Well well, there are smart courts

[rushmc 23]

... that know the indoctrination needs to be stopped.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=485336&in_page_id=1811

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

I wonder if they'll go after Moore's crap next? We can only hope...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[AWL71 0]

Wow, a judge with common sense who realizes there are two sides to every story. Lets start a collection and bring him to the states.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[skymiles 3]

Quote

Wow, a judge with common sense who realizes there are two sides to every story. Lets start a collection and bring him to the states.

I can’t wait to read all the independent scientific research that concludes the non-existence of global warming. I’m sure a movie based on it will be out soon.

At some point in time, when the evidence is overwhelming, there are no longer two sides to every story. All that’s left are a few individuals who, for some reason, are happier to bury their heads in the sand. A few hundred years ago, it was commonly believed that the earth was flat. Where’s that side of the story today?

Phil

[ErricoMalatesta 0]

Well we will ignore your feverish need to constantly point out to everyone that you reject the idea that advanced industrial societies have negative environmental consequences and just go with

Quote

He wants the video banned after it was distributed with four other short films to 3,500 schools in February.

Short film? I fell asleep watching it after the first 2.5 hours.

[DZJ 0]

And from the same fine publication:

Supernanny kids set fire to own house after visit from TV expert
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=485195&in_page_id=177

[1969912 0]

and these:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=485370&in_page_id=1965

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=376794&in_page_id=1811

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

At some point in time, when the evidence is overwhelming, there are no longer two sides to every story.

Yes, there become SEVERAL sides to the story.

Quote

All that’s left are a few individuals who, for some reason, are happier to bury their heads in the sand.

No. There are those who say the sky fell. Those who say the sky is falling. Those who say the sky is not falling, but is gonna fall soon. Those who say the skay is not falling, but may fall. And those who say the sky is not falling and will never fall.

Quote

A few hundred years ago, it was commonly believed that the earth was flat. Where’s the other side of that story today?

Less than two score ago, it was widely feared that the earth was cooling. The other side was burying its head in the sand.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[shropshire 0]

Mostly, the "debate" is not around 'the existence (or otherwise) of Global Warming, it's more around the cause(s).

For me, it's far from proven that GW is man made and man made alone.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[billvon 3,120]

So you now support legislating from the bench? Cool. Let's hope you do not flip-flop again when a court requires a warning before, say, a denier film.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

So you now support legislating from the bench? Cool. Let's hope you do not flip-flop again when a court requires a warning before, say, a denier film.

In this case were has the bench legislated?

Oh, we would not be conversing here if ALGORES film was truly scientific as it has been sold to be. But then, the whole GWing movment (as in the man made case) is all political to begin with now isint it!

And I do understand that you references to me and the "flip flop" PA's are to redirect the topic. I can handle that but how about playing the ball not the player??

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,120]

>In this case were has the bench legislated?

The courts have imposed a legal requirement on schools. That's legislating.

Again, that's fine. Just don't flip-flop again when the next judge rules that a special on the science behind climate change must carry a disclaimer that "this documentary is funded by climate change deniers." What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

>And I do understand that you references to me and the "flip flop" PA's . . .

RushMC, 2005: "A close look at this whole issue is about one thing. Judges! Judges are legislating from the bench."

[1969912 0]

Quote

Mostly, the "debate" is not around 'the existence (or otherwise) of Global Warming, it's more around the cause(s).

For me, it's far from proven that GW is man made and man made alone.

Your comment got me thinking about something. Consider this scenario: What if it were proven that it's not man made, but also proven that the natural warming will eventually destroy some coastal cities, and that the only way to prevent the destruction is to reduce CO2 emissions in an effort to counteract the natural warming?

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[shropshire 0]

Good point.... maybe it's a matter of scale...

What % of the increase in CO2 is natural .vs. man-made?

It could be, that our personal reduction in CO2 would have a minimal impact (bar making us feel better).

In my work.. I first need to Define a Problem, Then Measure it before suggesting changes. It seems to me that we have Defined the problem but then some of the politicians are trying to enforce changes before the Analysis has been completed.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[billvon 3,120]

>What % of the increase in CO2 is natural .vs. man-made?

95+%. You can calculate the tons of CO2 released by burning fossil fuels, divide by the total volume of the atmosphere (correcting for density changes with altitude) and come up with the expected increase. The actual increase is _less_ than the calculated number since there are a number of natural processes that try to "balance" the amount of CO2. For example the oceans can absorb excess CO2 and plants can turn CO2 into oxygen (and more plants.)

Unfortunately, as the oceans warm they can absorb less CO2 - and as plants are removed for commerical/agricultural purposes they are less able to absorb CO2. So they are not as effective as they might be otherwise.

To disprove the idea that anthropogenic CO2 is causing the increase, you could look at the three other possible sources of releasable CO2 - the soils, the oceans and volcanic activity. If the soils or oceans showed declining amounts of carbon, or volcanic activity was increasing, you could argue that _that_ was the source of the carbon.

However, carbon levels in the ocean are _increasing_, and volcanism and soil carbon levels haven't changed much.

A few links:

http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=160

Also see attached for a (simplified) overview of the atmospheric carbon cycle.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

What % of the increase in CO2 is natural .vs. man-made?

That is a good question and I don't know how to quantify it without having any numbers on the amount of oil and coal we have used in last 100 years. But that said, how much of that land locked carbon would have been released to the atmosphere if we hadn't yanked it out and burned it?

[shropshire 0]

Well, if the land-locked Carbon only came from fossil fuels, then if we had not burned it.. Nothing ...... BUT...
(1) Is that the only method of releasing CO2?
(2) CO2 is not the only land-locked Green House gas. Methane is also released naturally (Bogs, earth quakes..... cows!! etc..).

If we do not know the number of variables, then it's by no means simple maths.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Well, if the land-locked Carbon only came from fossil fuels, then if we had not burned it.. Nothing ...... BUT...
(1) Is that the only method of releasing CO2?

No. But additional sources do not detract from the massive, anthropogenic release.

Quote

(2) CO2 is not the only land-locked Green House gas. Methane is also released naturally (Bogs, earth quakes..... cows!! etc..).

Quite right. But if a CO2 induced increase in temperature causes the permafrost of a Siberian bog to release tremendous amounts of methane, is the resultant insulating effect caused by the methane or the CO2? As for the cow farts, is it their fault or is it the fault of the creatures who raise them in huge numbers for the consumption of a tasty yet inefficient from of sustenance?

[shropshire 0]

Quote

No. But additional sources do not detract from the massive, anthropogenic release.

I'll need to take your's (& Bills) word for that, as I do not know.

Great chatting with you.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

>In this case were has the bench legislated?

The courts have imposed a legal requirement on schools. That's legislating.

Actually, the article seems to suggest that there is a law in Britain that requires that politically-themed materials be balanced or explained as such.

It sounds like the Court is trying to make the schools do what they are required to do.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,120]

>(1) Is that the only method of releasing CO2?

Definitely not. There are a great many sources - decomposing trees, forest fires, animal waste, volcanoes etc. Indeed they emit more CO2 (per year) than we do. The reason that hasn't been a problem until now is that there's a relatively fixed amount of available carbon in the soils, ocean, trees etc and thus that is the amount that's been circulating through the various carbon sources/sinks for the past few million years.

Our additional CO2 emissions are slowly being absorbed by this cycle - but much more slowly than we are emitting them. If we slowed down our emissions to the point where one of the above cycles could accommodate the increase in carbon, then the CO2 level would rise a bit and level off. But we're emitting a lot more than that, so they're continuing to rise.

>CO2 is not the only land-locked Green House gas. Methane is
>also released naturally (Bogs, earth quakes..... cows!! etc..).

Yep! That's a separate cycle. The bad news is that through increased cattle domestication, melting of permafrost etc. methane output has increased, and concentrations have gone up. The good news there is that methane breaks down a lot faster than CO2. It's not nearly as stable as CO2, which is why (among other things) you can burn it. So we are rapidly reaching a new equilibrium with methane, where the level will stabilize at a new (higher) level. This means it will add to warming, but the effect won't get steadily worse with time.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

No. But additional sources do not detract from the massive, anthropogenic release.

I'll need to take your's (& Bills) word for that, as I do not know.

Great chatting with you.

Well I don't think that there's any question that humans digging up millions of year's worth of sequestered carbon and burning it is an anthropogenic release. I suppose someone could take the approach that human induced release of carbon IS a natural phenomena. I mean after all, our own Secretary of the Interior (who is in charge of things outdoors) stated that these resources were put here for us to use up, until Christ returns of course.

[shropshire 0]

Sorry, I was not suggesting that fuel burning is not anthropogenic - that's a given from the definition. My personal unknown is the scale.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[1969912 0]

Quote

Good point.... maybe it's a matter of scale...

What % of the increase in CO2 is natural .vs. man-made?

It could be, that our personal reduction in CO2 would have a minimal impact (bar making us feel better).

In my work.. I first need to Define a Problem, Then Measure it before suggesting changes. It seems to me that we have Defined the problem but then some of the politicians are trying to enforce changes before the Analysis has been completed.

That wasn't really my point.


I intended to ask: "If catastrophic climate change is occuring, and man can do something about it, does it really matter if the climate change was caused by man?"





Perhaps this is where the GW marketing experts went wrong.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[1969912 0]

Quote

Quote

No. But additional sources do not detract from the massive, anthropogenic release.

I'll need to take your's (& Bills) word for that, as I do not know.

Great chatting with you.

Any question you could possibly ask is answered in How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG