bodhisattva wrote:
The important thing to note is that we came out of the last ice age 10,000 years ago
The mid-19th century was 10,000 years ago?
Bhodi, look up Little Ice Age/Medieval Warm Period.
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Global warming is a crock
Global warming is a crockFollow
The mid-19th century was 10,000 years ago?
Bhodi, look up Little Ice Age/Medieval Warm Period.
bodhisattva wrote:
Is that all you got~! I so expected more
Gold plz.
you get what you pay for, you should know that by now Bhodi
Actually my views are based off a book on evolution called "Trial and Error," "The history of human evolution," and another text book. Not to mention two classes which focused on evolution. Look them up. The periods of glaciation we discussed were far, far longer than those you just mentioned, lasting millions of years. How else would things such as the cambrian explosion happen (I can't remember the name of the most recent explosion from the last ice age, however the point stands)? Evolution doesn't take place over 40-100,000 years, it takes millions. I'm spitting out what I learned in the classroom, based on the teachings of our textbooks. Please enlighten me, without an insult, and I might take what you're saying as actual science. A nice citation would be wonderful. Demeaning another poster isn't the best way of trying to enlighten another poster to errors in their teachings.
And yes, I do work in a law firm for my field study requirement in college. And because of it, I freaking hate law. Its wonderful they make you wait until your senior year to take these things - nothing like knowing I wasted 4 years. Spend a few hours writing Precipies for Continuances, Motions for Discovery, and Motions to Supress/Quash, and you'll want to blow your brains out.
By the way, thanks for the warm welcome back Asylum, my masochistic side is getting into this now ;) It reminds me of arguing with Pickleprince, except other people are actually getting involved, lol.
Edited, Dec 6th 2006 6:21pm by scubamage
And yes, I do work in a law firm for my field study requirement in college. And because of it, I freaking hate law. Its wonderful they make you wait until your senior year to take these things - nothing like knowing I wasted 4 years. Spend a few hours writing Precipies for Continuances, Motions for Discovery, and Motions to Supress/Quash, and you'll want to blow your brains out.
By the way, thanks for the warm welcome back Asylum, my masochistic side is getting into this now ;) It reminds me of arguing with Pickleprince, except other people are actually getting involved, lol.
Edited, Dec 6th 2006 6:21pm by scubamage
scubamage wrote:
Spend a few hours writing Precipies for Continuances, Motions for Discovery, and Motions to Supress/Quash, and you'll want to blow your brains out.
So what's stopping you?
He doesn't want to leave any thermite evidence, duh.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Celcio wrote:
scubamage wrote:
Spend a few hours writing Precipies for Continuances, Motions for Discovery, and Motions to Supress/Quash, and you'll want to blow your brains out.
So what's stopping you?
I don't want my housemate to get straight A's for the semester, fu[i][/i]cking mooch.
scubamage wrote:
I don't want my housemate to get straight A's for the semester
Those **** A's are way better, good point.
Celcio wrote:
scubamage wrote:
I don't want my housemate to get straight A's for the semester
Those **** A's are way better, good point.
Oooh, a gay joke. Score one for you!
Like ZOMG it is in a book it must be true!
2 classes, how about 3 years of physical anthropology with a focus on both evolution and a clear understanding of past geological periods? That is where I am coming from.
Yes temperatures change and yes it happens all the time. I think the point you are missing 1)is that this time it is exceedingly clear that this isn't part of the natural cycle. 2)While the natural cycle will correct our unnatural affect on it over time, that doesnt stop things like the spread of malaria, changes in global weather patterns, affects on species adapted to unique environmental niches etc. on the short term both economically and on the greater whole.
While I am clearly arrogant as f'uck, I think it is you who are truly the arrogant one if you think that climatologists, geologists, and the rest of the scientific community as a whole hasn't taken a second to factor in something as simple as trends in warming/cooling over time when they have approached the topic of global warming.
2 classes, how about 3 years of physical anthropology with a focus on both evolution and a clear understanding of past geological periods? That is where I am coming from.
Yes temperatures change and yes it happens all the time. I think the point you are missing 1)is that this time it is exceedingly clear that this isn't part of the natural cycle. 2)While the natural cycle will correct our unnatural affect on it over time, that doesnt stop things like the spread of malaria, changes in global weather patterns, affects on species adapted to unique environmental niches etc. on the short term both economically and on the greater whole.
