The Smiley Smile Message Board

Plenty has been written about Beach Boys' 'climate songs' from Country Air via Cool Water, the Surf's Up and Holland songs to Summer In Paradise.
Now that the COP15 world Climate Meeting in Denmark is coming to a  climaX - why not examine if SMiLE's Elements Suite has something to offer. After all the climate itself is dertermined as a result of a delicate balance between the 4 elements, and now also affected in a big way by a 5th element which is the lifestyles of humankind.
In that sense it can be claimed  that BWPS' (3rd) Elements Movement is a visionary Climate Suite - well suited to bring courage and hope to the decision makers at COP15 and to our own sustain-abilities!
Let's send our pleas, prayers and blessing in this direction where they are so desperately needed - now more than ever:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8_1i8nQgly

Don't Go Near The Water (visionary)

Cool Cool Water

Fire (Ms. O'Leary's Cow) (as a warning)

Let The Wind Blow

Santa Ana Winds

Surf's Up

This Whole World (essential!)

Good Timin' (it's 2 to 12)

A Day In The Life Of A Tree

River Song

Pacific Ocean Blues

Toyota Prius (to be recorded for their 50th anniversary new album)

:lol

You could add Brian's Smog commentary as well.  ;D

what and where is that? And how much did Brian contribute to global warming with his 80-100 cigarettes per day?

Country Air

Surf's Up (tsunami or hurricane?)

California Saga



I think they should do a new song about how cow's farts are ruining the ozone layer. Call it "CH4".

She’s real crap my Toyota
She’s real crap my Toyota
My To-yo-taaaa

Well I sold a kidney and my left eye
(Giddy up giddy up Toyota)
For I knew I'd be forced to buy
(Giddy up giddy up Toyota)
Forced to buy a brand new Toyota

Giddy up giddy up Toyota Prius
(Giddy up giddy up)
Giddy up Toyota
(Giddy up giddy up)
Giddy up Toyota
(Giddy up giddy up)
Giddy up Toyo...

Drive equals reverse
Nothing worse than my Toyota
Toyota ooooo
(Giddy up giddy up oooo)
(Giddy up giddy up oooo)
(Giddy up giddy up oooo)
(Giddy up giddy up)

When I take her to the track she really sucks
(Giddy up giddy up Toyota)
She's always slower than the slowest trucks
(Giddy up giddy up Toyota)
My ugly, hybrid, piece-of-sh*t Toyotaaaaa...

 :lol I will contact the Surfsiders. See if they're interested in a cover... these old age pensioners surely could use a hit these days...

Apparently, no one here watches TruTV with the Jesse Ventura Conspiracy Theory. The show last night was on Global Warming and what a farce it is......not man made and only a money maker for Gore and Maurice Strong.........get with it people.

I think the jig is finally up.

I saw it, but felt it was bull merda for a while...curious how public documents are destroyed, scientists threatened, and our kids are forced to watch Algore in school. Follow the $$$!

If we can do something about it we should because it is happening; whether you believe one bunch of scientists or the other or whether you're just plain naive.

....let's raise energy costs and taxes, and cut even more jobs...


Really?

The dilemma is that man made global warming is a THEORY. There is no consensus. There is plenty of evidence that says otherwise without having to cut and paste photos of polar bears. It is a fact that the people who hold power and are pushing this THEORY will stand to profit, and have been silencing and threatening those who disagree (while travelling around the world in private jets and limosines). The little guy stands to get foda-ed.

Besides, even if we stopped emitting CO2 (which we breathe out when we exhale), -who says the Earth would stop warming? Algore?

Anyone who is serious about global warming should first look at the patterns of the sun and how that has affected global temperatures. Also, researching how nature emits CO2 in many different ways, often much more than humans do. There are so many variables that are behind climate behavior that it is downright foolish to think that by creating a one world governing body that would oversee and regulate all the countries CO2 output would somehow fix the weather....

Now I'm all for clean energy, no doubt...who isn't. Clean air rules! However it is important to put things into perspective in the time we are living in. The last thing we need is to give up even more of our rights and freedoms..

So, how about them Beach Boys?  I think they just might 'catch on'!

Beach Boys rule!... actually wish they did more enviro-themed songs like from Holland...

Man-made global warming is a theory held by scientists. Pollution is o.k. is a theory held by republicans, a few scientists employed by republicans, and polluters who donate heavily to republicans.

C02 levels have increased about 25% since 1950. If you think that the increase is just a natural coincidence, I'd like to see your evidence, because we do know that 4/5 of human CO2 emissions are from burning fossil fuels. It would seem logical, then, to say that our increased dependence on fossil fuels is linked to the increase in CO2. The scientific consensus is that the claim I just made is true, and it's also a scientific consensus that higher CO2 levels lead to a warmer climate on average. During the Jurassic period, when the planet could support humongous dinosaurs and ridiculously large fauna and trees, a markedly more tropical world, there was 4 -5 times the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere as there is today.

Now, while the current condition of our planet would make such an increase unlikely, even 2-3 times the amount of CO2 we have know (not an unlikely scenario if we keep up our current pace of increasing CO2 output) would lead to a more volatile tropical climate, and while that is not dangerous for the planet, it does significantly endanger permanent human settlements, as floods (from the water level of the planet increasing as the ice caps melt) and what we would consider catastrophic weather events (level 5 hurricanes, more severe droughts in other areas, etc.) would become more commonplace. That is how life was in the Jurassic period, it just wasn't a big deal to the inhabitants of the planet as the idea of settlements didn't exist. If a severe drought happened, for example, a few species went extinct and that was the end of it. If millions of people die in a more modern scenario, well, that would be a human tragedy of unfathomable proportions.

This, like I said earlier, is the scientific consensus. It goes along with the strongly established scientific theories in the environmental fields. Now, they could be wrong, but who would you rather trust? Environmentalists or corporations and politicians? Ask yourself, what would Brian Wilson circa 1966 do (WWBWC1D)?

But anyway, we shouldn't be talking about that here, that just riled me up...

::)

"Scientific consensus" is an oxymoron.


Galileo - I'm pretty sure the Earth revolves around the Sun, look at what I've fo-

Other scientists - Listen, even though they have no evidence whatsoever, most other scientists disagree, so you're wrong.


Exactly the same thing is happening today: your so-called "scientists" have absolutely no evidence that man-made CO2 is causing an hypothetical "global warming". Funnily enough, the "other" scientists have undisputable evidence to back their claims (i.e. no link between a "global warming" and man-made CO2)...

Don't get me started on a semantic battle by using the words "climate change" instead of "global warming" - "climate change" doesn't mean anything because the climate has always been changing. "Normal climate" doesn't exist.


EDIT This discussion belongs to the Sandbox - sorry for this off-topic message.

You're right, there's no link. Sure, the average global temperature has been rising with CO2 levels. But that could mean anything, right?

Science never has proof, just assumptions that seem to make the most sense. We have to live with that. Some assumptions have more evidence than others. Analysis of historical and modern data would seem to indicate the higher levels of CO2 lead to higher a average global temperature. Are you telling me that because of something that happened to Galileo centuries ago, we must permanently discard the notion of scientific consensus? Or should we just do it when it's convenient? If I started arguing that the sun revolved around the Earth, you'd call me a moron, right? But why should you? The idea that the Earth revolves around the sun is only backed by scientific consensus. What do they know, after how they treated Galileo centuries ago? (As you can see, your form of logic stops making sense pretty quickly...)

I know you're being sarcastic here, but your statement is actually true - you can't tell there's a correlation between two things just because both graphs show an upward trend.


Here's the funny thing: analysis of historical data seems to indicate higher temperatures lead to higher levels of CO2, not the opposite.


I'm trying to tell you that the mechanisms of "consensus" and the methods of science are mutually exclusive.


You might find the following links useful:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telescope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telescope)


Back to the Beach Boys please. Solar system, brings us wisdom...

Well, I only talked about CO2 because that is what a poster brought up. In reality, CO2 is only a part of the greenhouse gas problem.


Your evidence does nothing to disprove the idea that higher levels of CO2/greenhouse gases also cause temperatures to rise. It could be part of a positive feedback cycle, where initial rises in greenhouse gases lead to higher temperatures, which then lead to further rises in greenhouse gases. The previous data could also have been skewed by changes in the earth's rotation, sun activity, increased volcanic activity, etc., all of which effect the earth's climate. Scientifically collected data would seem to overwhelmingly indicate that greenhouse gases trap more heat. When this data is correlated with our present observations (higher greenhouse gas emissions neatly coinciding with a sudden increase in the average global temperature, which is further evidenced by melting ice caps, and higher readings of greenhouse gases in the air), you have a strong hypothesis.

True, but no scientific theory is a fact. Experiments and observations must overwhelmingly support a hypothesis for it to become a theory. To decide whether the experiments and observations available are sufficient requires a consensus. Most scientists must agree that those findings are sufficient. Now, the scientific method as a method of investigation does not involve collecting a consensus (the method of performing the experiments and collecting the observations), but creating a theory plainly does. Now, global warming is only a hypothesis. A strongly supported hypothesis, but a hypothesis nonetheless. To make a theory, we would actually need global warming to happen. It is the only way we could collect enough observational data to make it a theory. However, I'd rather avoid that scenario, and to do so we would have to trust the hypothesis.
 
Sure, and all of the data supporting global warming was also collected using reliable, exacting devices. What's your point? I'm taking your own argument to its logical extreme, that's all. Of course I think that the Earth revolves around the sun.

Of course you would say that as you try to get in the last word. Hey, if we can have a topic that went on for pages about translating Dutch into English, then we can talk about this issue, too.

"because it is happening"


Really?

The dilemma is that man made global warming is a THEORY. "

Duh. Global warming is happening.  As for it being man made being a theory, so is the idea that it's not.

However, the amount of CO2 that's pumped into the atmosphere is far than it ever has been.  If you're cool with this, fine, but there's more than one money trail and if you want to blame anyone for tax hikes go throw stones at banks and mortgage companies and those who allowed them to get away with screwing people for so long.

Indeed - one of the most powerful greenhouse gases is water vapor.


That's a very weak hypothesis. If the previous data has been skewed by other changes, such as sun activity, why couldn't these changes, alone, explain the rise in temperatures that happened until a few years ago? Moreover, while we're talking about "hypotheses", it's unlikely that such a small rise in CO2 concentration could trap significantly more heat in the atmosphere. (in 1900, 0.029% of the atmosphere was CO2, compared to 0.038% nowadays...)

Here's a graph you might not have seen: see the blue rectangle on the left? That's the entire atmosphere. Take only one block out of it: this single block represents all greenhouse gases (2% of the atmosphere). The yellow part in this block represents CO2. The black part in the yellow block represents man-made CO2. Hopefully this will put things in perspective.

(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa283/LinearZap/1260982013113.png?t=1261155249)



According to your previous messages, the idea that the Earth revolves around the Sun is a scientific theory. Please provide evidence that it's not an undisputable fact.


I can't let you say that this hypothesis is strongly supported: it just isn't. At all. As I said in a previous post, there is way more evidence that man-made CO2 and "global warming" aren't linked. And you're telling that it's better to trust a weak hypothesis than to go on investigating?

Oh, but to investigate more, we would need to wait for global warming to happen? Temperatures have been decreasing each year for almost a decade now. I suppose we'll have to wait a little bit longer, then.


Oh, silly me. I thought the "General On Topic Discussions" section was "A place to talk about The Beach Boys."  I should have guessed the Beach Boys were eminent climate scientists.

You might have seen that, in an earlier post, I had said that this discussion belonged to the sandbox. I still think it does belong to the sandbox. I'm more than willing to discuss this issue in the sandbox, but not in this part of the forum.

Out of curiosity, do you have any pets?

You know what?  I'm moving this one to the Sandbox right away.

And when it starts getting "on-topic" again, I'll move it back.

Well, I'll concede that you make some good points. I'll have to do more reading and rethink my positions.

Oh, yeah, and as for pets, I only have one pet right now: Pet Sounds. I used to have a dog, I miss him, but I just don't have time to take care of a pet right now.

Christ, you can find 'strong' 'evidence' and 'facts' and ' figures' for either side of the argument.  Some people will never be convinced because they're too busy looking at who's making he arguments and who has to gain - which of course is the same for either side (unless, of course it's some nut case making the argument on a nut case show on a nut case channel  aimed at nut case viewers).  It makes more sense to agree that pollution ain't good and we should all be doing a hell of a lot more to look after our environment.  It shouldn't have to take the fear of rising tides and alarming changes in temperature to make us realise that.  Unless you, too, are a nut case.

Mind you, I'm all in favor of reducing pollution and developing "clean" energy (well, except for large windmills, but that's another issue). I just wanted to point out that reducing our CO2 emissions isn't a priority.

I felt that way about the windmills too, but now... providing they don't take over the landscape and they do prove productive, I'm in favor.