backtop


Print 176 comment(s) - last by Emryse.. on Nov 28 at 6:22 PM

Britain has pledge to assist China is looking to implement carbon capture vision

While the U.S. was the leader in CO2 emissions for a single nation for the better part of a century, China recently surpassed the world in emissions.  In fact, between now and 2030, Chinese emissions are expected to double as the country continues its path of rampant industrialization.

China chiefly uses coal as its fuel source as it has rich coal resources.  It burns the coal in power plants, in a process that typically emits massive amounts of carbon dioxide.  U.S. plants have various scrubbers and filters to take out other carbon based compounds, such as phenols, many of which are carcinogenic.  Many of China's plants lack these technologies, leading to a two-fold problem -- rising emissions and rising airborne toxins.

Britain, who has had a long and tumultuous relationship with China over the years, now is turning to this familiar land to try to aid a helping hand.  Engineers with British Geological Survey (BGS) attended the launch of the Near Zero Emissions Coal (NZEC) Phase 1 study in Beijing, China last week, a study which aims to implement explore new technologies to capture virtually all the carbon pollution from coal burning plants in China.

The process used is called carbon capture and storage (CCS), and with it China looks to make good on the pledge it made at an EU-China Summit in September 2005.  China has pledged to develop and implement a large scale Near Zero Emissions Coal demonstration.  In order to achieve this goal, China is teaming up with the British scientists of the BGS.

Dr. Nick Riley MBE, Head of Science for Energy at BGS, was enthusiastic about the work commenting, "CCS offers the opportunity to reduce emissions per unit of electricity by 85 - 90%. Large-scale deployment of CCS in China has potential to significantly reduce future greenhouse gas emissions".

The Chinese will utilize the BGS's specialties to help find and map strategically sedimentary basins that could possibly be used as CO2 storage grounds.  These regions will undergo geocapacity testing (assessments of how much can be stored).  The next step is to pick the best locations and put them through an even more thorough analysis and then utilize these sites in the demonstration system.

China's NZEC program is funded by Britain, through Defra, Britain's agriculture and food department, and DBERR, Britain's business regulatory department. It is coordinated by AEA Energy & Environment (UK) and ACCA21 (China).

Perhaps the BGS and China should look at storing the CO2 not on land, but in the sea.  New American research from Harvard University, detailed at DailyTech looks to use sand in a CCS process which stores CO2 highly effectively in the sea

The problem of industrial pollution and carbon emissions certainly remains a thorny issue, but many will be pleased to see China make serious efforts to work towards meeting or even beating international pollution standards.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

funded by the U.K.?
By Moishe on 11/27/2007 10:47:27 AM , Rating: 5
I find it odd that this is funded by the U.K when China is rolling in dough and is the culprit.

Very nice of the Brits!




RE: funded by the U.K.?
By mdogs444 on 11/27/07, Rating: -1
RE: funded by the U.K.?
By darkblueslider on 11/27/2007 11:14:06 AM , Rating: 2
Are You seriously blaming one country for "Most" of global discussion currently surrounding Global Warming?


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By mdogs444 on 11/27/2007 11:21:27 AM , Rating: 1
Im not saying they are the only ones-

But it goes without saying that the UK and UN are the primary subjects that are exploiting the global warming dooms day talk (outside of Al Gore).


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By theoflow on 11/27/2007 12:13:17 PM , Rating: 2
I am curious when you say the UK and UN are exploiting global warming. I am not being sarcastic, it is a serious question.

As for how people think Global warming is a lie, I think there was a fair amount of people during the industrial revolution that thought pollution was a lie as well. People believe in pollution, but don't believe in global warming and there is a pretty big gap, or leap of faith, to get the idea.

If you think about pollution, throwing a food wrapper out the window by itself is pretty much harmless. But if everyone did it (and alot of people do) we'd get pollution. That pollution would then lead to various heath issues. Same thing pretty much goes for global warming, although the results are much harder to visualize because we're all not atmospheric scientists.

This leads to the theory of global warming because in reality it is a theory. However, there are many accepted theories that still just theories and not absolute fact.

One major theory of this was that the earth was round. We had tons of data and observations proving that the world was round, but until we actually went into space and looked at the earth with our own eyes, we didn't know for sure that the world was actually round.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By theapparition on 11/27/2007 12:52:52 PM , Rating: 5
For "Global Warming", I don't think there is much scientific debate on whether the earth is warming up. It is. Unfortunately, the term has now taken on a media fueled negative connotation.

No, the debate centers on the question of whether the warming is the result of man-made effects, or is it natural. The second hot scientific topic is the question of whether global warming is even bad. Definitive answers are not in, but most reasonable scientific research has concluded that most effects are negligible and that the results of global warming could be beneficial. Last is whether it is temporary or permanent.

The Earth is certainly warming, as are other planets in the Solar System, sugesting a Solar event. Another fact, is that the Earth has been much warmer than it is today in the recent past. Greenland was aptly named because it was far more temperate than it is now. A single erupting volcano can spew out more "pollutants" than over 100 years of human activity. And certainly everyone has heard of the "ice ages" where periods of the earth were at different temperatures. So you can believe that the Earth goes through regular temperature cycles, or you can believe that the Dinosaurs died out because they couldn't control the pollution in their dino-factories. Maybe it was the aliens who caused previous global warming in the past, but one thing is certain, it wasn't man.

It is certainly wise to reduce our pollution, I'm all for that. What I'd like to see is that we do it responsibly. Does it make more sense now to switch to electric cars, where the overall higher ecological footprint offsets any gains over conventional gasoline. No, not right now. Maybe in the future, it will become a resonable option. Let's all just not panic at the sound of "global warming". OK?


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By OrSin on 11/27/2007 1:22:42 PM , Rating: 1
Greenland was not name that becuase it full of plant life. It was named, that becuase how the Sun reflected off the ice and sea water made the whole land mass look green. Green was never explored for 100's of years after it was named.

Second global warming is not bad for the planet or even human life. The problem is if the ice caps melt, they the sea level rises. And since 80% of the industrialize world live within 20 miles of an mojor boby of water people are worried. The warming itself is not a big deal.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 1:32:32 PM , Rating: 2
Greenland was warmer in the 10th-12th century than it is now. This is indisputable. A cooling Greenland is what drove off the Viking settlements in the 13th century, as the temperature was no longer warm enough to support agriculture.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By mcnabney on 11/27/2007 3:14:51 PM , Rating: 2
That is actually a myth. People have been there, but they fished and hunted whales for oil. In the "summer" grasses and lichens will grow, but there are no native trees or food crops. It is entirely too rocky.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 3:28:05 PM , Rating: 4
Incorrect. Some references:

quote:
...Vikings had large farmsteads with dairy cattle...pigs, and sheep and goats...Farmsteads also had ample pastures and fields of barley used for the making of beer...
By the year 1300...cool weather caused poor harvests in an already fragile climate. Because of the poor harvests there was less food for the livestock...
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/vikings_du...

quote:
From around 800 A.D. to 1200 or 1300, the globe warmed again considerably...the British Isles, Scandinavia, Greenland, and Iceland were considerably warmer than at present...
http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/history_health.html

quote:
Ice-core data from Crête, central Greenland, suggests a considerable and rapid warming late in the 9th century...The name of Greenland, when this country was in turn settled by Eiríkr rauði ("the red") around 985, may have described reality...
http://medieval.ucdavis.edu/SWEDEN/Climate.html

While Greenland certainly held a harsh climate even during the time of the Viking settlements, the fact remains that it was most certainly warmer than it is today.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By JustTom on 11/28/2007 1:34:06 AM , Rating: 1
Interesting links, however the quotes associated from the first deal with Iceland not Greenland
quote:
Animal bones and other materials collected from archaeological sites reveal Icelandic Vikings had large farmsteads with dairy cattle (a source of meat), pigs, and sheep and goats (for wool, hair, milk, and meat.) Farmsteads also had ample pastures and fields of barley used for the making of beer and these farms were located near bird cliffs (providing meat, eggs, and eiderdown) and inshore fishing grounds

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/vikings_du...
And I can't find reference in that link for the following quote
quote:
By the year 1300...cool weather caused poor harvests in an already fragile climate. Because of the poor harvests there was less food for the livestock...


The correct link should have been: http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/end_of_vik...


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By sinful on 11/27/2007 7:18:14 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The Earth is certainly warming, as are other planets in the Solar System, sugesting a Solar event. Another fact, is that the Earth has been much warmer than it is today in the recent past. Greenland was aptly named because it was far more temperate than it is now. A single erupting volcano can spew out more "pollutants" than over 100 years of human activity. And certainly everyone has heard of the "ice ages" where periods of the earth were at different temperatures. So you can believe that the Earth goes through regular temperature cycles, or you can believe that the Dinosaurs died out because they couldn't control the pollution in their dino-factories. Maybe it was the aliens who caused previous global warming in the past, but one thing is certain, it wasn't man.


I'm entertained by your idea that we know enough about other planet's climates to even *begin* to throw this idea out there as even a remotely plausible option - especially when there's so much debate about OUR climate on EARTH.

quote:
So you can believe that the Earth goes through regular temperature cycles, or you can believe that the Dinosaurs died out because they couldn't control the pollution in their dino-factories.


What a great line of thinking. Let's apply it to other ideas... Hrm, species went extinct before man was around... and species are going extinct now, therefore man has no impact on the extinction of species in the present. Brilliant! Let's abolish the endangered species list!

quote:
A single erupting volcano can spew out more "pollutants" than over 100 years of human activity.

Well, in that case, why bother not trying to pollute, and let's just dump all our pollution in your backyard....


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By CascadingDarkness on 11/28/2007 1:18:23 PM , Rating: 2
I've got to reply on this.
quote:
Hrm, species went extinct before man was around... and species are going extinct now, therefore man has no impact on the extinction of species in the present. Brilliant! Let's abolish the endangered species list!


Most people who aren't extreme alarmists would generally attribute most of the Holocene extinctions of present to the fact we are leaving an ice age. Only a small amount of those extinctions should be attributed to man. Just because they happened as humanity was flourishing doesn't mean we caused it all. You’re trying to make a direct cause out of a correlation.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By Screwballl on 11/28/2007 3:25:32 PM , Rating: 2
or just dump our trash into volcanoes...


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By JonnyDough on 11/27/2007 7:30:00 PM , Rating: 1
The debate isn't whether or not global warming is natural or man-made, the debate is how MUCH of it is man-made. If the earth is warming, and I light a fire, I am contributing. I don't know why people are insanely arguing over who is to blame. ALL human beings are to blame. Every time someone cuts down a plant they're changing the earth. We need to quit fighting among ourselves already as we've been doing since the dawn of man and start THINKING or we're all going to be living at the foot of the mountain when the mudslide begins. Unless I'm mistaken, some of us have already survived a few large natural events.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 12:53:32 PM , Rating: 4
> "although the results are much harder to visualize because we're all not atmospheric scientists"

But a large number of atmospheric physicists don't believe that mankind is negatively affecting climate. Now, if you ask your average biologist, most will profess a belief in global warming, but they're not exactly in a position to know.

> "but until we actually went into space and looked at the earth with our own eyes, we didn't know for sure that the world was actually round. "

Err, we know without a doubt the earth was round when Magellan circumnavigated it in the 16th century.

And while its a nice try to link global warming skeptics to flat earthers, the two situations are not comparable. Countless thousands of environmental doomsday theories have been shown to be false in the past. Many had as much or more popular support than global warming does today.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By Amiga500 on 11/28/2007 9:48:48 AM , Rating: 2
But a large number of atmospheric physicists don't believe that mankind is negatively affecting climate.

Now that I will take issue with.

I will say that alot of people studying the atmosphere disagree over the extent of human activity driving the change, but the majority will broadly agree the change is not for the better (as regards the effects on most of the planet's population).