While I am clearly arrogant as f'uck, I think it is you who are truly the arrogant one if you think that climatologists, geologists, and the rest of the scientific community as a whole hasn't taken a second to factor in something as simple as trends in warming/cooling over time when they have approached the topic of global warming.
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
scubamage wrote:
Oooh, a gay joke. Score one for you!
bodhisattva wrote:
Is that all you got~! I so expected more
Cool, mix and match replies - it'd be better if Alla gave us Granimals tags though.
bodhisattva wrote:
Like ZOMG it is in a book it must be true!
2 classes, how about 3 years of physical anthropology with a focus on both evolution and a clear understanding of past geological periods? That is where I am coming from.
Yes temperatures change and yes it happens all the time. I think the point you are missing 1)is that this time it is exceedingly clear that this isn't part of the natural cycle. 2)While the natural cycle will correct our unnatural affect on it over time, that doesnt stop things like the spread of malaria, changes in global weather patterns, affects on species adapted to unique environmental niches etc. on the short term both economically and on the greater whole.
While I am clearly arrogant as f'uck, I think it is you who are truly the arrogant one if you think that climatologists, geologists, and the rest of the scientific community as a whole hasn't taken a second to factor in something as simple as trends in warming/cooling over time when they have approached the topic of global warming.
2 classes, how about 3 years of physical anthropology with a focus on both evolution and a clear understanding of past geological periods? That is where I am coming from.
Yes temperatures change and yes it happens all the time. I think the point you are missing 1)is that this time it is exceedingly clear that this isn't part of the natural cycle. 2)While the natural cycle will correct our unnatural affect on it over time, that doesnt stop things like the spread of malaria, changes in global weather patterns, affects on species adapted to unique environmental niches etc. on the short term both economically and on the greater whole.
While I am clearly arrogant as f'uck, I think it is you who are truly the arrogant one if you think that climatologists, geologists, and the rest of the scientific community as a whole hasn't taken a second to factor in something as simple as trends in warming/cooling over time when they have approached the topic of global warming.
I admitted that humans were probobly accelerating things in my original post, look to see. I mean, NOAA is still reporting record acceleration of rising water temperatures off of Greenland (I think thats where the bouys were from the article). There are some scary things happening. I just never bought into humans/cows/jets being the sole cause of it, I just figured we were accelerating a natural process which was going to happen regardless. Don't get me wrong, I do believe in global warming, I just don't think humans are the sole cause.
Quote:
Don't get me wrong, I do believe in global warming, I just don't think humans are the sole cause.
No, but we are the cause that we can affect.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Samira wrote:
Quote:
Don't get me wrong, I do believe in global warming, I just don't think humans are the sole cause.
No, but we are the cause that we can affect.
Exactly. I would also like to state that accelerating + exacerbating is probably a better way of describing it.
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
Samira wrote:
Quote:
Don't get me wrong, I do believe in global warming, I just don't think humans are the sole cause.
No, but we are the cause that we can affect.
I read somewhere that pollution from fossil fuels only amounts to approximately 8% of the global CO2 concentration, 3% of that from the US. If that study was correct, then is it still true that humans are going to make an impact on the "Global Warming" trend?
Only asking, knowledge = good.
One word that gets bandied about when discussing the environment or ecosystems is "fragile". Many of the systems occur in some sort of balance and, the more humans affect that, the more dramatically it changes. Furthermore, once things come out of balance, they tend to continue to move at a faster rate. For example, it's a known fact that polar ice is melting. As more ice melts and more surface area changes from light reflecting ice to light absorbing water, the water warms up and melts the ice faster which means less ice to reflect the light, etc.
As another example, I cited an article discussing the carbon sinks of the ocean (i.e. the oceans absorb a percentage of the CO2 in the air). However, the more CO2 the oceans absorb, the longer it takes for it to move into other forms (into the seabed, coral, ocean life, etc) and the CO2 saturated oceans absorb less and less meaning more CO2 stays in the atmosphere, heating the planet faster still. Similiar studies have been done regarding the amount of carbon terrestial ecosystems can absorb and what their limits are.
Does 8% matter? Maybe. Most scientists seem to think so. If you have a scale in relative balance with 100lbs on each side and throw an extra eight pounds on one end, the scale is going to tip, right? Or, if it was already tipping slightly, it'll tip faster now, won't it?
The idea that the earth is a great big place and we can't hurt it is a naive one. Once upon a time, people thought that the oceans were vast enough that we could dump waste into them and fish from them forever without consequence. Now we see studies saying that oceanic fishing is going to be a dead industry in the next forty or so years because each year the average fish caught is smaller and smaller and the "best" fish species are practically nonexistant. We've also found massive "seas" of chemical and solid waste swirling in the ocean currents which grow faster than they can be broken down. Not that the state of the oceans and global warming are exactly the same thing, but you get my point.
As another example, I cited an article discussing the carbon sinks of the ocean (i.e. the oceans absorb a percentage of the CO2 in the air). However, the more CO2 the oceans absorb, the longer it takes for it to move into other forms (into the seabed, coral, ocean life, etc) and the CO2 saturated oceans absorb less and less meaning more CO2 stays in the atmosphere, heating the planet faster still. Similiar studies have been done regarding the amount of carbon terrestial ecosystems can absorb and what their limits are.
Does 8% matter? Maybe. Most scientists seem to think so. If you have a scale in relative balance with 100lbs on each side and throw an extra eight pounds on one end, the scale is going to tip, right? Or, if it was already tipping slightly, it'll tip faster now, won't it?
The idea that the earth is a great big place and we can't hurt it is a naive one. Once upon a time, people thought that the oceans were vast enough that we could dump waste into them and fish from them forever without consequence. Now we see studies saying that oceanic fishing is going to be a dead industry in the next forty or so years because each year the average fish caught is smaller and smaller and the "best" fish species are practically nonexistant. We've also found massive "seas" of chemical and solid waste swirling in the ocean currents which grow faster than they can be broken down. Not that the state of the oceans and global warming are exactly the same thing, but you get my point.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Samira wrote:
True, true. Joph's Law it is: As an argument continues, the probability of a troll making fun of his opponent's post count when cornered and outgunned approaches one.
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
Jophiel wrote:
One word that gets bandied about when discussing the environment or ecosystems is "fragile". Many of the systems occur in some sort of balance and, the more humans affect that, the more dramatically it changes. Furthermore, once things come out of balance, they tend to continue to move at a faster rate. For example, it's a known fact that polar ice is melting. As more ice melts and more surface area changes from light reflecting ice to light absorbing water, the water warms up and melts the ice faster which means less ice to reflect the light, etc.
As another example, I cited an article discussing the carbon sinks of the ocean (i.e. the oceans absorb a percentage of the CO2 in the air). However, the more CO2 the oceans absorb, the longer it takes for it to move into other forms (into the seabed, coral, ocean life, etc) and the CO2 saturated oceans absorb less and less meaning more CO2 stays in the atmosphere, heating the planet faster still. Similiar studies have been done regarding the amount of carbon terrestial ecosystems can absorb and what their limits are.
Does 8% matter? Maybe. Most scientists seem to think so. If you have a scale in relative balance with 100lbs on each side and throw an extra eight pounds on one end, the scale is going to tip, right? Or, if it was already tipping slightly, it'll tip faster now, won't it?
The idea that the earth is a great big place and we can't hurt it is a naive one. Once upon a time, people thought that the oceans were vast enough that we could dump waste into them and fish from them forever without consequence. Now we see studies saying that oceanic fishing is going to be a dead industry in the next forty or so years because each year the average fish caught is smaller and smaller and the "best" fish species are practically nonexistant. We've also found massive "seas" of chemical and solid waste swirling in the ocean currents which grow faster than they can be broken down. Not that the state of the oceans and global warming are exactly the same thing, but you get my point.
As another example, I cited an article discussing the carbon sinks of the ocean (i.e. the oceans absorb a percentage of the CO2 in the air). However, the more CO2 the oceans absorb, the longer it takes for it to move into other forms (into the seabed, coral, ocean life, etc) and the CO2 saturated oceans absorb less and less meaning more CO2 stays in the atmosphere, heating the planet faster still. Similiar studies have been done regarding the amount of carbon terrestial ecosystems can absorb and what their limits are.
Does 8% matter? Maybe. Most scientists seem to think so. If you have a scale in relative balance with 100lbs on each side and throw an extra eight pounds on one end, the scale is going to tip, right? Or, if it was already tipping slightly, it'll tip faster now, won't it?
