Well, doesn't this make you feel more comfortable to fly?

I said it after 9/11, I'll say it again--the idea of a huge government bureaucracy like the TSA is a frickin' joke. It's as ridiculous as even having that monstrous department known as "Homeland Security"; yet too many Americans got so ridiculously emotional, demanding that government be the answer to everything, and what did the politicians do? They expediently responded with the TSA.

The bigger joke is flying using jet engines to begin with. The fuel produces nitrous oxide emissions when burned with atmospheric oxygen. So if you figure the amount of plane travel for military and commercial use, you realize the major contributor to global warming. You also need to figure in the large consumption of oxygen by the planes. So you are getting a double-whammy. An estimate I read is that one cross country commercial jet flight uses the oxygen produced by 40,000 trees in a day. Yeah, then figure in deforestation.
I feel a bomb will be a much more pleasant way to go than suffocation. If it bothers you simply do not fly. The jet planes stop and the world becomes a quieter cleaner place.

And the world economy shuts down, too.

I don't know what you've been drinking, but it's obviously gone straight to your head. Global warming, too? Give me a break. That's a myth perpetuated by the environmentalist nutjobs. Hell, even Penn & Teller dissed it in one of their Bullshit episodes. Earth goes through its own periods of warming and cooling, unaffacted by Man's actions.

global warming, too? Give me a break. That's a myth perpetuated by the environmentalist nutjobs.

Among the environmentalist nut jobs are Discover magazine, a Time-Life publication, which listed global warming as the #1 science story of 2004. The article talks about how not only is virtually the entire community of geoscientists united in accepting the overwhelming evidence for global warming but that it is now more and more accepted even in conservative political circles. For example, Business Week magazine (another environmentalist nutjob?) ran a cover story on the need for businesses to respond to this threat. Even the Gropernator, with his six humvees and his brilliant idea to eliminate lunch breaks, supports California having stricter emissions controls and lists global warming as a reason.
Fact is, the only ones who continue to deny global warming are the right extremists of the Limbaugh/Savage stripe and their imitators. It is as established as evolution (oops, there are those who deny that as well) or the Nazi holocaust (oops there are those that deny that) or the moon landing (oops...).

MIB, you're going to use Penn & Teller to back up your "global warming is a myth" stance?? That's funny and sad at the same time. Wow. Perhaps you have a bright future as a scientist - just consult with Penn & Teller, Gallagher, Sinbad, etc. on all your projects.

More importantly, even those of us who agree that the science behind global warming is sound, and we should do a LOT more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, can agree that airplanes are the least of our troubles. As much as I shudder to agree with MIB on anything, my own job relies on me traveling, and flying has to produce less pollution per mile travelled than either driving or train travel, the only other options.

now lets see, where did I put that suitcase with the bomb...hmmm.

TSA: Far scarier to me is the fact that Newark Liberty Airport was one of the sites from which one of the 9/11 hijacking terrorist crews flew out, AND it is one of the three airports serving the nation's largest city and business capital, so you would THINK that if there were any airport where security would be airtight, it would be Newark Liberty, and yet....

A disgrace. So we're safer than we were 4 years ago, huh?

As for global warming, all the gas-guzzling SUVs, industrial emissions, the clearcutting of the Brazilian and Indonesian rainforests, etc., are far more serious problems than airplane travel.

Human-induced global warming is an established fact, and no amount of attacking competent science or people calling attention to it is going to lessen this fact. Even Dumbya & Co.--at least temporarily--admitted that global warming was a problem, particularly for the future of the U.S. economy. Limbaugh ("George W. Al Gore"--Pillpopper Limbo) is so drugged out of his fat mind that can't be sure what's happening outdoors or indoors....

No it's not. Anecdotal evidence about some place being cooler or warmer isn't fact, either. There is no evidence to indicate Man is warming--or cooling--this planet. To think we can is just foolish and vain.

The planet undergoes global warming and global cooling on its own, and will continue to do so with or without our presence. What's next? People screaming that human activity is the reason why the Sun is presently warmer than it has been? That human activity is the reason for the unusual rise in sunspot activity and intense solar flares?

(BTW, there are many scientists who believe that these solar anamolies are the cause of reputed global warming.)

Here is one place where those nutjobs place all that wonderful information you cannot understand or do not want to understand.

And your point is...? That web site is too funny. It panders to the fears of those who think the planet will be dead in 2 weeks. Oy vay!

They're all a bunch of clueless fearmongers who have absolutely NO proof about what they babble.

You shouldn't talk about our esteemed president and his able administration that way.

Global warming is just like evolution. 98% of people who have spent their entire lives studying global warming think that humans played a big role in the recent uptick, just as 98% of people who study life on earth have come to the conclusion that we evolved. In both cases, the only people resisting are right-wingers who don't like the implications and pay similarly inclined researchers to work backwards to find "evidence" of their desired conclusion. I think I'll side with the scientists on global warming, not the Wall Street Journal editorial page.

This is true. However, the logical conclusion to draw from this is not that mankind can alter the atmosphere without consequences, but that the earth's climatic system is very delicately balanced. A 5-7% decrease in summer insolation at 60N is apparently enough to allow ice sheets 3 miles thick to develop over most of Canada. The fact is, carbon dioxide is a very big player in the earth's heat balance. Over 20% of the energy the atmosphere receives is long wave energy absorbed by carbon dioxide. It's not "foolish and vain" to suggest that an anthropogenic increase in carbon dioxide could affect the climate, it's quite logical.

Citing left-wing nutjob scientists who have been screaming about this nonsense for years isn't what I'd call credible sources.

JC, carbon dioxide from Man has had NO effect on the earth's atmosphere. Furthermore, there is less CO2 being produced now than there were centuries ago. There are also more trees living in this country than there were centuries ago. Some will begin foaming at the mouth over that, but it's true. Two hints: tree farms and forest fires (and the two aren't necessarily connected.)

Humans have never been able to effect the planet's climate, nor do we have that ability now. Any global warming or cooling that may or may not be occurring does so on its own and not because of anything Man is doing or has done.

It should be noted that I am one who does love the environment. Give me trees and forests and land any day over buildings, though I do admit that with the exception of aluminum cans, I don't recycle one bit, because that's the biggest bunch of bullshit perpetrated upon people in decades.

[ December 17, 2004, 11:15 AM: Message edited by: MIB ]

Really? So where is all the dead (containing no C-14) radiocarbon coming from that has pushed the CO2 levels in the atmosphere up steadily for the past fifty years?

Don't give me the line about man-made carbon dioxide being small compared to natural sources. It is, but the natural sources are balanced by natural sinks. That's like saying that if you spend 1% more money every year it will have no effect on your bank account. In fact, the puzzle is not that carbon dioxide is going up, but that it hasn't gone up more.

Yes, the U.S. has more trees in it than it did 200 years ago (though less than it did 500 years ago). But the biological productivity of the U.S. is very small compared to that of the Tropical Rainforests, which most definitely are decreasing.

Nature. She's done it before, she'll do it again, and Man can't stand in her way, vain as you may be.

In other words you don't actually have an explanation, and have taken up faith-based science. Carbon dioxide levels haven't changed this fast or this much since the end of the Younger Dryas 10,000 years ago. The temperature change is arguably within normal levels of global temperature fluctuations, but the CO2 change is highly unusual.

"Nature. She's done it before, she'll do it again..."

We can only hope. Let's completely discount all the shifts in paradigms that man has introduced into the normal cycles of the Ice Age. Let's say the cycle goes as it always has. You are completely right as an anachronism. Let's all put on the happier face because we only have to deal with food and shelter for the world's "overpopulation" and the whacky hijinks that ensue.

If only there was a smiley for this Sorry for hijacking your plane with a bomb on it.

Screeners losing a bomb? Does this really surprise anyone? It becomes big news about our security and then they still do nothing about it but brush it off. Thats why they will let a real bomb go through one day and kaboom-- planes fall from the sky.

The "TSA" is still the same people that were a dollar less an hour employees only a few years ago. Same training, same low pay, same dumb managment. So what should we expect?

I mentioned this long ago. Out of college I was looking for work and my roommate was a screener at RDU. Paid $5 an hour mind you. But I needed work. So his boss told him to tell me to just show up. I had filled out no paperwork, no background check was made on me yet, they didnt even know my name. As soon as I got there the lady went straight to training me on being a screener. I found the whole process so insane that I didnt return for a 2nd day. But that just shows you how it goes. I could have been a terrorist and went through that training learning a lot of information that some people dont know-- how the xrays work, what can be seen, what cant, and what "codes" are used when calling in security.

This same sceening company also allowed numerous fake weapons through its xrays on many occasions-- as the FAA has tried the procedure for years to check performance. And they failed every time! The FAA did nothing but fine them. This was also the year 2000 and nobody thought about it being a big time problem. But obviously it is and still nothing is done to seriously fix the problem.

Oh ye of little faith.

So you think 98% of the people who have dedicated their life to studying our planet's temperature patterns and come to their conclusions using the scientific method are \"left-wing nutjobs\"? Right...

How do you know? Are you an expert in this field? Or does it just not "make sense" to you?

You got it. Anecdotal \"evidence\" is proof of nothing. I bet there were nutjobs screaming in the 1800's when our planet saw periods of warming that eclipse that of today. Must've been all those jet engines doing it back then.

Common sense and the lack of fearmongering on my part. Add a dash of reality and a pinch of information that contradicts what these fearmongerers have been saying.

There's really no way to respond when you completely dismiss years of scientific research because it doesn't fit your idea of "common sense." I just hope you see the parallel between evolution and global warming here. Science takes one side; the far right takes another. Take your pick...

The far right has theirs, the far left theirs. It's just too bad these so-called scientists and their so-called "evidence"--which it's not--falls into the far-left fringe. Most of these loons are those living under glass in Phoenix who crawl out of their greenhouses in mid-July screaming, "It's hot out here!" then claim it's global warming. Puhleeze.

I repeat: there is no scientific, physical, philosophical, biological, moral, religious, psychological, physiological, or theoretical evidence for global warming resulting from Man's presence or actions. None.

So there is no "theoretical evidence" for a...theory? I think you just beat yourself in this argument.

Just in case anyone is confused. Global warming is established fact.

Should I say that again very s-l-o-w-l-y for you? Obviously that joke went right above your head. Reread it again. I need not explain my wording.

If you read my comments above, you'll find that I never said global warming per se hasn't occurred or isn't occurring. Global warming/cooling happens on its own with NO impact from Man's actions. It's the global warming as a result of Mankind that doesn't exist. At all.

My first post in the P&R section of the board, *smirk* ... and it's not even on the official topic.

I'm by no means an expert on the subject of global warming or other geological issues like other members of the board ... I'm a lousy Synthetic Organic Chemist, by trade ... over the past 420 kyr, as shown through the Vostok ice cores there have been drastic temperature fluctuations. These fluctuations can't all be attributed to the activites of man.

However, I think that it's more than coincidental that these temperature fluctuations have occured when the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide have increased. I have a wonderful graph that shows the relationship between the atmospheric concentration of CO2 vs. temperature over the past 420 kyr. It clearly shows that when the concentration of atmospheric CO2 have been lower than current levels, the temperature has been colder than current average temperatures, and vice versa. (I don't think that there is any question about that point.)

In addition, the burning of fossil fuels have provided a source of anthropogenic CO2 that can not be easily removed from the atmosphere. In addition, the burning of fossil fuels has impacted the efficacy of the carbon sinks. Therefore, unless the burning of fossil fuels is immediately ceased, *smirk*, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is going to be continue to increase. (One of the references for my senior thesis stated that it was increasing at 1.4 ppm/year.) All of the current models have shown that the levels of CO2 will be, in the very least, at 600 ppm ... which is twice as high as any measurement obtained from the Vostok ice cores.

To summarize this long-winded, rambling post ... the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has steadily increased since the burning of fossil fuels. Coincidentally, the global average temperature change has also increased. Frankly, 200 years is an extremely short time period to determine whether or not there is a direct correlation between the two variables, however, I wouldn't be so quick to state that the increase of temperatures over the recent past can not possibly be attributed to the activities of man. Given that the latest reading this spring from Mauna Loa (I think that's the volcano in Hawaii where they obtain atmospheric CO2 measurements) was at 380 ppm, which IIRC, is higher than any measurement obtained from the Vostok ice cores ... we're heading into uncharted territory for which there is no scientific evidence.

(BTW, who is to say that global warming is necessarily be a bad thing? Granted, it would cause melting of the polar ice caps, which will impact the stratification of the oceans and will cause severe climatological changes in itself, in addition to decreasing the efficacy of the ocean as a carbon sink, but various scientists (can't recall the group of scientist off of the top of my head, but references can be provided if necessary), deny that man has any impact on global warming and they even state that if global warming is a proven phenomenon, it will have a huge benefit on the agricultural productivity throughout the world.)

Nick

BTW, I find all of this discussion of global warming incredibly amusing since it's currently snowing on the beach outside of my condo in Wilmington, North Carolina. I moved to NC to avoid the snow ... geesh!

MIB, so if 98% (or 8% come to that) of meteorologists say theres a hurricane on the way, what do you do?

Probably you take whatever action you can to protect yourself, your family and your property.
Of course they may be wrong - they often are. Thats not the point. Once a certain percentage of scientists come to the conclusion that global warming is caused by human action, it is only sensible to pay heed and do what they suggest. Why bother arguing about it?

Do what they say just in case.

The precautionary principle and all that.

Trying out the current configuration of my new Beige G3 desktop model. Recycling a computer. Hammerman I find this discussion of global warming amusing and a great source of apathy. I find it hilarious that some folks think science is a liberal left-wing platform. Therefore it must be in the realm of nut-jobs. There was this study I used as a paradigm for the effects of nuclear winter. It was called TTAPS. TTAPS are the initials of the last names of the scientists who putforth the theory. The "S" is for Carl Sagan. The effects of a nuclear winter parallel those of the outcome of the current global warming was an aside of sorts to their conclusion. This study was done in 1985. One of my biology classmates did a study on the greenhouse effect. His English writing skills weren't good so I rewrote his work for him. It didn't sink in until I got into environmental issues a few years later. The EPA monitors and updates an air quality index for most areas. The results of which are viewable online. Blah, blah and yet still more blah smiley for apathy :confused:
To try to be coherent and stay on thread, I know a guy who works at the airport here. Security is an illusion now. They are upping the level of security quite shortly I am told.

What he said!

My reaction to Global Warming??

When I left for work yesterday morning, the thermometer in my car read -27 Celcius.

Yup, 27 f**king degrees below zero, and that was WITHOUT a wind. My sister lives 3 hours away from me and for them it was -46.

I won't deny that global warming is a bitch, but jeez.!!!!

Global warming is somewhat of a misnomer. The current scenario will not be a plus for agriculture. The increase in ultraviolet radiation will kill plant life that cannot adapt in time. The UV's will also kill the bacteria necessary to regenerate the soil. So the equator regions will become barren. That would include the rain forests that are needed to reverse the Ice Age paradigm. Even at current UV levels, clearcutting forests exposes the undergrowth to enough UV radiation to thwart regrowth.
I do not worry about bombs on jet planes. I have never flown on a jet plane in my life. Every one who decides to fly takes that risk on their own.

Oh! Puhleeze!

Where do you GET this crap?!?

It's the end of the world! We're doomed!! Everyone's gonna die!!! The planet is dying!!!!

Good God, the bullshit's so thick I can't walk anymore.

An illogical comparison. Hurricanes are phenomena of nature. Human-induced global warming's a myth.

MIB,
If you want attention you should just ask. Wow is it amazing when someone calls science crap. The same person goes about their life everyday enjoying the benefits that science provides. Then when science tries to tell the person that certain uses of their science are not sustainable, they label it as bullshit. As if the technological ignoramus actually knows better. It also amazing when the selfish complacent instincts outweigh those of the individuals survival. In most cases of environmental conflicts, you can have the best of both worlds. The only loser is usually the oil company and everyone would loses money, power and control along the way. Environmental practice is usually more efficient and saves the company money. This has been proven in several industries.
oh yeah, the plane thing...
Hence re-evaluating airline technology may be the right ticket to buy. Perhaps trying to figure out why someone would want to bring a bomb on a plane to begin with is more apropos. You can get explosives past dogs and other technology through security measures. Before you make the world a safer place you have to make it a better place. A place in which terrorism is not needed nor or the reactionary measures that only cost us our convenience and freedom. Measure and countermeasure, wouldn't it be less appealing to blow-up a smaller plane with less folks on board. Perhaps restructuring the industry as such would make planes less of a target and serve customers better in some areas. Well except maybe in Wellstone's case. But that's an entirely different thread there.

Uh, maybe because it's not science??? It's a bunch of environmentalist whackos trying to use anecdotal evidence as fact. Perhaps they ought to get their heads out of the ovens and realize they're just nuts.


In what cave are you holed up? And is that a coonskin hat you're wearing?

Yeah, let's get them to fly on rubber bands, because those jet engines are killing the environment. You definitely are two tacos short of a combination plate.

I agree the hurricane example was not the best, but what about the main point - the precautionary principle stuff?

[ December 22, 2004, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: jamesw ]

Conservatives seem fond of using Pascal's Wager in this type of context.

I have no problem with real conservatives. Pascal's theorizing perhaps. Surplant God wtih Mickey Mouse or Bigfoot...the computer language is another story.

I am rather new to these forums. I have read several threads in all the topics. I am wondering is MIB the Contrary Fairy? Yeah,I finally stooped to name calling frown

Well, that's real mature. It is a proven fact that when people have no logic to support their arguments and cannot stand on facts, they resort to name-calling and personal insults. Thanks for proving my point, even if it was a somewhat entertaining characterization of my role here, one that is to get people to actually think and stop spouting the tired, old crap of their party leaders. Too many left-wing, mindless ideological robots here. If it isn't a poll or published in the New York Times or Washington Post or Mother Jones, it's not worth repeating here, it seems.

actually, it's published by the national climate data center and they are quite clear in stating that co2 levels in the atmosphere are rising directly as a result of man's activities. the science is very clear on this, as others have meticulously spelled out.

perhaps someone is spouting verbatim from their party leaders and favorite partisan rags, but it's not those claiming that the co2 levels are rising as a result of man's activities on earth. it is those who deny it.

CO2 levels are rising? So? They've gone up and down for centuries. Along with CO, volcanoes, for instance, have been among the largest causes for this. Along with CO2, we also have higher levels of oxygen than we had centuries ago. Is that man's fault? Actually, yes. Man has helped increase the production of O and increase the consumption of CO2 via the larger number of trees existing today.

Global warming? Tell that to people in Ohio, Indiana, southern Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, and other places, who within the last 24 hours have seen more snow in one storm than they get all year long. And what about record cold plunging south, with even San Antonio expected to get to the teens tonight (so sayeth my brother who lives there). Yeah, we're just roasting in this country.

Volcanoes are definately a source of CO2 in the atmosphere. However, in comparison to fossil fuels, they contribute a miniscule amount. According to, Gases: Man versus the Volcanoes anthropogenic sources of CO2 exhaust 150 times more CO2 than all of the volcanoes on the planet. Granted, they do exhaust larger amounts other dangerous greenhouse gases than the man-made sources, but CO2 is definately not one of them.

As for the planet producing more oxygen than in the past, I don't know if that is necessarily true. Granted, we have planted more trees in THIS country, (I'll get to the deforestation across the world in a minute) but an amusing thing about that is in Indiana specifically, the trees have been planted in specific areas that were, at one time, wetlands. During the 1800's, deforestation was rampant in the Midwest in order to produce farming land. However, those farmers managed to also drain the wetlands, to get even more farming land. However, what they failed to realize is that by draining the wetlands, they managed to produce a floodplain, which would become flooded nearly every year. In effect, they destroyed a great carbon sink (wetlands are the best carbon sinks on the planet) and while planting trees is a decent way to fix the problem, but it's like trading a quarter for a two nickels. You still have money, but not nearly as much as before. Note: I understand that deforestation was necessary in the colonial times and certain regions are trying to fix the problem, which is commendable.

Furthermore, according to Ecology: On the move!, (this site has a ton of interesting information) only 29% of the earth's surface is covered by trees. In addition, from 1990 - 2000, about two percent of the world's forest cover - roughly 10 million hectares - was lost and not recovered, according the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). That rate continues today. (They have a great graphic which shows the cover of natural forests years ago compared to today.)

While, there is some reforestation in Europe (which actually has more trees than it did prior to 1990) and parts of North America, but as a whole, deforestation is on the rise.

I'm not saying that deforestation isn't necessary in some countries ... especially in developing regions which need to utilize their raw materials in order to correct the trading inequalities with more developed countries, but I believe that they are taking it a too far. *shrug*

Back to the main point, man has helped reforestation to a certain extent in parts of the world, but as a whole, each year, there are fewer trees on the planet.

(BTW, global warming is supposed to cause more "extreme weather events". This storm could even be attributed to that ... although, as a meteorological buff, I think it had more to do with a strong low pressure system than global warming. However, we all know that one rather isolated weather event can not be used to dispel the premise of global warming. We know that we should look at the yearly averages in order to determine whether or not this phenomenon really exists. And that is my Captain Obvious moment of the day ... Thank You and Godspeed.)

Nick

BTW, I'm trying to find the webpage of the research group that contends that global warming doesn't truly exist. (I remember that they're based in Oklahoma and it's headed by a father and his two sons. Sherman, something or other ... if anyone knows, I'd really like to check out their research again.) They have a ton of interesting facts, including a few articles written by my thesis advisor, although he said that he didn't necessarily approve of the way that his conclusions were used to support their claims.

[ December 24, 2004, 09:58 AM: Message edited by: The_Hammerman ]

Measurable snow today in South Padre Island for the first time since 1895.

Wind chills in San Antonio of 5 below zero, with snow predicted there as well. High of 30.

Snow in New Orleans predicted.

Yeah, this global warming is rampant, ain't it?

anyone knows that any meaningful measure of global warming is taken at the 50th percentile, not the 95th, but nice, if meaningless, try!

Oh, the hypocrisy.

....like shooting fish in a barrel, eh, weaselman?