Unless the international community agrees to cut carbon emissions by half over the next generation, climate change is likely to cause large-scale human and economic setbacks and irreversible ecological catastrophes, a United Nations report says on Tuesday.The U.N. Human Development Report issues one of the strongest warnings yet of the lasting impact of climate change on living standards and a strong call for urgent collective action.

“We could be on the verge of seeing human development reverse for the first time in 30 years,” Kevin Watkins, lead author of the report, told Reuters.

The report, to be presented in Brasilia on Tuesday, sets targets and a road map to reduce carbon emissions before a U.N. climate summit next month in Bali, Indonesia.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/28/2007 11:27:34 AM , Rating: 2
> "Now that I will take issue with."

Feel free...but you need to back that up with more than just your opinion. I've posted several atmospheric scientists who disagree. Why not try to find some of this "vast majority" who agree? (hint: biologists and psychologists don't count).

> "...Kevin Watkins, lead author of the report, told Reuters"

Oops. Dr Kevin Watkins has a degree in modern Indian history. Not exactly the best person to choose for detailing the causes of climate change, eh?


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By Samus on 11/27/2007 5:39:45 PM , Rating: 1
Because the UK has the only intelligent, powerful governing backbone left in the world.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By jadeskye on 11/27/2007 7:00:00 PM , Rating: 2
As a british citizen living in london i whole-heartedly disagree with that. our government is corrupt, ignorant and stupid.

but i guess thats my opinion.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By Scrogneugneu on 11/27/2007 8:04:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
our government is corrupt, ignorant and stupid.


Put yourself in the head of someone that lives in any country around the globe. Go for the most known, one by one. Try and find one where this doesn't hold true.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By Rookierookie on 11/27/2007 11:10:38 AM , Rating: 2
Last time I checked, global warming is a global problem.

If China would not reduce emissions themselves, it's better to pay them to reduce it than to let it go unchecked.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 11:12:53 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, it may or may not be a problem at all. From China's perspective, however, this is a wise move. They get free technology at zero cost to themselves. If soft-headed Europeans want to engage in such shenanigans, why should China say no?


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By retrospooty on 11/27/2007 11:19:47 AM , Rating: 2
Global warming itself may or may not be a problem, but reducing CO2 emissions and other pollutants is a good thing either way.

I am glad there are at least some "softheads" out there to counter balance all the hard heads that think we can just continue to pollute unchecked and there will never be any consequences.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 11:41:41 AM , Rating: 1
> "but reducing CO2 emissions and other pollutants is a good thing either way."

This is a factoid oft-repeated but never supported. Actually, a body of evidence exists that increasing CO2 emissions may in fact be a wise move for humanity. CO2 is nothing but airborne plant food, essential for all life on earth. Higher levels means increased growth of trees, food crops, and plant of all sort, and increased biodiversity for animal kingdom which depends on plant growth for food.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By retrospooty on 11/27/07, Rating: -1
RE: funded by the U.K.?
By mdogs444 on 11/27/2007 12:03:30 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Am I the only one that often finds your anti environment rhetoric insulting?

I dont mind it - it really depends on whether you believe all the Global Warming & pollution dooms day hype. How about those of us who feel that your environmentalist buddies rhetoric is insulting - the ones who beleive that the world is better without humans living, the ones who believe that having kids is selfish becuase of the pollution they cause to the earth.
quote:
Don't mess with mother nature. Nature has survived for 4.5 billion years, evolving from nothing to a vast network of life on all parts of the planet without "the most intellegent lifeform" helping it along by adding CO2 and many many many other pollutants to the mix.

We've been here for thousands of years, were still here today, and we'll still be here tomorrow. You people need to quit believing everything you see in the Hollywood movies, and quit listening to the environmentalists who talk all these theories.
quote:
To say anti pollution is not a good thing, or not supported is a giant cop-out.

The point is that he is no more wrong that your beloved scientists. Everything involving pollution & its destruction & global warming are all theories. None of it is proven fact. So for you to call what he says a cop out makes you just as bad.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By retrospooty on 11/27/2007 12:15:25 PM , Rating: 2
I dont mind it - it really depends on whether you believe all the Global Warming & pollution dooms day hype. How about those of us who feel that your environmentalist buddies rhetoric is insulting - the ones who beleive that the world is better without humans living, the ones who believe that having kids is selfish becuase of the pollution they cause to the earth.

wow... out of left field with this one... Nowhere did I say anything about doomsday, end of the world, or that anything major or drastic will happen, just that reducing pollutants is a good thing. can you at least agree with that small fact?

We've been here for thousands of years, were still here today, and we'll still be here tomorrow. You people need to quit believing everything you see in the Hollywood movies, and quit listening to the environmentalists who talk all these theories.

another out of left field. Nowhere did I say anything about any of that, nor do I believe anything out of Hollywood or Washington for that matter. Humans will survive just about anything, we are crafty, intelligent and have strong will to live. Now quality of life for future generations may or may not be so rosy, but humanity will survive.

The point is that he is no more wrong that your beloved scientists. Everything involving pollution & its destruction & global warming are all theories. None of it is proven fact. So for you to call what he says a cop out makes you just as bad.


Yes, my beloved scientists, what could they possibly know about science /rolls eyes.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 1:30:29 PM , Rating: 3
> "Yes, my beloved scientists, what could they possibly know about science"

A few of the beloved scientists who don't believe in anthropogenic global warming:

Dr. Richard Lindzen, Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.
Dr. Willian Gray, professor Atmospheric Science, Colorado State.
Dr. Tim Patterson, Paleoclimatology and Geology, Carleton University.
Dr. John Christy, Professor Atmospheric Science, UA Huntsville, director Earth System Science Center.
Dr. Claude Allegre, Geochemisty, Institute of Geophysics.
Dr. Reid Bryson, Atmospheric Scientist and Meteorology
Professor, U. Wisconsin. (the most cited meteorologist in the world).
Frederick Seitz, physicist, former president National Academy of Sciences
Dr. Freeman Dyson, Physicist, Cornell, Institute for Advanced Studies.
Dr. Frederic Singer, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science, U. of Virginia
Dr. Henrik Svensmark, Physicist and Climatologist, Danish National Space Center
Climatologist Roger Pielke, NOAA, past chairman American Meteorological Society.
Willy Soon,Astrophysicist, Harvard Center for Astrophysics.
Dr. Nir Shaviv, Astrophysicist.
Dr. George Kukla, Climatologist, Columbia University.
Dr. Lubos Motl, Physicist, Harvard.
Dr. Jan Viezer, geochemistry, U. of Ottawa.
Dr. Vincent Gray, IPCC expert reviewer
Dr. Madhav Khandekar, Meteorology, IPCC expert reviewer.

I could name quite a few others, but time and space doesn't permit.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By retrospooty on 11/27/2007 1:47:11 PM , Rating: 2
Try and focus, you're getting replies mixed up... I am not the one who said global warming is a proven problem, I was only saying that reducing pollutants (CO2 and all others) can only be a good thing.

Do you think a single one of these scientists would disagree with that?


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 1:50:18 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is you're using improper terminology. CO2 is not a pollutant. Its required by all life on earth, and is generated by Mother Nature in quantities far and above what mankind releases. One might as well start a program to eliminate oxygen from the planet. Would you consider that wise as well?


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By retrospooty on 11/27/2007 2:18:10 PM , Rating: 2
No, the problem is that you cant admit you are wrong, ever...

True CO2 occurs naturally and itself is not a pollutant. When its produced in mass quantities artificially by burning far too many fossil fuels it is a pollutant. See the difference? No, I am sure you don't.

"One might as well start a program to eliminate oxygen from the planet. Would you consider that wise as well?"

Yes, lets do that... Very good point masher, your best work yet - bravo. A standing ovation from all.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 2:27:43 PM , Rating: 4
> "True CO2 occurs naturally and itself is not a pollutant"

So the 97% of CO2 emissions that are produced naturally are "good", but the 3% produced by mankind are "bad"? I think you'll have a hard time proving that assertion.

I'd be curious what chemical or physical difference you find betwen "true" CO2 and the "false" kind produced by man.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By retrospooty on 11/27/2007 3:22:46 PM , Rating: 2
"So the 97% of CO2 emissions that are produced naturally are "good", but the 3% produced by mankind are "bad"? I think you'll have a hard time proving that assertion."

yes exactly. Nature is a perfect balance. Too much oxygen, plants cant deal, too much CO2, animals cant deal. 3% is not going to kill us or anything, but again (and again and again) all I am saying is that lowering CO2 emissions and other pollutants can only be a good thing. I am not sure why you are so hard against that simple positive point.

"I'd be curious what chemical or physical difference you find betwen "true" CO2 and the "false" kind produced by man."

Typo on my part, I meant "it is true, that CO2 occurs naturally and itself is not a pollutant" but that too much created artifically it becomes a pollutant.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 3:32:08 PM , Rating: 2
> "Nature is a perfect balance"

Nature is no such thing. That explains why CO2 levels have varied between 50% lower and 1000% (10X) higher than they are today. The variance in what nature emits is far larger than the sum total of mankind's emissions.

And no matter how many times you attempt to lump CO2 in with real pollutants, its still incorrect. Its an essential component of all life on earth.

Finally, you've again failed to address the fact that rising CO2 is increasing plant growth and may in fact be averting the next ice age. These are positive things, wouldn't you agree?


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By mcnabney on 11/27/2007 3:47:50 PM , Rating: 2
If higher CO2 is increasing plant growth, where are those plants growing?

Also, since 0.5% CO2 air content is considered unhealthy to breath - your example of atmospheric CO2 being 10x higher than now (currently about 0.06%) than you are looking forward to breathing toxic air?

And the word pollution is a legal term. Kind of like a weed, it is just something that you don't want right now. Fertilizers in runoff are certainly considered pollutants.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By Runiteshark on 11/28/2007 1:52:07 AM , Rating: 2
Oooh .5%. So what about those places on earth that naturally have a .6% CO2 percentage? Does everything die in fire and brimstone? Nope. Besides, it obviously isn't near that level, and one of the other things that's interesting to note, do you even know when this happened in our history? Did you know there was a time on earth when almost all life went extinct? (Permian) Can you guess why? Not enough CO2.

Also another interesting note:
So what if the earth warms up a couple degrees. More farm land, longer warm seasons and a general change to a slightly warmer climate, and increased plant growth (obviously putting out that poisonous gas known as Oxygen).

The one thing I never understand though, is why everyone always cries about the polar caps melting. Since its the north pole doing the melting, I'd like to say this:

What happens when you freeze water?

1. Its volume increases
2. Its density summarily decreases
3. Its great with a bloody mary
4. ITS STILL THE SAME CHEMICAL

If you put an ice cube into a cup of water, and measure its volume, then leave and let it melt, and come back, what do you see?
The ice has melted but for some odd reason its the same level. The ice turned into water which caused it to lose some volume but gain density. Last time I checked the proportions that this occurs at doesn't magically change.

What about that horribly toxic gas Nitrogen? Theres all sorts of other crap in our atmosphere, like Argon, Neon, helium, and nitrous oxide to name a few.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/28/2007 11:32:04 AM , Rating: 2
Both your math and your facts are incorrect:

> "Also, since 0.5% CO2 air content is considered unhealthy to breath..."

Current CO2 levels are in the 380ppm range. They have at times been as high as 3,500ppm. That's 0.35% level....or about half of what you'll see in a poorly ventilated room with people inside. It is in no way "toxic".

CO2 isn't dangerous until concentrations reach 5% or so...that's 50,000 ppm. We could burn every bit of coal and oil on the planet, and not reach a tenth of that level.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By mcnabney on 11/27/2007 3:39:42 PM , Rating: 2
Except for volcanic outgassing, most CO2 emissions are cyclical in nature. A tree burns down. The carbon goes into the air. Another tree grows, absorbing that CO2. That carbon is not a problem. However there are two things that defy the natural carbon cycle:

Turning carbon-heavy forests/tundras into carbon-light cropland.
Burning previously entombed fossil fuels and returning the previously sequestered carbon to the atmosphere.

Those two things do not have a balancing force and result in increased concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. That increase will slightly increase the thermal absorption of the atmosphere.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 3:49:52 PM , Rating: 2
> "Except for volcanic outgassing, most CO2 emissions are cyclical in nature"

The problem is we don't understand the natural sources of CO2 emissions. We keep identifying new sources, which continually forces the human percentage downward, and we don't fully understand why CO2 levels varied so drastically in the past, up to 10X higher than they are today.

As for the belief that most natural CO2 sources are biogenic in nature, this is incorrect as well. In addition to volcanic sources, processes such as ocean-atmospheric exchange, mineral weathering, etc, are large contributors, and in total exceed the biogenic contribution by a large margin.

> "Turning carbon-heavy forests/tundras into carbon-light cropland..."

Recent research has shown that forests in Temperature and Subarctic zones are actually net sources of carbon emissions, not sinks.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By mdogs444 on 11/27/2007 2:44:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
wow... out of left field with this one... Nowhere did I say anything about doomsday, end of the world, or that anything major or drastic will happen, just that reducing pollutants is a good thing. can you at least agree with that small fact?

Reducing pollutants is a good thing to do, sure - but it depends on what you consider a pollutant. C02 is not a pollutant. And reducing CO2 emmissions (notice i did not say pollutants) while damaging our economy & our already shrinking manufacturing industry is ridiculous. But the point was you were complaining that someones anti-environmentalist talk was insulting....care you comment on how insulting the environmentalist talk is?

quote:
another out of left field. Nowhere did I say anything about any of that, nor do I believe anything out of Hollywood or Washington for that matter. Humans will survive just about anything, we are crafty, intelligent and have strong will to live. Now quality of life for future generations may or may not be so rosy, but humanity will survive.

So what is your rush to damage our economy and change our way of life for a "may or may not" future.

quote:
Yes, my beloved scientists, what could they possibly know about science /rolls eyes.

Well - what do they KNOW? Nothing about global warming or mans effect on it actually. What do they THINK? Lots - from the next ice age, to global typhoons, to every other ridiculous dooms day scenario they can come up with.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By sinful on 11/27/2007 7:56:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So what is your rush to damage our economy and change our way of life for a "may or may not" future.


Yeah, it's about as silly as building dams and levees just because it "might" flood. Why spend millions of dollars now just because some scientists say there "might" be billions in damages if we don't build them?

Oh wait...


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 8:08:27 PM , Rating: 2
> "it's about as silly as building dams and levees just because it "might" flood"

We built dams based on real, verifiable past flooding events. No one ever approved a dam based on a computer simulation of a hypothetical flooding event a century in the future.

> "because some scientists say there "might" be billions in damages if we don't build them?"

The problem is that the costs of reducing CO2 emissions -- as implemented in Kyoto-like cap-and-trade programs -- are greater than the worst-case costs from global warming. The costs from the Lieberman-Warner bill alone are estimated to be up to six trilion dollars...and thats just for one nation.

This is why many scientists and economists have compared Kyoto to a car insurance policy with a $50K max payout, but premiums of $100K/year.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 12:58:56 PM , Rating: 2
> "Will you feel the same if you or a loved one gets some sort of cancer?"

The Earth is not a living being capable of getting cancer. I realize how much environmental types wish to deify "Mother Gaia", but the fact remains its a planet, not a lifeform.

> "To say anti pollution is not a good thing"

The point is that CO2 is *not* pollution. It's an essential ingredient for all life on earth. Mother Nature generates far more CO2 than man does...and its a good thing it does, too, or else life would cease.

> "Nature has survived for 4.5 billion years..."

So why are you so willing to believe its going to vanish overnight, based on the trivial amount of CO2 man is adding? Especially when all that CO2 was already in the atmosphere once before? (Where do you think the carbon in coal and petroleum came from originally?)


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By Parhel on 11/27/2007 1:50:46 PM , Rating: 2
Is it just your M.O. to badly misinterpret anyone who disagrees with you and then argue with that straw man you've set up rather than address the issue that was brought to you?

quote:
The Earth is not a living being capable of getting cancer. I realize how much environmental types wish to deify "Mother Gaia", but the fact remains its a planet, not a lifeform.


That was just so uncalled for and condescending. Any thinking person would understand that he was referring to cancer causing pollutants. Even if it was a genuine misunderstanding, there's no need for that kind of talk. It's very unprofessional.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 1:59:00 PM , Rating: 2
> "Any thinking person would understand that he was referring to cancer causing pollutants"

Given the entire thread is devoted to CO2, and CO2 doesn't cause cancer, I don't think my response was out of line. The fact remains that, regardless of the OP's own opinion, current environmental thinking does deify the earth into a Gaia figure, a living organism that, in may cases, is worshipped as demigod:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By retrospooty on 11/27/2007 2:23:17 PM , Rating: 1
"Is it just your (masher's) M.O. to badly misinterpret anyone who disagrees with you and then argue with that straw man you've set up rather than address the issue that was brought to you?"

Actually if you have been around AT/DT for a while you would know that is pretty much his MO. More concerned with being right at all costs than having an actual debate.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By porkpie on 11/27/2007 2:50:17 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
More concerned with being right at all costs than having an actual debate.
Well he's using facts, figures and links to support his argument. You're just tossing insults. If thats your opinion of how to "have an actual debate", I feel sorry for you.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By retrospooty on 11/27/2007 2:56:02 PM , Rating: 2
actually if you re-read the posts between him and I you will see that the only thing I am saying is that reducing emissions and pollutants is a good thing - he is (or was) placing the whole global warming, enviro-paranoid point of view thing onto me, which was someone else's point, not mine.

I don't think that we are doomed and I don't think that global warming is a big issue (unless you own beachfront property - LOL)... We will survive, as will life, but reducing pullutants to a minimum is a good idea... Not becasue of global warming, but because of health reasons. Pollutants are bad.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 3:01:11 PM , Rating: 2
> "I don't think that global warming is a big issue ..."

Glad you agree!

> "...unless you own beachfront property."

With even the alarmist IPCC only predicting a 23cm rise in sea level over the next 100 years, why do you consider this unwise?

> "Not becasue of global warming, but because of health reasons"

There are no "health reasons" for reducing CO2 levels. The gas is safe, indeed essential.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By Emryse on 11/27/2007 4:32:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Am I the only one that often finds your anti environment rhetoric insulting?


retrospooty - you did say that, right? You said that in your first post, right? So then, certainly, you're contradicting yourself when you say:

quote:
actually if you re-read the posts between him and I you will see that the only thing I am saying is that reducing emissions and pollutants is a good thing


Because certainly that was NOT the ONLY thing you said in your posts.

Also, your inherent concept of the entire topic is flawed, based upon your saying this:

quote:
Nature has survived for 4.5 billion years, evolving from nothing to a vast network of life on all parts of the planet


You, or any other scientist for that matter, cannot prove for a fact that nature has existed for 4.5 billion years, and there are certain "laws" of science stating things like "matter can't be created nor destroyed" that would disagree with the part about nature evolving from nothing (which also cannot be proven for a fact).

Now - to agree with you on one point: yes, reducing pollutants to a minimum is a good idea. What we need most is to create ways to be eco-friendly that are cheaper than the non-eco-friendly alternatives.

Unfortunately, if you ever go watch the movie "Who Killed The Electric Car?" you will see that there are way too many greedy people out there for environmental policy or the typically more expensive cost of eco-friendly solutions to dramatically change any time soon.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By Parhel on 11/27/2007 5:08:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You, or any other scientist for that matter, cannot prove for a fact that nature has existed for 4.5 billion years, and there are certain "laws" of science stating things like "matter can't be created nor destroyed" that would disagree with the part about nature evolving from nothing (which also cannot be proven for a fact).


Out of curiosity, are you a "young earth creationist?"


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By retrospooty on 11/27/2007 5:27:26 PM , Rating: 2
Uh-Oh - someone is questioning evolution?

Science has proven that the Earth was created by collisions of massive asteroids appx 4.5 billion years ago, single cell plant life evolved shortly after it cooled down from the heat of collision. For over 2 billion years these single celled plants spread and prospered taking in CO2 and giving out Oxygen, creating the atmosphere we breath today. Animal life then evolved into what we see today. You and I evolved from Apes which evolved from Lemurs which evolved from earlier rodents, whether your bible knew it or not, Science has proven that.

yours and my DNA, and every other white, black, asian, native american, and any other race's DNA is 99.9% exactly the same.

Human and Chimpanzee DNA is 97% exactly the same (by this, it is literally identical except for the last 3% to evolve)

Human and dog DNA is 92% exactly the same, yes, you and I are very nearly dogs.

Human and insect DNA is somewhere in the 60 percentile the same, yes, we are more like an insect than unlike and insect.

Science has mapped DNA from all creatures and has absolutly proven without doubt that we evolved. The religious question is not whether or not life evolved on Earth, but a question of how the laws that govern nature came to be.

A religious person is one that believes God created nature and therefore a place for us to evolve (I would like to think this is true). An athiest believes its all random occurance, but only an uneducated, delusional, ignorant bible thumper would think God just zapped us into existence.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By mdogs444 on 11/27/2007 5:39:02 PM , Rating: 2
You do realize that everything you are saying regarding proof of evolutionism is false right? It has not been proven, and is a Theory. Darwinism has more unfilled holes in its theory than it does facts.

They are also learning that DNA matching is false. Go read some stories about how identical twins have non matching DNAs, and how the DNA of some children cannot even be linked to their parents.

If you want to believe the falsification that we can from Apes, go ahead. But it doesnt prove that its true.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By retrospooty on 11/27/2007 5:53:25 PM , Rating: 2
"If you want to believe the falsification that we can from Apes, go ahead. But it doesnt prove that its true."

Is that what your church tells you? sorry, but we did, and Science HAS proven that. Any church based stories to the contrary that you may be told are false, and created to keep the faith. Like I said... A religious person is one that believes God created nature and therefore a place for us to evolve (I would like to think this is true). An athiest believes its all random occurance, but only an uneducated, delusional, ignorant bible thumper would think God just zapped us into existence.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By mdogs444 on 11/27/2007 6:06:58 PM , Rating: 2
It doesnt matter what you beleive to be true, its what has been proven to be true. Religion is faith based, and so is the THEORY of evolution. Science has not proven either of them.

If you beleive that evolution is such a fact, then please explain to me the easiest question in the evolutionary book which you should be able to do with scientific facts:

If we evolved from apes - then why is that apes still exist today in the same form they did in the past? Goes to prove that there was no reason for evolution of the ape, and we did not come from apes.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 6:12:35 PM , Rating: 2
> "If we evolved from apes - then why is that apes still exist today "

Easy one! Because man didn't evolve from contemporary apes. Man and apes both evolved from the same homonids.

But Even if we HAD evolved from contemporary apes, that wouldn't disprove the theory. There are quite a few instances of a new species diverging, with the original remaining extant. It happens whenever a subpopulation moves into a new ecological niche, and experiences evolutionary pressures that the population as a whole does not.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By mdogs444 on 11/27/2007 6:22:56 PM , Rating: 2
And how exactly are they coming up with the "facts" for this theory....lining up a bunch of skulls and jotting down notes about how they look more alike over time? Cmon man. Im not going to sit here and say that faith based religion's creationism is fact....but i sure as heck will not sit and here and say that scientists have unlocked the big question of where we came from by looking at a bunch of skulls and saying that we came from another animal that ceases to exist.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By retrospooty on 11/27/2007 7:08:12 PM , Rating: 2
well, they have, through fossil evidence, geological evidence and DNA evidence. All facts prove we evolved. Read my post below - all facts, and if you can't go back to a modern school to learn, at least flip on the science channel once in a while.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By retrospooty on 11/27/2007 7:04:54 PM , Rating: 2
" It doesnt matter what you beleive to be true, its what has been proven to be true. Religion is faith based, and so is the THEORY of evolution. Science has not proven either of them.

