This is a MUSIC forum. Irrelevant or disrespectful posts/topics will be removed by Admin. Please report any forum spam or inappropriate posts HERE.

All users can post to this forum on general music topics.

Moderators: bandmixmod1, jimmy990, spikedace

#78264 by ColorsFade
Tue Aug 11, 2009 6:23 pm
Dave Couture wrote:

The problem isn't really the earth, the problem is us; humans and our survival. The planet getting hotter or colder, is only inconvenient to humans...and some animals. The planet WILL survive and will keep on rotating...we, humans, might not!

So, balancing act you say, you bet, but only for OUR survival!


Our survival is really the only thing I'm interested in... I mean, c'mon. If humans die out then the whole point is moot anyway.


Earth may be resilient - but that certainly doesn't absolve us of the responsibility to maintain it and preserve it. Without a hospitable living area, we're doomed. And that's why addressing these issues is so important. Sticking our heads in the sand and crying, "There's nothing wrong!" is not a way to handle this. Running around telling everyone "it's a giant lie!" will only doom us to extinction.

I got no problem going extinct if a meteor splits Earth in half. That's outside of our control. But the environment - we contribute to that, and we can manage our contributions.

Doing anything else is irresponsible, short-sighted, stupid and reprehensible.

#78266 by Chippy
Tue Aug 11, 2009 6:29 pm
.....................................
Last edited by Chippy on Fri Sep 25, 2009 10:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

#78268 by Dave Couture
Tue Aug 11, 2009 6:34 pm
ColorsFade, I sometime have problems interpreting your posts. It's never clear if some of the comments you make are directed at me?!?!? Like, when you said:

"Sticking our heads in the sand and crying, "There's nothing wrong!" is not a way to handle this. Running around telling everyone "it's a giant lie!" will only doom us to extinction."

If this is what you think I'm doing, then I suggest you re-read my posts. Because, I clearly said that we should clean the pollution, stop over deforestation, be more sustainable, etc. The only thing that I'm against, is charging us for our CO2 emissions...which is what is happening now. The concept of CO2 being bad, only comes from Models and me, along with a long line of scientists, are challenging this model.

This whole CO2 ordeal is meant for the government and some companies (like Gore's company) to make profits. This is what I believe and if you believe this or not, it doesn't matter, because we still have to stop the pollution and all the sh*t that we are doing.

#78274 by Hayden King
Tue Aug 11, 2009 6:50 pm
Since this apparently got skipped over due to the bickering, I'll post it again:


Highlights of the Updated 2008/2009 Senate Minority Report featuring over 700 international scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears:


“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” - Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.

“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

“The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact.” - Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.

“I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken...Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.” - Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.

“Nature's regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions.” – Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Miklós Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni was once Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol.

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?.” - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil... I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” - South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

“All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.” - Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, served as staff physicist at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

“Whatever the weather, it's not being caused by global warming. If anything, the climate may be starting into a cooling period.” -Atmospheric scientist Dr. Art V. Douglas, former Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska, and is the author of numerous papers for peer-reviewed publications.

“But there is no falsifiable scientific basis whatever to assert this warming is caused by human-produced greenhouse gasses because current physical theory is too grossly inadequate to establish any cause at all.” - Chemist Dr. Patrick Frank, who has authored more than 50 peer-reviewed articles.

“The ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society's activities.” - Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt who flew on the Apollo 17 mission and formerly of the Norwegian Geological Survey and for the U.S. Geological Survey.

“Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC….The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium…which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.’” - Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado.

“I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion?” - Dr. G LeBlanc Smith, a retired Principal Research Scientist with Australia’s CSIRO.


The full quotes of the scientists are later in this report: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? ... 9FAF4DCDB7

#78275 by Chippy
Tue Aug 11, 2009 6:51 pm
.....................................
Last edited by Chippy on Fri Sep 25, 2009 10:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

#78278 by Dave Couture
Tue Aug 11, 2009 6:56 pm
Hayden King, I posted that once and you posted it twice. Some ppl did comment on it, so I'm not sure what you are trying to do...sorry :D

#78286 by gbheil
Tue Aug 11, 2009 7:11 pm
Seems to be a split decision.

THE SKY IS FALLING !!
THE SKY IS NOT FALLING !!
THE SKY IS FALLING AND IT'S MAN'S FAULT !!
THE SKY IS FALLING AND IT'S A NATURAL EVENT !!

The one thing I am sure of is that there are two main groups.
Both stand to profit considerably by pushing for control to support their viewpoint.
And I dont want either of them controling my ass for their profits.

I am an outdoors man. I love the beauty of nature God has given me to be steward of and want it to remain as close to it's optimal condition as possible.
But dont be fooled. The National and Global debate is not about nature or our environment. It's about power and control. Nothing more!
Good, well ententiond people on both sides of the debate are not but pawns of the power brokers.
I will not be a pawn, if I can at all escape it !

#78290 by Dave Couture
Tue Aug 11, 2009 7:22 pm
Your opinion makes sense and I respect it, Sans. But, at the moment, I think that one side just want to make profit, while the other just want to expose the truth. The only ppl asking for money, here, are the alarmists. The only thing the skeptics are asking for, is for a chance to expose the other side of the story, publicly...like, all over the media! But, all they are getting, right now, are doors slamming in their faces!

#78293 by gbheil
Tue Aug 11, 2009 7:35 pm
I must disagree on one point Dave:
Dont consider for a second that there is no industrial / governmental envolvement in keeping legeslation from cutting into their profit margin, without any real concern for our environment.
I know first hand how the oil companies operated differently in North America vs South America in the 80's. As long as the billions poor in, they dont give a flying fluke about the environment.
The real battle is about the shift of profit / power.
With those truly concerned about the environment and the economy used as pawns by the power brokers.
A single look into Al Gore's life style is all one needs to see the truth.
And HE is just a poor boy pawn of the real global power brokers.

#78295 by CraigMaxim
Tue Aug 11, 2009 7:36 pm
Hayden,

I read everyu comment of it brother. There wasn't much to be said about it. It speaks for itself. Clearly there are strong advocates and strong dissenters. They are all intelligent people. This means there is simply not enough information yet to persuade an overwhelming majority in either direction. Thank you for posting it. It is revealing indeed.


Dave,

There is money to be made on both sides of this. Cap and trade makes money for the government. Lack of Cap and Trade means more profits for the businesses, and possibly continued exploitation of resources in a fairly uninhibited manner depending on where they are operating.

The stronger conscience is on the side of the environmentalists, where more of them have a concern over the environment itself, whereas the other side is only concerned with making money.

There's nothing wrong with making money. But if there is a side with more conscience involved, it is the environmentalists. But "motive" doesn't have anything to do with being right or wrong on the issue of course.

#78305 by philbymon
Tue Aug 11, 2009 7:55 pm
Sorry to say this, Craig, but the environmentalists are ALSO out to make a buck in this subject. There's trillions to be made in new "green" technologies, ESPECIALLY if you can outlaw the old standard ones, whether or not they're harmful. This will give the new guys a monopoly over their area of expertise. This is not a time to jump the gun, even in the name of "the environment."

This biz of forcing ppl to "greenify" their houses before allowing them to sell, or forcing ppl to do ANYTHING in the name of ecology is something I find disturbing.

Tax incentives are nice, as long as you can afford to comply. But forcing ppl to comply, even when the issues are questionable, is something else again. The CO2 debate is a good example of this.

We know without doubt that some things are harmful. Address them, surely. The ones we have theories about? Take the time to find out before you go attacking ppl about them, or forcing them to comply with your theories.

#78308 by CraigMaxim
Tue Aug 11, 2009 7:59 pm
Phil,

I thought I said that there WAS money to be made on BOTH sides? And the government is making alot of it.

All I said was, that there were "MORE" people on the environmentalist side, that were involved because of conscience. Because they truly want to make a difference for the environment.

This doesn't mean their solutions are "corrrect" of course.

#78310 by Chippy
Tue Aug 11, 2009 8:00 pm
.....................................
Last edited by Chippy on Fri Sep 25, 2009 10:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

#78311 by Dave Couture
Tue Aug 11, 2009 8:00 pm
Money is involved on both side and money has to be made, I realize that. But, to me, there's good money and there's bad money. Paying for CO2, is what I would consider bad money, because the money is made by deceiving ppl!

#78332 by ColorsFade
Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:09 pm
Dave Couture wrote:ColorsFade, I sometime have problems interpreting your posts. It's never clear if some of the comments you make are directed at me?!?!? Like, when you said:

"Sticking our heads in the sand and crying, "There's nothing wrong!" is not a way to handle this. Running around telling everyone "it's a giant lie!" will only doom us to extinction."


It's a generalization; not directed specifically at you. But if the shoe fits....

And if I would have wanted to quote you directly, I would have.


Dave Couture wrote:The only thing that I'm against, is charging us for our CO2 emissions...which is what is happening now. The concept of CO2 being bad, only comes from Models and me, along with a long line of scientists, are challenging this model.


Everyone with a 5th grade education knows CO2 is not 'bad" in and of itself. Plants use it the same way mammals use oxygen.

The important part isn't the CO2 - it is the quantity; the percentage in the atmosphere.

Unless, of course, you simply don't believe in the green house effect?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests