To The Global Warming Crowd

[Arcesious]

Centrifugal forces! yeah, i just couldn't rember the right word for it. i see your point. if it was completely as a said it was with centrifugal forc eonly at the poles, the earth would be more disk shaped thna round. amazing how much you can learn just from chattign ont he internet...

[John Galt]

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=c9554887-802a-23ad-4303-68f67ebd151c

 

I don't really care much about the issue, but I thought this was interesting.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

All i want to knwo is what would really happen if all the ice on earth completeyl melted. what woudl be the flood damge's extent?

Won't happen in the next thousand years or so, according to scientists (Gore 'forgot' to mention this in his documentary). But when/if it does happen, sea levels worldwide will rise enough to cover some pretty big areas, displacing a hundred million people.

 

But again, won't happen in our lifetime, nor in that of our grandchildren.

[tk102]

Thought I'd bump this one after watching a couple simple, straightforward videos.

http://green.yahoo.com/blog/ecogeek/244/high-school-teacher-spreads-the-word-on-climate-change.html

 

The gist:

Instead of focusing on whether global climate destabilization is occurring (which we can't know a with certainty), we should focus instead on what actions we will take in the area of risk management. When set side-by-side, the risk of non-action outweighs the risk of action.

 

Enjoy.

[Aeroldoth]

I'm glad to see he posted an update. I had seen the first video and thought "Pascal's Wager", even though I agreed with him.

[Achilles]

Not exactly, although I can see where you're coming from.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Fantastic video, except from the fact that his face was an inch from the camera at the end.

[tk102]

Bump again.

 

I was looking at some of the history regarding the U.S. policy on climate change and learned about a report that was funded during the 1990s called "Climate Change Impacts on the United States". This $10 million study, published the U.S. National Assessment of Climate Science Program, had begun its research in 1990 and looks at what climate change would mean to agriculture, health, water, forests, and coastlines. (It contains lots of graphs, pictures, and models for over the next 50 years by U.S. region.)

 

In June 2001, George Bush did an about face on his promises to address greenhouse gases (when he trying to out-green Gore during the presidential campaign) and pulled out of the Kyoto treaty. The White House cut funding to the program and removed all links from the EPA's website and removed from the index of government documents.

 

Enjoy.

[Bee Hoon]

I'm not that worried about hurricanes, and even if I where, I wouldn't be calmed by theese new defences unless they are cheap enough for poor countries to afford them. I am more concerned about: rising sea level, dessert expansion, drying up of farmland etc.

QFE.

 

If it does come to the mass flooding, it's more of the consequences that will kill you, rather than the flooding itself. The mass displacement and effects on crops and world food production could be devastating:/

 

In June 2001, George Bush did an about face on his promises to address greenhouse gases (when he trying to out-green Gore during the presidential campaign) and pulled out of the Kyoto treaty. The White House cut funding to the program and removed all links from the EPA's website and removed from the index of government documents.

Tsk tsk. Somehow, I'm hardly surprised.

[mimartin]

The White House cut funding to the program and removed all links from the EPA's website and removed from the index of government documents.

tk102 surely you are not implying that the president of the United States would suppress scientific data that does not support the president’s policy.

 

Thanks for the link, I may be blown off the face of the earth by a hurricane, but at least now I know I will continue to have food to eat, maybe no water, but cheap food.

[ForeverNight]

Well, if I recall correctly, President Clinton was approached for Kyoto. However, it seems that nobody remembers what he did in regards to it... In fact, he just didn't sign it. And later Congress (Believe it was the Senate, but it might have been the House) voted almost unanimously against signing any such treaty.

 

But, on another note, I read a book in November of last year entitled "Unstoppable Global Warming, Every 1500 Years." It uses some Ice Cores that this group of scientists had dug up in Iceland as evidence that this has happened before. I frankly agree with what most of this book laid out, because England was a wine producing country in the Early, Early Middle Ages, and wine grapes don't grow naturally in cold climates.

 

That and we know that the Roman Empire was in a period of climatic History that was much warmer than it is now. (It shouldn't be snowing on April 10th! But I have a Winter Storm Warning until Saturday Morning!) So, it can be assumed that the world cooled down between then and now.

 

Anyway, what's to be feared about warming? I personally don't see the dangers, but then maybe I'm just ignorant.

[JCarter426]

Anyway, what's to be feared about warming? I personally don't see the dangers, but then maybe I'm just ignorant.

 

It's the cooling I'm worried about. The ice caps melt, the ocean levels rise, the gulf stream shifts, and suddenly it's 40 degrees in June, at least where I am. It's already started to happen--one of the biggest blizzards was in April ten years ago, and we had snow last May.

 

And where I am is on the lighter side of the consequences.

[mur'phon]

Anyway, what's to be feared about warming? I personally don't see the dangers, but then maybe I'm just ignorant.

 

Short list to give you a basic idea, I recomend you do some research on your own though, ignorance is not a good trait

Rising sea level: So what is the danger of the sea rising a few meters? For one cities tend to be concentrated along the coast, so for rich countries it means investing in costly barriers, for poor ones it means less cities and milions displaced/dead. Also a lot of the worlds food production happens to occur in low lying areas. Flood it, and people will be displaced, and the world will find itself short of food.

 

Dessertification and droughts: Desserts expanding/droughts means lots of people displaced/killed, and lots of good soil ruined.

 

Needless to say, together this means: an economic disaster, lots of dead people, lots of starving people, lots of extinct animals, and lots of really, really pissed people knocking at the door of the rich demanding compensation.

[True_Avery]

If it is happening, little will be done about it and time will tell. When the deserts expand, the coasts flood, and it starts snowing at times it shouldn't, we'll know who was right and who was wrong. By then it will be too late. Then we'll simply adapt like we have for thousands of years and continue life. Sure, the earth may act differently for awhile, but that is a simple matter of humans migrating to different areas.

 

The beauty and curse of humanity is that the environment is not really a factor, considering we can make our own and live just about anywhere.

 

If it isn't happening, then no harm. Some minor things may happen, but nothing like whats been said. Humans will continue on their normal track.

 

The argument can go on for years. I highly, highly doubt anything will be done to stop try and stop/prevent it. In my opinion, this is truly a case of "time will tell". I hate arguments like that, but in this case I have to support it.

 

If it happens as fast as many assume, they we will know in the 20-50 years.

 

If it happens slow, then humans will put it off until we finally have to do something.

 

Needless to say' date=' together this means: an economic disaster, lots of dead people, lots of starving people, lots of extinct animals, and lots of really, really pissed people knocking at the door of the rich demanding compensation.[/quote']

I see no difference between that future and the present day. Someones economy is always in trouble, millions die a day, countries are starving, and we put animals into the endangered and extinct category every time we touch a forest. Rich are always getting richer, and that will always be the case as long as humans exist the way they do.

 

Regardless, this is a human problem. Meteors have hit the planet and coated the entire atmosphere with dust for thousands of years, killing nearly all life on the surface. Volcanoes can go off and blackout an entire continent for hundreds of years.

 

The Earth has absolutely nothing to fear from us unless we discover a way to hit it with a Death Star.

 

In my lifetime, I'm more worried about economic collapse or another World War then the climate. Humans can adapt to the climate. Humans cannot, however, adapt to an atom bomb.

 

It gets colder/hotter? Turn the heat/cold up. The coasts flood? Guess you have to move a few miles inland. Deserts grow? Stay away from the deserts. Farmland dies? Find an area with new farmland that used to be a desert.

 

Humans survived an ice age. We survived with huts, sticks, and stones. We, to this day, still live in hard environments with bows and spears, running around killing animals naked. Give humans a little credit where credit is due.

 

If it does come to the mass flooding, it's more of the consequences that will kill you, rather than the flooding itself. The mass displacement and effects on crops and world food production could be devastating.

For a limited amount of time, yes. Besides, in that scenario, we are far more likely to breed ourselves to death than have our crops die. Maybe the world food problems stems from... I dunno... the fact we have 6-7 billion people and growing? Not to sound "evil", but I think we are overdue for something to control our population growth.

 

12 billion is the estimate for the point at which we start dying out en mass due to our own population size. We are also estimated to hit that in less than 100 years. Which means that will hit us sooner than environmental problems will.

 

Our medications are causing bacteria and virus' to mutate/adapt at faster rates to survive, which means it is probably only a matter of time before we have another plague. We keep increasing our military sizes, so we are closer to MAD than climate problems. We keep breeding like rabbits, so we may simply run out of the required resources.

 

We have larger, more morally questionable things at hand than climate change.

[Ray Jones]

Anyway, what's to be feared about warming? I personally don't see the dangers, but then maybe I'm just ignorant.

Dangers? Hm.

 

 

The climate changes anyway. It changes all day. It changes since the beginning of time. Without that, we wouldn't be here in the first place. And every single organism on this planet adds to that process. Plants, animals, micro-organisms. There are also other events having effects on the climate. Objects from space coming down, volcanoes erupt, changes in the sun, wood fires, methane coming from the bottom of the oceans, earthquakes, deserts, ocean streams, winds, rain, fireworks, solar fields, butterflies. We had periods of drastic change, and more or less stable periods with only small differences. It makes no sense to deny that. It just is like that.

 

As a result, it makes also no sense to deny that any emission made by any human machinery or device has an effect on the climate, because when any "natural" emission has an effect, why not "artificial" as well? Also, any change to our environment influences the climate, because when the rainforest's emission of O2 influences the climate, why should there be no effect, when we take those emission away by taking away rainforest.

 

It simply is like that, because that is how the climate works.

 

So, at the end of the day, it's not so much about the dangers. Because due to the chaotic nature of earth's climatic system, we currently have little chance to determine what's gonna happen because of our technology, or would happen anyway. We also have no influence on events of the bigger scheme, like earthquakes, volcanoes, etc.

 

But the point is, there are questions you should ask yourself:

 

Why is that, that you don't attach yourself to some car's exhaust and breathe that stuff all the time?

Why is that, that you don't drink petroleum when you're thirsty?

Why is that, that you don't take a bath in wee and poo?

Why is that, that you plant trees and flowers in your garden, and not tin and plasic foil?

Why is that, that you don't empty your waste bin in your bed?

 

 

So who cares about dangers of climatic changes? I don't. I tend to care about what I do to my environment instead.

[Tommycat]

But the point is, there are questions you should ask yourself:

 

1. Why is that, that you don't attach yourself to some car's exhaust and breathe that stuff all the time?

2. Why is that, that you don't drink petroleum when you're thirsty?

3. Why is that, that you don't take a bath in wee and poo?

4. Why is that, that you plant trees and flowers in your garden, and not tin and plasic foil?

5. Why is that, that you don't empty your waste bin in your bed?

 

 

So who cares about dangers of climatic changes? I don't. I tend to care about what I do to my environment instead.

ennumerated to make answering easier.

 

1. Same reason I don't put a snorkel into the ocean and attempt to breathe that.

2. Same reason I don't drink snake venom.

3. Same reason I don't bathe in mud.

4. Funny, Some people do and it's called art. So are you opposed to art? maybe you should ask why people buy fake plants all the time.

5. Why would I put it in a waste bin if I was going to put it in my bed?

 

Believe me I'm all for keeping the environment clean. Nothing makes me more angry than reeling in what I think is a fish, only to get the remnants of some odd trash someone threw out. However our trash can be useful in producing methane(aka renewable energy). Lets check your habits and see if you pass the test.

 

a. Do you use a computer?

b. Do you use a car?

c. Do you travel by air.

d. Do you use a cell phone?

e. Would you rather plant a tree or plant some grass?

 

Computers use all kinds of chemicals in their creation that are harmful to the environment. Then in their disposal, they deposit even more chemicals into the ground.

 

Cars produce less emissions than the empty busses roaming around the city. Plus considering that the diesel engine is not nearly as controlled as far as emissions standards are concerned, I think a regular automobile that drives one way, and sits for 8+ hours is less harmful.

 

Air travel: Lets see, an aircraft uses 4000 lbs of fuel to travel from Phoenix, to LA. A SUBURBAN WITH A FULLY LOADED TRAILER uses about 90 lbs and seats 8(9 with a front bench seat). So in order for that aircraft to reach the same efficiency, it must be carrying around 350-400 people. A car with 4 in it does the same for about 30 pounds of fuel(Doing these calculations based on my last few trips to LA from here).

 

Cell phones: Kinda the same story as computers, only the chemicals also lead to factional warring in some areas of the world where the minerals are gathered.

 

The same acreage as a forest when covered as a field of grass produces MORE O2 than than the trees. Sure it comes at the cost of greater erosion, but hey we're talking MORE OXYGEN here. So the reality would be that large areas covered with grass with a few trees sprinkled about would be better for the environment(theoretically) than the rainforest(though less appealing to the eyes). New growth trees produce far more O2 than old growth, so technically, we should encourage logging the old growth trees out of existence and the planting of new trees in their place. So what if it isn't as pretty. It's good for the environment.

 

And that's my reason for disliking the environmentalists. Forget progress, forget logic, it's all about what they like more. I keep hearing about all these animals we have hunted to extinction. NAME ONE.

[Ray Jones]

ennumerated to make answering easier.

 

1. Same reason I don't put a snorkel into the ocean and attempt to breathe that.

2. Same reason I don't drink snake venom.

3. Same reason I don't bathe in mud.

4. Funny, Some people do and it's called art. So are you opposed to art? maybe you should ask why people buy fake plants all the time.

5. Why would I put it in a waste bin if I was going to put it in my bed?

You seem to fail to abstract these question's aspect in a disturbing manner, but while we're at it:

 

1. But there're millions of lifeforms doing so.

2. Snake venom. U-hu. It think I don't even want to bother talking about the difference to petroleum, or it's effects when shed into the environment. Not to forget carcinogenic attributes, or the countless snake venoms which do not effect you at all. Etc.

3. Good for the skin.

4. Yes, I am opposed to art when it's polluting my environment.

5. I rephrase, why do you use a waste bin, and not your bed?

 

 

I'm all for keeping the environment clean.

Good. That's where it begins.

 

 

Nothing makes me more angry than reeling in what I think is a fish, only to get the remnants of some odd trash someone threw out.

Isn't it, on another thought, *great*, that in those moments you've just helped to clean our environment by eliminating somebody else's "mistake"?

 

I mean, I'm really sure since you're "all for keeping the environment clean" you don't just throw this "odd trash" back into the water in order to keep the boat's environment clean, or for the next one to get angry about it. Am I right?

 

Because that's where it proceeds.

 

 

However our trash can be useful in producing methane(aka renewable energy).

Some of it, or organic waste to be precise. Not plastic, or tinfoil. And in case it doesn't end up somewhere else but those methane producing thingeries.

 

 

Lets check your habits and see if you pass the test.

 

a. Do you use a computer?

b. Do you use a car?

c. Do you travel by air.

d. Do you use a cell phone?

e. Would you rather plant a tree or plant some grass?

 

a. Haha. No.

b. I don't own a car. However, if I must not, I don't use one.

c. Nope.

d. Yap.

e. Both, of course. Nothing is more relaxing than smoking some bad ass grass while sitting in a big cherry tree with all those juicy cherries, and the dogs can't reach me.

 

 

Computers use all kinds of chemicals in their creation that are harmful to the environment.

And *that* is exactamundo *the* reason why I don't hose around those chemicals anywhere where they don't belong.

 

 

Then in their disposal, they deposit even more chemicals into the ground.

That is why I don't dispose any electronic devices in the garden, or with the normal waste, etc.

 

 

Cars produce less emissions than the empty busses roaming around the city. Plus considering that the diesel engine is not nearly as controlled as far as emissions standards are concerned, I think a regular automobile that drives one way, and sits for 8+ hours is less harmful.

Beside the fact that I don't drive by bus, or that "empty buses" aren't a problem of the bus itself, we have fuel cell driven buses, and hybrid buses driving around in my city. And to my experience, these are hopelessly crowded at least around rush hour times.

 

What's you point anyway? That 50 cars with driving around one or two persons are more effective energy-wise, resource-wise, take up less space and produce less emissions than one bus driving around 50 persons?

 

 

Air travel: Lets see, an aircraft uses 4000 lbs of fuel to travel from Phoenix, to LA. A SUBURBAN WITH A FULLY LOADED TRAILER uses about 90 lbs and seats 8(9 with a front bench seat). So in order for that aircraft to reach the same efficiency, it must be carrying around 350-400 people. A car with 4 in it does the same for about 30 pounds of fuel(Doing these calculations based on my last few trips to LA from here).

A horse carriage would use nada lbs of fuel. It would not even need a complete road made of asphalt made of petroleum, built using diesel driven machines. It won't need a whole infrastructure of gas stations needing diesel driven trucks again.

 

Also, for your maths to do the trick, can you guarantee that every car driving from Phoenix to LA has 4 person in it. Or that every SUBURBAN has 8/9 persons in it? Just 4 cars with only 1 person driving that route render your "fuel example" useless. And in reality it's way more cars "driving around empty". Granted they would need 5lbs lees fuel because of the lower weight, but according to my book it's still 100lbs for 4 persons. Compared to 4000lbs, we're at 160 persons.

 

 

Cell phones: Kinda the same story as computers, only the chemicals also lead to factional warring in some areas of the world where the minerals are gathered.

Kinda same answer as for computers or any electronics. Plus I don't go and buy a new cell phone every two weeks. I tend to use them for years.

 

 

The same acreage as a forest when covered as a field of grass produces MORE O2 than than the trees. Sure it comes at the cost of greater erosion, but hey we're talking MORE OXYGEN here.

Oxygen.

 

 

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaahahaahaaaa - O K. ... More oxygen.

 

And here I am, talking about effects of monoculture, and precious habitats for animal life needing more than "grasslands".

 

Or replacing rainforest with oil facilities:

 

But OK. More oxygen is what we need. It'll be a real help in burning all those hundreds of lakes full of waste oil over in Ecuador:

 

 

We could also wait until some grass has grown over it, because that is err...oil resistant.

 

 

So the reality would be that large areas covered with grass with a few trees sprinkled about would be better for the environment(theoretically) than the rainforest(though less appealing to the eyes).

This is really, really a comment where I can only hope you have not thought about it the least.

 

I mean, what?? Do you think this is about "what is more appealing to the eye"?

Do you really think grasslands are "better" for the environment? And may I ask, why you think are there countless other types of ecosystems, if the "best" one is "grass and sprinkled trees"? And why there is rainforest in that particular area and not grass when grass would out rule rainforest on that place on earth?

 

 

New growth trees produce far more O2 than old growth, so technically, we should encourage logging the old growth trees out of existence and the planting of new trees in their place. So what if it isn't as pretty. It's good for the environment.

Seriously, you should go see a doctor with that oxygen addiction thing.

 

 

And that's my reason for disliking the environmentalists. Forget progress, forget logic, it's all about what they like more.

I don't like them either. Welcome to the club. However, I like them more than, say, those who throw that stuff into the water where it doesn't appeal to you because you actually like to fish fish there and not some odd trash.

 

At least it's not about that you like it more to have fish on your hook.

 

 

I keep hearing about all these animals we have hunted to extinction. NAME ONE.

It's all lies and propaganda, I swear. Every species these liars list us as "having disappeared from earth due to mankind" has at least a couple of them still creeping around somewhere.

[Tommycat]

Oh to be sure, I'm exaggerating on several points. But then I figured with the dumping garbage in my bed thing I figured you were exaggerating as well, so meh. I mean weren't those rather tongue in cheek?

 

And I'm not asking them, I'm asking you to name one species that has gone extinct, because quite honestly I can't find any species that went extinct. They seem to fail to actually list the species that went extinct. They use statistical information to determine that another species went extinct, but WHAT SPECIES.

 

As for trash, I generally don't throw it back. I have a bin on my boat for that. Of course I've pulled in some rather odd trash, The weirdest was a tractor steering wheel. And yes it is my selfishness that makes me keep the places I go clean. When I go rock climbing, I tend to leave the place cleaner than when I got there, because I hate seeing the trash on the trails. I hate seeing junk on the highways, so I volunteer to keep a section clean. I hate catching trash when I'm fishing, so I don't throw it back. I work on my own self cleaning up for myself.

 

As for corporations: Absolutely there should be regulations on them. I'm absolutely against toxifying areas. I am however opposed to them making stupid regulations that do nothing but make global warming alarmists beam with joy. "Don't poop where you eat" is what I follow.

[Ray Jones]

Oh to be sure, I'm exaggerating on several points. But then I figured with the dumping garbage in my bed thing I figured you were exaggerating as well, so meh. I mean weren't those rather tongue in cheek?

Mmmm. No.

 

 

And I'm not asking them, I'm asking you to name one species that has gone extinct, because quite honestly I can't find any species that went extinct. They seem to fail to actually list the species that went extinct. They use statistical information to determine that another species went extinct, but WHAT SPECIES.

What do I know what species they are talking about? I don't even know those statistics, so why ask me?

 

All I know is that tuna prices are not as high as they are because they are literally jumping into the fisherman's boat. While they are still there, their population decreased significantly. Needless to say that this applies for a number of species.

 

So, I find it rather pointless to care and split hairs about extinction or not when human actions are directly responsible for populations changing from hundreds of thousands to only a couple of hundred specimen.

 

 

As for trash, I generally don't throw it back. I have a bin on my boat for that. Of course I've pulled in some rather odd trash, The weirdest was a tractor steering wheel. And yes it is my selfishness that makes me keep the places I go clean. When I go rock climbing, I tend to leave the place cleaner than when I got there, because I hate seeing the trash on the trails. I hate seeing junk on the highways, so I volunteer to keep a section clean. I hate catching trash when I'm fishing, so I don't throw it back. I work on my own self cleaning up for myself.

That is the spirit! ^^

 

 

As for corporations: Absolutely there should be regulations on them. I'm absolutely against toxifying areas. I am however opposed to them making stupid regulations that do nothing but make global warming alarmists beam with joy.

I'm not pro "stupid regulations" as well, and surely would prefer rather clever and useful regulations over anything else. On the other hand I doubt that for instance regulating emissions, or power-consumption down to a minimum whenever possible can be considered a stupid regulation. As an example, I saw a comparison about the energy used by printers which are only on standby. The worst case was a model that used about 200kWh per year. That is as much as my fridge needs per year to keep my stuff fresh. The problem is, there is no off-switch. You can only go standby. While I don't want to get rid of standby modes, there are ways to enhance them to have no power consumption at all. It's just "too expensive". And seriously, I'd rather pay 30 bucks more for a printer not wasting our resources, instead of 20 bucks for every year I "use" that printer.

 

Then again, I went the cheap route and use a junction I can switch on and of remotely. ^^;

 

In other words, I'm not sure what a stupid regulation is, when it basically tries to handle emissions and stuff that wouldn't be there without us producing it in the first place.

 

 

"Don't poop where you eat" is what I follow.

Add don't poop where your food eats, or your kid plays, or where it simply doesn't belong.

[The Source]

Regardless about who is right or wrong, the issues surrounding global warming is clear. Even if the facts are not 100% correct, I believe that humanity is only a visitor here. If we do not take steps to reduce our environmental impact, I am confident that future generations will suffer the consequences.

 

Plus, if we do not get off of oil and gas fuels, we will be indebted to other countries forever. As long as the replacement fuels don't cause more damage, I think looking for alternatives is the way to go.

[Web Rider]

Plus, if we do not get off of oil and gas fuels, we will be indebted to other countries forever. As long as the replacement fuels don't cause more damage, I think looking for alternatives is the way to go.

 

It's highly likly we'll be indebeted to other countries anyway simply because we have such horrid governmental spending habits.