Where have you been for the past 150 years? The "theory of evolution" was called that prior to it being proven, now that it has long since been proven, it is just called evolution, also called scientific fact.

If you beleive that evolution is such a fact, then please explain to me the easiest question in the evolutionary book which you should be able to do with scientific facts: If we evolved from apes - then why is that apes still exist today in the same form they did in the past? Goes to prove that there was no reason for evolution of the ape, and we did not come from apes."

That is a funny one, and propagated by people that know zero about evolution. Members of a species don't all evolve together at the same pace different places, diets and catastrophe's created different needs which creates different evolutionary paths. This is why there are 100's of breeds of dogs, not just one dog.

Let me give you a quick run down of what science has proven on human evolution.

millions of years ago the Indian plate began pushing into Asia pushing the himalayans upward, disrupting global wather patterns and making much of Africa's jungles into savannas over many millions of years.

Eventually the apes that were living in trees in some areas had little trees left so they had to leave the safety of the trees to go onto land, and these apes developed the ability to walk upright. Not all apes were in this situation - and not all evolved the same

Food became more and more scarce and our plant eating ancestors had to improvise and start scavenging meat. The addition of the high protein content from meat made their brains grow (again over hundreds of thousands of years) and they got smarter and smarter and learned to hunt and make crude weapons out of stone.

Later still, fire was invented (or I should say they learned to harness fire) and they went from huddling scared and cold in the dark to being warm and safe, as animals that hunted them are afraid of the fire... and soon enough became the head of the food chain. Now that primitive ape-man was no longer spending 100% of his time surviving, and huddling in the dark, he had time to relax, and dream, and imagine, giving rise to even larger brains and smarter hominids that we are today.

Modern man appeared on the scene appx 150,000 years ago and began to prosper. Earlier versions of apelike man died off. Appx 70,000 years ago there was a global event, most scientists beleive to be the massive supervolcano in Toba disrupted global wather patterns and killed off many species. Man was down to about 10,000 people. Easily on the endangered species list if one existed. Of those 10,000, we are all descendants, some left africa and went into the middle east, then india, south asia, australia and north asia, some went into Europe and met up with Neanderthol, another humanoid species that was dying out. Some even crossed the bering straight from Asia to Alaska and thier descendants became what we call native americans. The human genome project analyzed DNA from people all over the world from all races and it proved that we all came from about 10,000 african people that survived 70,000 years ago. Some left africa, and thier descendantspopulated the rest of the globe

This is all proven science, not a theory. As ignorant as it is to ask why are there still apes is, another ignorant comment from uneducated people is "well if they found the missing link I'd believe it"... The missing link was what it was called when it was missing, 100 years ago. It has long since been found and mapped out. A good example below.

http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.html


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By retrospooty on 11/27/2007 7:10:08 PM , Rating: 2
oops. I meant to add that you should scroll down a page or two to see the human evolutionary chart

http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.html


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By Parhel on 11/27/2007 10:09:20 PM , Rating: 3
Man, I don't even know where to start. You're general aim is right, but your post is filled with misinformation and gross assumptions, and yet you're throwing around insults about how ignorant everyone is.

1) The "theory of evolution" is still called the "theory of evolution."

2) Overwhelmingly, the hundreds of breeds of dogs exist because of selective breeding by human beings.

3) We have no idea when or why our ancestors started eating meat. Anyone who tells you otherwise is simply postulating what they "think" happened.

That's just scratching the surface. Your narrative towards the end may or may not be true, but is hardly a "scientific fact" no matter how badly you want it to be.

The fact is that little fossil evidence exists to give us insight as to the details of how evolution played out to bring us where we are today. Illustrations that start with a monkey and end in a human being are fanciful renderings by artists, not science, although I suspect that they aren't too far from the mark.

It seems like people spend a lot of time on this site arguing about "proof." Just because something is called a "theory" or a "law" doesn't make it any less true. Rarely is a scientific principle made into a "Law" and with evolution it likely never will be because things such as survival of the fittest and apes evolving into humans aren't exactly repeatable in a laboratory.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By jhinoz on 11/27/2007 10:45:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just because something is called a "theory"


If it was proven, it would be a Theorem not a theory, wouldn't it? 8P


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By retrospooty on 11/27/2007 11:38:34 PM , Rating: 2
1) The "theory of evolution" is still called the "theory of evolution."

OK, whatever my point was it has been proven.

2) Overwhelmingly, the hundreds of breeds of dogs exist because of selective breeding by human beings.


Again, whatever, it was a long post and I couldnt overly explain every single detail. My point was that there are not just one breed of hominid, or dog. Hominids happened naturally, and dogs are both natural and selective breeding. A great way to point out how evolution works and explain why there is still apes I thought. for example, if we bread all wolves into dogs, why are there still wolves? Get it?

3) We have no idea when or why our ancestors started eating meat. Anyone who tells you otherwise is simply postulating what they "think" happened.

The rough outline above is generally accepted by scientists that study the field, believe me I didn't just come up with all of that.

ack!... The point here is that we evolved, evolution happened, I don't suppose you would dispute that fact.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By Emryse on 11/28/2007 1:14:20 PM , Rating: 2
retrospooty - I can appreciate your position; I can't agree for the following reasons:

1. If evolution was proven, it no longer needs to bear the preceding title of "Theory". In and of itself, this means without any doubt or uncertainty that the THEORY of Evolution has NOT been proven, EVER.

2. Theories, no matter how widely accepted, are merely a POSSIBLE explanation for something that is witnessed. There are many studies, tests, and papers which have been written to support the explanation Evolution provides - there is no need for you to provide this to me or assume I'm not aware.

3. Quite frankly, the idea of "something" evolving from "nothing" is as improbable to me as if I take some dirt, throw it into a cave, wait a million years, and POOF; out comes a brand-new Rolex watch. There's a certain law in science that states everything is moving from a state of order to disorder, right? So are you saying evolution is the exception, where things somehow go from worse to better?

4. Consider that science has NEVER created ANYTHING. We've just always discovered or explored or attempted to understand what is already here.

5. You're as arrogant in your assumption that evolution is proven true as the folks of Pasteur's day were that meat can grow flies, or that the earth was flat, or that the atom was the smallest building block of life. Even Darwin had a very, very underestimated understanding of the incredible intricacy and detail found in micro-biology. Are you really so sure that you're right and your point is proven?

6. If matter can neither be created, nor destroyed, then you have a real problem. You talked about the meteoric collisions; where did they come, and where did whatever they came from come from, and on, and on, and on... You get the point. The bottom line is - it had to start from somewhere, which is actually a leading requirement of a Theory to become Law - you need to know its start. Evolution has never been able to do this.

7. Faith is not purely based upon emotion, nor is science purely based upon logic - to think otherwise is only to fool yourself. Any scientist has a reputation to perserve, or no one will listen. Any believer in faith has their sanity to perserve, or they lose hope. I don't have to explain my position to you - I didn't raise the "Creation" or "Intelligent Design" theory; I don't need to. It's much more interesting just to focus on the theory of Evolution and its self-contained fatal flaws.

I won't convince you here and don't need to; but if truth really is important to you, then certainly you'll go deeper into exploring the validity of evolution as an explanation to the origin of life.

If truth isn't important to you, then why care at all?


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/28/2007 1:49:06 PM , Rating: 2
Emryse, To respond individually to each of your points:

1. Nothing in science is ever proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Nothing. Everything in science remains "just a theory" forever. The fact remains that evolution is more solidly verified that even the theory of gravity or Newton's laws of motions.

2. See #1 above.

3. Evolution doesn't disobey the second law of thermodynamics (i.e. entropy must increase). An evolving species does move to a more ordered state. But the system as a whole (which includes the living creatures plus their environment) has increasing entropy. Creatures require energy to live. In the process of consuming that energy, they increase entropy.

Objection 2. If one objects to evolution on the "something from nothing" grounds, that objection applies even more seriously to the "created by god" explanation. After all, if a simple organism cannot evolve on its own, how could a god be created from nothingness? This is the reason the "teleological argument" for the existence of god fails. If "A" is too complex to exist without intelligent creation, and "B" is even more complex than "A", then "B" requires a creator also. But what created the creator?

4. Science hasn't enabled man to create anything? Do you think the computer you type this on evolved on its own?

5. If the question is, "are we really so sure that evolution is correct?", then the answer is yes.

6. You're simply restating the teleological argument. See #3(b), above.

7. You cannot simply attack one theory without advancing another. Quite obviously we exist. If you disbelieve in evolution, you have to offer a more plausible alternative. Quite obviously, you don't want to put creationism on the table for fear of what close examination will reveal.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By Parhel on 11/28/2007 2:32:36 PM , Rating: 2
You are doing what Richard Dawkins does - mixing the cosmological and teleological arguments for the existence of God into an argument that no theist would support.

Basically, the cause does not need to be more complex than than the effect. No one ever suggested that it did. It needs to be greater than the effect. Yes, there needs to be a first cause - an unmoved mover. That's the cosmological argument. But all mainstream Christian understandings of God since time immemorial have viewed God as a simple being, not a complex one.

Likewise, the teleological argument (probably the weakest of Aquinas' three) states that the universe is complex, thus it must have been designed, because complexity, according to the argument, requires a designer.

Now, you and I know that evolution can produce complexity. So, you can make what you want of the teleological argument in regards to evolution. But, consider that the universe as a whole is also complex and isn't subject to "survival of the fittest" or competing with other universes for survival.

I firmly believe that God exists, but I wouldn't claim that hat we could logically deduce or empirically prove his existence. But, Dawkins' argument is weak. It is arguing against a nonsensical (and intentional) mish-mash of the primary arguments for the existence of God.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By Emryse on 11/28/2007 5:37:17 PM , Rating: 2
I have to start by saying I'm a bit honored you've responded - I voted up almost every post I could that you made here... despite the fact on the point of evolution I disagree with you, you always present sound arguments backed by good data.

Unfortunately I'm not quite on your level - so read or disregard at your leisure. Nevertheless, I do not agree (respectfully), and I'll respond to your responses in kind.

1. Clearly an argument dependent on the definition of proof, and what supporting elements would qualify something to be proof. Evolution is certainly NOT more solidly verified than gravity, but simply accepted just the same as gravity. Unfortunately, modern science has never witnessed the complete evolution of one species to another in a "monkey to man" sense - anything we have seen is adaptation or micro-evolution, which is completely different and not proof at all for macro-evolution.

3. Given the amount of time supposedly necessary for evolution on a macro scale to occur, it most certainly does. Furthermore, any species currently in existence even slightly less adapted than they currently are now could be wiped out in 25 years, let alone the 100k plus years a macro-scale evolution within that species might take (and that seems like a pretty rapid and optimistic timeframe given the typical millions we assign to most evolutionary changes taking place in).

4. If there was a Creator, that Creator would certainly have to exist outside of something so constraining as time or space - you couldn't say the same for space dust and cosmic collisions, which are bound by time and space. Therefore, in the Creator theory if you went down that road you would logically conclude there could not be a point at which the Creator did not exist, in or out of time, and therefore the Creator would have to always exist, infinitely.

5. You're sure evolotion is correct; my next question is: which of the hundreds of theories proposed and refuted for evolution since its beginning do you believe to be the correct one? Perhaps it just matters more that we have faith in the concept of evolution, and it isn't quite as important exactly "how" evolution actually works (or in fact doesn't work)? In fact, ever since evolution became a widely accepted alternative, we've really never again questioned its validity as a scientific community, so long as there was at least some form of an explanation not-already-blown-full-of-holes out there that kept it going. Would you seriously ID which specific one you ascribe to, and I would be very sincerely interested in learning more about the research and work done for that specific version.

