planets in the solar system with more gavity that atract meteors etc. - it is one very miraculous set of circumstances that had to come together just exactly right.
4. Where does all the oil come from? From a time when the global climate was a lot warmer - or there would not be oil under the arctic ice at all. Millions of years ago there was more greenhouse effect so the planet was warmer. Estimates - admittedly, I only got that out of graphics - have a lot higher concentration of co2 hundred of millions years ago. So there is a ton of circumstantial evidence that supports the theory of a link between CO2 and global climate.
I strongly feel that this whole thing is a cycle. I had this whole debate with some lepton in a previous thread about some time ago. If Lula or Leauki (they're not the lepton) reads this maybe they can remember who and where. I think Nitro posted on that thread as well but can't remember it was a while ago. To which I'm sure no one is going to remember due to the fact of how many threads I'm sure everyone has posted on.
Essentially, he (the lepton) was espoucing that its all manmade (AGW). I posted article galore all of which I own and read (to which you need to subscribe to). He eventually said we can't know since neither of us are actually involved with the whole process. To his ninnyhammer comment deserved no response because he doesn't know if I'm involved in that research or for that matter what type of research that I do.
Anywho, to the current debate. Without me even posting anything because I don't feel like posting anything because the last dialogue I had on this subject was with that neonate. I feel strongly since the sun has been having increase solar flares that this is having a huge impact on our environment which would be suspected considering the gigantic size of our sun compared to the rest of the planets AND with your 4 qualifiers looking at your #1 you can easily see that the sun does have a huge impact on the ecosystem.
Who ever made the comment that this whole thing is a very very complex (they were calling the above posters brother-in-law Wiley E. Coyote, which btw I thought was HIGHlarious) problem/situation in a previous post is very very correct. For I feel our Sun has a greater impact than us people as well as the following:
One final note, as a previous poster pointed out that volcanoes have been erupting like crazy goes to show that the earth's core is heating up. This has an impact on water temperature and air temperature.
Maybe Obama can solve both this economical crisis and this problem by having a flat tax rate on flatulence (aka a fart tax). Just tax everyone's farts and everything that farts. For the poorer people that can't pay taxes they just need to plant a tree everytime they fart or pet a squirrel.
Yet this magical balance doesn't seem to mind when a new coal fire, peat fire, or volcano starts and belches several times as much CO2 as humanity combined into the air. or when an old coal fire/etc exhausts itself after a few hundred years and decreases the CO2 being emitted by several times as much as humanity combined.
I agree that there is a balance, i say magical because it seems to be considered to be static, unchanging, and unsuitable for human industry and human industry alone regardless of any scientific measurements.
I avoid such crass language normally, but:
LOL!
It is very hmm let me call it simple minded to just argue that there is no possible way itty bitty little humanity with the all the new technology developed and improved all the time could possibly have any effect on the global ecosystem and thereby mankind can in no way influence the global ecosystem. After all, what is all the technology in the world compared to erupting vulcanos or solar flares? (I would really like to know where the evidence for the theory of a heating up earth core being linked with masserupting of vulcanos can be found - I find vulcanos pretty awesome and really want to check it out but I dont have time to go and do the research. So if you know a good journal or article, let me know?)
Obama can introduce a flatulence tax for cattle in the south and in Texas.. since Americans seem to fervently believe that eating meat every day is healthy, that'd be a easy way for fast cash. Cows fart methane gas, don't they? I read somewhere that it also supposed to have some sort of a negative impact.. so eating too much meat is bad for the environment . Why don't the environmentalists go and sue McDonalds, Burgerking and Co. for endangering mankind? Everything is connected!
On a closing note, I really do want to emphasize the role philosophy and ethics play when talking at all about the environment/nature. Do yourselves even really know why you advocate protecting the environment? What are you really protecting - the environment as mankinds habitat that needs clean air (another reason to cut back industrial pollution - it is just unhealthy), clean water and healthy food (anthropocentric argument) or do you feel that nature is god's creation and should be treated accordingly (theological argument) or do you think nature is a place where you can relax and regenerate and it makes you feel good - basically aesthetic arguments, or do you just extend protection to beings that can feel (higher animals) or include the ecosystem as a whole like the Gaiaphilosophy does (they are pretty far out there though, but very popular). It is a fun thought experiment to go through all the arguments there are and to see what shoe fits yourself. And there is a strong connection between natural science and philosophy, because sooner or later there comes a point where science is inadequate to provide the all answers. I don't believe that there are truly great scientists that are not philosophical at the same time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum#Formation
Basically the notion that "it was hotter than because they had more CO2, so it became oil" is a retarded explanation.
Oil formed from deposition of biological matter over geological time periods. It is not a "storage" for CO2 from "hotter times". Heck, you could form it in an ice age. The more plant matter you had deposit, the more fossil fuels form from that time period, but the local temperature or CO2 levels are not a part of the equasion directly.
Where did I say oil was storage anyway? And yes, oil could form during an ice age but only if it had been warmer earlier on for biological matter to exist in the first place. That is what I meant with where does the oil come from? Once upon a time - dont ask which paleontological period exactly, the global climate was so different that the polar regions could support rich life which, over millions of years or how ever long it takes, turned into fossil fuels. Local temperature and Co2 levels are insofar part of the equation as the estimated level of CO2 for the period where the biological matter that formed fossil fuels came from were very high. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CO2-variations_hg.png
And then there is this stupid balance again - Co2 is, according correctly by you, bound in huge amounts in nature. The ocean, the forests etc. Then you have a constantly growing human population with needs for space and food - deforrestation is a big problem because less forest means less Co2 storage. It all seems to be connected in the worst possible way. So less forest for storage and more industrial output AND your beloved vulcanos etc etc. and more and more people alive that require more and more industry which just keeps the circle going. That is a problem that won't be solved anytime soon either.
You do realize that the earth's inner core is hotter than the outer layer of the sun (the photosphere). Volcanoes erupt to relieve pressure and to cool down the earth (the inner parts that is).
Considering that the Sun is so massive. Again, I feel its all a cycle (pertaining to the whole AGW). Your first sentence is just an ad hominen and actually could be used against yourself considering how small we are compared to the big wig hugey pugey enormous egigantic Sun. Yeah that small rinky dinky ball of gas known as the Sun affects us on a very low level.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account