Topic: Dangers of Global Warming.

[mlinder]

Yes, a good plan. But notice he had to apply for a grant...
to build the thing.
Who has the money to 'grant' tens of thousands of ranchers the money required to make this change?

[sangyo soichiro]

I don't buy the whole 'It's a natural phenomena, let's let nature take its course' thingy.  Suppose a big-ass comet was headed for Earth.  Surely that's a natural thing.  Should we do nothing?  Shouldn't we at least send Bruce Willis and half of Hollywood up to blast the bastrud out of the sky?

(I learned a neat trick... if you misspell cuss words, they bypass the filter.)

[Retro Rocket]

Yes i know, its a shame that "money" seems to be the sticking point with a lot of these types of technologies. And the mighty dollar also has a lot to do with why we are having these problems in the first place. I recently moved back into suburbia from a 210 acre property i own up north, when we moved there it was a bit of a culture shock, Tank water, no TV, wood stove and so on. Once we got used to it it was excellent, our power bills were 50 bucks a quarter instead of hundreds of dollars, it took some small adjustments but in the end it was a wonderful lifestyle and far cheaper than living near the city. I remember when we were fed the "technology is better for us" line in the 80's but at the end of the day it has made things more difficult. I could quite easily go back and live in the 60's or 70's.....much simpler times, and a cheaper cleaner way of life.

Mick

[BeSeeingYou]

Here is a simple way to explain it.  C02 is the leading cause of Global Climate Change. The earth is for the most part a closed system.  It has a certain amount of carbon in the system.  Billions of years ago after the formation of the planet much of this carbon was in the atmosphere due to volcanic action and other formative events leading to a runaway greenhouse effect.  As vegetation developed it scrubbed much of this carbon from the atmosphere cooling the planet and leading to the formation of oil and coal deposits.  Now we are digging up and burning this carbon at a faster rate than it can be reabsorbed, and at the same time cutting down forests that are the main scrubbers of this C02.  What is the logical conclusion?

[mlinder]

I don't buy the whole 'It's a natural phenomena, let's let nature take its course' thingy.  Suppose an big-ass comet was headed for Earth.  Surely that's a natural thing.  Should we do nothing?  Shouldn't we at least send Bruce Willis and half of Hollywood up to blast the bastrud out of the sky?

(I learned a neat trick... if you misspell cuss words, they bypass the filter.)

I didn't say "do nothing".

I said, more or less, if you you ARE going to do something, make sure its the RIGHT thing.
I'm not saying that global climate change doesn't happen. With all the propaganda and misinformation about 'climate change' out there, you need to find out what the REAL problem is before you try to 'fix' something.

[masonryman]

What happens when you put an ice cube in a glass, the smaller it gets the faster it melts. I am not saying we haven't sped up the process, but the ice has been melting a lot longer than we have been here

[DammitDan]

*PSST*

You can turn the language filter off in your preferences 

Now, without further adieu...

Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television

    * #$%*
    * Piss
    * #$%*
    * #$%*
    * Cocksucker
    * Mother#$%*er
    * Tits

[DammitDan]

What are the forum rules about copying my posts in that thread from 2 years ago and pasting them here?

On a side note; who would have guessed back then that I would be back in school today...  *sigh*

Anyways, here we go...

Consider for a moment that "natural cycles" take thousands of years to make meaningful gains or losses.  Of course there's limited direct observation that we've had much of an effect on the overall view of this cycle, seeing as how our modern industrialized civilization has only spanned the last few hundred years.  But just look at how different those last few hundred years have been as opposed to the entire history of the planet!  Especially considering that the levels of greenhouse gases in our environment have been increasing exponentially in the last 50 years alone (how many cars per family did people have in 1900 vs. 1950 vs. 2000?).

The "effects" I was speaking of are ANY effect at all; be it global warming, ozone degradation, acid rain effects, smog, air/water pollution...  An effect is an effect, it's the cause we need to fix.

As for natural emissions (such as volcanoes, gysers, etc), I don't know how "natural" you can call a smokestack or tail pipe.

I'm also going to reference this handy graph:



What does it mean when a population reaches the apex of exponential growth?  The problem is, if we don't start doing something about our pollution output now, there's gonna be three times as many people in the next 100 years who will make the same mistakes we're making today.  If science points to the fact that WE'RE making a difference on global climate, what kind of a difference will three times as many of us make?

[DammitDan]

Oh, and this is my 2000th post 

[mlinder]

What does it mean when a population reaches the apex of exponential growth?  The problem is, if we don't start doing something about our pollution output now, there's gonna be three times as many people in the next 100 years who will make the same mistakes we're making today.  If science points to the fact that WE'RE making a difference on global climate, what kind of a difference will three times as many of us make?

At which time the planet will become uninhabitable for many of them. And they will die. And dead people don't make pollution. Problem solved.

[Patrick]

It's pretty easy to make an argument if you pick and choose the facts you are going to rely on and disregard the unfortunate "facts." Like when you take climatology as an unassailable  science when it is postulating about temperature variations over millions or billions or years, but then disregard climatology when it talks about variations over a shorter period of time. Natural global variations over billins of years? Unassailable "fact." Global temperature variations over decades? Politically-driven hokum. Clearly.

It is very clear that mankind is having an adverse effect on the environment. There are more than twice as many people as there were 80 years ago, yet we produce power and mobility through the same means, but on a much larger scale. Much more coal being burned for energy. Many times as many vehicles spewing poison into the air. Visit Houston, Dallas, Mexico City, L.A. Look around you. Can you taste the air? Can you feel the grit? Can you see the horizon? Even air quality in our national parks, which have no industry I know if, is being affected. The Big Bend is in the middle of nowhere in far west Texas. It also is in the middle of a cloud of haze from thousands of miles away. The feds as run by the former administration wanted that haze cleaned up in no less than a century and a half. Yeah, we're serious about the environment.

Very few serious scientists not funded by energy companies dispute the fact that global temperatures are rising. Very few dispute man's contribution to this. Does that mean that Canada will soon have the climate we now enjoy in Texas? No. It means that climate weather patterns will change. Places that are now arable will become desert. Deserts will get more precipitation. The jet stream will change. Ocean currents will change. Tropical storms will become more abundant and more violent. It's pretty easy to escape a rising sea level. It's tough to get away from a violent storm.

Do we tear it all down and start again? Yeah, right. Can we try to develop the technologies that will minimize our impact? Why the hell not? Why would that be a bad thing?  Solar and wind power cannot compete economically with coal right now. Shouldn't we be trying to change that?

Complaining that it would cost too much money to change our ways is the weakest argument I can think of. Money should always be the last consideration. Money won't do anyone much good if we ruin the world we live in.

[masonryman]

Money should never be a variable in a moral issue, it's right or it's wrong, unfortunately in a capitalist world it almost always is.


That is the problem in developing renewable energy sources, once its done there is no profit

[sangyo soichiro]

Need to be sure, first, if we are, in fact, contributing to global climate changes.

After you do that, then you can decide if you WANT to contribute to global climate change.

By assuming you should 'do something', without understanding what is ACTUALLY happening, you may very well do the exact opposite of what you intended.

...you need to find out what the REAL problem is before you try to 'fix' something.

We shouldn't condemn the people that are trying to do this (which was the impetus of this thread... making fun of the people stranded in the North Pole).

[mlinder]

Oh. Well, I wasn't actually referring to their misfortune. Don't remember laughing at their bad luck.
Not sure how doing so, had I, would affect the validity of my statements one way or the other, actually.

On topic of those stranded on the North Pole, I hope they do well, and are kept safe.

[sangyo soichiro]

Mlinder, I was just using your statements to make a point.  You did not make fun of the people trapped in the North Pole.

The point is that we need to learn as much as we can about the climate.  But the people that are trying to do this are scoffed at and thought of as fools by much of the anti-GW crowd.

[mlinder]

I guess my problem with the current majority of 'experts' that are studying this issue, appear (at least to me) to have made up their minds about what is going on, before they even retrieve enough data to make any real assessments. Then, it appears they pick the data that best supports their preconceptions, while discarding data that does NOT support it, and call it 'science'.

That's who I'm scoffing at. Unfortunately, I think most of the 'experts' in this field fall into this category.

[sangyo soichiro]

The nice thing about science is that it's self-correcting.  False conclusions have a limited shelf-life.

[mlinder]

The nice thing about science is that it's self-correcting.  False conclusions have a limited shelf-life.

False conclusions regarding this issue could have dire consequences.

[sangyo soichiro]

The nice thing about science is that it's self-correcting.  False conclusions have a limited shelf-life.

False conclusions regarding this issue could have dire consequences.

I'm pleased you finally agree with me.  Glad I could be of service.   

[Uncle Ernie]

Snapped a picture of the crowd at a global warming protest recently.  The crowd was pretty angry...

[sangyo soichiro]

Snapped a picture of the crowd at a global warming protest recently.  The crowd was pretty angry...

Yeah.. that one guy in the front looks really mad.

[mlinder]

The nice thing about science is that it's self-correcting.  False conclusions have a limited shelf-life.

False conclusions regarding this issue could have dire consequences.

I'm pleased you finally agree with me.  Glad I could be of service.   

False conclusions in either direction.

[chrislib]

I havent read the whole thread because IMO the whole deal is debatable...seeing as I am NO expert. What I AM an expert in tho is knowing that IN FACT....ALLLLLL global warming/climate change is DIRECTLY caused by......











































































rotella

[TwoTired]

I guess my problem with the current majority of 'experts' that are studying this issue, appear (at least to me) to have made up their minds about what is going on, before they even retrieve enough data to make any real assessments. Then, it appears they pick the data that best supports their preconceptions, while discarding data that does NOT support it, and call it 'science'.

That's who I'm scoffing at. Unfortunately, I think most of the 'experts' in this field fall into this category.

Total agreement here.  But, I would go further and say that some people don't even look for data that doesn't support their initial preconception, (sometimes to avoid being accused of discarding data).

On a different track.
I went new car shopping today.  Some cars had a sticker on them with a scale labeled "Global Warming" and then a number assigned for the model.

What does that tell you about the real purpose of raising "awareness" of global warming as a marketing sales inducement?  To me, it seems like evidence the issue was made up for various kinds of profit making ventures.

Since the buzz words have been ingrained into household vernacular.  How much longer will it be before we find tooth paste, beer, and breakfast cereal labeling, touting low global warming numbers?  Certainly, that will be enough to increase sales to true global warming alarmists who are doing their part to save our planet from the human population.

Now, I wonder, is buying soft drinks bad because they contain CO2, or a good thing since while it remains inside cans, it keeps CO2 out of the atmosphere?
Anyone here want to belch belt out their rationale on the soft drink industry?

Cheers,

[mlinder]

Yeah, TT. I do think they go that far, too.

For these people, the question isn't, for the most part, "What is happening?" It's "what data can we find to make people believe what we are saying?" This is bad science.

I've already shown average temperature 'changes' from areas alll over the planet, I've tried to explain to people the foibles of believeing temperature changes that have been measured in the middle of cities that have grown from small towns to giant asphalt jungles in the last hundred years, and pointed out that violent climate change has been happening on earth millions of times in billions of years, without the help of humans.

I've also tried to point out the dangers of taking drastic steps to reverse whatever the hell people think it is we, as humans, are doing to cause some 'runaway greenhouse effect' that so far has not been proven to me.
Certainly, the danger isn't "we could screw up the planet even worse", except in very extreme situations. What the danger is, is compromising societies as a whole, their income, their ability to afford needed things, their power over thier own governments, their way of life. It's also a well known political depotism rule, keep your subjects immobile, and you keep control. Also, the more restraints politicians put on manufacturers and builders, the more control the governments have on these industries altogether.

But I digress. I haven't seen compelling evidence that we are large, or even minor, players in current climate change issues, yet I have seen compelling evidence that governmets and manufacturers are using 'global warming' (now known as global climate change, since 'warming' doesn't fit what's happening anymore) to gain both market share and control.

And all that being said, as I mentioned earlier, if things really do get bad, many humans will die, which is just earths way of shuffing off parasitic, damaging influences. Any damage we do is really just a blip in the earths history, which, barring some really catastrophic tampering (such as the worlds entire nuclear arsenals being used), it will repair itself in a very short (universally speaking) time.