7. You certainly can, and I find focusing on the theory of evolution to be appropriate, since it was the basis for much of the original discussion of this article. Clearly you don't believe in, and aren't willing to accept the theory of creation as an alternative, and I'm not aware of many other widely accepted explanations for the origin of life (there are others, but not widely accepted) - so it makes no sense for me to offer it up to you.

If you want to start from the origin = God and creation, or space dust and evolution, and then follow each theory down its respective path using logic and reason:

Evolution does not make sense. It does not make sense mathematically, or logically. In fact, evolution defies mathematics, and it defies reason. The probability of enouch living cells forming to create 1 single organism in even 1 billion years, with the right environmental conditions in place is the equivalent of working with 1 chance in 80 with 60 zeroes behind it. It's the illustrated example of you finding the specific grain of sand that I marked with red dye in the middle of the Sahara, while blindfolded. It is impossible, mathematically speaking.

But if you start with intelligent design - suddenly the mathematics, while still very staggering, become a whole lot more probable than when compared to evolution. Just like my computer, which wasn't created by evolution, but was created by intelligent design. And we didn't invent metal... we didn't invent minerals... we didn't invent electricity - we discovered those things, so my initial point remains correct. But a computer, left to its own devices, with no human intervention, does not evolve to something better; it goes the way of all things, from order to chaos.

Even if you look at if from a socialogical or anthropological perspective; the more "advanced" (modern, or technological) we become as the human race, the more of a danger we are to ourselves, and everything around us.

Whether we build a fire, or turn on the gas stove, or dial up the thermostat - we still require heat, and we have not evolved to not require heat. We will always require heat, as it is a condition of being human; we can't evolve from this, any more than we couldn't have stopped needing gills and substituted them for lungs. Fish will be fish, dogs will be dogs, apes will be apes, and I am a relative of none of them.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By retrospooty on 11/27/2007 5:49:36 PM , Rating: 2
Here, I wanted to post the cosmic calendar for you. It was created by Carl Sagan to easily explain the universal timeline in a relational way that's easy to understand...

http://school.discoveryeducation.com/schooladventu...

The universe is 13.7 billion years old (appx). If you look at that 13.7 billion years, as if it were one calendar year you will see that the Earth and Sun formed in August, single celled life evolved in September, multi celled organism's (microscopic animals) in November and Apes didn’t come along until 10:15 AM on December 31st. Modern Humans appeared at 11:54PM on Dec 31st, and the Pyramids were built at 11:59 and 50 seconds on Dec 31st. This puts the many books of the bible being decided upon and collected together as "the Bible" at about 11:59 and 53 seconds on Dec 31st (midnight being modern day - today)

This is all proven science.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 5:57:09 PM , Rating: 3
Evolutionism is one of the most proven theories in science. But arguing logic against a creationist is even more futile than using logic on an environmentalist. Faith-driven beliefs are motivated by emotion, rather than reason.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By retrospooty on 11/27/2007 6:01:33 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, you are correct there. Still, sometimes I feel that if I dont at least try, I am letting ignorance win.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 6:07:24 PM , Rating: 2
> "sometimes I feel that if I dont at least try, I am letting ignorance win. "

That is the very reason I devote so much time to my environmental blogs.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By Andy35W on 11/28/2007 2:20:05 AM , Rating: 2
>Evolutionism is one of the most proven theories in science. But arguing logic against a creationist is even more futile than using logic on an environmentalist. Faith-driven beliefs are motivated by emotion, rather than reason.

It's not totally proven, like man made climate change is not, however you are happy to pick one as true and not the other. I could do your trick here and list a set of scientists who have called into question some evolutionary points, the minority, in similar fashion to how you do for manmade climate change!

You have an inbuilt "faith" that man is not causing climate chage, so you ignore the vast mass of evidence and great numebr of scientists, and cherry pick information off the web that backs your belief. That is the very way science is not supposed to work.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By clovell on 11/28/2007 3:09:30 PM , Rating: 2
Evolution passes the buck.

People evolved from apes which evolved from amoebas, which evolved from... what? Sure, trace it back to the Big Bang - no, better - the Uncertainty Principle that caused the Big Bang. How did the Uncertainty Principle get there? The laws of physics? Evolution may disprove fundamental creationist theories, but it does not prove there is no god.

Arguing one axiom against another is fruitless. Unfortunately, much of science has come to a point where it has forgotten that it was developed from axioms.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/28/2007 4:12:18 PM , Rating: 2
> "Evolution may disprove fundamental creationist theories, but it does not prove there is no god."

Of course...because there is no such thing as a negative proof. You can prove something exists, but its impossible to prove something does not exist.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By clovell on 11/28/2007 4:36:00 PM , Rating: 2
> Of course...because there is no such thing as a negative proof.
There isn't? Prove it. Sorry - just having fun. =D


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By Emryse on 11/28/2007 5:52:27 PM , Rating: 2
And just a quick response here...

Have to say you're definately wrong on this one.

ANY explanation for "how did I get here?" and "what is my purpose?", always involves emotion and reason.

Science, philosophy, and religion ALL approach those two questions from various angles or biases, but all are essentialy tackling the same rocks.

Faith is not driven by emotion any more than science is, nor is science driven by reason more than faith.

Of course, you can have the "mad scientist" and the "fanatical religous guy", but you can also have the "reaonable and emotive scientist" and the "reasonable and emotive theologian" too. (I feel we're both in that latter category, for the record.)

You can most certainly possess a faith (like creationism) that is scientific, just as it takes a leap of faith often to buy theories (like evolution) in science.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By Clauzii on 11/27/2007 8:33:49 PM , Rating: 2
Nice perspective and I agree, even on the bible part being just a grain of time.

"Let there be light" ~ Big Bang (Allthough not proven, one that makes sence, science-vise).

"God was bored, and created Earth" ~ I would be bored too, if I'd have to wait for more than 13 billion years for anything else than fireworks to happen :) (Ok, the first couple of weeks must have been amAzing to watch but even fireworks gets boring in the long run :)


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By Clauzii on 11/27/2007 8:46:20 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, this was a reply to Retrospooty's time-machine. Don't know why it landed here..


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By Clauzii on 11/27/2007 9:14:59 PM , Rating: 2
Unless of course He lives in another timezone, with other types of clocks - if time even exists outside our time.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By Parhel on 11/27/2007 10:19:52 PM , Rating: 2
RE: funded by the U.K.?
By Clauzii on 11/27/2007 11:22:27 PM , Rating: 2
I know, it was just meant as a joke. Interesting reading btw. :)


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By Emryse on 11/28/2007 6:22:13 PM , Rating: 2
um.... and where's the definative proof on the 13.7 billion years old part?

I find it so amazing that we can say "approximately" for the start of it all, but we know "exactly" for when the "Bible" was decided upon?

Um, nope - that's not proof of anything. That's just a suggested possibility. Someone else could say 300 million years, and someone else 10k years, and maybe in two years the scientific community will say "OOPS, we meant 137 billion years, not 13.7 - some dumb statistician forgot to carry the decimal".

Approximately in this case = we really have no idea and have decided to go with this number, based upon this assortment of data that we've selectively chosen to fit our chosen number.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By Clauzii on 11/27/2007 6:10:13 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know what or who created us, but we probably DID get zapped in:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By retrospooty on 11/27/2007 7:05:45 PM , Rating: 2
Yup, I often wonder what existed before the big bang. No way our current science can tell.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By Clauzii on 11/27/2007 9:10:12 PM , Rating: 2
(Sorry for me being slow)

And according to cuurent results, the Universe is not just expanding, but with an accelerating expansion (just google "universe accelerating"), one might ask: If we are still accelerating, where will the point of return be in case of a Universe with enough dark matter to make that return happen? In 10 billion years? 50? And then the same amount back?

Mesured in terms of human generations I think one could say that Eternity DO exist.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By Clauzii on 11/27/2007 9:24:10 PM , Rating: 2
And by the way, I mean both WHEN and WHERE in time will we be at that point.

Just to even get there we need to find that "Wall-Of-Light" before we can even know where PRECISELY we in the Universe (if more than one) are. So we "just" need to build a "Wall-Of-Light" tracker to find out what the &%¤# is going on there ;)

Scientists still have a LOOOOONG journey ahead before even getting at the "edge" of the Universe (in real-time anyway).


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By retrospooty on 11/27/2007 2:20:21 PM , Rating: 2
again, you are putting words and ideas that I did not state. Of course its not going to vanish. All I am saying, or have said at all is that reducing CO2 emissions, and all pollutants can not possibly be a bad idea - A point that I must remind you, that you KEEP AVOIDING


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 2:31:58 PM , Rating: 2
Reducing pollution is good. But CO2 is not a pollutant...and reducing it may in fact be a bad thing. In addition to the enhanced plant growth that CO2 grants us, some research has actually indicated that increasing CO2 levels (whether caused by man or natural factors) may be averting the next ice age...an event that would undoubtably mean mass starvation for hundreds of millions of people.

Take of a look at this research by Dr. Toby Tyrrell for reference:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/07082...


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By retrospooty on 11/27/2007 2:51:17 PM , Rating: 1
again, True CO2 occurs naturally and itself is not a pollutant. When its produced in mass quantities artificially by burning far too many fossil fuels it is a pollutant. See the difference?

To take a "rediculous scenario" from your own book, why don't you start up your car and pipe the exhuast from your muffler to the inside of your house and see how well you and your houseplants make out. Of course that is rediculous, just making a point... Nature doesn't need any help. Most scientists agree with the need to reduce emissions, and pollutions. For your one crackpot, there are hundreds of scientists that disagree.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 2:57:26 PM , Rating: 2
> "When its produced in mass quantities artificially..."

But those "mass quantities" are a tiny fraction of what nature produces....in fact, what nature has been producing for countless millions of years.

What's "artificial" here is the distinction you're drawing between the two sources. CO2 is clean, nonharmful, and essential for all life on earth...regardless of how its produced.

> "For your one crackpot, there are hundreds of scientists that disagree"

I've posted the names of several highly regarded atmospheric scientists who disagree. I suggest trying to actually scrape up the names of these "hundreds of scientists" who support the belief in AGW. For extra credit, limit your list to those who actually study atmospheric science or a related discipline. I seriously doubt you can find a few dozen, much less "hundreds".


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By retrospooty on 11/27/2007 3:30:27 PM , Rating: 1
Ugh, this is getting tiresome... You list of scientists are all fine and dandy, they seem to agree that global warming is not a major issue... SO DO I.

My point remains - Most scientists agree with the need to reduce CO2 emissions, and other pollutions. By most, I mean almost all. The scientists on your list are not antagonistic to my point at all.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 3:51:36 PM , Rating: 3
> "The scientists on your list are not antagonistic to my point at all. "

On the contrary, they are...and they've been very vocal in voicing their position. Care for references?


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By mdogs444 on 11/27/2007 3:03:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
why don't you start up your car and pipe the exhuast from your muffler to the inside of your house and see how well you and your houseplants make out.

well actually, the harmful emmission from your car's exhaust is Carbon Monoxide, not Carbon Dioxide. The catalytic converter does a good job and coverting it to CO2, but it doesnt convert all of it - especially in cold weather and when the engine is cold and running rich.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By retrospooty on 11/27/2007 3:32:11 PM , Rating: 2
yes... and like I have said on all of my posts here today, reducing emissions and pollutants is a good thing, not a bad thing, regardless of your view of its effect on global warming.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By mdogs444 on 11/27/2007 3:39:14 PM , Rating: 2
There is no reason to reduce non harmful emmissions like CO2. Reducing pollutants would be to stop dumping toxic waste into the water supply.

By your methods of thinking, the world is in perfect balance....so if we dump clean water into the lake, the world will fall apart.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By retrospooty on 11/27/2007 3:56:43 PM , Rating: 2
You do know that coal power plants, cars and dozens of other fossil fuel based dont just spew out pure CO2 right? There are other harmful substances in there as well.

All I am saying is reduction is good... I dont understand the backlash.. Its like you are afraid the economy is as frail as the enviro-paranoid think the Earth is. Both are fine and will live on, we just need to conserve and reduce where possible.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 4:02:58 PM , Rating: 2
> "You do know that coal power plants, cars and dozens of other fossil fuel based dont just spew out pure CO2 right? There are other harmful substances in there as well.'

That's just the point...which is why I've been a longterm advocate of nuclear power. Meanwhile, environmentalists block the construction of new nuclear plants, ensuring our legion of coal-fired monstrosities keep polluting the atmosphere. Truth is stranger than fiction.

Now, here's just one of the problems with incorrectly lumping CO2 as a "pollutant". Take for instance diesel cars which are more efficient than those powered by gasoline. They therefore emit less CO2 per mile...but emit **more** dangerous pollutants such as NOx, particulates, etc. Even the newest, cleanest diesel engines still fall behind the best NZEV gas-powered cars.

So which do we choose to drive? A person worried about health effects from smog would naturally choose a NZEV car. But the distorting effects of the global warming debate might cause him to pick a diesel, and thereby damage the environment.

How about "biofuels" for another example. Touted as carbon-neutral sources, they are consistently proven to be much worse for the environment than gasoline. Rainforests slashed down to grow crops, fertilizer and pesticide runoff from massive investitures in additional croplands, etc, etc. We're told this is "good" for the environment because of reduced CO2 emissions....meanwhile, **real** pollutants are increasing madly.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By retrospooty on 11/27/2007 4:05:45 PM , Rating: 2
It seems we agree on most issues... Why then are we arguing ? LOL

Prolly my bad for using the term CO2 too freely. I am really referring to the nasties in fossil fuel emissions in all of my above comments.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By mdogs444 on 11/27/2007 4:03:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Its like you are afraid the economy is as frail

Well given the declines of the dollar, the housing mortgage market issues, the huge decline in manufacturing and the fact that we are no longer the biggest player in exports - id say that yes, the economy is quite frail.

And one reason for much of this is because of the environmentalist fears - causing factories to shut down, concerns on oil for political agendas, and countless others.

Im not saying that the environmentalists are the sole reason, because it coudlnt be farther from the truth. But right now, I believe we need to focus on our economy, building up the dollar, getting back to being a larger exporter, and keep building up the GDP. None of that is worth giving up because of the fear of what CO2 is going to do.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By retrospooty on 11/27/2007 4:08:31 PM , Rating: 2
Umm, environmentalists don't close down our factories... Outsourcing to countries that produce goods at a fraction of the cost is what closes our factories.

Decisions made directly by the big business leaders you seem to be in favor of protecting, but that is another thread alltogether.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By mdogs444 on 11/27/2007 4:10:05 PM , Rating: 3
Thats true - but one reason that the other countries can produce things cheaper is becuase of more lenient laws regarding "pollution" & "waste". Our companies have to pay much more to be in business for just that reason, and that is yet another reason that our manufacturing costs are more - of course their is labor, etc. But they all go together.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 4:38:06 PM , Rating: 2
> "Umm, environmentalists don't close down our factories... "

On the contrary, environmental legislation has closed down a huge amount of heavy manufacturing in this country. For many industries, it's simply too expensive to comply with the ever-changing and ever-increasing EPA requirements. And that's even assuming one can get the permits to operate in the first place, which if one is in the mining, refining, smelting, chemical production, or similar industries, is nearly impossible.

Some people like to point to cheaper wages as the root cause. But wages were always far lower in those third-world nations. The additional factor that, for many industries, 'broke the camels back' is the gauntlet of environmental regulations that has sprung up in the last couple decades.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By retrospooty on 11/27/2007 4:47:09 PM , Rating: 3
mmmm... or just the fact that many corporations would prefer say $8 billion in profits over $7.5 billion for example.

Are you actually employed as a lobbyist? Just curious.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 5:26:07 PM , Rating: 2
Nice ad hominem attack, but you're still ignoring the point. Corporations have always wanted to maximize profits, and wages have always been lower in third-world nations. So why did the US manufacturing industry- which expanded all throughout the 19th and early 20th century, suddenly begin a steep nosedive starting with the advent of environmental legislation?

Honestly, to claim envionmental legislation isn't hindering industrial growth in this country is insultingly ignorant. It's the i>mission statement of most major environmental organizations, and they've been quite succesful in their work.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By retrospooty on 11/27/2007 5:37:22 PM , Rating: 3
well, hindering, yes, it hinders, I'll give you that, but I don't believe its the main reason corporations are outsourcing.

Tech support is one of the largest outsourced fields there is, and it has not waste or pollution to speak of.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 6:01:11 PM , Rating: 1
> "Tech support is one of the largest outsourced fields there is"

Incorrect. Despite outsourcing, the US Tech support segment is actually increasing in size. It experienced a bit of a decline around the 2000 timeframe, but in the past few years has been on the rebound.

Manufacturing, on the other hand, has been on a steady decline since 1970. Think about it...what do we really manufacture in the US any longer? In the way of heavy industry-- not much at all.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By Parhel on 11/27/2007 5:46:51 PM , Rating: 2
There are several reasons that the global economy has moved in the direction it has. One of those is certainly environmental legislation, but it is by no means the primary reason. Increased levels of industrialization in the 3rd world countries is a much larger factor. Also the cost of shipping product overseas, labor unions, minimum wage, etc., etc.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 6:05:32 PM , Rating: 1
> "Also the cost of shipping product overseas, labor unions, minimum wage, etc., etc. "

All factors which existed in the early and mid 20th century, a period in which manufacturing increased in the US. In fact, unions were even stronger in that period...and skilled workers in the manufacturing segment draw far above the minimum wage, so that's certainly not a factor.

There are two primary factors which have driven the cost of US manufacturing outside the realm of viability-- environmental legislation and tort liability. Both have exploded in the past 30 years, the period which coincides with the death of US manufacturing.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By derdon on 11/27/2007 12:00:20 PM , Rating: 2
And an even bigger body of evidence suggests otherwise...

Seriously with the massive forest destruction still going on and building activity your argument with increased biodiversity is pretty lame. It's paved down before it can grow. Currently massive amounts of rain forest in Indonesia are burnt down to make land for palm oil plants. There's so much CO2 for no good use.
You could have increased CO2 levels using a fraction of the CO2 for farming in controlled and sealed environments easily as well. There's no need to unleash it all into the atmosphere. It's dangerous and it should be stopped.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By Keeir on 11/27/2007 12:24:26 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Currently massive amounts of rain forest in Indonesia are burnt down to make land for palm oil plants.


I think this is the crux of most of Masher2's arguements. The massive amount of rhetoric and alarmism that is occuring over CO2 and global warming has started to distort actual enviromental efforts. Instead of leading to a "better" tomarrow, many of the efforts are damaging the present and future. For example, one of the main uses of Palm Oil is in Biodiesel/Fuel production. And no, it makes no difference if a company pledges not to buy "rainforest" Palm Oil, since the displaced production must go somewhere. (This is as silly as Al Gore saying he only buys renewable energy. If he hadn't used the energy, the renewable energy could have been used to reduce pollution forming energy production.) So many of the Biofuel companies are creating a situation that actively harms the enviroment through rainforest destruction, non-sustainable farming, and additional transportation costs or lowers quality of living by raising the costs of certain foods dramatically...

quote:
There's no need to unleash it all into the atmosphere. It's dangerous and it should be stopped.


Agreed, but only at a level and pace where pollution damage is reduced with an acceptable compromise with human well-being.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 1:38:53 PM , Rating: 2
> "You could have increased CO2 levels using a fraction of the CO2 for farming in controlled and sealed environments easily as well"

Lol, what? Are you actually suggesting we "seal" the world's croplands so local CO2 doesn't escape into the atmospher? Do you have any idea how many millions of square miles you're talking about? Or how technically infeasible this would be? Most the world is still using 19th-century agricultural techniques, and you suggest hermetically sealed environments are feasible?

> "with the massive forest destruction still going on and building activity your argument with increased biodiversity is pretty lame..."

First of all, deforestation from land clearing has no bearing on the CO2 argument. Rising CO2 has caused increased tree growth has increased in the past century. This is indisputable fact, proven by dozens of real-world research studies.

Second of all, in most first-world nations (including the US) forested area has actually *increased* over the past century. This is primarily due to reclamation of previously-cleared croplands, made possible by increased productivity from modern agriculture.

More of the US is forested today than was in the year 1900.

> "There's no need to unleash it all into the atmosphere. It's dangerous "

Are you not aware that in the earth's past, CO2 levels were up to 10 times higher than they are today? It wasn't "dangerous" then...in fact, that high level of airborne fertilizer led to the planet's most fertile period of plant and animal diversity in history.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By AnnihilatorX on 11/27/2007 12:57:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is a factoid oft-repeated but never supported. Actually, a body of evidence exists that increasing CO2 emissions may in fact be a wise move for humanity. CO2 is nothing but airborne plant food, essential for all life on earth. Higher levels means increased growth of trees, food crops, and plant of all sort, and increased biodiversity for animal kingdom which depends on plant growth for food.


There are recent papers that show the increase in CO2 level actually slowed down forest growth.

Anyway, that's not the entire point. Retrospooty also mentioned reducing pollution (CO2 is not classified as pollution by the way, pollution mainly refers to smog, sulphur oxides, nitrogen oxides, heavy metals, etc) is a good thing. No one would argue having less pollution is good for them because of better air quality.

Reducing carbon dioxide usually reduce the pollution as well because you seldom get process that emit carbon dioxide alone.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 2:06:26 PM , Rating: 2
> "There are recent papers that show the increase in CO2 level actually slowed down forest growth."

Nonsense. Here's a link to an omnibus paper detailing the effects of atmospheric CO2 on increased plant growth.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM300.pdf

Trees are growing faster today, not slower, due to rising CO2 levels.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By Screwballl on 11/27/2007 12:57:47 PM , Rating: 2
from a prominent study:

quote:
Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick (upturn in reported temperatures worldwide in the past 100 years). In his original publications of the "stick", Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records.
But it wasn’t so. McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken.
Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called “Monte Carlo” analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2004/2...

So this means that most of the climate data that has been used and referred to by global warming supports is all falsified or "wrong" data. This study was in 2004 yet still to this day this wrong and falsified data continues to be used to further their propaganda.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By AnnihilatorX on 11/27/2007 1:21:36 PM , Rating: 2
That's interesting read thanks.
It did not draw solid conclusions though. If the climate data plot is flawed, we are left with no scientific conclusion on the state of global warming. Nothing is either proved or disproved.

quote:
It certainly does not negate the threat of a long-term global temperature increase. In fact, McIntyre and McKitrick are careful to point out that it is hard to draw conclusions from these data, even with their corrections.


What I don't understand though is if the recent temperature data is flawed because of the program normalisation process, why can't you just use another program and re-do the calculation since the raw data aren't flawed?

I don't know about you guys, but where my home town is, Before and around 15 years ago, the temperature always drop below 10 degrees Celsius in Winter. It hardly ever do since around 10 years ago.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 3:09:32 PM , Rating: 2
> "if the recent temperature data is flawed because of the program normalisation process, why can't you just use another program and re-do the calculation since the raw data aren't flawed?"

Good question. The answer is we don't have good temperature data for the entire world, stretching back any appreciable period of time. Weather stations move to different locations or are not monitored for extended periods of time, equipment or monitoring times/procedures change, urbanization effects cause false rises, etc, etc, etc.

The program that NASA's GISS uses to "correct" the raw data runs to tens of thousands of lines of code, and includes a huge amount of arbitrary "adjustments" and "bias values".

Interestingly enough, the raw data for many parts of the world fail to show any clear warming trend. Once massaged by the geniuses at GISS, however, the adjusted data is considerably different.

