POLL: Do you believe in human-caused ("AGW") global warming?

[Neil Desmond]

Do you believe in human-caused ("AGW") global warming? Answering "no" indicates that you are either skeptical or that you think it simply isn't true at all.

[RedLightning]

Human "caused"? No.

[Icymudpuppy]

I believe in Solar caused climate change. I don't think humans have much if any affect on it.

[Neil Desmond]

Human "caused"? No.
Yes, "human-caused," not nature-caused (e.g., Spring).

[Neil Desmond]

I believe in Solar caused climate change. I don't think humans have much if any affect on it.
If you believe in solar-caused, but not human-caused, global warming, then the answer to this poll would be "no." It would only be "yes" if you believe that humans are doing things to cause global warming to happen (assuming that global warming is happening in the first place).

[heavenlyboy34]

'twould be kind of nice if it were possible. Then we could have year-round growing seasons everywhere. :)

[Neil Desmond]

'twould be kind of nice if it were possible. Then we could have year-round growing seasons everywhere. :)
So what you're saying is it would be nice if we could affect the climate, because then that means we could control it thus make it work to our benefit? Whoah, that's deep!

[kcchiefs6465]

'twould be kind of nice if it were possible. Then we could have year-round growing seasons everywhere. :)
Lol. Or turn Iran into a tundra...

[presence]

Yes.

How many barrels of oil do we pump out of the ground each day and then light on fire; burn?

Yes.

overgrazed land turned to desert

Yes.

100's of k hectares was cool moist rainforest, now agrobusiness

Yes

How much natural gas does Haarp burn? How much atmosphere does it "actively" heat?

Yes

bovine methane

Yes

Swampland drained

Yes

Fiery hell of war

Yes

Ice breaking in the arctic

Yes

How many cubic feet of net exothermic "climate controlled space"?

Yes

tons of coal burnt fiery hot that would have otherwise stayed buried

Yes

nuclear energy and bombs testing et al

Yes

was a free flowing cool river, now a hot dry river bed and lots of electric energy heating homes.

yes

Was a grass pasture, now black walmart parking lot.

yes

How many miles of hot black asphalt make up the global highway system?

yes

urban heat island effect

yes

chlorofluorocarbon hole in ozone that protects us from incoming hot solar radiation

yes

and on and on...

[presence]

Lol. Or turn Iran into a tundra...

keyword: UN weather modification treaty 1976

[Neil Desmond]

Just in case anyone is wondering, "human-caused" does not necessarily mean that humans are intentionally, or are even aware that their actions are, causing it to happen. Also, to clarify, the actions in question means basically: the use of technology or manipulation of the environment (in other words, something we do naturally, like breathing out CO2, doesn't count).

[Neil Desmond]

Only one person has said "yes" so far.

[KingNothing]

I view AGW like a view God -- I don't know if it's real, true believers on each side annoy me, and its existence or non-existence doesn't change the way I'll live.

[ronpaulfollower999]

My opinion- yes CO2 has increased in the extreme short term (last few hundred years), and it is scientific fact that increased CO2 causes warming, but it looks like CO2 rises and falls in cycles. Here is a ~300k year old chart, for a 4.5 billion year old planet:

http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/2010/antarctic_icecoreT.gif

That said, pollution is harmful to our environment, and the market should absolutely look into cleaner resources (natural gas, solar, wind, nuclear, etc).

[BenIsForRon]

Definitely happening, enough studies have been done by scientists over the entire globe to confirm that carbon dioxide is a powerful greenhouse gas.

I'm not looking forward to finding out how much warming we will actually see, and the changes to weather patterns it will bring.

[juliusaugustus]

I believe in government created global warming.

[jllundqu]

Human "caused"? No.

Human "affected", yes

[bolil]

Humans are asking for it though. We willingly are creating a bottleneck in the genetic diversity of our main crops. This is a bad thing, and with genetically enhanced yields come deficiencies as regards vitality. At the same time, we are using pesticides to give the illusion of control, and now the pest population is becoming increasingly pesticide resistance. Imagine that? If the crops failed? If swarms of pesticide locusts discover the midwest? We do the same with our beef. I say we do it because we accept it, as a species. That is my real bone with bio engineering done by human kind, a kind that can see little farther than fifty years.

[KingNothing]

That is my real bone with bio engineering done by human kind, a kind that can see little farther than fifty years.

In a science and engineering sense, I'm not sure people can even see 50-years ahead. But that is almost always a benefit, not a liability. Advances occur so rapidly that the entire technological landscape is entirely foreign to what nearly anyone could have imagined 50 years ago.

[ronpaulfollower999]

Here is a CO2 chart that goes back even further than 400k years. Obviosuly, there were a variety of factors that contributed to higher CO2 levels (volcanoes, location of the continents, etc).

http://junksciencearchive.com/images/paleocarbon.gif

So, CO2 levels and average worldwide temperatures are at their lowest levels since the beginning of the Permian period.

[erowe1]

I said no. I'm really more of an I don't know. But even if it does happen, it doeesn't matter, and nothing should be done about it.

[Natural Citizen]

Yes, "human-caused," not nature-caused (e.g., Spring).

This proves to me that you are absolutely clueless and have no business even asking such questions. Much less delegating the rules of the cosmos. Nature is full of "wiggly" things. And so are you. So are the cosmos. That's about as dumbed down as I can put it but I'm comfortable that others laughing at the poll understand what I mean.

[bolil]

In a science and engineering sense, I'm not sure people can even see 50-years ahead. But that is almost always a benefit, not a liability. Advances occur so rapidly that the entire technological landscape is entirely foreign to what nearly anyone could have imagined 50 years ago.

Technology is all in the use. I don't think that genetically modified crops, a deliberate genetic bottleneck, is a good idea. The science is arriving that I am right, roundup doesn't whack weeds like it used to in the midwest.

[proudclod229]

Here's the thing: humans have polluted the earth--pretty badly.

But the temperature is not rising at an alarming rate...not by anyone's calculus.

Personally, I think that nuclear testing is the #1 source of pollution in the world.

Though I'm supposed to use shitty cfl lightbulbs with mercury in em to save the earth. Yeah right.

Edison's main competitor had a lightbulb that is still running to this day.

Gotta hate planned obselecence.

[presence]

Edison's main competitor had a lightbulb light-emitting-heating element that is still running to this day.

..

[Natural Citizen]

Here's the thing: humans have polluted the earth--pretty badly.



I think it's just silly for men to place themselves upon some pedestal as if they are so relevant in the larger scheme of things. They're just a speck. Not even that. The cosmos is not in any way political. Men are political. In fact, they have made a science of it in and of itself. Which is what this poll is. Is political science.

[kcchiefs6465]

That said, pollution is harmful to our environment, and the market should absolutely look into cleaner resources (natural gas, solar, wind, nuclear, etc).
They would have anyways. With or without Chu's selective subsidies. How many millions did Solyndra end up with, anyways? Probably enough to make it billions, though I can't rightly remember.

I do remember that Rand Paul ripped Chu a new one though.

[Kelly.]

the internal combustion engine powering my car is no more that 40% efficient.
the gases that engine doesnt burn are releases into the biosphere, those same gases absorb and hold heat. i wonder why so many people cant grasp this concept

yes humans have an effect on the environment (good and bad). to think otherwise is to view humans separate from nature.

human caused warming implies there is only one cause which i disagree with. but to think that humans have no control over the environment is very close minded imo.

[Dr.3D]

the internal combustion engine powering my car is no more that 40% efficient.
the gases that engine doesnt burn are releases into the biosphere, those same gases absorb and hold heat. i wonder why so many people cant grasp this concept

yes humans have an effect on the environment (good and bad). to think otherwise is to view humans separate from nature.

human caused warming implies there is only one cause which i disagree with. but to think that humans have no control over the environment is very close minded imo.
Yep, those gases do about as much to the atmosphere as pissing into an Olympic size swimming pool changes it's salinity.

[Sola_Fide]

the internal combustion engine powering my car is no more that 40% efficient.
the gases that engine doesnt burn are releases into the biosphere, those same gases absorb and hold heat. i wonder why so many people cant grasp this concept

yes humans have an effect on the environment (good and bad). to think otherwise is to view humans separate from nature.

human caused warming implies there is only one cause which i disagree with. but to think that humans have no control over the environment is very close minded imo.


When Mount St. Helens erupted, it spewed out more dangerous gasses than the entire history of industrialized man.

[compromise]

I do believe in human-caused climate change, but I don't believe it's significant enough to be of any concern.

[bolil]

I am more concerned with the biosphere. Humans do have a knack for wiping out other species and trees...

[Kelly.]

Yep, those gases do about as much to the atmosphere as pissing into an Olympic size swimming pool changes it's salinity.


When Mount St. Helens erupted, it spewed out more dangerous gasses than the entire history of industrialized man.

so are you saying the gases released from your cars inefficient engine, somehow do not absorb heat?

i didnt say climate change (read: a changing climate) is solely man made, but to think you have no effect is wrong imo.

[Natural Citizen]

What is really screwing up things are all of the newly formed companies spraying aluminum into the atmosphere based upon all of the hype from this political science. So...to that effect, everyone making the political argument for or against this political charade are part of that problem. Cripes, only a fraction of the suns rays even make it to Earth now. This creates havoc in the natural cycles of the environment. They can only continue this practice as long as the politicos maintain the false paradigm for or against the man made narrative.

Here are a few. I'm sure one can find many more out there. These companies exist and wreck the natural cycle of Earth because of the arguments we see here. These arguments create the demand.

http://www.wtwma.com (http://www.wtwma.com/)
http://www.weathermodification.com (http://www.weathermodification.com/)
http://www.naiwmc.org/
http://www.just-clouds.com/

[brooks009]

Yep, those gases do about as much to the atmosphere as pissing into an Olympic size swimming pool changes it's salinity.

Good example, but its not 1 person its 700 people pissing in the pool and the waters starting to look yellow. We have 7 billion people in the world and its starting to have an affect on the environment.

[Neil Desmond]

This proves to me that you are absolutely clueless and have no business even asking such questions. Much less delegating the rules of the cosmos. Nature is full of "wiggly" things. And so are you. So are the cosmos. That's about as dumbed down as I can put it but I'm comfortable that others laughing at the poll understand what I mean.
I'll ask what I damn well please & I don't care what something proves to you about me, because I'm not what matters; whether we're really causing damage and destruction to the planet, or are being scammed into believing such a thing when it's not true (to make the super wealthy and powerful more wealthy and more powerful, while the rest of us get more and more oppressed), is what does matter. Yes, for every action there is an equal or greater reaction; but there is also something called a feedback process.

By the way, you're not the first person to try the I'm going to try to spark an emotional reaction from this guy by attempting to portray him as a very dumb individual with my "I'm dumbing it down for you as much as I can" ad hom causal fallacy attack on me on this forum; but it's even more entertaining than before because it reveals your ignorance (yes, it can be bliss) about me - especially because the other person had just tried it within the past couple weeks. I'm also amused at how you tried to create the illusion of a nonexistent group of people laughing at the pitiful misportrayal of a question that has absolutely nothing wrong with it.

PS: If I'm wrong about something, just bring it up and point it out. Not only do I not mind being shown that I'm wrong, I will appreciate it being brought up with something that shows how or why I'm wrong. What I don't have much use for is being told things like I'm clueless, dumb, this, that - whatever, without being provided with something to help me take corrective action.

[kcchiefs6465]

so are you saying the gases released from your cars inefficient engine, somehow do not absorb heat?

i didnt say climate change (read: a changing climate) is solely man made, but to think you have no effect is wrong imo.
How much of an effect do you personally believe it to be?

I am of the belief that it is so minute when compared to natural causes that it borders on absurd. I don't think clean energy is going to drastically change anything in the long run. (with regards to our changing climate) It should be explored by private companies, not subsidized to the politically connected. With all of the billions floating around, there is incentive to skew some studies, or to flatout lie. Some companies have a very large stake in us going green.

[Dr.3D]

Good example, but its not 1 person its 700 people pissing in the pool and the waters starting to look yellow. We have 7 billion people in the world and its starting to have an affect on the environment.
Well, if you want to look at it that way, then we have to look at it as all those people pissing in the ocean and changing it's salinity. Yeah, it changes a little.

[erowe1]

the internal combustion engine powering my car is no more that 40% efficient.
the gases that engine doesnt burn are releases into the biosphere, those same gases absorb and hold heat. i wonder why so many people cant grasp this concept


On the assumption that the fuel that engine burns comes from what were once living plants and animals, the release of those gases to the atmosphere is just sending them back to where they came from.

[CTRattlesnake]

AGW is incredibly complex and unless you have a PHD in Atmospheric physics you shouldnt be lecturing anyone (looks at every politician)


There is still a heated debate in the scientific community about this, and the short answer is that no one is really 100% certain.

[Kelly.]

How much of an effect do you personally believe it to be?

I am of the belief that it is so minute when compared to natural causes that it borders on absurd. I don't think clean energy is going to drastically change anything in the long run. [With regards to our changing climate] It should be explored by private companies, not subsidized to the politically connected. With all of the billions floating around, there is incentive to skew some studies, or to flatout lie. Some companies have a very large stake in us going green.

i am not sure how big an effect we have, but i am sure we have an effect.

[kcchiefs6465]

AGW is incredibly complex and unless you have a PHD in Atmospheric physics you shouldnt be lecturing anyone (looks at every politician)


There is still a heated debate in the scientific community about this, and the short answer is that no one is really 100% certain.
Political connections and campaign contributions help certain people's certainty.

[Kelly.]

On the assumption that the fuel that engine burns comes from what were once living plants and animals, the release of those gases to the atmosphere is just sending them back to where they came from.

i see what youre trying to do there, but to call burnt oil, old plants and animals being released back to where they came from seems a bit of a stretch.

if oil is just old plants and animals, and humans eat plants and animals to survive, you should be able to drink oil and be ok (using your same logic)
give it a shot and report back. im curious to hear your progress.
:)

[CTRattlesnake]

Political connections and campaign contributions help certain people's certainty.


Which is why much of the debate is tainted. People on both sides are being paid off.

[erowe1]

i see what youre trying to do there, but to call burnt oil, old plants and animals being released back to where they came from seems a bit of a stretch.

if oil is just old plants and animals, and humans eat plants and animals to survive, you should be able to drink oil and be ok (using your same logic)
give it a shot and report back. im curious to hear your progress.
:)

I am not taking a position on whether or not fossil fuels really are fossils. I'm just saying that, on the assumption that they are, then yes, burning them releases those gases back to where they came from. That's not a stretch. It's a mathematical certainty, given the assumption stated.

And also, given the same assumption, I don't see why it would entail anything at all about being able to eat oil. There comes a certain point in the decay of all living things, even those which were at one time edible, after which they no longer are edible. By the time they become petroleum, they are well past that point.

[Natural Citizen]

I am not taking a position on whether or not fossil fuels really are fossils...

What do you mean? Are you taling about the abiotic theory?

[Neil Desmond]

Here's the thing: humans have polluted the earth--pretty badly.

But the temperature is not rising at an alarming rate...not by anyone's calculus.

Personally, I think that nuclear testing is the #1 source of pollution in the world.

Though I'm supposed to use shitty cfl lightbulbs with mercury in em to save the earth. Yeah right.

Edison's main competitor had a lightbulb that is still running to this day.

Gotta hate planned obselecence.
Yes, there is the "actual" pollution - the stuff that we can actually find around us, and affects us and the environment. That is something that does need to be addressed, and politicians aren't likely going to provide a good solution for dealing with it. What I wonder is if the AGW argument is a diversion to try to distract people from the problems of (actual) pollution, to get them to focus on a possibly made-up existential threat, by people who only care about maximizing the bottom line.

[Neil Desmond]

I think it's just silly for men to place themselves upon some pedestal as if they are so relevant in the larger scheme of things. They're just a speck. Not even that. The cosmos is not in any way political. Men are political. In fact, they have made a science of it in and of itself. Which is what this poll is. Is political science.
This is a political forum.

[erowe1]

What do you mean? Are you taling about the abiotic theory?

I said I wasn't taking a position on the assumption I stated, just stating a logical consequence of it.

[erowe1]

Yes, there is the "actual" pollution - the stuff that we can actually find around us, and affects us and the environment.

Generally speaking, the ways we change our environments are ones that make them much better for us, not worse.

[TheGrinch]

I'm very skeptical of it, considering it's appeared since it's conception to be all about control and profit built on faux-consensus, also serving as a wedge issue.

Antecdotally, today is the first day of spring and it's snowing here in GA, that's jsut nuts, as it is normally 75 by now... Last year was the most mild winter I remember, and the year before the most brutally cold in some time. This year has been much more consistently cold but not so bitter cold. Sounds to me like typical yearly variance, aided by longer term natural shifts in temperatures.

[Natural Citizen]

I'll ask what I damn well please & I don't care what something proves to you about me, because I'm not what matters; whether we're really causing damage and destruction to the planet, or are being scammed into believing such a thing when it's not true (to make the super wealthy and powerful more wealthy and more powerful, while the rest of us get more and more oppressed), is what does matter. Yes, for every action there is an equal or greater reaction; but there is also something called a feedback process.

By the way, you're not the first person to try the I'm going to try to spark an emotional reaction from this guy by attempting to portray him as a very dumb individual with my "I'm dumbing it down for you as much as I can" ad hom causal fallacy attack on me on this forum; but it's even more entertaining than before because it reveals your ignorance (yes, it can be bliss) about me - especially because the other person had just tried it within the past couple weeks. I'm also amused at how you tried to create the illusion of a nonexistent group of people laughing at the pitiful misportrayal of a question that has absolutely nothing wrong with it.

PS: If I'm wrong about something, just bring it up and point it out. Not only do I not mind being shown that I'm wrong, I will appreciate it being brought up with something that shows how or why I'm wrong. What I don't have much use for is being told things like I'm clueless, dumb, this, that - whatever, without being provided with something to help me take corrective action.


Yeah, I should probably apologize for that. Didn't mean to make you sound like a main stream puppet. I actully had you confused with the last guy who dropped me a bunch of neg reps with the usual kindergarten lol and lmao shenanigans and no actual counter argument. I'm just so tired of being nice to that brood. I'm going to start negging the crap out of them, I think. Might even add a nonsensical lol. Although I do loathe that language. Also wasn't really trying to attack you personally. More so the narrative that so many come here and read. To have a completely political narrative trump discussion like this confuses the casual passer by on the phenomenon titself. Which is essentially my gripe with it all.

[Natural Citizen]

This is a political forum.

Without a platform for the sciences, I'd add. In effect, it seems like practical discussion on the sciences aren't particularly condoned in favor of keeping them relative to the political narrative. As if by design. I've seen many really good topics of discussion come up here regarding the sciences and their relevance to the way the world is changing. They are scattered all over the place and eventually buried only to be brought up in another thread based upon whatever the political narrative is for the day. It's just unfortunate in my opinion.

[Neil Desmond]

the internal combustion engine powering my car is no more that 40% efficient.
the gases that engine doesnt burn are releases into the biosphere, those same gases absorb and hold heat. i wonder why so many people cant grasp this concept

yes humans have an effect on the environment (good and bad). to think otherwise is to view humans separate from nature.

human caused warming implies there is only one cause which i disagree with. but to think that humans have no control over the environment is very close minded imo.
Just to be sure it's clear, don't confuse an efficiency percentage with percentage of gases that the engine doesn't burn. The percentage of efficiency has to do with how much energy there is, and how much of that energy is converted into mechanical work or heat:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_engine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_%28thermodynamics%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency

A gallon of gasoline has 1.3x108 Joules of energy (source: http://www.evworld.com/library/energy_numbers.pdf). Say you have an internal combustion engine that is 25% efficient. What this means is that of those 1.3x108 Joules of energy, 0.325x108 Joules of that energy is being converted to mechanical work (and the rest is getting converted into heat).

In the Wikipedia "engine efficiency" article, under the section "Oxygen", it states that fuel that isn't burned (in the combustion chamber) reduces certain pollutants (e.g., NOx) but raises others (e.g., partically decomposed HxCy).

[presence]

I'm very skeptical of it, considering it's appeared since it's conception to be all about control and profit built on faux-consensus, also serving as a wedge issue.

Antecdotally, today is the first day of spring and

it's snowing here in GA, that's just nuts, as it is normally 75 by now...

Last year was the most mild winter I remember, and the year before the most brutally cold in some time. This year has been much more consistently cold but not so bitter cold. Sounds to me like typical yearly variance, aided by longer term natural shifts in temperatures.



By Dr. Jeff Masters
Published: 3:15 PM GMT on March 20, 2013
Punxatawney Phil got it way wrong. Pennsylvania's famous prognosticating rodent predicted just three more weeks of winter back on February 2. It's the first day of spring, but winter remains firmly entrenched over the eastern half of the U.S., where temperatures of 5 - 25°F below average have been the rule all week. The culprit is the jet stream, which has taken on an unusually contorted shape that is allowing cold air to spill down over the Eastern U.S. and Western Europe, but bringing near-record warmth to portions of Greenland. One measure of how contorted the jet stream has become is by measuring the difference in pressure between the Icelandic Low and the Azores High. There are two indices used to do this--one called the Arctic Oscillation (AO), which treats the flow over the entire Northern Hemisphere, and another called the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), which is more focused on the North Atlantic. The two are closely related about 90% of the time. When these indices are strongly negative, the pressure difference between the Icelandic Low and the Azores High is low. This results in a weaker jet stream, allowing it to take large, meandering loops, letting cold air to spill far to the south from the Arctic into the mid-latitudes. The AO index hit -5.2 today (March 20). This is the second most extreme March value of the index since record keeping began in 1948; only an AO value of -6.3 in March 1970 was more extreme. We've had some wildly variable jet stream patterns in recent years in the Northern Hemisphere. Just last year, we had the opposite extreme in March, when our ridiculous "Summer in March" heat wave brought a week of temperatures in the 80s to the Midwest U.S. The first day of spring today in Chicago, IL is expected to have a high temperature of just 25°F--a 60 degree difference from last year's high of 85°F on March 20!

http://icons.wxug.com/hurricane/2013/march20_jet.gif
Figure 1. The jet stream is taking a large dip to the south over the Eastern U.S., allowing cold air to spill southwards and bring winter-like conditions.

Unusual winter jet stream patterns tied to Arctic sea ice loss
Unusual jet stream contortions in winter have become increasingly common in recent years, according to a March 2013 paper by Tang et al., "Cold winter extremes in northern continents linked to Arctic sea ice loss". They found a mathematical relationship between wintertime Arctic sea ice loss and the increase in unusual jet stream patterns capable of bringing cold, snowy weather to the Eastern U.S., Western Europe, and East Asia, typical of what one sees during a strongly negative Arctic Oscillation. They theorized that sea ice loss in the Arctic promotes more evaporation, resulting in earlier snowfall in Siberia and other Arctic lands. The earlier snow insulates the soil, allowing the land to cool more rapidly. This results in a southwards shift of the jet stream and builds higher atmospheric pressures farther to the south, which increases the odds of cold spells and blocking high pressure systems that can cause extended periods of unusually cold and snowy weather in the mid-latitudes.
..

[mczerone]

Generally speaking, the ways we change our environments are ones that make them much better for us, not worse.

Given that the actor is burdened with the responsibility of their changes and have an adequate feedback of how their changes actually affect their own and others' well-being, this is absolutely true.

Unfortunately, the primary role of a state is to insulate actors from their consequences. Even in traditional/constitutional roles, there is a distortion in the price structure for defense/national services and a socialization of the effects of individual action onto the whole of the population.

In effect, your use of the words "we" and "us" make the statement true if you mean "each individual" does those things - but as soon as there is a system that is involuntary and the "we" and "us" turn into a collective state doing/condoning/subsidizing/pardoning the action, then the statement becomes false.

[Neil Desmond]

Yeah, I should probably apologize for that. Didn't mean to make you sound like a main stream puppet. I actully had you confused with the last guy who dropped me a bunch of neg reps with the usual kindergarten lol and lmao shenanigans and no actual counter argument. I'm just so tired of being nice to that brood. I'm going to start negging the crap out of them, I think. Might even add a nonsensical lol. Although I do loathe that language. Also wasn't really trying to attack you personally. More so the narrative that so many come here and read. To have a completely political narrative trump discussion like this confuses the casual passer by on the phenomenon titself. Which is essentially my gripe with it all.
Oh, ok; well thank you for the clarification. I appreciate that.

[Neil Desmond]

Without a platform for the sciences, I'd add. In effect, it seems like practical discussion on the sciences aren't particularly condoned in favor of keeping them relative to the political narrative. As if by design. I've seen many really good topics of discussion come up here regarding the sciences and their relevance to the way the world is changing. They are scattered all over the place and eventually buried only to be brought up in another thread based upon whatever the political narrative is for the day. It's just unfortunate in my opinion.
I don't mean to say that discussion of science isn't allowed; in fact I'm doing that myself. The way I see it, is that as a political forum, the ideas is for instance: given problem X (e.g., AGW), what - if anything - should the government do about it? There's also the issue of whether AGW is real or a hoax; in a way it's a political issue. I myself answered "no" to this poll, because I'm skeptical based on what I have found in doing research on this issue; I don't go so far as claiming that it's a hoax, because I don't (and so far can't) be certain that it is one.

As another political issue, Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution; but I do because the scientific evidence is there to support it. The political question in this case, though, is - does that matter? Do Ron Paul's religious or scientific beliefs about that affect how good a President he might have been, or is it even relevant? In that case, I would say that the answer is no. On the other hand, for a politician's belief about AGW and that the solution is carbon tax, carbon credits, etc., the answer is yes.

I like what this guy, Jacque Fresco, has to say that's relevant to this issue:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1W_P_30b9jY



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFvoh2vsQSI

[Neil Desmond]

Here's an example of a solution to a pollution problem that's technical (not political):

http://inhabitat.com/19-year-old-student-develops-ocean-cleanup-array-that-could-remove-7250000-tons-of-plastic-from-the-worlds-oceans/

[UWDude]

Skeptical: The sun is a far greater influence than anything mankind can muster.

Also, horses emitted CO2 all the time. Now they have been replaced by cars which only do it a couple hours a day.

[mczerone]

Here's an example of a solution to a pollution problem that's technical (not political):

http://inhabitat.com/19-year-old-student-develops-ocean-cleanup-array-that-could-remove-7250000-tons-of-plastic-from-the-worlds-oceans/

But as long as the oceans remain common property, the funding will likely be political. Who will fund this? Shippers? Fishermen? Greenpeacers? Or the joint efforts of the USA, Japan, China, and Russia?

Likewise for the atmosphere. If there are no owners, then only those who spend money for public relations concerns and direct usage will spend to maintain sustainability, and the result will be political boondoggling.

[erowe1]

Also, horses emitted CO2 all the time.

To say nothing of other kinds of pollution.

[Neil Desmond]

But as long as the oceans remain common property, the funding will likely be political. Who will fund this? Shippers? Fishermen? Greenpeacers? Or the joint efforts of the USA, Japan, China, and Russia?

Likewise for the atmosphere. If there are no owners, then only those who spend money for public relations concerns and direct usage will spend to maintain sustainability, and the result will be political boondoggling.
My point about pollution is that there is the stuff that does affect us and there's the potential fearmongering snake oil salesman (who I might add is trying to use the government for his agenda).

But, to answer your question, there are many non government involvement solutions, such as getting the funding from private donations, industries that make or use plastic funding it (for PR and what not), etc.

[Kelly.]

Just to be sure it's clear, don't confuse an efficiency percentage with percentage of gases that the engine doesn't burn. The percentage of efficiency has to do with how much energy there is, and how much of that energy is converted into mechanical work or heat:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_engine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_%28thermodynamics%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency

A gallon of gasoline has 1.3x108 Joules of energy (source: http://www.evworld.com/library/energy_numbers.pdf). Say you have an internal combustion engine that is 25% efficient. What this means is that of those 1.3x108 Joules of energy, 0.325x108 Joules of that energy is being converted to mechanical work (and the rest is getting converted into heat).

In the Wikipedia "engine efficiency" article, under the section "Oxygen", it states that fuel that isn't burned (in the combustion chamber) reduces certain pollutants (e.g., NOx) but raises others (e.g., partically decomposed HxCy).
the rest isnt ALL turned into heat. gases that werent burned completely, or were burned and broke down to smaller hydrocarbon chains still exist after the combustion cycle, and are expelled via the exhaust cycle.
i do agree with most of your post, although i think my point stands. internal combustion engines expel gases that absorb heat.
to say this has no effect on the environment, to me is false.

[erowe1]

the rest isnt ALL turned into heat. gases ....

When he says "the rest" he means the rest of the energy.

[Neil Desmond]

the rest isnt ALL turned into heat. gases that werent burned completely, or were burned and broke down to smaller hydrocarbon chains still exist after the combustion cycle, and are expelled via the exhaust cycle.
i do agree with most of your post, although i think my point stands. internal combustion engines expel gases that absorb heat.
to say this has no effect on the environment, to me is false.
Yes, I should've been more articulate about that - the gallon of gasoline would be what is burned (not necessarily what you put in your fuel tank). My point was just to clarify that it's not 60% (with respect to your 40% example) of that gallon of gasoline that isn't getting burned. I was trying to find out what exactly that percentage is (and I'm guessing that it's probably in the vicinity of far less than 1%) of the fuel ends up as unburned chemicals from internal combustion engines, but wasn't able to find anything. Do you have information on this?

[Kelly.]

When he says "the rest" he means the rest of the energy.

ah, got it, i misread it.

this still doesnt address the fact that all the gasoline sprayed into a cylinder is not completely gone by the exhaust stroke, and it then pushed out into the environment/biosphere.

i guess all im saying is, to say the pollution humans cause has zero effect on the planet is crazy. almost as crazy as those who think changes in the biosphere are solely man created.

[moostraks]

The problem with the sea ice arguments is that they are forming a hypothesis based upon a roughly 30 year analysis. I think the data is too limited to be making a legitimate argument from which to run hither and yon in panic.

I believe the government is corrupt and is waging a war against the little person for effects brought on through nefarious programs that are benefitting corporate interests. Mega corps are driving up costs and causing devastating effects to the environment through things such as hush hush weather modification programs while blaming the average person for breathing and breeding (said intentionally to reflect the level of contempt they feel towards the general populace).

[ronpaulfollower999]

The problem with the sea ice arguments is that they are forming a hypothesis based upon a roughly 30 year analysis. I think the data is too limited to be making a legitimate argument from which to run hither and yon in panic.


This.

[RickyJ]

I voted no, only because you forgot to have a "hell f*cking no!" option.

[Neil Desmond]

I voted no, only because you forgot to have a "hell f*cking no!" option.
Oh, sorry. Next time I'll try not to forget. ;)

[heavenlyboy34]

ah, got it, i misread it.

this still doesnt address the fact that all the gasoline sprayed into a cylinder is not completely gone by the exhaust stroke, and it then pushed out into the environment/biosphere.

i guess all im saying is, to say the pollution humans cause has zero effect on the planet is crazy. almost as crazy as those who think changes in the biosphere are solely man created.
This is correct to an extent. We have a story or 2 around here about Iraqi kids born with grotesque malformations due to the junk the military has put into their environment. However, it is also true that the Earth is a closed system (http://edhelper.com/ReadingComprehension_37_34.html). What you see as "damage" is just existing material taking new forms.

[Kelly.]

This is correct to an extent. We have a story or 2 around here about Iraqi kids born with grotesque malformations due to the junk the military has put into their environment. However, it is also true that the Earth is a closed system (http://edhelper.com/ReadingComprehension_37_34.html). What you see as "damage" is just existing material taking new forms.

you seem to imply that material taking new forms is as harmless as the previous form, which i disagree with. (or read it wrong)

if you are referring to the deleted uranium used in fallujah causing malformed babies, imo that is a crime against humanity. war crime whatever you want to call it. we (by proxy) added that uranium / phosphorus to their environment and now are seeing the results.


Jamail says that the current rate of birth defects for the city of Fallujah has surpassed those of Hiroshima and Nagasaki after the nuclear attacks at the end of World War II.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/iraq-war-anniversary-birth-defects-cancer_n_2917701.html (reference)