The idea that the earth is a great big place and we can't hurt it is a naive one. Once upon a time, people thought that the oceans were vast enough that we could dump waste into them and fish from them forever without consequence. Now we see studies saying that oceanic fishing is going to be a dead industry in the next forty or so years because each year the average fish caught is smaller and smaller and the "best" fish species are practically nonexistant. We've also found massive "seas" of chemical and solid waste swirling in the ocean currents which grow faster than they can be broken down. Not that the state of the oceans and global warming are exactly the same thing, but you get my point.
It's not so much that I think we can't affect, the world IS a big place, but in turn, there are A LOT of people. But I don't think we are as much as so many people think, though like you said, if it's already in a balance, then we add even just a little bit the snowball effect kicks in. Now I'm really thinking. This was also a perfect time for this to come up as there is a 2 day 'educational session' about global warming going on in one of my classes. Thanks for putting that in perspective for me though, Joph. It's definitely something to think about.
Red wrote
Joph wrote
I probably didn't explain my position very well, sorry. And its because I have read a lot of studies on the issue that I find myself unable to come down totally on one side of the debate or the other. I'll try and clarify, but seeing as how the rest of the thread is pretty grumpy, I'm expecting a bashing from one place or another.
Firstly, I wasnt trying to suggest that I'd found an Achilles heel, I was just mentioning what got me interested in the first place.
Im not for a moment suggesting we do nothing! Rather, I am suggesting that we do should be doing something that would make a difference. Something that would make a difference to us all, right now, not at some vague point in time in the future.
I dont deny for a moment that there is a change in the climate. Anyone can see that it is different than it was. But, I am not convinced that the change is entirely due to what we're doing.
I think one thing everyone agrees on is that the planet moves thru cycles, always has and always will. We may, or may not, be 'causing' it (global warming), but the arguement that we are accelerating it, imo carries more weight.
What I am trying to point out is that there are massive amounts of money being spent on researching this and that weather phenomenon, and huge amounts of studies being published by an ever-growing number of 'experts' ( a veritable 'industry, if you will), with sometimes very nebulous results, and from those results, were being told that the end of the world is upon us, that we must change our ways or we are all doomed.
I'm sorry if this offends anyone, but I dont believe that global warming is something we should be spending so much energy (no pun intended) upon, when there are so many things we could be doing that would have an almost immediate effect.
Having said that tho, I do believe that we're turning this world into a garbage dump.
And therein lies my point. You say, we gotta do something to improve our environment. Absolutely! we should do something. But how about doing something about all the things that we know for sure are damaging our environment. Things that we know are stuffing up 'Spaceship Earth'.
A few humble suggestions for things that need immediate attention would be new regulations on the construction of oil tankers. The single skinned rust buckets floating around our oceans ready to spill their crap on our beaches the minute they bump into something sticking up in their way. The cessation of the use of known toxic chemicals that we fling around the farmlands of the world in the pursuit of ever better crop yields. The massive overuse of packaging that covers and wraps everything we buy. The banning of single use plastic bags (already done in Mumbai). What about the recycling of car tyres into road surfaces, rather than burning them. Thats gotta help the environment, no? What about changing our attitudes to our diet, so we dont destroy rainforest, to grow soya beans, to feed cows, so lard-asses can eat burgers for a dollar?
I could go on (yeah, yeah). but thats what I mean by focusing in the wrong direction. We could be doing something about our environment. Today. But no, we are spending so much time and effort worrying about the weather on such a gigantic (to most of us unimaginable scale), that we are allowing ourselves to completly ignore our immediate surroundings, ie. the things we could be doing something about, far more cheaply and simply.
I really believe that by concentrating on the "Climate", we are allowing ourselves to think that the problem is so huge, so totally beyond our ken, that our attitude to our environment is being damaged to the stage where we start to think "well theres fuck all we can do about it, I'll keep on chucking my garbage out of the car window/leaving my **** all over the beach. Why shouldn't I? We're all doomed anyway!"
We need to start fixing stuff for sure. But fixing the climate?? I think if we start having some respect for mother earth, then She will be capable of looking after herself. And Us.
But what do I know, Im a surfer, who spends 10-12 hours a week in the ocean. I use solar/wind power at home. Recycle my rainwater. Keep chickens for composting my veggie waste. Don't eat meat. Am replanting my 2 acres in native trees. And never use plastic bags.
We cant 'all' do 'everything'. But if we all try and do 'something', the world would be a better place.
The whole global warming thing makes me think of those scientists who are trying to ressurect the thylacine, when their money and resources would surely be better spent protecting the species that we havn't killed yet....