Are such adjustments accurate? Opinions vary...but its illuminating to note that NASA has refused until very recently to even release the source to their adjustment process, so that it can be idependently evaluated.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By clovell on 11/27/2007 5:06:18 PM , Rating: 3
Out of curiosity, masher - do you have any references on those adjustments? I work in statistics and it'd be neat to look over those on a slow day.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 5:27:55 PM , Rating: 2
Steve McKintyre at www.climateAudit.org has spent the past couple of years trying to make sense out of them. If you vist his site, you'll find a weath of material on the various constructions, reconstructions, trims, clips, biases, adjustments, and other factors being used.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By clovell on 11/28/2007 3:02:18 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks a bunch!


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By imaheadcase on 11/28/2007 12:48:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is a factoid oft-repeated but never supported. Actually, a body of evidence exists that increasing CO2 emissions may in fact be a wise move for humanity. CO2 is nothing but airborne plant food, essential for all life on earth. Higher levels means increased growth of trees, food crops, and plant of all sort, and increased biodiversity for animal kingdom which depends on plant growth for food.


Don't forget oceans also absorb MASSIVE amounts of it. With melting ice in Greenland and arctic areas could balance it out.

I firming believe it is just a natural thing for earth to change constantly. There will always be humans on earth, just the amount could very from 1 to billions over time.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By mdogs444 on 11/27/2007 11:18:34 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Last time I checked, global warming is a global problem.

Global warming is - in theory - a global problem. Its not a 100% proven scientific fact - but a set of large theorized conclusions based upon small pieces of evidence that may or may not relate to those conclusions.

quote:
If China would not reduce emissions themselves, it's better to pay them to reduce it than to let it go unchecked.

I don't think China wants the tag of "worlds worst polluter" anymore than the US or India would. But the main thing that these 3 nations have to worry about - which the UK does not, or at least nearly as much - is that they are also the largest economies in the world. There is a big line that needs to be drawn about where you start letting the environmentalist's control the economy, and where you let the economy control pollution.

As far as paying them to do it, well it could also be another one of those "do as i say" and "do as i do" speeches. Think about it - do you know how much more money, and how much it will effect China's growing economy to make the same types of changes that the UK would make themselves? China has much more in stake of their economy than the UK does. So in order to start "preaching" the environmentalist word to the top 3 nations in the world - the UK will have to start footing part of the bill and proving that its words really will end up being good for the world and economy - and not just some type of scientific theorized dooms day talk.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By rcc on 11/27/2007 12:02:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Global warming is - in theory - a global problem. Its not a 100% proven scientific fact -


I believe that global warming is a verifiable phenomenum. What is up for grabs is whether mankind (pollution, etc.) is a major contributor, or whether it's part of a natural cycle. And, if it's part of a natural cycle, do we want/need/should do anything about modifying it.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By mdogs444 on 11/27/2007 12:10:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I believe that global warming is a verifiable phenomenum.

Which still may or may not be true. Given the accuracy of the data that has been collected over the number of years - its hard to tell that the world is ending becuase its less than 1 degree warmer - when in fact, the instruments used to collect the data may have had a +/- 3% deviation for example.

Im not saying that the phenom is 100% falsified, but I will definatley not say its true either. I think its an overhyped theory based on data that may or may not even be accurate to begin with.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By AnnihilatorX on 11/27/2007 12:48:45 PM , Rating: 2
Well if there is a 10% chance that global warming will cause a large scale global catastrophe in 50 years, would you do something to act or would you just sit and watch?

Depend if you are optimistic or pessimistic. I personally prefer to be safe.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 1:02:16 PM , Rating: 2
> "Well if there is a 10% chance that global warming will cause a large scale global catastrophe in 50 years"

There is no looming catastrophe. If the skeptics are right, then global warming is a natural cycle we cannot influence, and may even be good for mankind. If the skeptics are wrong, then global warming will be a minor annoyance,

The IPCC is predicting a 23 centimeter rise in sea level over the next 100 years (about 12 of which we would see even if global warming didn't exist). And a minor increase in storm, flood, and drought activity...which no hard evidence exists for, and won't be hard to compensate for in any case.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By AnnihilatorX on 11/27/2007 1:08:41 PM , Rating: 2
Last time I checked the climate models predicted by super computers shows major increase in drought, storms and floods.

Again since global warming is gradual you can't really find hard evidence. Evidence would just be surfacing gradually if there is any. I don't really trust those predictions either, whether they are for or against global warming. There are chances they are totally wrong. Since both scenario cannot be disproved either way, don't you think it's better be safe than sorry?


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 1:46:24 PM , Rating: 2
> Last time I checked the climate models predicted by super computers shows major increase in drought, storms and floods"

These are the same climate models that have failed to ever accurately predict a future event, or even the past climate changes known to have historically occurred.

Our computer models are nowhere near complex enough to accurately model the Earth's climate. Models are vetted by their predictive ability...and so far, our current GCMs have none.

> "don't you think it's better be safe than sorry? "

In this case, being "safe" means not crippling the world's economy to solve a problem that may not even exist and, even if it does, will be no more than a minor annoyance.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 1:07:18 PM , Rating: 2
And let's not forget that "being safe" means rolling back CO2 emissions to the point where atmospheric CO2 is no longer rising. Since CO2 has been going up throughout the entire 20th century, that means reverting back to a 19th-century level of emissions. That's not going to happen anytime soon, not without reverting back to a 19th century lifestyle at least.

People seem to have this idea that if they drive a hybrid, recycle, and throw up a few solar panels that they can halt CO2 emissions. It's just not possible. Our food production system alone generates more CO2 than does the transportation or residential sector. Scaling it back to a 19th century emissions level would mean worldwide starvation.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By AnnihilatorX on 11/27/2007 1:25:05 PM , Rating: 2
I agree.

However we'd run out of oil reserves in 50 years anyway.
So carbon emission is more likely to be a coal issue.
I think we definitely need to find alternate renewable energy sources.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By mdogs444 on 11/27/2007 1:36:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
However we'd run out of oil reserves in 50 years anyway.

Do you know how many times they've been saying that we'll run out of oil soon in the last 100 years? If they were right, we would have run out before the Rambler was still a popular car.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 1:48:28 PM , Rating: 2
In the 1920s, President Calvin Coolidge, on the recommendation of many scientific experts who warned petroleum supplies would be gone within 10 years, convened an emergency council to study the problem.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By AnnihilatorX on 11/27/2007 1:57:56 PM , Rating: 2
I am relatively young and no I haven't
But old prediction was base on the reserve estimates of that time, where they did not have sophisticated surveying technology.

The oil reserve discovery rate is dropping steadily. Also factoring in energy profit ratio analysis (E.g. there may be reserves which would take more energy per barrel of oil to extract, i.e. more energy input to get the energy out. ), they obtained a figure of 50 years.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 2:03:17 PM , Rating: 2
> "The oil reserve discovery rate is dropping steadily"

No it isn't. Since 1965, we've discovered 5 barrels of oil for every 3 we've burned. In 1980, our proven oil reserves were in the 30 year range. Now they're 50 years...so large, in fact, that many companies simply stopped exploring because there was too much already found to justify further exploration.

Now that oil prices have climbed sharply in the past few years and demand has risen, companies are beginning to explore again. And we've already seen several large finds just in the past year or two. Just a few months ago, Brazil found a massive new field large enough to put in the ranks of the world's major oil exporters:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/11/08/brazi...


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By AnnihilatorX on 11/27/2007 2:07:04 PM , Rating: 2
I have a graph in hand of oil reserve discovered 1940 - 2000
Probably a bit outdated.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 2:10:29 PM , Rating: 2
> "I have a graph in hand of oil reserve discovered 1940 - 2000"

If its accurate, you should see a bit of a dip in discoveries in the 1995-2000 range, due to the cofactors of $10/bbl oil and proven reserves in the 50-year range. It just wasn't profitable to explore more with oil that cheap and plentify.

But as I said, in the past couple years, exploration has picked back up again, and our proven reserves are again at the highest point they've been in history.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By mdogs444 on 11/27/2007 2:10:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
where they did not have sophisticated surveying technology.

Sure the technology is much better now - but they still dont have a clue how much oil there really is in the ground. Imagine all the place they HAVENT surveyed yet as well. Its a fear tactic from environmentalist, there is no truth to it.

quote:
The oil reserve discovery rate is dropping steadily

Not really. The amount of oil we currently get from the ground is is dropping in comparison to the increase in global need for oil. There are so many other places that we can drill for oil - but its hard to do with all the environmental theorist wussies out there that complain every time we even want to LOOK for oil. Im convinced that the environmentalists dont want anyone to even know how much oil there is in the ground - because if its found to be much much more than theorized, they will lose all their fear mongering tactics of everyone driving an electric car built for midgets.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By mcnabney on 11/27/2007 3:32:07 PM , Rating: 2
It is less a case of reserves and more a case of production.

US oil production peaked over 30 years ago. Global production will peak sometime between now and 15 years. It is very difficult to determine how much oil is really available. Different sources require different things to get the oil in the tanker. In Saudi Arabia, they just stick a straw in the ground. In Canada, they have to process tar sands at huge expense.
The risk is not running 'out' of oil. It is production keeping up with demand. Demand for oil is being driven by the developing world and China. New sources of production are not coming online fast enough. For every oil field in Brazil that is found, you have a location like the North Sea which is just about empty.
As demand outstrips supply we see rising prices and some demand-destruction. This is a warning sign. The global oil supply is not infinite and we are going to have a period of time where increased scarcity gives us an incentive to develop the next source of easy energy. We ignore this at our peril.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 3:38:00 PM , Rating: 2
> "US oil production peaked over 30 years ago"

Due to increasing environmental regulations and the abundance of cheap foreign imports.

> "Global production will peak sometime between now and 15 years."

A statement that Peak Oil fanatics have been making for the last 15 years. As each old prediction fails to occur, they quickly announce a new one.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By clovell on 11/28/2007 3:14:34 PM , Rating: 2
You're probably right, masher, but when oil production does peak, there will be some substantial economic fallout. I've got an idea I'll still be around to see it...


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By wordsworm on 11/27/2007 11:44:13 AM , Rating: 2
You should have that tidbit of information added. I read and reread the article 3 times looking for information on how the UK is funding it. What I got from the article is that the Chinese are assigning their own scientists to get the technologies that Britain has developed. I understand that these scientists from Britain are likely getting paid to do what they're doing, but no where does it state that England is paying for their salaries. Perhaps you can link to this other article wherein you gleaned this information. If Britain is footing the bill, I can't see that it's going to be terribly expensive for them.

Sharing technologies such as this isn't uncommon. Where would the world be if China hadn't shared its technologies?


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By mdogs444 on 11/27/2007 11:47:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Where would the world be if China hadn't shared its technologies?


Not trying to diminish your statement. But could you give examples of the Chinese developed technologies that you are referring to? Only reason I ask is that many things manufactured in China were not developed/invented there, but rather just able to manufacture at a cheaper cost.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By AnnihilatorX on 11/27/2007 1:01:19 PM , Rating: 2
Off topic but
Well most of the Chinese inventions are ancient
The most influential 4 are:

Paper
Gun powder
Compass
Printing technology


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By mdogs444 on 11/27/2007 1:08:51 PM , Rating: 2
Ok thats what i was thinking too. I wasn't sure if he was referring to recent technological inventions


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By FITCamaro on 11/27/2007 1:33:25 PM , Rating: 2
Paper was in use by the Egyptians long before it was in China.

The very word of paper comes from 'papyrus' which is what the Egyptians used to make paper. A simple google sear


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By AnnihilatorX on 11/27/2007 2:04:01 PM , Rating: 2
More accurately Chinese is attributed to the invention of the process of paper-making.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 2:07:53 PM , Rating: 2
True, but of the four great Chinese inventions you cite, at least two and possibly all four were later independently developed, and then further greatly expanded upon. That makes it hard to gauge just how "influential" those Chinese inventions actually were, if at all.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 11:51:12 AM , Rating: 2
> "but no where does it state that England is paying for their salaries"

In addition to the salaries of the British scientists involved, Britain is donating £3.5m of funding for the project. China will use the money to survey sedimentary basins which (whether or not they're ever used for carbon sequestration) will be valuable information useful for China's eventual exploitation of their resources.

> "Where would the world be if China hadn't shared its technologies? "

Are you suggesting that, because China originally developed gunpowder, the nations of the world should transfer all their patented intellectual property to the Chinese?


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By Parhel on 11/27/2007 1:03:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In addition to the salaries of the British scientists involved, Britain is donating £3.5m of funding for the project


How do you know that the figure doesn't include the salaries of the British scientists? Regardless, that figure is astonishingly small. £3.5m is absolutely peanuts to two major global powers such as China and the UK. If we were discussing billions, then your point might make some sense. £3.5m is a gesture, nothing more.

quote:
Are you suggesting that, because China originally developed gunpowder, the nations of the world should transfer all their patented intellectual property to the Chinese?


It's very obvious that that's not at all what he was saying.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 1:09:09 PM , Rating: 2
> "It's very obvious that that's not at all what he was saying"

Given that China hasn't been on the forefront of scientific development for many centuries, I think that's exactly what he was saying. That since the China of antiquity was responsible for many early innovations, that we should continue technology transfers to the modern China of today.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By Parhel on 11/27/2007 1:24:34 PM , Rating: 2
I think that's quite a stretch. Maybe a more moderate interpretation is that technology can be simply shared, especially when it's local use would have global benefits. Granted, China inventing paper doesn't have a lot to do with the matter at hand. But, there are no financial disincentives that I can see to sharing these types of technologies.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 1:42:47 PM , Rating: 2
You're forgetting that, for a modern first-world nation, intellectual property is a major source of revenue. When a nation spends millions (or billions) to develop a piece of technology, it expects to see a return on that investment, usually from selling or licensing that technology.

Take the US for instance. High wages, environmental regulations, and other factors mean the country no longer leads in manufacturing goods. Without the massive annaul revenues from IP exports, the US economy would be in dire straits indeed.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By Moishe on 11/27/2007 1:21:31 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not complaining about it... I'm not a Brit, so if they want to use their tax Euros in ways I personally find odd, that's their own problem. I will always think it's odd to see a non-poor/non-oppressed country receive a large chunk of giving for something like this.

China can spend huge amounts on their military, spaceflight, etc... I would think this NZEC stuff would be worth spending something on.

It makes me wonder what Britain is receiving in return.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By Clauzii on 11/27/2007 6:15:19 PM , Rating: 2
Said another way around too: Where would the world be, if China stopped producing current technoligy?


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By mdogs444 on 11/27/2007 6:25:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Said another way around too: Where would the world be, if China stopped producing current technoligy?


Would probably sound a bit better if you said "where would the world be, if China stopped manufacturing the worlds current technology"


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By Clauzii on 11/27/2007 8:38:20 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, Yore right. Being danish I sometimes change manufacturing and producing. So producing is like ie. the inventor/constructor?


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By Clauzii on 11/27/2007 8:40:43 PM , Rating: 2
"...Your'e right..." - sorry for the misspell.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By AnnihilatorX on 11/27/2007 12:50:38 PM , Rating: 2
UK government had been looking at ways to reduce UK's own carbon footprint. There are similar proposal on carbon capture using underground storage methods in UK main land.

Through this project the UK will gain technical expertise. It is mutually beneficial not just to China.


Tsk, tsk...
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 10:50:07 AM , Rating: 4
> "While the U.S. is the leader in CO2 emissions for a single nation..."

China became the world's top CO2 emitter last year, surpassing the US. DT ran a story on the event:

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=7770




RE: Tsk, tsk...
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 10:54:08 AM , Rating: 2
Also, as for this:

> "U.S. plants have various scrubbers and filters to take out other carbon based compounds..."

Only around 25% of US coal-based plants have scrubbers...and those are typically designed to take out NOx, sulfur dioxide, and other flue gases, not CO2 and other carbon compounds.


RE: Tsk, tsk...
By mcnabney on 11/27/2007 3:54:34 PM , Rating: 2
Scrubbers cannot remove CO2.

In fact, the energy created in coal plants comes from the exothermic reaction of organic material oxidizing to CO2.


RE: Tsk, tsk...
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 3:55:39 PM , Rating: 2
> "Scrubbers cannot remove CO2."

Isn't that what I said?


RE: Tsk, tsk...
By ninjit on 11/27/2007 3:02:21 PM , Rating: 2
Looks like jason's edit needs to be edited...
quote:
While the U.S. was the leader in CO2 emissions for a single nation for the better part of a century, China recently surpassed the world in emissions


China surpassed the US in emissions, not the whole WORLD.
If that were the case (i.e. China's emissions were now greater than the rest of the world combined) we'd all be pretty much doomed.


What we do affects our world
By elfy6x on 11/27/2007 11:06:11 PM , Rating: 2
Figured I'd add my two cents to this global warming debate.

It doesn't matter if it is man-made or not, it doesn't matter if it's just one big cycle, and it doesn't matter if it is a media-fueled agenda though that helps with this point. We don't live in a bubble. What we do affects SOMETHING around us. Garbage, waste, pollution, you name it, it affects something and we need to take responsibility for the world we inhabit and what we do it. If global warming is to be the method to instruct people on caring for where they live, then so be it. We should all be aware of our effects on the environment.

We have one planet and we need to take care of it otherwise, we will all lose and nothing will matter.




RE: What we do affects our world
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 11:22:38 PM , Rating: 2
So its ok with you if its all a big lie, as long as the misplaced fear of global warming compels people to take action?

Sadly, a lot of people agree with this viewpoint.


RE: What we do affects our world
By elfy6x on 11/27/2007 11:31:22 PM , Rating: 2
I don't necessarily agree with the way in which it is done, but the sadder thing is that it requires something like this just to get people's attention. There are better, more positive approaches I'm sure, but they just don't seem to work. So if we shout "doomsday" from the rooftops, that will compel people to act. We shouldn't have to, and people should naturally take responsibility for their actions. I shouldn't have to lie to get a point across, but I'm sure you can think of examples where sadly, the ends justified the means.


RE: What we do affects our world
By masher2 (blog) on 11/28/2007 12:21:08 AM , Rating: 2
> "but the sadder thing is that it requires something like this just to get people's attention."

What is sadder still is what you'll see when those people find out they've been lied too about global warming. The backlash will be tremendous, and they'll refuse to listen about any environmental issue, even the real ones. The parable about the boy who cried wolf comes to mind...


"Up In Smoke" by Cheese & Chong :)
By Clauzii on 11/27/2007 7:06:03 PM , Rating: 1
To understand the effects of too much CO2, watch that movie ;)

The scene where Chongs exhaustpipe is blown in on the neighbours roses, pretty much describes what will happen with too much CO2 being "thrown" at plants. Just try it Yourself - same outcome, if done enough.
--
Ok, in real life we don't see those extreme doses (yet?), but exageration sometimes help.

But hey: What if it isn't the CO2, but one of the thousands of other chemical substanses being burned off (or in other ways exposed to the nature) that causes some change to natures own mixture?

Do we even think about that a person can get severe damage from drinking toilet-cleaners-and-all-that? But we keep on using HUGE amounts of it, flushing it out in the ocean, thinking of it as a "drop"?

How many drops are too much then?

--

Knowing that nature has it's own way, I don't think we are near any TOTAL alarming state of things. Being able to see what IS happening some places around the globe though, we notice a great deal of non-nature-inflicted catastrophees, that should be avoided in the future.

Using recycling to a near 100% (which is not impossible but might be expensive in the beginning) would be very welcome indeed, but would in fact create even more polution by creating new machines, recycle the old ones and so forth. Kind of a paradox, ehh..

--

What we really need is a whole other type of thinking, a change in the way we produce: No more massproduced unusable cheap shit that breaks the first time You drop it. There is wealth and quality enough in the world to let every human being get good stuff, most important good FOOD.




RE: "Up In Smoke" by Cheese & Chong :)
By Clauzii on 11/27/2007 7:11:03 PM , Rating: 2
Regarding the subject: Since UK (and EU as a whole!) are among the heavy users of things produced in China, it's nice with some favours in return for the added pollution isn't it?

PS: 15 seconds MAX! it what it took to get a downrating?

Who the f%&# reads that fast to even judge :O


RE: "Up In Smoke" by Cheese & Chong :)
By Ringold on 11/27/2007 9:12:56 PM , Rating: 2
A producer-consumer relationship is justified on its own grounds. You buy from China because it saves you money, and they sell to you because your markets offered a price level sufficient to incentivize a certain level of production.

You owe China absolutely nothing at all. They're getting pounds and Euro's, you're getting goods you couldn't make yourselves at any reasonable cost. In fact, by sending them additional money, you could just be negating the very advantage of doing business with them in the first place, by in the aggregate paying them more than what they're worth. Now not only is Britain paying for the goods, they're helping China produce them cheaper and source their own potential reserves.

It's nice that you've all got big hearts, but thank god it's not my US tax dollars. :P


By Clauzii on 11/27/2007 10:50:34 PM , Rating: 2
80-90% of all electronics says "Made In China" on it. It's allmost a quest to awoid chinese stuff.

Yes, of course we all want the best bang for our money, but if You eg. have seen the way chinese workers handles the coloring of clothes, putting the bare hands into sometimes chemical-filled tubs, one might wonder who forgot to tell them to use gloves? Or don't they even know that it's unhealthy? Do they even get told by the factory manager?


I remember...
By seamonkey79 on 11/27/2007 4:26:02 PM , Rating: 2
...when, about 25 years ago, people were crying about stopping pollution because the planet was cooling and we only had 15 years left before we froze to death...

Did you all know that Earth Day (April 22 in the US) was created to generate attention to global cooling? My mom did her part, she got her driver's license that day so she could help warm the planet up.

Back then, the planet was cooling because there were too many cars driving around, generating reflective gases that bounced the sun's energy back out into space.

I'm thinking that 20 years from now (about 5-10 years after the planet burns up, according to most global warming propaganda), people will be crying because the planet's cooling because there are so many cars driving around generating reflective gases again.

There's nothing new under the sun.

The planet goes through cycles. Science proves that.

However, people want religion, in one form or another. Barring an 'organized' religion, they'll go for something else, this just happens to be a well televised one.

Bye bye for now.




RE: I remember...
By Clauzii on 11/27/2007 7:33:10 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with the natures own cycling but I also remember that "IceAge"-thing too (with the usual "Doomsday Is Here"-shouters but It actually WAS cooler back then ;)

But I think we still need to put a greater deal of concern in to how we produce things in the future and thankfully a great deal is already being put into that, but at the current speed of production we need to move faster with initiatives towards less polluting manufacturing methods.

Science proves that ;)


RE: I remember...
By seamonkey79 on 11/27/2007 9:35:15 PM , Rating: 2
You're absolutely correct, it was cooler back then. That's the very point I was making :-) It's not a matter of what we, as people, are doing, it's a matter of what the planet is doing, and has been doing for it's entire existence.

However, I will agree with you on the less 'polluting' manufacturing, and I support recycling. Why? Well, because both would, I believe, improve humanities lot in life. If we can drop pollution down some, if nothing else, I wouldn't have to smell the stinky diesel engines (oh, and read about how wonderful the car was for decreasing pollution from... horse manure). Recycling, I really like... I like the idea of re-using what we've already produced, mainly because while I don't believe that we're running low on natural resources, I do believe that we're being a bit wasteful to just throw stuff away.


other greenhouse gases
By kattanna on 11/27/2007 11:08:19 AM , Rating: 2
today i came across this good read about some of our other greenhouse gases.

http://www.slate.com/id/2178595/




hehe
By Howard on 11/27/2007 7:49:14 PM , Rating: 2
Can't help but point out that Jason has consistently hilarious grammar.




"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town." -- Charlie Miller

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki