Jump to content

My Global Warming Skepticism, for Dummies


SomeRandomGuy

Recommended Posts

To let it break down naturally, later to be used as fertilizer for our gardens, and food for our fishin' worms? While I have yet to get into composting, I am - truly, trying to create a smaller footprint, live cleaner and cheaper, use less energy and other resources, AND to create my own. 

 

I am no greenie. I am also not a "prepper" thinking the end of the world is near. I am merely trying to live in an area where most people (READ: westerners) cannot generally live, due to no public utilities or conveniences being available to them. This, however, gives me the opportunity to finally live the way, and experience the things I have wanted to for some time. 

 

I still do not believe living the way I do at the moment, has anything to do with the Earth's natural temperatures. I feel as though the Earth heats and cools on a cycle, be it regular or irregular, over millions of years. What I do will have little to no effect on that whatsoever. 

 

With that said, the way I choose to live (hopefully within the next twelve months), will cause me to be able to do so, cheaper than I have ever been able to do so before, in SE Asia. 

 

Well if I have time I cart everything to the compost heap as like you say,its good for growing stuff..

If I want to keep down the cogon, I occasionally burn it as that method is pretty quick..

Now I know that burning it creates C02 so thats bad,, But what about composting?..Does that release less C02 than a good old fashioned bon fire? 

Just wondering.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • thebob

    14

  • SomeRandomGuy

    12

  • Paul

    6

  • hchoate

    6

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

thats a hell of a lot of research and time and money spent on what exactly?   how to pull the wool over a person's eye's?  The only reason I was a skeptic is because AL Gore first brought to our at

My Global Warming Skepticism, for Dummies I receive many e-mails, and a recurring complaint is that many of my posts are too technical to understand. This morning’s installment arrived with the subj

http://grist.org/series/skeptics/   HOW TO TALK TO A CLIMATE SKEPTIC: RESPONSES TO THE MOST COMMON SKEPTICAL ARGUMENTS ON GLOBAL WARMING     Share on reddit  Below is a complete listing of

But what about composting?..Does that release less C02 than a good old fashioned bon fire?

 

Composting does not release CO2.

 

I am sure if it were to do so, the nuts good green citizens at this domain would certainly say so: http://www.globalrepair.ca/Greenhouse%20gas%20emissions.htm  

Edited by Paul
Link to post
Share on other sites
SomeRandomGuy

didn't know that either...lol i will have to google it a bit more.. I thought i read somewhere that matter breaking down did give off C02..please do not quote me on that I am just going to have to check obviously

 

this is  a quote from that article

 

Any emissions from aerobic composting are considered part of the natural carbon cycle.

 

shit i can not find it but i do remember it because it is in one of my research links about creating C02 for greenhouses and one of the main ways was organic compost.... i will post a link later
 
 
it will be in there somewhere
Edited by SomeRandomGuy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I have been under the influence today, just a bit. It's been an - well, I will say - an interesting day, to say the least. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Admin (Retired)
broden

 

 

I have never claimed to be a know it all.

 

the forum is currently at it's limit for know it alls anyway if you want to be one you'll have to get on a waiting list and wait for the current ones to die off

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
He is funded by The Heartland Institute.

 

Who is 'he' and so what? Pimping more propaganda from a clone group doesn't change the fact that the IPCC is completely corrupt and shamelessly lying through its teeth, as usual:

 

So it goes with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which deserves to be disbanded following the release of their latest report.

  • Ignoring contradictory data, and acting as it does not exist.
  • Releasing preliminary results before they are confirmed when those results support already decided-upon conclusions. Corrections made later rarely get as much attention as the initial announcement and so politicians ignore them.
  • Highlighting apparently supportive information that is true, but irrelevant. In the hands of a skilled communicator, such information can be made to sound significant to the uninformed.
  • Choosing supportive information from biased and/or unqualified sources.
  • Making the underlying foundational science so complex that even qualified experts need weeks to assess it. This gives politically motivated bureaucrats a window of opportunity to make grandiose announcements that almost no one recognizes are inconsistent with the underlying data.
  • Without consulting the experts who assembled a report, strategically editing the document just before release to the public so as to support political objectives while asserting that the report is supported by experts.
  • Outright fabrication of data to support expedient conclusions.

The facts — which the newly released draft admits to — overwhelmingly support the conclusion that man’s impact on climate change is insignificant. But the IPCC asserts the exact opposite, namely that they are more convinced than ever that global warming is primarily caused by man, and that a crisis looms unless we radically change our ways. Even though their past forecasts failed to materialize, the IPCC claims an even higher level of confidence — 95%, we are told — that their conclusions are right this time around. The IPCC is hoping their theatrics distract the public, media, and government from some inconvenient truths; below is a partial list of them:

  • While man continues to emit more carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere from power plants, automobiles, and industrial activity, the Earth has not warmed for at least 15 years. None of the computer models relied on by the IPCC to forecast climate calamity predicted this temperature standstill.
  • It was warmer in many periods in the past than today, even though CO2 levels during these intervals were far lower than they are now.
  • Antarctic ice, eight times greater than Arctic ice, is not receding. Overall global ice cover has not changed significantly since satellite measurements began in 1979.
  • Global cyclone activity is now near a thirty-year low.
  • There has been no statically significant increase in the frequency or severity of extreme weather events.
  • Sea level rise is not accelerating beyond that normally expected due to the gradual warming since the end of the last glacial period 10,000 years ago.

http://pjmedia.com/blog/decision-based-evidence-making-more-disgrace-from-un-panel-on-climate-change/

 

Why must you continue to deny temperature diversity!

 

 

 

 

We seem to have people here who regard what they learnt in school as being more relevant than the vast majority of the Phd's in climate science on the planet.

 

PhDs lie and cheat much smarter that regular people.

 

 

 

I thought i read somewhere that matter breaking down did give off C02

 

If you burn it, it oxidizes quickly; if you compost it, it oxidizes slowly- absolutely no difference in the end. The carbon came originally from the air anyway and goes back into the air- let's all panic and let the UN run things.

Edited by hchoate
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
rainymike

I don't think the real issue is global warming or not. The real issue is whether or not international policy should attempt to regulate it. In my opinion, I don't think the world is ready for some bone headed policy when there remain so many unknowns.

 

But having said that, I don't think its a bad idea to push conservation for its own sake. For countries like the Philippines, some forms of conservation may have benefits. Maybe the scientific industrial complex (did I just make up a word) needs to step back and de-politicize environmental issues. 

 

Frankly I'm not worried about the sea level rising too much (I live near the beach now ... lol). But I do think that a country like the Philippines could and should be looking at alternative energy sources and conservation without all the political voodoo out there. I don't think I need any climatic model to tell me that the farmers here might benefit from technologies that are less costly but capable of increasing crop yields. I don't need any climatic model proven right or wrong to tell me that better watershed management is a serious need in many areas susceptible to flooding. And so on.

 

Eggheads and politicians need to step aside. The problems are right there in front of their faces. And we all don't need a global climate warming summit or symbolic treaties that can't be enforced or endless debates. 

 

I've come to believe that the climate debate is a useful way for politicians to remain spineless and not address the tough issues at hand. It is easier after all, to sit around in endless debate at some climate conference, rather than trying to fix some practical but tough issues at home. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

let's all panic and let the UN run things.

 

 

i-like-that-idea-md.png

 

 

Then, they can feck things up more than they are already.

Link to post
Share on other sites
thebob

 

 

Who is 'he' and so what?

 

He "was" Dr Richard Lindzen who wrote for the NIPCC, who seemed to support your preposterous concept that globally 10's of thousands of climate scientists are part of a huge conspiracy to misrepresent scientific findings on climate change.

 

Your post #51 seems to have quoted exclusively from http://pjmedia.com which is also funded by the same people who stand to gain by discrediting the scientific consensus on climate change.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't believe validity of Global Warming. 

Hay, at least Gore made $100,000,000. That's all that really counts right?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling    OOPS.

 

The cooling period is well reproduced by current (1999 on) global climate models (GCMs) that include the physical effects of sulphate aerosols, and there is now general agreement that aerosol effects were the dominant cause of the mid-20th century cooling. However, at the time there were two physical mechanisms that were most frequently advanced to cause cooling: aerosols and orbital forcing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Composting does not release CO2.

 

I am sure if it were to do so, the nuts good green citizens at this domain would certainly say so: http://www.globalrep...s emissions.htm  

 

 

 
Thanks Paul... The reason I mentioned it was because when I try to compost stuff it just takes too long!! 
Google is great for this stuff and it advises me too HOT COMPOST!! All that means is to keep it all damp and  cover all the stuff with a Tarp..
After a few days I uncovered the tarp as they said I need to turn it over and re cover.. When I did,all this gas/smoke was released into the air!! I assumed it was C02 but to be honest I have no idea what it was..
 
hchoate
If you burn it, it oxidizes quickly; if you compost it, it oxidizes slowly- absolutely no difference in the end. The carbon came originally from the air anyway and goes back into the air- let's all panic and let the UN run things.
 
Thats what I thought at first...But I seem to remember being taught years ago that leaves etc falling from trees and other organic matter rotting over 100`s of million years produced the coal and oil that we burn today which produces the C02 that they say is causing Global warning!!
How can a rotting compost that releases all C02 over time be so valuable today as a fuel source?
 
I`m not trying to play devils advocate here..Just trying to understand how stuff works in this thread for dummies..
Cheers,
Link to post
Share on other sites
thebob

Don't believe validity of Global Warming. 

Hay, at least Gore made $100,000,000. That's all that really counts right?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling    OOPS.

 

The cooling period is well reproduced by current (1999 on) global climate models (GCMs) that include the physical effects of sulphate aerosols, and there is now general agreement that aerosol effects were the dominant cause of the mid-20th century cooling. However, at the time there were two physical mechanisms that were most frequently advanced to cause cooling: aerosols and orbital forcing.

 

Did you read your own link?

 

Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere culminating in a period of extensiveglaciation. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the full scope of the scientific climate literature, i.e., a larger and faster-growing body of literature projecting future warming due to greenhouse gas emissions. The currentscientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but undergone global warming throughout the 20th century.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes 

 

My contention is that until there is truly historical evidence what we are seeing could be very cyclic.

 

Silly but also held as being true until proven otherwise

 

Remember the elephant and the 4 blind wise men?

 

Earth as center of universe

Earth is flat

Sickness was carried in the either

Blood letting cured sickness

 

Each was proven to be wrong as our scientific methods were improved.

 

It may well be that man  is causing warming / cooling. but to claim either one is absolutely correct is not correct.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SomeRandomGuy

And that is exactly the problem... believer or denier. left or right.

Shades of gray is better I say.

 

We could post as many links and quotes as we like but the end of the day if we are ( which I am sure we are not) effecting the climate in such a drastic matter then from what I understand ( I probably should post links on this but I am trying to recall from memory) that even if we were the cause of all this then there is not immediate cause and effect.

We would no better in 50 or so years. So making our generation and two hence generations pay thru the nose for things that are conjecture and theory is quiet a waste of time.

I seem to remember that there was a belief once that smoking was good for you.... actually i thought at one stage it was a scientific fact.

 

There has been a whole heap of theory's that have been debunked and lets not forget that scientist are just humans like you or other people( there is currently a serious debate if or not I am of human origins or weather or not I predate cro-magnon man).

 

The terrible thing if the agw crowd is correct is they have seriously made so many errors regarding false data, false hockey sticks and false reports that even the most borderline skeptic's ears should be perking up like those of a faun sensing a hunter. And that is the real issue here, if this theory is even half correct then why use all these tactics to skew data and leave out certain historical events in order to prove their theory's.

 

As they say science is about fact. Not fiction. And by intentionally misleading the public as they have done so many times in the last however long this whole crap has been going is downright immoral. I do not trust people that lie and neither should anyone else, and the ipcc has been caught out numerous times.

Logic exists that if you are honest and upfront there is no need for deception.

The facts speak for themselves as a few famous scientists have said over the years... theory's on the other hand are just that.. unproven guesses

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the real issue is global warming or not. The real issue is whether or not international policy should attempt to regulate it. In my opinion, I don't think the world is ready for some bone headed policy when there remain so many unknowns.

 

But having said that, I don't think its a bad idea to push conservation for its own sake. For countries like the Philippines, some forms of conservation may have benefits. Maybe the scientific industrial complex (did I just make up a word) needs to step back and de-politicize environmental issues.

 

Frankly I'm not worried about the sea level rising too much (I live near the beach now ... lol). But I do think that a country like the Philippines could and should be looking at alternative energy sources and conservation without all the political voodoo out there. I don't think I need any climatic model to tell me that the farmers here might benefit from technologies that are less costly but capable of increasing crop yields. I don't need any climatic model proven right or wrong to tell me that better watershed management is a serious need in many areas susceptible to flooding. And so on.

 

Eggheads and politicians need to step aside. The problems are right there in front of their faces. And we all don't need a global climate warming summit or symbolic treaties that can't be enforced or endless debates.

 

I've come to believe that the climate debate is a useful way for politicians to remain spineless and not address the tough issues at hand. It is easier after all, to sit around in endless debate at some climate conference, rather than trying to fix some practical but tough issues at home.

 

What he said.

 

 

 

preposterous concept that globally 10's of thousands of climate scientists are part of a huge conspiracy

 

That dang straw man again- just set 'em up and knock 'em down- it's so easy. The 'conspiracy' if you will, although that's a dog-whistle word, is among those who purport to interpret the opinions of said experts and do so dishonestly to feather their own nests. Also, don't you find it a little strange that there ARE (probably not really, but I'll go along) "10's of thousands of climate scientists"?

Somebody must have put out the word that that is a lucrative field. Your skepticism denial has some very blatant prejudice.

 

 

 

quoted exclusively from http://pjmedia.com which is also funded by the same people who stand to gain by discrediting the scientific consensus on climate change.

 

I am sure that PJ Media will be delighted to learn that they have funding. And again consensus is not science. Who are these mysterious puppet masters and how to I become one? And if the oil industry is so obscenely profitable why does my 401k suck?

 

 

 

rotting over 100`s of million years produced the coal and oil that we burn today which produces the C02 that they say is causing Global warning!! How can a rotting compost that releases all C02 over time be so valuable today as a fuel source?

 

I'm a little rusty with my petroleum chemistry but I believe the fact that all that organics did NOT rot is how the chemical energy contained within has been preserved all these millenia. (There is evidence that petroleum is produced continuously below the surface of the Earth- we may not really know what's going on there.) That's the complaint, really, is that we are releasing all that CO2 that was sequestered when dinosaurs roamed the earth. OK, so build nuke plants- oops, I forgot, spawn of the devil right there. As I have explained before water vapor and hydrogen sulphide are much greater contributors to the greenhouse effect than CO2. And again, tediously, the Earth may be warming slightly, some of which may be due to CO2 in the atmosphere but so what- it's been warmer before. And, even if we stopped burning petroleum completely, with all the disruption that implies, even by 'their' own best scenarios it wouldn't make much difference- something on the magnitude of 1 degree C over a century. Funny they are so worried about my grandchildren being a little warm but they are not worried about them being broke.

 

 

 

undergone global warming throughout the 20th century.

 

Not so, but if so so what. The Earth is warming up from the ice age that ended 10k years ago. Darn good thing, too, I'd say. (There's another one comin'!) And, yes, I did read my own link- hmm, why would you assume one would do otherwise?

 

And lastly, what I stopped by for, if I may be a bore and quote myself:

 

quote name='hchoate' timestamp='1381413128' post='719178' Even by the advocates best estimates if we institute all their draconian restrictions on the way we live- you know, like leaving billions of Chinese and Indians in poverty- no Renaissance or Industrial Revolution for them! (Kinda racist, no?)- we can prevent maybe 1 degree of global warming over the next 100 years. /quote

 

I guess the poor of the planet may not get their Industrial Revolution anyway:

 

CHANGE AND THE BLUE MODEL:

 

 

So, while developed countries are worrying about the breakdown of the blue social model based on mass manufacturing jobs and lifetime employment, the real story is that developing countries may never get to the blue model. Automation and global competition mean than manufacturing jobs and their wages aren’t going to grow enough to support a middle class in China and other countries as they did in the US, Europe and Japan.

If this is true, the implications are enormous: social stability in countries like China could be much more tenuous than many think, and developing countries may have a much harder time reaching the levels of affluence found in the advanced world. Since we’ve never seen a global industrial revolution before, much less one that is taking place at the same time as a global information revolution, nobody really knows how it will all shake out. But it is trends like this, not budget fights in Washington, that will shape the future of the human race.

Edited by hchoate
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Guidelines. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..