• musclemecca bodybuilding forums does not sell or endorse any bodybuilding gear, products or supplements.
    Musclemecca has no affiliation with advertisers; they simply purchase advertising space here. If you have questions go to their site and ask them directly.
    Advertisers are responsible for the content in their forums.

Global Warming

Do you believe in Global Warming?


  • Total voters
    19
lifterdead

lifterdead

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Sep 23, 2006
Messages
1,699
Points
38
Last night I was out drinking with some fellows in my grad program. Somehow the topic drifted to global warming. I proceeded to make some comments on the dubious nature of Al Gore's film, and also mentioned that there isn't a universal consesus in the scientific community on exactly how our climate is changing. (In fact, most solar scientists believe we're headed into another period of significant cooling.)

Anyways, I was verbally crucifed for my views.


Thoughts?

I always find it amazing how people are willing to make such big steps off such little information; their "carbon credits," hybrid cars, etc. By no means do I consider myself an expert, but I read peer-reviewed journals on occasion and know enough to know that climate change ain't all Al Gore makes it to be.


Well, were do Mecca heads stand on this issue?









I'd like to open this one up for debate.
 
Hypocrisy86

Hypocrisy86

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
15,576
Points
48
In 1979 they said we were going through another ice age
and this shit comes up, just so he can get attention and make more money...
what a F.A.G.
also. What i heard is its getting cooler on Arctic area could be wrong
i just overhead that part while listening to WOAI 1200 on the way to the gym once...
 
Skeptic

Skeptic

I am god.
VIP
Joined
Dec 23, 2007
Messages
7,628
Points
38
i believe its true... but to what extent im not really sure.
 
Hypocrisy86

Hypocrisy86

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
15,576
Points
48
Its not global warming, in Antartica a group of scientists discovered it has something to do
with the planets, or something. i cant recall, but over time it will fade (sooner than you think)
 
Ironslave

Ironslave

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
4,827
Points
38
Ive argued with the global warming idiots countless times, mostly playing devil's advocate and pointing out the fact that they don't know nearly as much (or anything) that most of them think they know.

I think the science probably leans toward it is at least partially happening, but do we know why? Is it because of humans? Animals? The sun? There are studies confirming and refuting all of these, and I'm not an earth science major so I don't know enough to read through it and conclude which side is right. It could all just be a natural shift that happens as a result of whatever the hell has happened over the billions of years earth has existed.

To illustrate this point, this is by far the BEST example I could ever give. First, lets look at source A, published in the Journal of Science, which is of the side that "Global warming exists".

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

But, then another person, looked at the exact same data she did, and this person refutes her findings.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=6

The thing about it that pisses me off is the liberal hippies who care more about saving a tree than human life. They almost always think saving the planet is more important than helping those in poverty, or putting a stop to an unjust war. Then they just advocate stupid shit such as more nanny state government regulations, taxes, and so on.

I personally think that the issue is simple really, people need to have the common sense to respect the property of others by not polluting, littering, or using energy where it is unnecessary. Personally, I couldn't give two shits about climate change, but I don't want to waste my own money driving around a big SUV everywhere. If I can get by riding my bike, carpooling, going for a run and so on, I'm going to do it for the exercise and to save money.

The market through the huge price of gas has done more towards reducing emissions than any government law ever could, and it has very little to do with people caring about the environment.
 
lifterdead

lifterdead

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Sep 23, 2006
Messages
1,699
Points
38
The market through the huge price of gas has done more towards reducing emissions than any government law ever could, and it has very little to do with people caring about the environment.

Isn't it great? I keep saying higher gases prices are the best thing that could happen to America.


From what I understand, there seems to be a cadre of solar scientists who believe much of the fluctuation in temps is related to sunspots, or the lack of them. There is a HUGE amount of research on this, I'll post some links to journals later. The gist of their research seems to indicate that the sun goes through cycles that correspond with ice ages. The has been a distinct lack of sunspots just recently, interestingly coinciding with last year's DROP in global temps. I seem to remember reading somewhere that one scientist is predicting a strong cooling cycle to begin in the new decade.
 
German_Joe

German_Joe

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 16, 2006
Messages
1,075
Points
38
the green effect is just a fad for people to buy "new" "green" everything. Basically a marketing ploy..... oh so ands so doesnt have an electric lawn mower..... hes a terrorist:gaygay:
 
Ironslave

Ironslave

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
4,827
Points
38
Isn't it great? I keep saying higher gases prices are the best thing that could happen to America.

I know you mentioned it before, and discussed local markets and such, but I don't agree, high cost of energy will certainly affect everyone in a variety of ways. Low cost of goods enables people to keep more of their wealth and put it towards a variety of things, housing, travel, their kids education, anything. I still think that higher prices of oil will cause more harm to the local merchant, he needs to get the oil too, and as such, he will have to increase his prices to compensate for his cost.
 
Ironslave

Ironslave

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
4,827
Points
38
Also thought I'd mention this, for the record:

I'm loving the possibility of electric/hybrid cars coming out, in large part that I think a ton of environmental hippies will just jump right into using them. If this lowers the demand for oil, prices will drop, and I pay less at the pump should I stick with a hydrocarbon fuel. If say 25% of people end up driving an electric car, this would surely make people pay less.
 
lifterdead

lifterdead

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Sep 23, 2006
Messages
1,699
Points
38
I know you mentioned it before, and discussed local markets and such, but I don't agree, high cost of energy will certainly affect everyone in a variety of ways. Low cost of goods enables people to keep more of their wealth and put it towards a variety of things, housing, travel, their kids education, anything. I still think that higher prices of oil will cause more harm to the local merchant, he needs to get the oil too, and as such, he will have to increase his prices to compensate for his cost.

I have no doubt that high oil prices will be hard on people at all economic levels, but I fail to see how it will hurt local business in the long term. High oil prices will force people to change the way they do business. For example, you mention "low cost" goods. Walmart, for example, sells massive amounts of cheap products. These goods, however, are produced at low cost thousands of miles away in a different country. Low cost of transportation has made this viable. Pretty soon, the cost of shipping these kinds of goods across the globe to fill big box stores in the US will no longer become cost effective. The result? More goods will be produced locally, and their will be a higher demand for labor.


When I refer to local merchants, I refer to those who produce goods locally. Of course high prices of energy will affect them, but I don't believe they'll be crippled. Already there has been an aggressive increase farmer's markets in small cities.



Also, I've been drinking alot tonight, so I ask for forgiveness in advance if I'm incoherent.

:linedrunk:
 
R

Rageking

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Messages
3,406
Points
36
yes global warming is a problem
did a lot of research about it for a paper a few months ago, the ice age cycles have a lot to do with the variations of carbon dioxide in the air, but its not all on humans.
 
Ironslave

Ironslave

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
4,827
Points
38
I have no doubt that high oil prices will be hard on people at all economic levels, but I fail to see how it will hurt local business in the long term. High oil prices will force people to change the way they do business. For example, you mention "low cost" goods. Walmart, for example, sells massive amounts of cheap products. These goods, however, are produced at low cost thousands of miles away in a different country. Low cost of transportation has made this viable. Pretty soon, the cost of shipping these kinds of goods across the globe to fill big box stores in the US will no longer become cost effective. The result? More goods will be produced locally, and their will be a higher demand for labor.

Good explanation on the shipping stuff, there are costs/benefits for sure.
 
tim290280

tim290280

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
9,265
Points
38
I think where people get confused about global warming and the science is where things have become politicised. Most of the hard evidence supports global warming, but what has been done with this evidence is to turn it into models that are mutated into doom and gloom scenarios.

I just read a paper from a former modeller with the Australian Greenhouse Office, he is pretty condemnatory of the politics involved in climate change science. The actual science is pretty daunting but is not at a systems level so it is hard to draw the conclusions that are being drawn. This is also especially true of the sceptics who will use annomolis data to push their point (one that is oft quoted is the increaes in pack ice in a certain area of the ocean, when there is on average less).

But the point that is being missed is this: current practices of consumption of unrenewable resources is unsustainable. With the current explosions in population and demands out of China and India we will see a tipping point in oil in the next 5-12 years. Unless we do opt for more efficiency of resource use, improvement of alternate technologies, and world wide improvement of pollution (this is not just CO2 emmissions but also acid rain, smog, land clearing, etc) we will have major environmental problems on our hands within this century. We cannot sustain the predicted 9 billion people on our current resource usage practices.

The best quote I've heard on the topic was from a visiting professor recently; "the stone age did not end for a lack of stone, the oil age will not end for a lack of oil."

For the record as an Ag Scientist I/we have had to be across the issue of climate change as we are seen as the only currently viable source of sequestration. I am eternally frustrated with this supposed debate that the media fuels; remember there were scientists who were critical of the earth being a sphere theory.
 
WaveRider

WaveRider

Active member
Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
33
Points
6
Ive argued with the global warming idiots countless times, mostly playing devil's advocate and pointing out the fact that they don't know nearly as much (or anything) that most of them think they know.

I think the science probably leans toward it is at least partially happening, but do we know why? Is it because of humans? Animals? The sun? There are studies confirming and refuting all of these, and I'm not an earth science major so I don't know enough to read through it and conclude which side is right. It could all just be a natural shift that happens as a result of whatever the hell has happened over the billions of years earth has existed.

To illustrate this point, this is by far the BEST example I could ever give. First, lets look at source A, published in the Journal of Science, which is of the side that "Global warming exists".

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

But, then another person, looked at the exact same data she did, and this person refutes her findings.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=6

The thing about it that pisses me off is the liberal hippies who care more about saving a tree than human life.
Say that to the people of Island nations

I personally think that the issue is simple really, people need to have the common sense to respect the property of others by not polluting, littering, or using energy where it is unnecessary. What these so called hippies have pushed to the media frontPersonally, I couldn't give two shits about climate change, but I don't want to waste my own money driving around a big SUV everywhere. If I can get by riding my bike, carpooling, going for a run and so on, I'm going to do it for the exercise and to save money. What these so called hippies have been arguing

The market through the huge price of gas has done more towards reducing emissions than any government law ever could, and it has very little to do with people caring about the environment. Not true, Oil and Gas companies have to meet emission rates

You can't argue that global warming is non-existent when you practically agree that we are damaging the enviroment. Your actions certainly speak louder than what you have typed. (other wise u would not actively reduce carbon emissions)

Sadly we see a lot of enviromental problems due to increases in population globally. But anyone who thinks global warming does not exist needs to back it up with real data then some loony who thinks that it may be possible that it doesn't exists and throws together a last minute article
 
Tonyk212000

Tonyk212000

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Apr 13, 2007
Messages
2,631
Points
36
Saw this awhile back here is a clip



 
WaveRider

WaveRider

Active member
Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
33
Points
6
I think where people get confused about global warming and the science is where things have become politicised. Most of the hard evidence supports global warming, but what has been done with this evidence is to turn it into models that are mutated into doom and gloom scenarios.

I just read a paper from a former modeller with the Australian Greenhouse Office, he is pretty condemnatory of the politics involved in climate change science. The actual science is pretty daunting but is not at a systems level so it is hard to draw the conclusions that are being drawn. This is also especially true of the sceptics who will use annomolis data to push their point (one that is oft quoted is the increaes in pack ice in a certain area of the ocean, when there is on average less).

But the point that is being missed is this: current practices of consumption of unrenewable resources is unsustainable. With the current explosions in population and demands out of China and India we will see a tipping point in oil in the next 5-12 years. Unless we do opt for more efficiency of resource use, improvement of alternate technologies, and world wide improvement of pollution (this is not just CO2 emmissions but also acid rain, smog, land clearing, etc) we will have major environmental problems on our hands within this century. We cannot sustain the predicted 9 billion people on our current resource usage practices.

The best quote I've heard on the topic was from a visiting professor recently; "the stone age did not end for a lack of stone, the oil age will not end for a lack of oil."

For the record as an Ag Scientist I/we have had to be across the issue of climate change as we are seen as the only currently viable source of sequestration. I am eternally frustrated with this supposed debate that the media fuels; remember there were scientists who were critical of the earth being a sphere theory.

This is why Australia should be minning uranium and investing into nuclear energy. Its cleaner than coal, oil and gas. Plus with the current market looking to the future where there is battery powered cars.

Well Rudd is just an idiot. I couldn't believe that he attacked woodside for reducing emissions and then on the other hand allows coal to get away with emitting more. They better becareful otherwise they will screw up future contracts in our region.
 
tim290280

tim290280

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
9,265
Points
38
This is why Australia should be minning uranium and investing into nuclear energy. Its cleaner than coal, oil and gas. Plus with the current market looking to the future where there is battery powered cars.

Well Rudd is just an idiot. I couldn't believe that he attacked woodside for reducing emissions and then on the other hand allows coal to get away with emitting more. They better becareful otherwise they will screw up future contracts in our region.
I agree that nuclear energy is a good option for us as we are the most geolgically stable country in the world. Having said that most people do not want a reactor in their area which means infrustructure has to be moved to isolated areas. There is already a cost timeline of getting a reactor online that means they are very energy intensive for about 10-15 years before they are net outputters of energy and even longer before they could be seen as "emmission neutral". So they are far from green in the medium term and waste disposal is rather unsavoury (although ultimately doable in Australia). Why the hell we don't have the best tidal and solar energy industries in the world is my question. These are by far the brightest future energy producers we have (geothermal ranks a close third in my book) and yet the technology has gone overseas to Europe!:angrydude:

As for Rudd; he is a do nothing PM. If you listen carefully to what he was saying in the election campaign he actually said absolutely nothing, promised vague ideas that hadn't been realistic, and has done SFA in his first year. The Green paper that they have released is nothing but vaguries and empty jargon. This mornings business commentry was that there was a lot of words to ultimately say nothing, such that the business community doesn't know what the actual emmissions scheme will involve.

This is besides the fact that the best scheme was proposed by several economists; a tax. This makes everyone more efficient, the revenue goes directly into research and development, companies can offset tax by investing themselves into future directions, individuals can offset through improved practices and technology (solar cells on the roof, etc) and you are creating an instant future industries fund. The negatives are just so minor in comparison.
 
lifterdead

lifterdead

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Sep 23, 2006
Messages
1,699
Points
38
First of all, I would hope that most here wouldn't try to argue against the basic. Anyone with a 6th grade science educations should know that carbon emissions and the greenhouse effect are a serious problem.

My main problem is that many hardcore supporters of global warming are glaringly ignorant of other basic scientific concepts, or simply just taken in by "green" concepts without evaluating their full effect.

Take, for example, rising sea levels. This is an idiotic concept taken to an extreme. For one, seas aren't level. Some seas are higher/lower than others. Point two, isostatic rebound. Pressure on land caused by ice or lack of it causes surfaces to rise or fall. Hudson Bay is a great example. It's slowly disappearing. With ice accumulating in Antartica, and ice melting in other places, coast lines will be changing in ways no one can predict. In fact, coast lines are always changing. Point three, the world's oceans are NOT one giant bathtub, in which melting ice will cause levels to rise. Ice, ocean water, and even the atmosphere are tightly linked. Jumping to rising "sea levels" from global warming just drives me nuts.


I know that paragraph wasn't very well thought out but I'll get back to it.


But the point that is being missed is this: current practices of consumption of unrenewable resources is unsustainable. With the current explosions in population and demands out of China and India we will see a tipping point in oil in the next 5-12 years. Unless we do opt for more efficiency of resource use, improvement of alternate technologies, and world wide improvement of pollution (this is not just CO2 emmissions but also acid rain, smog, land clearing, etc) we will have major environmental problems on our hands within this century. We cannot sustain the predicted 9 billion people on our current resource usage practices.


I couldn't agree with the above more, but really, really dislike the quote you followed with. As a proponent of Hubbert's theory on oil production, I often find that quote being used by flat-earth economists who insist that oil production isn't going into decline anytime soon.


FYI, I've got some great journals/links I'll have to post tomorrow when I'm sober. I don't suppose anyone is interested, but I have some friends in the fusion community and they've made some great strides in the past few years. (And no, it's not Tokamak and ITER.)





Good discussion, glad so many people care about this.
 
Top