just a thought… it’d be good to know!

But the whole idea that there is “consensus” is BS, especially in the past 3 years or so, as more and more scientists are turning away from the IPCC scenarios and into more realistic ones as the science becomes better.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8641

It’s pretty sad that most people still are driven by their politics, because they don’t or can’t understand the science. Even more sad that those very same people are the ones who scream the loudest and get the media attention, while the serious environmental sceintists [including yours truly] labor in near-anonymity and don’t have 100-foot houseboats and Nobel Prizes while setting world records for hypocrisy.

Sad that more people don’t read (and can’t understand) the actual scentific papers, because it’s much more effort than listening to a 15 second sound bite on TV.

Which is exactly why predictions of global cooling have been replaced by predictions of global warming.

Unless they are completely and totally biased, the scientists’ conclusions and what they say to the public would be based on interpretation of the data, as you just said. And if over time the data suggests something different after closer inspection and increased knowledge, then the honest thing to do is to go by that. That’s hardly propaganda, that’s reporting the state of things as we know them to be right now. And I think any of these scientists, no matter what their conclusions, and if they do things right, are simply doing their best to tell us what they know. But I am not fond of people who simply blurt out weakly founded sweeping generalizations about climate change just to try to prove the hippies wrong.

I suppose the big problem in climate research, especially at this large of a scale (spatial and temporal) is being able to draw a cause-effect relationship, as you imply. You know, to say something causes another thing, you need a condition in which you have the alleged cause, and a separate condition without the alleged cause and then compare the outcome between the two. You just can’t do that in climate research so you’re forced to make predictive models and wait and see what happens. Bummer.

However, to quote Penn & Teller, this carbon footprint stuff is…
BULLSHIT!

1) It is most likely counted from the energy to produce the actual potato chip. As in, the creation of the tractor itself wouldn’t be considered because it is already considered an asset of that company and probably not included in calculation.

The calculation is most likely based on machine-usage as opposed to an actual potato giving of C02. My best guess is they take how much gas or CO2 emissions come from harvesting the potatoes add that to the gas or CO2 emissions from running the factory then divide it by the average out put of potato chip bags per day. That’s my guess…but this is an internet post, so I’m not gonna bet my salary on it.

2) You’re dealing with old data that was proven wrong, but still shows global warming exists in some fashion. I mean, I was told in the 7th grade that we had 35 years max of oil left on the planet, but that’s obviously not the case. Research advances.

BUT, the current temperature trends don’t match the prior earth warming trends. You could cite a million reasons for that…but I highly doubt “the sun” is simply the cause for that. Besides, I’m sure the people who were cited in the research for the Kyoto Protocol didn’t use “typical thermometers”.

3) Let’s say global warming DOESN’T exist. It’s still good to be conscious of the planet that we’re living in. Personally, I’d rather have people aware of the impact that their trash puts on others than to have it sitting in the streets being an eyesore.

There are no standards on any of this CO2 footprint and CO2 credits stuff. Anyone can make up any claim they want.

Where the hell do you start counting anyway? If you count CO2 from growing the potato, do you also get a credit for the CO2 the potato absorbs from the atmosphere in photosynthesis? How do you actually “count” the CO2 emitted from growing a potato? The average gasoline and thus CO2 emitted from the tractor per potato? Do you also count the energy and CO2 put into building that tractor? and then the energy and CO2 in building the tractor factory? and the energy and CO2 in making the steel and concrete to make the tractor factory? and the energy and CO2 from all the vehciels involved in making the tractor, the tractor factory, the concrete and steel…etc. etc. etc.?

There should aslo be 2 other warning labels
1. We are not sure if global warming is real, nor what causes it, but it is most likey the Sun.
2. Even if CO2 increases have an effect, the reduction in world tempertures, according to our very own models, from successful implementation of the Kyoto Protocols, is on the order of “preventing” 0.07 degrees of predicted temperature rises. The typical weather thermometer is accurate to about +- 1 or 2 degrees C. The global warming predcitions from 10 and 20 years ago, when compared to actual temperture data since then are “accurate” to worse than +- 500%. Seriously.

And the sweetest irony. If people decide, based on carbon footprint labels, to NOT buy food, and let it rot, it releases CO2 into the atmopshere anyway!