As in health, it would be better to prevent the disease, but theres far more money to be made in selling the 'cure'.
Quote:
I can't understand your position, to be honest. Even if global warming is not man-made, wouldn't it better anyway to change our way of life a little in order to make the planet cleaner? How can it be a bad thing to lower carbon emissions, and for people to become more conscious of the environment?
Joph wrote
Quote:
Go read some actual studies on the matter rather than someone's blog before you act as if you found the Achille's heel in the whole debate.
I probably didn't explain my position very well, sorry. And its because I have read a lot of studies on the issue that I find myself unable to come down totally on one side of the debate or the other. I'll try and clarify, but seeing as how the rest of the thread is pretty grumpy, I'm expecting a bashing from one place or another.
Firstly, I wasnt trying to suggest that I'd found an Achilles heel, I was just mentioning what got me interested in the first place.
Im not for a moment suggesting we do nothing! Rather, I am suggesting that we do should be doing something that would make a difference. Something that would make a difference to us all, right now, not at some vague point in time in the future.
I dont deny for a moment that there is a change in the climate. Anyone can see that it is different than it was. But, I am not convinced that the change is entirely due to what we're doing.
I think one thing everyone agrees on is that the planet moves thru cycles, always has and always will. We may, or may not, be 'causing' it (global warming), but the arguement that we are accelerating it, imo carries more weight.
What I am trying to point out is that there are massive amounts of money being spent on researching this and that weather phenomenon, and huge amounts of studies being published by an ever-growing number of 'experts' ( a veritable 'industry, if you will), with sometimes very nebulous results, and from those results, were being told that the end of the world is upon us, that we must change our ways or we are all doomed.
I'm sorry if this offends anyone, but I dont believe that global warming is something we should be spending so much energy (no pun intended) upon, when there are so many things we could be doing that would have an almost immediate effect.
Having said that tho, I do believe that we're turning this world into a garbage dump.
And therein lies my point. You say, we gotta do something to improve our environment. Absolutely! we should do something. But how about doing something about all the things that we know for sure are damaging our environment. Things that we know are stuffing up 'Spaceship Earth'.
A few humble suggestions for things that need immediate attention would be new regulations on the construction of oil tankers. The single skinned rust buckets floating around our oceans ready to spill their crap on our beaches the minute they bump into something sticking up in their way. The cessation of the use of known toxic chemicals that we fling around the farmlands of the world in the pursuit of ever better crop yields. The massive overuse of packaging that covers and wraps everything we buy. The banning of single use plastic bags (already done in Mumbai). What about the recycling of car tyres into road surfaces, rather than burning them. Thats gotta help the environment, no? What about changing our attitudes to our diet, so we dont destroy rainforest, to grow soya beans, to feed cows, so lard-asses can eat burgers for a dollar?
I could go on (yeah, yeah). but thats what I mean by focusing in the wrong direction. We could be doing something about our environment. Today. But no, we are spending so much time and effort worrying about the weather on such a gigantic (to most of us unimaginable scale), that we are allowing ourselves to completly ignore our immediate surroundings, ie. the things we could be doing something about, far more cheaply and simply.
I really believe that by concentrating on the "Climate", we are allowing ourselves to think that the problem is so huge, so totally beyond our ken, that our attitude to our environment is being damaged to the stage where we start to think "well theres fuck all we can do about it, I'll keep on chucking my garbage out of the car window/leaving my **** all over the beach. Why shouldn't I? We're all doomed anyway!"
We need to start fixing stuff for sure. But fixing the climate?? I think if we start having some respect for mother earth, then She will be capable of looking after herself. And Us.
But what do I know, Im a surfer, who spends 10-12 hours a week in the ocean. I use solar/wind power at home. Recycle my rainwater. Keep chickens for composting my veggie waste. Don't eat meat. Am replanting my 2 acres in native trees. And never use plastic bags.
We cant 'all' do 'everything'. But if we all try and do 'something', the world would be a better place.
The whole global warming thing makes me think of those scientists who are trying to ressurect the thylacine, when their money and resources would surely be better spent protecting the species that we havn't killed yet....
As in health, it would be better to prevent the disease, but theres far more money to be made in selling the 'cure'.
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
Just a point for Bhodi:
As someone already pointed out, there was the whole Little Ice Age thing (yes. It's a wiki. Feel free to do more research if you want, it's not like this is contested science. Just largely unknown, especially by those most adamant about Global Warming).
The point being that it's not necessarily unusual or alarming that temperatures rose by 1.5 degrees over the 20th century. If we were indeed recovering from a 600 year long cooling cycle, one would expect that temperatures would get warmer (else the cool period would not have ended and we'd still be in it, right?).
This is my biggist problem with most of the proponents of "Global Warming". Because they tend to act based on some very simplistic facts that don't necessarily support the conclusions they're trying to reach. It is true that global temperatures have increased over the last century. It's also true that this is "global warming". And any climatologist you ask will say as much. But what you can't conclude is that this warming trend is the result of human activity, nor can you conclude that it's harmful in any way to the long term climate pattern of the Earth. Any such conclusion is a wild guess at best.
Does that mean we shouldn't be concerned about pollution? Of course not. But it means that we shouldn't run around like Chicken Little, spouting rhetoric designed to frighten people into potentially wasteful actions. What we should be doing is making honest assessments of our pollution levels and determining the most effective solutions, both in terms of end result *and* cost. Because what tends to happen right now is that specific industries get targetted by environmental groups, not based on an accurate assessment of that industries actual relative impact on the eco-system, but based on other political reasons that have nothing to do with protecting the environment.
The Kyoto accords is a fantastic example of this in action. If you actually read the accords, and you have a lick of common sense and a reasonable capability at logical thinking, you'll quickly come to the conclusion that Kyoto is really a global industrial distrubution plan, designed to shift industry from developed to non-developed countries. That is its primary purpose. In fact, it's stated purpose (reducing global polution) is made *worse* if Kyoto is applied globally, not better. But most people who support environmental activism don't know that, or don't care. They just hear the top-sheet info about what Kyoto is supposed to do, assume that's what it actually does, and bash anything and anyone who does not support it.
As someone already pointed out, there was the whole Little Ice Age thing (yes. It's a wiki. Feel free to do more research if you want, it's not like this is contested science. Just largely unknown, especially by those most adamant about Global Warming).
The point being that it's not necessarily unusual or alarming that temperatures rose by 1.5 degrees over the 20th century. If we were indeed recovering from a 600 year long cooling cycle, one would expect that temperatures would get warmer (else the cool period would not have ended and we'd still be in it, right?).
This is my biggist problem with most of the proponents of "Global Warming". Because they tend to act based on some very simplistic facts that don't necessarily support the conclusions they're trying to reach. It is true that global temperatures have increased over the last century. It's also true that this is "global warming". And any climatologist you ask will say as much. But what you can't conclude is that this warming trend is the result of human activity, nor can you conclude that it's harmful in any way to the long term climate pattern of the Earth. Any such conclusion is a wild guess at best.
Does that mean we shouldn't be concerned about pollution? Of course not. But it means that we shouldn't run around like Chicken Little, spouting rhetoric designed to frighten people into potentially wasteful actions. What we should be doing is making honest assessments of our pollution levels and determining the most effective solutions, both in terms of end result *and* cost. Because what tends to happen right now is that specific industries get targetted by environmental groups, not based on an accurate assessment of that industries actual relative impact on the eco-system, but based on other political reasons that have nothing to do with protecting the environment.
The Kyoto accords is a fantastic example of this in action. If you actually read the accords, and you have a lick of common sense and a reasonable capability at logical thinking, you'll quickly come to the conclusion that Kyoto is really a global industrial distrubution plan, designed to shift industry from developed to non-developed countries. That is its primary purpose. In fact, it's stated purpose (reducing global polution) is made *worse* if Kyoto is applied globally, not better. But most people who support environmental activism don't know that, or don't care. They just hear the top-sheet info about what Kyoto is supposed to do, assume that's what it actually does, and bash anything and anyone who does not support it.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
Kyoto is really a global industrial distrubution plan,
/nod
I feel dirty now
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
Jophiel wrote:
One word that gets bandied about when discussing the environment or ecosystems is "fragile". Many of the systems occur in some sort of balance and, the more humans affect that, the more dramatically it changes. Furthermore, once things come out of balance, they tend to continue to move at a faster rate. For example, it's a known fact that polar ice is melting. As more ice melts and more surface area changes from light reflecting ice to light absorbing water, the water warms up and melts the ice faster which means less ice to reflect the light, etc.
