Looks like global warming is a scam

The massive increase in CO2 levels is very alarming. I was on the fence for several years about global warming. I personally feel there is adequate scientific data to suggest that it is real.

If it seems like there is a good chance global warming is real and the result is an irreversible decline in the livability of our planet and the death of 100’s of 1,000’s if not 1,000,000’s of people it is not worth the gamble. We have the technologies to dramatically reduce the amount of Co2 we produce. It is illogical to me to not take the safe rout. If it turns out to be a natural cycle and we all end up driving fuel cell cars it is not the end of the world. If we do nothing and it turns out to be real we will all have blood on our hands and no place to wash them.

 

I highly recommend The Weather Makers by Tim Flannery. For those in doubt about what's happening, it gives all the evidence, including the most recent, and discusses the counter arguments, and says what we do and do not know. For those not in doubt, it brings it all together quite nicely. I think it's a must read for every American. I plan to buy several copies for friends and family to read. Or go on about in your ignorance, spouting off half truths and things you "believe" when it comes to discussing climate change, which is what some people in this thread seem to be doing.

When you're done with that one, I then recommend The Consumer's Guide to Effective Environmental Choices by the union of concerned scientists. It's about 5 years old, but the analysis of what is most effective is reassuring and interesting. The good news is that most of us have already taken one of the most important steps in buying a very fuel efficient car. Hopefully they're planning an update of this one in another 5 years or so.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawk @ Apr 5 2006, 04:39 PM) [snapback]235552[/snapback]</div>

Just for your information...

I work at a powerplant. My job is to produce those CO2, NOx and SOx numbers that are used by the Federal and State governments.

CO2 is not measured, it is calculated based on how much fuel is burned. Even so, at low levels, there is an artificial cap that is placed on NOx emissions. What is reported to the EPA is not, at least for the plants that I have worked at, an actual number but a guesstimation. And when you think about it, it is better to have CO2 (which can be processed by green plants by photosynthesis) than CO and various and sundry unburned hydrocarbons (which cannot). There is no doubt that this has had an impact on the planet, but the only conclusion I can come to is that we have to stop the deforestation of this planet and start planting more!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(finally_got_one @ Apr 11 2006, 05:45 PM) [snapback]238241[/snapback]</div>

I figured they were guesstimates based on my experience with VOC emissions guesstimations at a pilot plant, but what can you do. Trees are important, and can help, and actually have helped in this century, but even a strong reforestation effort could only keep up with about 5% or so of our CO2 emissions. LINK to article It's much easier to use less electricity and create less CO2 than it is to try to get rid of it once we've made it.

 

As noted in the WSJ:
"Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Begreen @ Apr 13 2006, 10:10 AM) [snapback]239068[/snapback]</div>

I saw that - interesting article. However, your quote implies that he totally discredits climate change, when in fact, he is simply against the alarmism and what according to him is poor scientific integrity. He later states: "Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true."

BTW - this was brought up in this other thread, too: http://priuschat.com/Anyone-else-read-The-...ers-t18017.html

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Betelgeuse @ Mar 29 2006, 03:00 PM) [snapback]231862[/snapback]</div>

Actually I have two degrees...Zoology and Computer Science.

I was not saying that there is not a problem. My main thrust was to note how much deforestation has occurred, and to suggest that perhaps we should also be concerned about that situation as well. One of the things that sticks in my mind quite well was a statement by one of my professors about how the tropical rainforests can be looked upon as the 'lungs' of this planet that provide a good portion of the oxygen in our atmosphere by converting carbon dioxide via photosynthesis. Now that many of these forests are being burned, we should expect a spike in what these days are called 'greenhouse gasses', as there is no natural way for them to be processed. Having done some post-grad work, and seeing how much powerplants have cut back on their emissions (not that they aren't totally clean), I was simply suggesting an alternative reason (and perhaps another part of the solution) for the spike in CO2.

Are we in trouble if we can't get the levels of CO2 down? You bet. It is not that we shouldn't work to reduce smog emitted from powerplants (as well as cars and refineries), we need to make sure that this planet doesn't develop a case of 'emphysema' worse than already exists.