Topic: Dangers of Global Warming.

[BobbyR]

I have read the pros and cons on this issue. They have some evidence that we have had Ice Ages have occured at fairly regular intevals. Other than core samples, we have very little data. We simply do not know if this warming is normal or not we have only kept records for a couple of hundred years.
Some experts say we are 2,000 years late for an Ice Age and we may have caused that. When you see how much technolical progress the human race has made in 2,000 years that would not have been possible without this respite.
I personally feel we need to curb our consumption and emissions for our own good. The emissions do damage beyond global warming. The planet will survive quite nicely without us. Mankind is a blip in Earths timeline.

[Patrick]

If you consider the annihilation or mere decimation of the human race to be within acceptable tolerances, then I cannot refute your argument. We should continue on our current path and wait to see how things play out.

I, however, would kind of like to preserve our species and our planet. I love camping and hiking being outdoors and... breathing. I think doing nothing is irresponsible. I think the evidence that our current methods of energy production are damaging our ecosystem is overwhelming. Look around you. Pollution is not just for city folks anymore. Whether the result is climate change really is only partly relevant. The planet will inevitably heal, no matter what we do to it. I would just prefer that mankind remain when the healing occurs.

But the "head in the sand" approach to the problem is one available alternative.

Patrick

[mlinder]

You haven't listened to what I've said. I did not say "do nothing". I said, "find the best course of action and do it." We cannot discern the best course of action, because, as far as I can tell, all of our data is fatally flawed, and flawed purposefuly.

[Uncle Ernie]

Wouldn't it be hilarious if someone marketed a new "green" food with a methane rating?!  THESE BEANS CREATE LESS METHANE THAN BRAND X!  "UNCLE ERNIE'S- THE SOCIAL CHILLI!"   THE NEW BEANO PREVENTS GAS -INSIDE AND OUT!

Whatever is going on, I think humans have a hand in it.  One species of bird is extinct now because it's feathers were popular for women's hats.  Look at the buffalo and the Indians- almost wiped out because of hubris.  Rain forests are getting plowed, the oceans are now full of plastic, and even astronauts are ducking for cover in outerspace! 

Part of it is too many people.  And, it seems to be popular to have huge families again.  Humans are the only animal that reproduce with abandone when environmental conditions (like food and water) are scarce.  And don't get me started on the pope- great Caesar's ghost.  What is HE thinking?!

OK.  I'm done.

[Patrick]

I just don't believe that all of our evidence is fatally flawed. The evidence of the smog in the cities, the evidence of haze in remote rural areas from emissions from power plants and migrating pollution from urban areas, has not been refuted. The evidence of the rise in respiratory problems such as emphysema has not been refuted. There is ample evidence that we are degrading the environment. Does it cause global warming? I don't know that makes a difference. It is causing damage that will take centuries to fix.

You are right. Money is at the root of it. It is cheaper to produce power with coal than with cleaner or renewal fuels, such as natural gas (much cleaner, but still a polluter), solar and wind energy. It is still cheaper to run vehicles on petroleum products than to spend the money needed to develop the batteries that will make electric cars practical. I will say, though, that the moment they develop an electric car that can go 300 miles between charges I will buy one.

So, as I see it, we have two choices. We can spend the money to develop the next generation of energy production entailing clean fuels, or we can continue to burn coal and petroleum to meet these needs.

I believe the anti-GW folks are trying to refute what is inevitably a red herring argument. Whether the climate is changing (btw, it is) or not does not mean that we can go without changing the world as we know it. Sure, it may mean that electricity and mobility fuel prices may rise, but there are way too many people using electricity and driving vehicles around to continue on this path. There are more people every year and more developing economies (China, India, Brazil, to name a few) using the same polluting technologies than ever before.

Patrick

[sangyo soichiro]

Sometimes decisions have to be made before all the facts are in.  This happens on the battlefield all the time.  Sometimes it's the right decision, sometimes it's not.  Sometimes no decision is bad.

If we err on the side of the GWs, we can reverse that.  If we err on the side of the anti-GWs, we can't reverse that.  I can't imagine how we could reverse a runaway greenhouse effect, but changing laws, by comparison, is infinitely easier.

It's not a case of 'thinning' the population.  It's a matter of annihilating it.  Not one human would survive a runaway greenhouse effect.  A runaway greenhouse effect is not a rise of a few degrees... the end result is a surface temperature of close to 900 °F.

[mlinder]

You may be able to fix the planetary/ecological issues that might arise (if there are any, not sure there are) from erring on the side of the 'GW'ers, but can you fix the sociological issues that are a very real danger in becoming fanatically 'green'?

[sangyo soichiro]

You may be able to fix the planetary/ecological issues that might arise (if there are any, not sure there are) from erring on the side of the 'GW'ers, but can you fix the sociological issues that are a very real danger in becoming fanatically 'green'?

I suspect this is a valid concern.  But at least there will be people alive to try.



The key word you use is 'fanatic.'  I'm opposed to anything fanatic. 

[Patrick]

Sociological issues? From what, higher energy prices? It appears to me that is happening anyway. They deregulated electrical utilities here in Texas in 2003. Since then the price of a kilowatt hour of juice has more than doubled. There is a company here in Austin that sells only green energy (wind mostly, with a little solar. Five years ago they were real expensive. Now they are about the same price as everybody else.

Once the infrastructure is on place prices should fall because there will be no more expenditure for fuel. Of course, we both know the prices WON'T fall. It's that money thing again.

Sociological issues? I'm not suggesting we outlaw internal combustion engines and electricity in homes. C'mon.....

[mlinder]

Well, I didn't want to have to go into a long rant about my misgivings. I was hoping that I'd implied enough to make them at least visible.
I'm worried about the political impetus behind the fear being pounded into us concerning 'global warming'.

Ultimately, I think it will become a hugely governmentally controlled 'industry'. Once the government controls something as widesweeping as "power", we have issues.
I'm not afraid of reducing pollution. I think it's a good idea, global warming or not.
I am afraid of the political bureaucratic pitfalls that we may be headed for racing towards this at breakneck speed because we are afraid, and they want us to be afraid for this very reason.
My own questions about the validity of the bulk of data submitted so far, are because I can see that the data is a tool used to create fear, the fear to create dependence, the dependence to create subservience.


(edit: yes, I know I sound like a crazy person. But the patterns are there, historically speaking.)

[Uncle Ernie]

The folks that were voted into ofice have been instilling fear for quite a while now.  It's how they get things done.  Fear of a common enemy galvanizes the country and distracts them from what Washington is really up to.  It's been that way for many centuries.  Probably from the beginning of anything resembling civilization.

[sangyo soichiro]

The folks that were voted into ofice have been instilling fear for quite a while now.  It's how they get things done.  Fear of a common enemy galvanizes the country and distracts them from what Washington is really up to.  It's been that way for many centuries.  Probably from the beginning of anything resembling civilization.

I think religions do this too.  Maybe not all, but some....

[333]

The "green product" thing is already happening.  Subaru is touting one of their plants puts out virtually no refuse, and S.C. Johnson has a commercial out stating that Windex and a couple other products are made in a plant that is run on solar.

One thought that keeps popping into my mind is; How can it be that humans aren't a major cause of what happens?  How many people inhabit the Earth?  How many cars, factories?  It seems to me that with all that going on, we, as humans, have to be the cause.  Or at least have a major effect on the environment.

[TwoTired]

One thought that keeps popping into my mind is; How can it be that humans aren't a major cause of what happens?  How many people inhabit the Earth?  How many cars, factories?  It seems to me that with all that going on, we, as humans, have to be the cause.  Or at least have a major effect on the environment.

No offense, but this is a perfect example of "bad science".  Where you start with a premise/theory and then look for data to support it, then assume that is all the data relevant for a conclusion.

There is no argument here that humans create pollution and more humans create more pollution, and less would be better for us humans.  The doomsday link to global catastrophe simply hasn't been proven and historical data and measurement don't support that link.

Cheers,

[Retro Rocket]

There is no argument here that humans create pollution and more humans create more pollution, and less would be better for us humans.  The doomsday link to global catastrophe simply hasn't been proven and historical data and measurement don't support that link.

More bad science..!! I just finished reading a report that says that we are influencing the rate at which these changes are happening. The interesting part of this is that this report was written by one of NASA's top climate experts {Scientist} along side one of the worlds biggest skeptics to the "global warming" theory, he is a British scientist who has been dead set against the "global warning" theory from the start. One thing everyone forgets to factor in to their arguments is that even floating ice melting DOES add to sea level rises because as the water heats up it expands, so it doesn't matter where the ice is melting it adds more than its frozen volume to earths oceans. We can all see that you will never change your mind TT and that is no reason to arrogantly discredit everyone that disagrees with you.......remember your OPINION is in the minority on this subject. Go do some research, there is a whole pile of new information that has just come in to being and it is now converting even the most staunch of climate change skeptics.

Mick

[TwoTired]

Mick, I guess to be fair, I should simply say that your post is crap, and no amount of unbiased data will change YOUR OPINION either.  You have already stated that you reject any data that doesn't come from a source you don't approve of beforehand.  How can you claim to be objective?

We can all see that you will never change your mind TT and that is no reason to arrogantly discredit everyone that disagrees with you.......remember your OPINION is in the minority on this subject.

1. The majority is not always right.  Easily proven by anyone who notes historical events.
2. Your statement that my opinion is minority, is simply unsupported propaganda.  Don't worry, though, if you repeat a lie often enough, there are plenty who will eventually believe it.  Much the same as the
"Global Warming Alarmists" to which you subscribe.

I have done research.  But, you don't care to hear about it, as whatever I relay will be shouted down as "crap" by you, and rejected out of hand.  Not exactly objective consideration, is it?

Have a nice tirade,

[Retro Rocket]

You have already stated that you reject any data that doesn't come from a source you don't approve of beforehand.  How can you claim to be objective?

HAHA What a load of rubbish, you are good at putting words into other peoples mouths to justify your own "theories". More of the "scientific" skeptics are changing their minds every time i read new information about this problem and it is facts alone that are doing this not "propaganda". You have repeatedly called me arrogant, don't like it much when roles are reversed do you?

Your statement that my opinion is minority, is simply unsupported propaganda

Here you go again, once again go have a read it is a Fact, well in the rest of the world anyway.

Don't worry, though, if you repeat a lie often enough, there are plenty who will eventually believe it.  Much the same as the
"Global Warming Alarmists" to which you subscribe.

Once again putting words into my mouth to justify your ramblings.
Prove its a lie.....

I have done research.  But, you don't care to hear about it

I have been reading both sides to this story for a couple of years now and have seen differences in the sea levels both here {first hand} and abroad, { have a look at what is happening to the Florida keys}. You discount all this as "normal" fluctuations in climate, there are a whole lot of extremely unusual things happening in our world and just to discount all of it with "flawed science" is a bit naive. One thing you are right about is that i don't really care about your opinion, the reason is that you simply dismiss everything as "crap" even as new data comes to hand every week supporting the changes happening faster than ever before and your "supporting data never changes, the same old line time and time again. If i am wrong then it is only a small burden on our way of life, if you are wrong then we are {our kids and their kids}all in deep trouble. Is it really worth just doing nothing........

Mick

[paulages]

I'm a skeptic in general, but I'd be curious to see credible references from mark and lloyd (wikipedia doesn't count). I read scientific journals from time to time (as a layman), and while i tend to think that most of science is pompous and foolish, the scientific method is generally honored within the scientific community for what its worth. This does create peer support/criticism which has its value. As has already been stated, there are virtually no credible scientists left who believe that humans are not impacting the climate on earth with greenhouse emissions. Again, while I'm skeptical about the certainty of scientific findings, I'm much more likely to believe those findings as plausible than the Limbaugh/Hannity type rhetoric which seems to have no real scientific merit at all, but seems rather to be based in the type of self serving concepts they have politically cashed in on for a while now... personal freedom, marlboro man kind of stuff. while i don't like "big government" telling me what to do, I also don't like attempts at being manipulated for someone else's gain by using simpleton rhetoric (they want to take away my SOHC!!!!!!).

Yes, there are idiots cashing in on the "green" thing (and creating more industries belching out more bull#$%*), but that is neither here nor there, really. As far as I can tell, there is far more obvious influence upon the the dissentious data you guys are referring to than upon the data supporting human influence on global warming. really, you guys just sound like right wing talk radio... but please correct me if i'm wrong.


where are the sources?

[Retro Rocket]

Some interesting reading and pics. A loy of these are from America.
http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/rising-seas.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/sea-levels-rising-twice-as-fast-as-predicted-1642087.html

Interesting reading.

Mick

[Bob Wessner]

Once again, stop the derogatory and personal attacks or this thread will be locked. Tone it down.

[mlinder]

Hey Paulages

Not exactly a right winger here

Did you see the small chart sampling of past, and present, average temps for vatious cities in Europ, Asutralia and NZ I posted a couple pages back?
There's lots and lots and lots more of this.
People also keep talking about some irrefutable proof about humans having impact on the global climate... but I haven't seen any of it. If you've got irrefutable proof, I'd love to see it. Or at the very least, proof that doesn't absolutely reek of selective data farming.
Most of the research I've done on this stuff was a couple years ago. As you know, I've been a bit out of commision, and lost a bunch of stuff... so don't really have all that data available to me anymore.
But, as much as I could, I looked for data that was NOT culled in an attempt to either prove or disprove anything having to do with the whole 'global warming' bit, thereby trying to bypass data that may have been skewed in one way or another for purpose of making you believe or disbelieve in global warming.
I can tell you plainly and truthfully that none of the meager data I was able to compile pointed to much of any kind of global warming.
And, while I do agree that climate has changed, I've found no proof that it is beyond the planets normal cycle of climate changes.

Please understand that I also believed the global warming thing. I saw a lot of data that confirmed it. As I became more interested, I looked for other sources of data to confirm it. All I found was data, not created by the people involved in the movements, that did not support it.

Both the proponents, and opponents, are trying to make money off their positions. Money or power. They are paying most of the scientific teams who are studying this, at this point. Also, they are being told, "The earth is warming, go find the scientific evidence that supports this", or "The earth is not warming, go find the scientific evidence that supports this."
That's why I've tried to find and use data that did not come from studies ABOUT global warming.

[BobbyR]

Global warming no Global warming. Can everyone agree we need to conserve our resources and emit less pollution? While of course maintaining our quality of life.

[333]

Bobby, does the "quality of life" question allow you to ride an electric motorcycle as a daily rider(saving the SOHCs for Sundays, of course)?

[TwoTired]

Global warming no Global warming. Can everyone agree we need to conserve our resources and emit less pollution? While of course maintaining our quality of life.

Of course.   And, I've been doing just that since the Mid 70s.

Cheers,

[BobbyR]

Bobby, does the "quality of life" question allow you to ride an electric motorcycle as a daily rider(saving the SOHCs for Sundays, of course)?

No LLoyd it does not. It means that our electric grid is more efficent, we clean up emissions from coal plants, and we continue to either improve the MPG on our engines or switch to alternative fuels. My 302 V8 in my SUV gets twice the mileage than my 67 Mustang with the same HP. Technology and science works if we apply what we now know and do further research.