Yeah. People use the term "fragile" to describe the eco-system all the time. I think that's a misleading term though. It's not that the eco-system itself is fragile, but that the balance of temperatures and whatnot that we as humans prefer is. The environment itself can't be called fragile. It has managed to be hit with massive volcanoes, massive meteor strikes, massive wildfires, floods, earthquakes, etc, and yet it's managed to remain life-sustaining for millions of years.
In that context, it's unlikely that man's impact will prevent it from continuing to do so. The effects we're worried about isn't so much "breaking" nature, but in what way nature will react to our impact. The earth goes through cycles of climate. It does so as a natural reaction to other effects, both internal and external. One of the more amusing shows I watched recently was specifically about global warming and it's possible risks. It was one of those history channel dealies and seemed to be exploring the "Day after Tomorrow" scenario. What I found amusing was the constant talk about different possible reactions that might occur in nature as a result of human impact. And as each one was described, they would put this ominous music on and the announcer would say "This has happened before!", and would proceed to describe some historical evidence of some massive and sudden climatological shift.
Why I was amused was that every single one of those "It happened before" situations occured *before* man started pumping stuff into the atmosphere, so if the point was to support the idea that man was likely to cause these horrible things, it was somewhat lost by the *fact* that these things also occured, over and over, without man doing a darn thing to cause them.
Again. Don't interpret this to mean that I don't think that man's activities has any impact, or that we *shouldn't* work to minimize that impact. I'm simply saying that we need to put our actions and their possible effect in the perspective of history. Another way to look at it is a simple analogy: One could look at the odds of dying in a car crash and conclude that no one should ever ride or drive in a car. However, when put in the context of the odds of dying of all the other things that you might die from if you were doing them *instead* of driving/riding in a car, it's not as alarming. Combine again with the benefits of driving/riding in a car, the the issue becomes even less clear. Most of us choose to drive and ride in cars because the benefits of doing so outweigh the risks.
And that's what really tends to be missing in this debate. We're not talking about an absolute here. We're talking about a relative value. How much more likely are we to be hit by a harmful climate change as a result of man's impact on the environment? And how much harm will that climate change cause? And how does that compare to the benefits we gain by doing the things that are causing that impact? Do the benefits outweigh the risks? Are we past that point yet? Or still moving towards it?
Pretty much none of the discussion about this issue really addresses that aspect of it. But it should. Because just as there's a lot of good to be said about making cars safer to drive, it's equally important to realize that were "making cars safer to drive", not tossing our shoes into the car making machines so as to prevent deaths due to car crashes. Right now, it really seems as though that's the operating philosophy of most environmental groups. Many of them are trying to find ways to fight industries that they don't like because they pollute rather then working to find ways to make that industry "safer" for the environment.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Could we get back to the epic fuck up that is the Bush foreign policy in the middle east please?
Im getting sick and bloody tired of agreeing with Gbajis posts.
the first 3 paras anyway....
The car stuff was a bit unnecessary
Im getting sick and bloody tired of agreeing with Gbajis posts.
the first 3 paras anyway....
The car stuff was a bit unnecessary
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
gbaji wrote:
And any climatologist you ask will say as much. But what you can't conclude is that this warming trend is the result of human activity, nor can you conclude that it's harmful in any way to the long term climate pattern of the Earth. Any such conclusion is a wild guess at best.
Now I'm sure that you took a climatology course for your computer degree or something but I'm going to give a little more credibility to the guys actually studying this than you. And the guys studying this, who I have linked to and listed enough times already, say you're wrong. And I'm sure that the fellows at the American Geophysical Union know that CO2 is heavier than air. I'm sure that the folks at the National Academy of Sciences are aware of the "Little Ice Age". Volcanos produce CO2? I'd bet you a solid five bucks that the science wonks at the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration have read a couple National Geographic articles about it. And, you know what? They still agree that human activities are accelerating the global warming trend and that it has the certain potential to make drastic changes to the planet's climate.
But Gbaji says it's not unusual or alarming. Well, okay then. I can see where Gbaji would be better educated on the subject, having probably read a couple Wikipedia articles and heard Limbaugh talk about it on the radio.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
/jumps up and down at the back....
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
Gbaji wrote:
It's not that the eco-system itself is fragile, but that the balance of temperatures and whatnot that we as humans prefer is
And certainly not under the retarded logic of "Gee, I bet it'll happen sooner or later anyway so who cares?"
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Recent Visitors: 111
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (111)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Global warming is a crock
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC