|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 7:58 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
Clark, suppose I want to get to Chino Hills, California from Los Angeles.
If I go in a car built in 1930 it may take me hours to get there. However, if I take a modern car, I could be there sans traffic in less than an hour.
My point is we probably have accelerated global warming. I am not arguing against the idea that may occur naturally. There is something called exacerbating the problem.
As one of my professors would say, the Earth finds some kind of balance or equilibrium and how humankind figures into it is not the Earth's concern. It is our concern. We haven't been concerned enough. |
That's nice, very touchy feely.
Are you proposing that we remove humans from the equation?
Leaves no room for debate.
cbc |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cbclark4 wrote: |
| Adventurer wrote: |
Clark, suppose I want to get to Chino Hills, California from Los Angeles.
If I go in a car built in 1930 it may take me hours to get there. However, if I take a modern car, I could be there sans traffic in less than an hour.
My point is we probably have accelerated global warming. I am not arguing against the idea that may occur naturally. There is something called exacerbating the problem.
As one of my professors would say, the Earth finds some kind of balance or equilibrium and how humankind figures into it is not the Earth's concern. It is our concern. We haven't been concerned enough. |
That's nice, very touchy feely.
Are you proposing that we remove humans from the equation?
Leaves no room for debate.
cbc |
Is that response supposed to be worthy of respect cb? You disrespect others with your sarcasm and think it better than calling a spade a spade? Hypocrisy is ugly.
Back on topic: This info has been posted before, but since you seemed to want to claim all the B.S. spewed by Exxon and their tobacco buddies is "good" science, well... Before the two referred-to statements by scientific organizations, there were exposes of the connections between Exxon and one of the big tobacco companies and anti-global warming science. The goal was to discredit global warming, and by association claim science against smoking was also bunk, I believe. (Strange, but true.) It was all about creating climates of uncertainty. The information is posted among these forums, if you wish to self-educate rather than self-abuse.
Group: ExxonMobil paid to mislead public
| Quote: |
Wed Jan 3, 2:15 PM ET
WASHINGTON - ExxonMobil Corp. gave $16 million to 43 ideological groups between 1998 and 2005 in a coordinated effort to mislead the public by discrediting the science behind global warming, the Union of Concerned Scientists asserted Wednesday.
The report by the science-based nonprofit advocacy group mirrors similar claims by Britain's leading scientific academy. Last September, The Royal Society wrote the oil company asking it to halt support for groups that "misrepresented the science of climate change."
ExxonMobil did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the scientific advocacy group's report.
Many scientists say accumulating carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases from tailpipes and smokestacks are warming the atmosphere like a greenhouse, melting Arctic sea ice, alpine glaciers and disturbing the lives of animals and plants.
ExxonMobil lists on its Web site nearly $133 million in 2005 contributions globally, including $6.8 million for "public information and policy research" distributed to more than 140 think-tanks, universities, foundations, associations and other groups. Some of those have publicly disputed the link between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.
But in September, the company said in response to the Royal Society that it funded groups which research "significant policy issues and promote informed discussion on issues of direct relevance to the company." It said the groups do not speak for the company.
Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists' strategy and policy director, said in a teleconference that ExxonMobil based its tactics on those of tobacco companies, spreading uncertainty by misrepresenting peer-reviewed scientific studies or cherry-picking facts.
Dr. James McCarthy, a professor at Harvard University, said the company has sought to "create the illusion of a vigorous debate" about global warming. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 4:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
Group: ExxonMobil paid to mislead public
| Quote: |
Wed Jan 3, 2:15 PM ET
WASHINGTON - ExxonMobil Corp. gave $16 million to 43 ideological groups between 1998 and 2005 in a coordinated effort to mislead the public by discrediting the science behind global warming, the Union of Concerned Scientists asserted Wednesday.
The report by the science-based nonprofit advocacy group mirrors similar claims by Britain's leading scientific academy. Last September, The Royal Society wrote the oil company asking it to halt support for groups that "misrepresented the science of climate change."
