Environmental Issues

[cableguy]

twenty years ago, there was the same agreement, among the same scientists, that global warming was a pressing issue, and needed to be dealt with NOW, or twenty years from then (present day), there would be catastrophic global climate changes...

please point these catastrophic climate changes out to me, as i fail to see a single one... 600 years ago, all the scientists believed the world was flat... if there is an agreement by 95% of scientists, they must be correct, right?? oh, my bad.. the earth is actually more spherical in nature than it is flat...

here is a valid question... in the year 194233, what should the global temperature be??? will the earth be in a cooling cycle, or a warming cycle?? ice age?? global melt??

what SHOULD the global temperature be now?? 20 years ago?? 20 years from now??

i feel very confident believing the correct answer to ALL of the above questions is a simple "we dont know."

to further validate my point, what will happen if nothing is done to correct this "problem?"

prove it... as you are advocating change, the burdon belongs to you... i dont want someones projections, i want scientific FACT... something that will convince me that i am wrong, not the same old, and tiresome, "the sky is falling" that we have been hearing about for most of my entire life... nothing bad has happened yet, why not?? what, exactly, WILL happen in the future??

oh, and another thing... where was this paranoia during the Clinton administration??? and most importantly, WHAT "cost effective" measures??? typical liberalism there, touting a cure without telling what it is...

 

[Iceberg]

For a presentation of the FACTS (i.e. proof our climate is changing for the worse), please look at the following link. (A recent RealPlayer version required.)

http://g2server.radiotalk.com:8080/ramgen/HeatOnline/HIOL/hiol.smi

Also, please read some peer-reviewed literature (i.e. Science or Nature magazine, not some Michael Crichton Science Fiction.

For a proof the consensus (that the current global warming episode is primarily due to human activities) exists, read:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Do I have to give you a whole list of links of true science sites? I will if you'd like. Here are two more:

http://www.climateark.org

http://www.realclimate.org

 

[cableguy]

http://www.nature.com/nature/links/041118/041118-4.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1117_041117_wine_climate.html

these links refer to the same study... sadly, the nature.com article has been chopped to a single paragraph... read carefully and without prejudice... "temps like we had in the 90s have been seen several times since 1370 in burgundy, france." and "2003 can not be attributed to mankind at this point" kinda reinforce what i have been saying all along..

IF our climate is changing... first of all, "for the worse" is subjective, and may well not be the case for all... secondly, and most importantly, you have evidence that MAY link mankind to your alleged changes, but you have not a shred of anything beyond suggestiveness to concretely link the two...

as i stated many days ago, if you WANT to believe in global warming, and that mankind is responsible, it is easy to do so... if you approach it with a bit more scrutiny, the arguments simply dont pass the smell test... you want mankind to be responsible for a climate change that may or may not be happening, and may or may not be natural... i require something more than "we think" to change my mind...

oh, what are/were the global temps on the years i requested you find out about??? what SHOULD they be/have been??? the premise that global warming is mankinds fault/responsibility must rely on a rather accurate model of some sort, that could easily provide the numbers i have asked for... scientists of geology and climatology have combined, to feed more bullshit to the worlds population... nobody can say what the temperature SHOULD be, only what it IS, and what it has been through recorded history, with some speculation of questionable accuracy outside those times... and everything not recent is local, NOT global... if no one can say what the temp SHOULD be, why should i believe it SHOULDNT be what it is??

if you can find the numbers, both the actual temps, and the temps that SHOULD be seen, and justification for each number in the "should be" column, you will go a LONG way toward convincing me this is merely another anticapitalist, paranoid, delusional, emotional, and just plain wrong headed fad...

 

[Iceberg]

oh, what are/were the global temps on the years i requested you find out about??? what SHOULD they be/have been???

According to the following graphs (previously cited), continuing the trend towards 20 years ago, had humans not interfered with the climate system, the global temperature should have been between 0.2 and 0.5 degrees Celsius lower than the 1961-1990 global mean temperatures, and actually was heading on a downwards trend (or at least in the process of bottoming out) near the end of the "Little Ice Age." As for 20 years into the future, had humans not messed up the fine balance of nature, I would have estimated that the temperatures would have still been between 0.1 and 0.5 degrees Celsius cooler than the 1961-1990 global mean temperatures.

The solid red line on both graphs indicate the actual temperature (instrumental) record, so you can see for yourself that the actual temperatures (20 years ago) were between 0.2 and 0.3 degrees Celsius higher than the 1961-1990 global mean temperatures.

There is just no way that such a temperature rise in such a small period of time would have occurred from a natural process. Such a rise has never been recorded in the history of temperature reconstruction.

As for your previous volcano hypothesis, volcanic eruptions lead to a cooling of the atmosphere due to the blocking of solar radiation. The number of aerosols emitted into the atmosphere act as a counteraction of global heating (that increased emissions of carbon dioxide would result in) by reflecting solar radiation back into space. It has been widely stated that volcanism is a trigger of periods of cooling and not warming.

(For those of you who use the Fahrenheit scale, 1 degree Celsius is equal to 9/5 degrees Fahrenheit. So, 0.2 degrees C equals 0.36 degrees F and 0.5 degrees C equals 0.9 degrees F.)

 

[cableguy]

for starters, here are the correct temp conversion formulas... 0 degrees commie temp = 32 degrees normal temp... 212 degrees normal temp = 100 degrees commie temp... those are the freezing and boiling points of water, by the way... both read the same temp at -40...

Tc = (5/9*Tf)-32; Tc = temperature in degrees Celsius, Tf = temperature in degrees Fahrenheit
Tf = (9/5*Tc)+32; Tc = temperature in degrees Celsius, Tf = temperature in degrees Fahrenheit


"temperature reconstruction"
"estimated"
"There is just no way that such a temperature rise in such a small period of time would have occurred from a natural process."

your words, not mine... temp reconstruction is another way of saying "guess." estimated is also a way of saying that... as for the third example, why not??

if a volcano emits a gas that humans also create, how can the volcanic gas cause cooling, and the same EXACT gas that humans made cause warming??? answer--it cant... sadly, this wont fit with the whole global warming theory, so it is conveniently overlooked...

FACT: no one knows what temperature the earth is supposed to be
FACT: it is arrogance to suggest that though we dont know what it should be, it is certainly too warm/cool
FACT: periodically, the "stop global warming now" crowd becomes interested with something equally as fascinating, and equally useless/pointless/false; global cooling...
FACT: as of 25 minutes ago, it was 37 degrees fahrenheit where i live, and there was a slight drizzle... the best guess is that this is normal, and supposed to happen unless PROVEN otherwise...
FACT: proof does not contain guesses, estimations, or emotion
FACT: trends show a trend, and are subject to change, creating an opposite trend.. they should not be relied upon as evidence of anything long term... the loss of the redskins before the election, and the subsequent re-election of President Bush is a handy example of this
FACT: you still have not made a valid case, though i applaud your effort

i am still waiting, and will continue to do so, with an open mind, a ready ear, and a willingness to change, should there be reasonable cause..

 

[Iceberg]

for starters, here are the correct temp conversion formulas... 0 degrees commie temp = 32 degrees normal temp... 212 degrees normal temp = 100 degrees commie temp... those are the freezing and boiling points of water, by the way... both read the same temp at -40...

Tc = (5/9*Tf)-32; Tc = temperature in degrees Celsius, Tf = temperature in degrees Fahrenheit
Tf = (9/5*Tc)+32; Tc = temperature in degrees Celsius, Tf = temperature in degrees Fahrenheit

I was just giving a temperature value equivalent, not an actual temperature (i.e. thermometer reading) equivalent.

As for you saying "commie temp," it is a sign of America's lack of co-operation with the rest of the world. Only three nations still continue to use the Fahrenheit scale (including the US). The truth of the matter is, the Fahrenheit scale is a rather silly scale.

As for the little lesson, I knew everything you had said. I worked at the weather office in my city (Winnipeg) for two summers and my degree (B.Sc.) is heavily focused in weather and climate studies.

your words, not mine... temp reconstruction is another way of saying "guess." estimated is also a way of saying that... as for the third example, why not??

The only way for a temperature rate to change to what it has been over the past 150 years would be for a comet to strike the Earth with such impact that it sent billions of tonnes of dust into the atmosphere, blocking out the Sun's rays, and this would result in a significant decrease in global temperatures. There is no way that this sort of heating could be caused by terrestrial or extra-terrestrial events (unless, of course, aliens were to direct a huge laser beam towards the planet, if you believe in such gobbledygook).

if a volcano emits a gas that humans also create, how can the volcanic gas cause cooling, and the same EXACT gas that humans made cause warming??? answer--it cant... sadly, this wont fit with the whole global warming theory, so it is conveniently overlooked...

If you actually read something about volcanism and its effects on climate, you would realize how it results in cooler temperatures. Please pick up a book by a NOAA, UCAR, or Hadley Centre scientist (and not one by Roy Spencer or Fred Singer, who rake in thousands of dollars from the fossil fuel industry for their "research") to learn something about this.

Here's the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report from 2001 for you to look at if you want to learn something about the science.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm

All three working groups' reports are here:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/

 

[cableguy]

there is no reliable model, an educated guess is the best thing the global warming theory crowd can come up with, and i am supposed to buy this wheelbarrow full of crap and change my life drastically???

twenty years from now, i believe that global warming will STILL be considered a threat by those who believe in it now... unless, that is, they have moved back to global cooling... again... there will still be no incontrovertable proof of anything, and we will still be preached at by those whoo believe themselves high and mighty, and better able to think for us than we do ourselves... thats certainly what the last 20 years have given us...

i am aware of all the arguments for and against the concept of global warming, and reject the side that is promoting the warming theory.. there is nothing to tell us what the temp of the earth SHOULD be, no one to tell us where various temperature readings SHOULD be taken.. without a baseline of what SHOULD be happening, you are left with what IS happening... hardly an airtight case for anything... we are experiencing change... that is what the global warming argument boils down to when you remove the fanatacism... there is no evidence that the change, if there is one, is manmade... there is conjecture, speculation, and supposition, not proof... does it make sense by itself?? yes, but it needs to be rejected once one looks at the whole picture...

there seems to be some disagreement over whether the global temp is changing at all... record high temps AND record low temps are recorded in various places each year... does this tell us anything about the global climate??? aside from the continuing proof that new record temperatures, hot and cold, continue to be set in the time period since weather has been recorded, and thus showing a trend toward unpredictability, no... current conditions sometimes fall outside the accepted and recorded norms... period... this is indicative of nothing...

 

[Texan]

I am tired of the global warming BS, the earth is around 4.5 billion (+/- a few billion years) and we have been recording temperatures for about 145 years. How can that be an accurate representation of the global climate?

 

[cableguy]

it cant... the argument is the proverbial unpolishable turd... if we, as a society, jump at every slightest "what if" scenario someone dreams up, we will, as a society, end... global warming, global cooling, flat earth... ddt is a great example of "science" gone horribly wrong...

here are a few resources to such things...

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/navigator/articles/nav+rbidinotto_death-by-environmentalism.asp
http://www.econot.com/
http://www.econot.com/page3.html

have fun, kids... the reading is long, but worthwhile...

 

[Iceberg]

I am tired of the global warming BS, the earth is around 4.5 billion (+/- a few billion years) and we have been recording temperatures for about 145 years. How can that be an accurate representation of the global climate?

It can be an accurate representation because the instrumental temperature records have been matched up with the proxy records (ice cores, tree rings, and others) so they follow the same lines on the graphs (which I have laid out for you guys in previous posts). These records have been calibrated (and thoroughly verified) by hundreds of scientists and are accurate to the nth degree.

These ideas aren't just dreamed up by people who want to see our lifestyles radically changed. The people who are researching climate change are trying to reconstruct the climates of the past so they (and we) can learn how and why the climate can change over time. Their conclusions based upon the research are that there is a change happening at the present time and that, beyond a reasonable doubt, these changes are primarily the result of human activities.

there is nothing to tell us what the temp of the earth SHOULD be, no one to tell us where various temperature readings SHOULD be taken.. without a baseline of what SHOULD be happening, you are left with what IS happening

The global mean temperature from 1880-1997 was 16.03 degrees Celsius(60.86 degrees Fahrenheit). The global mean temperature from 1961-1990 would have been roughly 16.2 degrees Celsius (61.2 degrees Fahrenheit). The temperature today without global warming would have been about 15.7 to 15.9 degrees Celsius. Today's actual global temperature is about 16.6 degrees Celsius (61.9 degrees Fahrenheit). (Data from: NOAA's National Climatic Data Center.)

You may not think that is a lot, but consider that the temperatures are rising more rapidly in areas of higher elevation, the Arctic, and Antarctic, where ice caps melt, causing significant sea level rises, which will result in greater social instability and a grave shortage in freshwater. This will cause more wars to break out and the wars to be about water and not oil (like many of them were in the latter half of the 20th Century).

have fun, kids... the reading is long, but worthwhile...

Hell, no, it isn't worthwhile! Those sites feature lie after lie about environmental issues. It's completely inaccurate, and the opinions of a writer and lecturer, not a scientist.

It's about time people started believing actual scientists and not lobbyists or columnists.

 

[Texan]

Global warming is science based on speculations. In order to make sense of this you need to look at the larger picture and get off the surface of the earth. You must look at the universe and all the forces that keeps us on our annual trips around the sun. Everyone should agree that if we get a few thousand miles closer the sun or the tilt of the earth varies a few degrees that would implement temperature changes on the earth. This is my theory for Global Warming. Think about it.

 

[oscaraustin]

For those who haven't looked at this thread in awhile, here's the simplistic summary:

Iceberg says, "Global warming is fact, and all respectable scientists know it to be true."

Cable says, "Global warming can't be proven, and many scientists disagree with the theory of global warming."

Iceberg counters, "Global warming is fact, all respectable scientists know it, and if they don't they are not good scientists. Here are some numbers from my scientists."

Cable counters back, "Global warming cannot be proven, and many respectable scientists don't believe the theory. Here are some numbers from my scientists."

Periodically a third party jumps in.

Now that we're all caught up, an add-on. 30 years ago geologists were taught/told that we would all die in a great freeze. Today we're all taught/told that we'll die because Earth gets too hot. When will people learn that no matter how much research we do, how obvious and definite our results seem, everything we do is guess and check. 50/50 it either happens or it doesn't.

For the global warming concept, I tend to follow that the Earth is warming, because recent data detects that it is in fact warming. I do not follow, however, that it is a cataclysmic warming that will go on to destroy the planet. I believe it is a naturally induced phenomenon, assisted along by humanity. Humanity assists with every part of our life, simply from having billions of our 98º bodies put on this wet rock, up to the complexities of our "western" lifestyles. Simply by existing in such numbers we are attributing to global warming (CO2 is of the most potent g-haus gases). Population is a problem in and of itself more pressing than global warming. Our Earth is warming, but it will eventually level off, and then head back south on the thermometrs. This planets geology is anything but stable, and the environment will be fluxtuating for a long time from now.

 

[Iceberg]

Here's an excellent paper which describes the state of the world's climate over the past millenia.

ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/mann/JonesMannROG04.pdf

 

[Dexterdoe]

For those who haven't looked at this thread in awhile, here's the simplistic summary:

Iceberg says, "Global warming is fact, and all respectable scientists know it to be true."

Cable says, "Global warming can't be proven, and many scientists disagree with the theory of global warming."

Iceberg counters, "Global warming is fact, all respectable scientists know it, and if they don't they are not good scientists. Here are some numbers from my scientists."

Cable counters back, "Global warming cannot be proven, and many respectable scientists don't believe the theory. Here are some numbers from my scientists."

Periodically a third party jumps in.

Now that we're all caught up, an add-on. 30 years ago geologists were taught/told that we would all die in a great freeze. Today we're all taught/told that we'll die because Earth gets too hot. When will people learn that no matter how much research we do, how obvious and definite our results seem, everything we do is guess and check. 50/50 it either happens or it doesn't.

oscaraustin, I love you man. The truth is the best form of humor..
Cable and Iceberg are both well versed on their points of view, but none can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
That's what makes it so fun! Debate team. This is practice for debating real people. No humilitation in any defeats here. It's the internet! Swashbucling swashbucklers! Keyboard fencing. En guard!

 

[cableguy]

dex, oscar, my thanks to both of you for crystalizing what i have been saying (somewhat)...

that neither side can be proven seems to be the crux of this argument, and the burdon of proof always falls to the side wishing change... the argument against the concept of global warming doesnt need to be proven, the argument for DOES...

iceberg, i say again, no people, no reliable record... correlation does not always mean causation... as for what temp the earth SHOULD be, that too, was based on speculation... no one knows what the temp should be, or where that temp should be taken from...

perhaps your scientists are also lobbyists... after all, no global warming, no funding to "study" it... what would these misguided souls do without a continuing government grant consisting of MY tax money??

***EDIT***

http://www.junkscience.com

have a look... it might just be educational... there is also some fascinating things about ddt on that page... global warming (or is it cooling?) info is down a skosh but on the homepage...

 

[oscaraustin]

I should've mentioned this when I made post prior: I wasn't trying to defame either Cable or Ice, like Dex said, both have laid out a lot of good material to read over for their respective arguments, and thus have both made excellent arguments. I haven't gotten (and won't get) through it all, but I've tried to scan over as much as possible, so as to possibly get back in on this discussion when it perhaps moves on.

btw, thanks Dex. It was just a pattern I happened across when trying to catch up on this topic, and I thought the brief could be a time cutter for anyone else who wanted to jump in. :wink:

 

[fingur]

First off hello guys and thanks for all the videos

Second, the immediate question I get when I read that there is a consortium of 2500 scientists that say global warming is really bad is this - who is funding that group?

Lastly, are you a scientist who found out about global warming or a global warming believer that became a scientist Iceberg? I would say that global warming is such a cause in and of itself that it attracts people who already believe. Then those people go to school and learn that we are warming at a rate of one degree every hundred years (or whatever it is) and say SEE!! I told you!! When is the apocalypse supposed to happen? One degree (we should be dead,) mabye 2, or three? If its three degrees then by your graph we have 350 or so years to figure it out. Assuming that the "good" temp was the one from 1860 and not from 2000. If the good temp is the one from 2000 that gives us another 175 years to figure it out. I think given the rate of people figuring things out that should be plenty of time.

 

[Iceberg]

Second, the immediate question I get when I read that there is a consortium of 2500 scientists that say global warming is really bad is this - who is funding that group?

The UN and the hundreds of nations that have scientists on the IPCC are funding it. No industries that can profit off the group are funding it. Also, these scientists are essentially getting peanuts for their work on the IPCC compared to the "scientists" that are funded by the fossil fuel industry (such as Roy Spencer, Fred Singer, Pat Michaels, Tim Ball, Sherwood Idso, and Richard Lindzen). Therefore, no personal or corporate profits can be made by the conclusions of the IPCC.

Lastly, are you a scientist who found out about global warming or a global warming believer that became a scientist Iceberg? I would say that global warming is such a cause in and of itself that it attracts people who already believe. Then those people go to school and learn that we are warming at a rate of one degree every hundred years (or whatever it is) and say SEE!! I told you!!

It's a bit of both. At first, starting university with little knowledge on the subject, I had no real opinion. However, as I learned more and more about the climate system, I became more and more of a believer in the fact that climate change is happening. So, in summation, the more educated I became on the issue, the more I believed it.

I couldn't be a non-believer, since few, if any, of the arguments the skeptics put forth make sense. Sure, there was a bit of a cooling that happened in the late 1960s to the early 1970s. However, upon further review and research (and instrumental data collection), this was only a brief interlude in the sudden and constant warming of the last 150 years.

When is the apocalypse supposed to happen? One degree (we should be dead,) mabye 2, or three? If its three degrees then by your graph we have 350 or so years to figure it out. Assuming that the "good" temp was the one from 1860 and not from 2000. If the good temp is the one from 2000 that gives us another 175 years to figure it out. I think given the rate of people figuring things out that should be plenty of time.

Again, a skeptic's argument that makes no sense. The Earth's temperature is rising at an exponential rate (i.e. not at a constant rate). The warming from 1850-1900 occurred at a much lower rate than the warming of the past 50 years, while the warming from 1850-1875 occurred at an even lower rate compared to the last 25 years.

As to your question of when the apocalypse will happen, it is unknown whether it will (or will not) happen. However, with the warming occurring, potentially 1/4 to 1/2 of the plant and animal species on the planet will go extinct over the next century, which will have an incredibly negative effect (but to an unknown degree) on us humans. Climate models cannot determine what the results of this could be. However, since we are all interconnected to some degree with nature, I can predict that many thousands of plant and animal species of which we are connected to, shall they go extinct, would leave us gravely vulnerable to the elements and make our lives significantly more difficult to live.

If I were to predict "D-Day" for us on Earth (if we continue to damage the atmosphere, water, and soil the way we are today), it would likely be far sooner than 350 years and, more likely than not, earlier than the 175 years you had mentioned.

 

[cableguy]

the un benefits, in a rather twisted egocentric way, every time something that makes the US look bad happens or is announced... this is not a real benefit, its more of a "my dad can beat up your dad" sort of satisfaction a child might get...

you claim the global warming folks work for peanuts.. what, exactly, constitutes "peanuts," and how soes this compare with the actual amount paid to those you see as being on the dark side?? you mentioned personal profits... what about name recognition?? "getting published" seems to be the goal of many "scientists," who can then charge whatever sum for speaking engagements.. can you tell me what happens to scientists who spend their whole lifetimes trying to prove something that is false?? what legacy are they left with??? what will they do to salvage their names??? it seems this has fallen into the abyss of self perpetuation by those who stand to lose everything if they are wrong, and the earth is actually just fine...

it is unreasonable to say that temperatures taken 150 years ago constitute anything remotely close to global... regional, perhaps, but to say that 150 year old temps are indicative of anything on a global scale is simply irresponsible...

IF the earths temp was rising at an exponential rate (2,4,8,16,32,64,128,256,512,1024...), there would have been changes that not only are noticable, but drastic... i am perfectly willing to accept your assertion, but if you stand by it, you prove my point--that whatever temperature changes we have seen are truly negligable...

you say that perhaps 1/4-1/2 of all species will go extinct in the next century, which i say is complete crap, but you compound the problemby also assuming an "incredibly negative effect" that upon further review, might just turn out to be a non-effect... hardly negative, and certainly not incredibly so...

if climate models cant determine the future, what good are they?? i submit that plants and animals are far more hardy than you believe them to be, and any effect on them due to global temperature change (if it exists) will be negligable...

you havent yet been able to tell us what the earths temperature should be, only what it would have been given a steady progression and assuming no naturally occurring trends... you have contributed to the hysteria without sufficient justification for doing so... ultimately, the entire argument for global warming stands on a shaky platform of "because i said so." (the i referred to here isnt just you, it is also your beloved chicken little "scientists" who crave more funding and recognition, validation of their very existance)

tilt at windmills, if you please, i plan to remain firmly rooted to the here and now, also called the reality in which we live... your case is far from being made...

ps: i await your essay on how the earthquake and resulting tsunami were caused by people... i am also awaiting something on how volcanos are a man made phenomenon... another fun topic for consideration is how President Bush has caused or been responsible for these events... alternatively, one might suggest that this planet is far bigger, and far more powerful than you believe it to be, and that mankind can never hope to assert control over it... nature, so brutally powerful, yet so delicately fragile... im not buying it...

 

[Iceberg]

ps: i await your essay on how the earthquake and resulting tsunami were caused by people... i am also awaiting something on how volcanos are a man made phenomenon... another fun topic for consideration is how President Bush has caused or been responsible for these events... alternatively, one might suggest that this planet is far bigger, and far more powerful than you believe it to be, and that mankind can never hope to assert control over it... nature, so brutally powerful, yet so delicately fragile... im not buying it...

By saying these things, you prove that you're no scientist.

Of course the earthquake and tsunami weren't caused by human activities. Neither are volcanic eruptions. And neither phenomenon occurs because of President Bush. Tectonic activity is the reason for it.

As for planetary processes, one single human being cannot significantly change planetary events. However, the whole human population can (and does) have a significant effect on the Earth's processes.

You say you're skeptical about the Earth being "so brutally powerful, yet so delicately fragile." How about the extinction of one species of animal or plant leading to a domino effect, i.e. the extinction of several hundred or thousand more species that directly rely on the extinct species for food, mutual existence, and/or protection? This is well-documented by biologists and archaeologists. (Read Brian Fagan's book "The Long Summer" for info on this.)

the un benefits, in a rather twisted egocentric way, every time something that makes the US look bad happens or is announced... this is not a real benefit, its more of a "my dad can beat up your dad" sort of satisfaction a child might get...

This is where the isolationists in the US are sorely mistaken and poorly aligned. If the US had actively participated in the UN, rather than shooting down every report the UN produces and every resolution the UN comes up with, the UN wouldn't have been so frustrated with the US. It's a double-edged sword, this diplomacy thing.

Perhaps, this anti-UN sentiment by the US led to the frustrations of the Third World, which in turn led to the attacks on September 11. I'm not saying in any way that 9-11 was justified by any stretch of the imagination. It was horrible, one of the worst temper tantrums that a group of people has ever thrown (the group being Al'Qaeda), and will be recorded as one of the most vile acts perpetrated upon anyone. However, the feelings of hatred towards America must have stemmed from somewhere. (i.e. They couldn't have just materialised out of nowhere.)