Save our environment!

[Corinthian]

Arsescious, you forgot the various moons and the Asteroid Belt.

[tk102]

See the problem is that we're still making HUGE decisions based on speculation and assumptions. What the current global climate destabilization fanatics are having us do is the "Ready Fire Aim" approach. We're pulling the trigger on things that we have no way of knowing that they will affect positive change on little more than "feel good" measures.

 

You're right, let's cross our fingers and hope that the scientists who've been studying all this for a living and reaching independent the same conclusions are just trying to get attention. Let's speculate that this is just the earth doing its thing. Let's assume we can't do anything about it. Let's feel good about global industry and its pollution.

 

Sorry man that argument cuts both ways.

[mimartin]

Why should I believe anything the scientist from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration say?

 

I heard on CNN that Australia recently found that the only way to meet their 2020 requirements would be to completely stop using automobiles and start walking and riding bikes.

By my count, it is 2008, so in 12 years there will be no technological advances in this area. (I believe it is time to sell my technology stock.) If I recall my history correctly, we took less time to come up with the technology to put two men on the moon and return them back to earth safely. So according to CNN the Australians only alternative is to go back in time 100 years?

[Q]

Though I try to take anything said by anyone these days with a grain of salt, I'd rather err on the side of caution where this subject is concerned.

 

I think that a lot of people would be more easily persuaded if environmentalism didn't have the polarizing political agenda attached to it.

[Totenkopf]

You're right, let's cross our fingers and hope that the scientists who've been studying all this for a living and reaching independent the same conclusions are just trying to get attention. Let's speculate that this is just the earth doing it's thing. Let's assume we can't do anything about it. Let's feel good about global industry and its pollution. Sorry man that argument both ways.

 

Why should I believe anything the scientist from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration say?

 

You guys aren't suggesting we accept their current conclusions simply on their "authority"? You don't believe these people would never lie to us? Problem is, there is no hard and fast concensus and the debate isn't anywhere near over yet, Al Gore's pronouncements notwithstanding.

[tk102]

You guys aren't suggesting we accept their current conclusions simply on their "authority"? You don't believe these people would never lie to us? Problem is, there is no hard and fast concensus and the debate isn't anywhere near over yet, Al Gore's pronouncements notwithstanding.

No I don't believe any scientist with their fancy-dancy scientific methods, numbers, and stuff. They have so many good reasons to lie to us and oppress us with their "theories".

 

I instead believe in my gubbermint, the oil industry, and the power of the once mighty dollar. They would would never lie to me. No sir.

[Tommycat]

You assume too much when you make those statements. These scientists have a vested interest in proving that there is global warming(or global climate destabilization, whatever makes you feel better). Keep in mind these same organizations stated in the 70's that we were headed for a global ice age. Give it a few more years and we'll be hearing the same thing again. Perhaps that's why I am a bit skeptical. They are given grants for researching global warming. Several of the scientists the UN used as supporting global warming have actually come out AGAINST man made global climate change.

 

We're still going on shoot first aim second. Since we have no idea what the real problem is as of yet, making drastic changes is a bit like slamming on your brakes at the first sign of trouble. Sure it might be a good idea, but not on ice. I say hold off on drastic changes until we can be sure of what we need to do.

[Totenkopf]

No I don't believe any scientist with their fancy-dancy scientific methods, numbers, and stuff. They have so many good reasons to lie to us and oppress us with their "theories".

 

I instead believe in my gubbermint, the oil industry, and the power of the once mighty dollar. They would would never lie to me. No sir.

 

Now, now, TK. Never said the other side was above such behavior. Still, I no more put blind faith in the "priests of the new age" than you would want to in those (religious types) of days gone by (almost anyway it seems).

[mimartin]

These scientists have a vested interest in proving that there is global warming

Yet, the non-scientists that insist that global warming is a myth have no vested interest in keeping the status quo. Oh, you are correct, the NASA scientist do have a vested interest, in the form of pressure to keep their mouth shut. The New York Times

 

If you believe in global warming or the tooth fairy does not mean anything. The point is spewing toxic chemicals into the air is not the best of ideas for those of us that actually breathe the air or is there a debate about these chemical being harmful to the human species?

[Jae Onasi]

I've lost all faith in anything the New York Times publishes now after multiple journalist scandals involving fake stories, plagiarism, false leads, and stories making insinuations with little proof to back them up.

[Totenkopf]

Well, you'd be one of many. Seems the paper of record has little record left to run off of anymore. Circulation numbers being but one critical indicator. The problem with changing the status quo is that it's very long on rhetoric and extremely short on viable solutions, especially in the time frame that's being forced on everyone. Demanding draconian cutbacks in some parts of the world, while effectively ignoring other parts (the basic flaws of Kyoto and Rio(?) ) point toward collectivist redistribution of global wealth schemes. Fact is, non scientific types aside, there is NO consensus in the scientific community currently on this topic.

[Tommycat]

Yet, the non-scientists that insist that global warming is a myth have no vested interest in keeping the status quo. Oh, you are correct, the NASA scientist do have a vested interest, in the form of pressure to keep their mouth shut. The New York Times

 

If you believe in global warming or the tooth fairy does not mean anything. The point is spewing toxic chemicals into the air is not the best of ideas for those of us that actually breathe the air or is there a debate about these chemical being harmful to the human species?

You also make the assumption that the people coming out against global warming(man-made global climate change) are non-scientists. In fact quite a few scientists are opposed to the insinuations of global warming(man-made global climate change). The problem is that many institutions shun those scientists as soon as they say they disagree with it.

 

Then when you look at how poorly the data is being collected(there goes the whole scientific experiment thing) it is difficult to judge how well the scientists can accurately judge the data. I mean there are a number of temperature recorders set up near burn barrels, in the middle of black-tops, near exhaust vents. Those kinds of things can make the data collected useless. Yet they do not dismiss those.

 

Again, I'm all for keeping the air clean. I'm all for keeping our waters clean. I'm all for having lush forests and places to hunt/fish/hike/camp/whatever, but the measures that are being proposed may in fact cause more harm than good. I mean electric cars produce ground level Ozone. Which sounds all spiffy, but it actually kills plants.

[Arcesious]

I used to believe global warming was entirely true, but after reading this thread I'm starting to question the validity these scientists' results... However I do admit the we have messed up the world considerably, and need to do soemthing about it.

 

Tommycat, do electric cars really produce ground-level ozone? I just want proof to clarify it is all, I'm not trying to say it isn't true, because if that is true, then that issue needs to be addressed, since many people are putting faith in the 'age of electric cars' that apparently is coming in the near future, without knowing what consequences there may be.

[mimartin]

You also make the assumption that the people coming out against global warming(man-made global climate change) are non-scientists.

Is that the same kind of assumption that states all scientists that believe in global warming are liars or alarmist? Alternatively, is it the same kind of assumption that human are small and the earth is large, so there is no possible way that we can affect the environment on such a scale? I apologize for my exhibited assumption; I actually know some scientists do not believe in global warming. I do not even know if I believe in global warming, however I do believe in protecting humankind and Americans. Thus, I believe in cutting back on emissions and Middle Eastern oil. In one case, we will breathe better and in the other, we continue to breathe.

[Tommycat]

I used to believe global warming was entirely true, but after reading this thread I'm starting to question the validity these scientists' results... However I do admit the we have messed up the world considerably, and need to do soemthing about it.

 

Tommycat, do electric cars really produce ground-level ozone? I just want proof to clarify it is all, I'm not trying to say it isn't true, because if that is true, then that issue needs to be addressed, since many people are putting faith in the 'age of electric cars' that apparently is coming in the near future, without knowing what consequences there may be.

EVERY electrical device produces a small amount of ozone. It's that smell from the electric motors. The more prominent the smell, the more ozone is being produced.

 

Actually, I'm not too proud to admit I was wrong. Actally I was wrong about the levels of ozone(well I guess I hadn't explained fully) An electric car would produce much less ozone than the standard 1970's era car. However compared with modern cars, it produces about 98% of the level of ozone. Plus when you offset that with power generation, lead acid batteries that need to be replaced, chemicals used in the creation of the power storage(batteries), non-reusable parts that will be tossed out, it kinda makes the gasoline car a nicer option.

 

@mimartin:

Trust me, I'm all for our independance from middle-eastern oil, but we only get around 10% from them. We get most from Venezuela.

 

As far as your other comment regarding the scientists being liars, I believe the CATO Institute(yeah I know... hardly without bias) found that several of the scientists were pressured to change their results to be more in line with current expectations regarding global climate change. They may not be the ones who want to lie, but many of the grant holders aren't as honest as many scientists.

[Arcesious]

It seems Thomas Edison accidentally missed that one then...

Well... We are too dependent of electricity to get rid of it, and I can think of no other substitute... so... I guess we'll end up killign ourselves with our own technology... unless if a sulution for power better than electricity is invented. I doubt electricity will kill us as fast as fossil fuels will though...

 

(What about antimatter or dark matter? We're a long way off from that, but aren't those two massive power sources?)

[DeadYorick]

(What about antimatter or dark matter? We're a long way off from that, but aren't those two massive power sources?)

 

Antimatter is a negatively charged amount of matter that doesn't exist in our galaxy. It is highly unstable near regular matter and could implode taking a ton of nearby matter with it

[Arcesious]

Scrap that idea... I've been watching too much Startrek Enterprise... All their fancy antimatter power cores... I've got to remember, fiction, not reality...

[JediMaster12]

Antimatter is a probability but right now the problem is keeping the molecule stable. It is said that a single gram of antimatter has enough energy to power New York city for a week.

 

Alternative fuel sources is something we should consider looking at. Fossil fuels, the basis for our oil that makes gasoline takes thousands of year to form. Oil is formed by the decayed carcasses of animals in certain conditions. This makes sense in that all lifeforms are carbon based. At the rate we use our fossil fules, scientists are right in saying that it is a finite source of energy. The electric cars/hybrids were a step forward but of course you need to park where the juice is. The ethanol option is another step that would be beneficil. Of course there is the fact that the oil companies think they are going to lose money and they are getting stingy over that. I think alternative sources is the next step.