ExxonMobil did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the scientific advocacy group's report.
Many scientists say accumulating carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases from tailpipes and smokestacks are warming the atmosphere like a greenhouse, melting Arctic sea ice, alpine glaciers and disturbing the lives of animals and plants.
ExxonMobil lists on its Web site nearly $133 million in 2005 contributions globally, including $6.8 million for "public information and policy research" distributed to more than 140 think-tanks, universities, foundations, associations and other groups. Some of those have publicly disputed the link between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.
But in September, the company said in response to the Royal Society that it funded groups which research "significant policy issues and promote informed discussion on issues of direct relevance to the company." It said the groups do not speak for the company.
Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists' strategy and policy director, said in a teleconference that ExxonMobil based its tactics on those of tobacco companies, spreading uncertainty by misrepresenting peer-reviewed scientific studies or cherry-picking facts.
Dr. James McCarthy, a professor at Harvard University, said the company has sought to "create the illusion of a vigorous debate" about global warming. |
|
I think it was fairly obvious that a lot of stifling and suppression of the facts was happening in the US. The country is run by oil barons after all.
Sad that so many people fell for it instead of conducting their own research it whats happening. only a year ago on here most people were claiming global warming to be a fallacy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 8:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yesterday the Weatherman said there would be a 10% chance for rain on Friday today he changed it to to 40%.
In the grand scheme of things the prediction for Global warming run the risk of being about just as accurate as a five day forecast.
Again please let me state my position, I am all for keeping the environment clean, I just think the scare tactics of global disaster caused by man are a little far fetched.
I think changes in attitude are fair. Over time man has adjusted his behavior toward his environment. Different agricultural strategies have benefited mankind time and again.
People need to look at the total picture, what is the real effect of so called global warming, increased CO2 for instance will in fact increase vegetation world wide, check out the Sahara desert it's shrinking.
How about Kyoto. If completely adopted, how will Kyoto effect the the Global Climate over next 100 years?
How much of the Atmosphere is made up of greenhouse Gases? We know for instance that most of the Atmosphere is Nitrogen (~78% ) and then we have corrosive Oxygen (~20%) the remaining gases CARBON DIOXIDE, Argon, Neon, Helium, Methane, Krypton and Hydrogen make up the remaining (<2%). Water vapor is also present in the atmosphere.
The Change to the atmosphere over the past 100 years in terms of man made Greenhouse gases is about what 30 parts per million maybe 60 I don't really know but what is the significance of 60ppm of Carbon Dioxide?
Too much fear does not help people to understand about controlling pollution, it need to immediate understanding a based on self preservation.
People understand dirty water and dirty air and litter in the streets.
Fear is a social motivator. Are you scared yet?
cbc |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 1:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
What has any scientist to gain from global warming research? Who gains? Now, who gains from anti-global warming research.
Sometimes reality stares you in the face, cb. Learning to ask the right questions is helpful.
Need an idea as to why global warming is an important issue? Ask anyone living in or near the artict circle, anyone living in the area of Kilimanjaro and its disappearing snow/water supply... etc.
You are thinking about small numbers and pretending - yes, pretending - any given number is relevant. One may or not be, but many, many numbers begin to take on significance. They add up.
You need to do some research on Chaos and tipping points/bifurcation and see just how quickly the mildly out of balance gets screwed up in a hurry.
Better yet, take out a top or a coin and set it to spinning and watch what happens at the end. Do yourself a greater favor and count the the total time of the spin, then only the period it is somehwat unstable, then the period it is highly unstable. I'm thinking you're going to see a good example of Chaos at work.
Or, you could just check what happened in New Orleans and consider it is nowhere near to being put back together. Now imagine tens, dozens, or more Katrinas.
I'm not an artist, but I can draw you a picture if you need one.
Oh, and a disaster is still a disaster even if it happens over decades rather than hours.
Final thought: the differences in global temperatures that exist between, say, an ice age and a warming period, are actually quite small as global means. Check it out and at that fact to your mini-number set. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 7:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
we are screw*d. Human greed is adding the last finishing touches. the myth of the 20th century was that man lived in isolation from his environment. Over and above it.
Another ice shelf breaks up.., the snows arrive extra late to the alps. A mutilated earth strikes back. Suffer the children..the next generation. High water mark 50ft, bye bye London, Amsterdam, New orleans. and los Angeles has a big earthquake coming. One day Bush won't be able to eat oil and Koreans won't be able to breath fumes from their SUV's. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 8:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Junior
Your response is 100% emotion. No facts!
How much of the atmosphere is composed of "Greenhouse Gases"?
I'll throw you a bone:
Are the Glaciers Receding, yes Kilimanjaro is dramatically and it is caused by changes to the environment, deforesting seems the main contributor. In close proximity to the mount the lack of forest allows for the rising of warm equatorial air to reach the glacier.
Is this local weather or climate change?
It's all about the gases remember.
cbc |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 8:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cbclark4 wrote: |
Junior
Your response is 100% emotion. No facts!
How much of the atmosphere is composed of "Greenhouse Gases"?
I'll throw you a bone:
Are the Glaciers Receding, yes Kilimanjaro is dramatically and it is caused by changes to the environment, deforesting seems the main contributor. In close proximity to the mount the lack of forest allows for the rising of warm equatorial air to reach the glacier.
Is this local weather or climate change?
It's all about the gases remember.
cbc |
Every religion, folk tale and myth from the bible to thunderbirds looks to the time when man is responsible for destroying the earth. a time when nature becomes out of balance.
we've arrived.
Its more than gasses. Its a systematic dismantling of the earths operating systems. the ecosystems. the air, the water, the forests, all the habitats that exist to sustain a diversity of life on the planet. 50 football fields an hour, just so Jennifer can have her latest shopping bag. What was once sacred to most cultures- the various manifestations of life itself..has become of no value in the technological age. Commercial and economic is the only value now. Short sighted in the extreme, and homo sapiens marches on toward destruction. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 8:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cbclark4 wrote: |
Junior
Your response is 100% emotion. No facts!
How much of the atmosphere is composed of "Greenhouse Gases"?
I'll throw you a bone:
Are the Glaciers Receding, yes Kilimanjaro is dramatically and it is caused by changes to the environment, deforesting seems the main contributor. In close proximity to the mount the lack of forest allows for the rising of warm equatorial air to reach the glacier.
Is this local weather or climate change?
It's all about the gases remember.
cbc |
cb, if you've got nothing but out of context observations, quit wasting our time. If you've got access to significant numbers of research articles that were not produced by people in the pockets of the aforementioned "organization(s)", please link us. Otherwise, quit arguing with nearly the entire world scientific community and what is obviously before your biased eyes.
You keep taking single issues and ignoring the landslide of converging issues, you're going to prove what happens when one opens one's mouth and removes all doubt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 9:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Man has always manipulated his environment it has nothing to do with industry or commercialization.
Whether the Roman Roads the Wheel, control of fire, agriculture, community etc.
These were all manipulation of environment.
Termites do the same thing they manipulate the environment they represent a larger volume or mass upon the earth than does all of mankind, constanly manipulating destroying and constructing on a huge scale.
Beavers dam up rivers detriment or benefit?
Elk when left without predators will devour acres of green growth.
A forest of tall trees will eventually choke out the sun killing off the undergrowth vegetation.
These ecologies you speak of like bio-dome most of the experiments failed because there are no closed "systems" of ecology, teh ecology is immense and global.
The so called greenhouse gases are minute in comparison. Most of the emotional 'believers" in "Global Warming" don't even know what nitrogen is or that oxygen is corrosive.
Have you really looked at the "Warming trend" over the past 100 years what was the warmest year on record in the last 100 years? the coldest?
cbc |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 9:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="cbclark4"]
| Quote: |
| Man has always manipulated his environment it has nothing to do with industry or commercialization. |
But never as efficiently or on this scale.
Have you really looked at the "Warming trend" over the past 100 years what was the warmest year on record in the last 100 years? the coldest?
warmest:2005
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html
Coldest: 1962
http://www.weather.gov/view/prodsByState.php?state=me&prodtype=public
Most of the warmest years on record have been in the last decade..
So cbc what do you make of the fact the arctic has receeded by 1/3rd since 1979? Nothing out of the ordinary? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| cbclark4 wrote: |
Junior
Your response is 100% emotion. No facts!
How much of the atmosphere is composed of "Greenhouse Gases"?
I'll throw you a bone:
Are the Glaciers Receding, yes Kilimanjaro is dramatically and it is caused by changes to the environment, deforesting seems the main contributor. In close proximity to the mount the lack of forest allows for the rising of warm equatorial air to reach the glacier.
Is this local weather or climate change?
It's all about the gases remember.
cbc |
Every religion, folk tale and myth from the bible to thunderbirds looks to the time when man is responsible for destroying the earth. a time when nature becomes out of balance.
we've arrived.
Its more than gasses. Its a systematic dismantling of the earths operating systems. the ecosystems. the air, the water, the forests, all the habitats that exist to sustain a diversity of life on the planet. 50 football fields an hour, just so Jennifer can have her latest shopping bag. What was once sacred to most cultures- the various manifestations of life itself..has become of no value in the technological age. Commercial and economic is the only value now. Short sighted in the extreme, and homo sapiens marches on toward destruction. |
So what are you doing to stop global warming? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 3:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
So what are you doing to stop global warming? |
There is no chance to stop it.
Because human nature is all about greed, and thats not about to change. What is predicted in oh so many ancient prophecies will come to pass... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cbclark4 wrote: |
Man has always manipulated his environment it has nothing to do with industry or commercialization.
Whether the Roman Roads the Wheel, control of fire, agriculture, community etc.
These were all manipulation of environment.
Termites do the same thing they manipulate the environment they represent a larger volume or mass upon the earth than does all of mankind, constanly manipulating destroying and constructing on a huge scale.
Beavers dam up rivers detriment or benefit?
Elk when left without predators will devour acres of green growth.
A forest of tall trees will eventually choke out the sun killing off the undergrowth vegetation.
These ecologies you speak of like bio-dome most of the experiments failed because there are no closed "systems" of ecology, teh ecology is immense and global.
The so called greenhouse gases are minute in comparison. Most of the emotional 'believers" in "Global Warming" don't even know what nitrogen is or that oxygen is corrosive.
Have you really looked at the "Warming trend" over the past 100 years what was the warmest year on record in the last 100 years? the coldest?
cbc |
More nothing, cb. This is sad. This is no better than saying, "but it was really cold yesterday in Buffalo!"
Foolish. Utterly lackingin anything approaching scientific analysis. Show us the articles SUPPORTING your position that were not backed by the oil/tobacco industry.
We are past this issue: we are impactin the planet and possibly creating a disaster in our lifetimes that cannot be stopped or managed.
the difference, to make it clear for you, is that much climate change of the past appears to have happened over long periods. This is happening on the timescale of a human lifetime. That is FAST by ecological/biological/etc. standards.
We may have deprived ourselves of the time to adjust to this without utter chaos.
Get it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 12:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
the difference, to make it clear for you, is that much climate change of the past appears to have happened over long periods. This is happening on the timescale of a human lifetime. That is FAST by ecological/biological/etc. standards.
|
indeed...absolutely.
I thought the naysayers had been buried under all the evidence already? obviously not. Maybe they'll be buried under rising water levels first.
TORONTO Dec 29, 2006
Ice Shelf the Size of 11,000 Football Fields Snaps Free From Canada's Arctic
"This is a dramatic and disturbing event. It shows that we are losing remarkable features of the Canadian North that have been in place for many thousands of years," Vincent said. "We are crossing climate thresholds, and these may signal the onset of accelerated change ahead."
"It is consistent with climate change," Vincent said, adding that the remaining ice shelves are 90 percent smaller than when they were first discovered in 1906.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=2758025 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
