The Global Warming Myth?

[Professor_X]

[quote]Lorisco wrote:

It does not take a rocket scientist to know that continuing to pollute the earth will have some consequence, even if that consequence is a lower quality of life for all of us. I for one don’t what to live on a trash heap. I want to see blue skies and not smog. I want to swim in the ocean and not have to get a penicillin shot afterwards because of the pollution.

Just wanting to live in a world that is worth living in should be motivation enough to deal with pollution in a responsible manner.

[/quote]

So why have some people turned this into some kind of pollitical issue where they completely disregard the health of the planet simply because it might be a position held by someone in another party? You would think this would be the one area we all would agree that something needs to be done. That isn’t “fearmongering”. It’s common sense.

[Lorisco]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Lorisco wrote:

It does not take a rocket scientist to know that continuing to pollute the earth will have some consequence, even if that consequence is a lower quality of life for all of us. I for one don’t what to live on a trash heap. I want to see blue skies and not smog. I want to swim in the ocean and not have to get a penicillin shot afterwards because of the pollution.

Just wanting to live in a world that is worth living in should be motivation enough to deal with pollution in a responsible manner.

So why have some people turned this into some kind of pollitical issue where they completely disregard the health of the planet simply because it might be a position held by someone in another party? You would think this would be the one area we all would agree that something needs to be done. That isn’t “fearmongering”. It’s common sense.[/quote]

I would then ask; why has the other party used this as a political issue, not to actually fix anything, just to get votes?

I think there is enough blame to go around on this one. But, pushing it as a political issue with sketchy science has made it worse. Now it gives people an excuse to not want to deal with pollution at all.

I think if both parties could come together to reduce pollution without all the scare tactics and political rhetoric it would make more of in impact.

[lothario1132]

Was this thread about GLOBAL WARMING or not? You guys have twisted this into a pollution debate, which isn’t even a debate because all of us without exception want a clean local environment.

My whole point about the fearmongering was in the bullshit science which was concocted to demonstrate that humans are killing our atmosphere… which we quite obviously aren’t. There is no global warming, unless you want that measurement error of 0.6 degrees centigrade to mean that the world is going to end.

Is there anyone in this thread that thinks we humans have caused and are continuing to cause a disastrous climate change? Anybody?

Is there anybody in this thread who believes that the Kyoto Accord is a necessary thing because otherwise we are doomed to melt Antarctica? Anybody?

[Professor_X]

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Was this thread about GLOBAL WARMING or not? You guys have twisted this into a pollution debate, which isn’t even a debate because all of us without exception want a clean local environment.

My whole point about the fearmongering was in the bullshit science which was concocted to demonstrate that humans are killing our atmosphere… which we quite obviously aren’t. There is no global warming, unless you want that measurement error of 0.6 degrees centigrade to mean that the world is going to end.

Is there anyone in this thread that thinks we humans have caused and are continuing to cause a disastrous climate change? Anybody?

Is there anybody in this thread who believes that the Kyoto Accord is a necessary thing because otherwise we are doomed to melt Antarctica? Anybody?[/quote]

Wouldn’t a better question be, “are the proposed methods for changing any believed damage actually GOOD or not for the people on this planet”? I could honestly care less about the junk science if it helps the general public become more conscious of their environment. To tell the truth, I think anyone saying FOR SURE that we don’t have any effect at all on our climate is just as retarded as those claiming the world is about to fall apart tomorrow.

[lothario1132]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I could honestly care less about the junk science if it helps the general public become more conscious of their environment.[/quote]

Ohhhhh man. I’m sorry, but this is where you and I are diametrically opposed. I cannot tolerate lies and bad science parading around as truth. Especially when it is being used to manipulate people. Fuck that.

To tell the truth, I think anyone saying FOR SURE that we don’t have any effect at all on our climate is just as retarded as those claiming the world is about to fall apart tomorrow.

What the truth is… that’s what’s important here IMO. What we’ve found is that our effect is much smaller than what is popularly believed by the MSM and the climate alarmists. We are not destroying the ozone layer. We are not producing CO2 gas in any where near the amounts that are needed to convert our atmosphere to a greenhouse.

Let’s keep our minds foused on honesty. If you want people to stop producing smog (which IS something our technology makes if we aren’t careful), then you don’t do it by lying about shit. Our cars produce smog. They do not cause a climate shift which leads to the end of all life as we know it.

Hybrid technology = good. But not because you’re saving the world. You’re helping to keep your neighborhood clean. That’s it.

[system]

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Look - when a single volcanic erpution can do more environmental damage than everything the humans have “done” to the earth since the beginning to time - it seems to me that we are nothing more than a bunch of army ants at a picnic.[/quote]

Why do these threads turn into so much angst?

RJ, your post misses the point. We can’t stop volcanoes. We can, however, at least attempt to minimize human inflicted damage. Of course, blindly throwing money is the wrong way. Additionally, the dollar will stretch the farthest in heavily industrialized, heavily polluted 3rd world locations such as India, Indonesia, China, etc. Further refining US and Western environemental policy is a (relative) waste of time.

[Professor_X]

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Ohhhhh man. I’m sorry, but this is where you and I are diametrically opposed. I cannot tolerate lies and bad science parading around as truth. Especially when it is being used to manipulate people. Fuck that.[/quote]

Again, how about that “war on TERROR”?

[quote]
What the truth is… that’s what’s important here IMO. What we’ve found is that our effect is much smaller than what is popularly believed by the MSM and the climate alarmists. We are not destroying the ozone layer. We are not producing CO2 gas in any where near the amounts that are needed to convert our atmosphere to a greenhouse.[/quote]

You don’t believe these things are cumulative? Should we wait until things are irrepareable before we do something about it?

[quote]
Let’s keep our minds foused on honesty. If you want people to stop producing smog (which IS something our technology makes if we aren’t careful), then you don’t do it by lying about shit. Our cars produce smog. They do not cause a climate shift which leads to the end of all life as we know it.[/quote]

How do you know what our “smog” can do over hundreds of years? Are cars even 120 years old yet?

[lothario1132]

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Ohhhhh man. I’m sorry, but this is where you and I are diametrically opposed. I cannot tolerate lies and bad science parading around as truth. Especially when it is being used to manipulate people. Fuck that.

Professor X wrote:
Again, how about that “war on TERROR”?[/quote]
Umm… you might have a point if some terrorists DIDN’T fly a couple of airplanes into the twin towers. The threat is not based on fear, it is real. Perhaps some of the measures the administration have taken are questionable, but that is for another thread.

You don’t believe these things are cumulative? Should we wait until things are irrepareable before we do something about it?

I will repeat myself. If we set off all of our nuclear weapons, it would fuck the earth up for a little while. We might even manage to make our species extinct. The earth will bounce back just fine after a number of years.

I think this is the stumbling block here. There is no such thing as irreparable human-caused damage. Remember what this planet has been through? Dinosaurs all over the planet wiped out from the Yucatan meteor strike some millions of years ago.

– And here the Earth is still, teeming with life like always.

[quote]How do you know what our “smog” can do over hundreds of years? Are cars even 120 years old yet?
[/quote]
I know what it CAN’T do: Destroy the atmosphere.

[ephrem]

[quote]rainjack wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…you’d be right about the vulcano-thing if it weren’t for other factors. If the planet would be untouched, an eruption would not cause that much damage, and gigantic vulcano eruptions are few and far between.

It’s volcano. Not a character on Star Trek.

But as to what you say - it makes absolutely no sense. “If the planet would be untouched”? What the hell does that even mean?

If volcanic erpuptions were any more common - earth would not be able to sustain life. That’s how “untouched” volcanic eruptions leave the earth.

However, mankind is destroying natural resources at an alarming pace. The equatorial rainforests are still cut by loggers, and the northern arboreal forest wait the same fate…

I don’t understand what that has to do with the earth’s ability to sustain life. It’s trees. We call those renewable resorces. Not depletable resources.

Alarming rate? by whose standard? That is a subjective statement at best. There are a lot more people on theis earth than there used to be - that in and of itself requires increased consumption of resources.

Please - your argument is weak.

…we’ve almost reached a point were earth can’t maintain a natural status-quo between pollution and absorption of pollutants. If we continue to pollute and destroy earths ability to counter that pollution, it won’t be that long before we suffer the consequences…

That’s utter enviro bullshit. Let me go back to my volcano example: The earth cleans itself all the time, regardless of who makes the mess. It always will.

You give humans way too much credit. But I do notice that you take the time to use valuable natural resources, using a plastic computer, wasting electricity, and propping up the evil battery industry that pollutes and destroys our earth in an effort to tell me I am wrong.

Maybe I will give a shit when all the save the earth freaks actuall practice what they preach. Or is it just enough for you to feel guilty about raping the land?

…perhaps it won’t be within your lifetime, but surely you agree that we need to pass on this planet in such a condition that ensures prolonged habitation?

[/quote]

…your willful ignorance is rather disconcerting, and i can only assume you’re not aware of how the planet as a system works. If you did, you wouldn’t dismiss the influence we have so quickly. I’m gonna leave it at that RJ, have a nice day…

[ephrem]

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
lothario1132 wrote:
Ohhhhh man. I’m sorry, but this is where you and I are diametrically opposed. I cannot tolerate lies and bad science parading around as truth. Especially when it is being used to manipulate people. Fuck that.

Professor X wrote:
Again, how about that “war on TERROR”?
Umm… you might have a point if some terrorists DIDN’T fly a couple of airplanes into the twin towers. The threat is not based on fear, it is real. Perhaps some of the measures the administration have taken are questionable, but that is for another thread.

You don’t believe these things are cumulative? Should we wait until things are irrepareable before we do something about it?
I will repeat myself. If we set off all of our nuclear weapons, it would fuck the earth up for a little while. We might even manage to make our species extinct. The earth will bounce back just fine after a number of years.

I think this is the stumbling block here. There is no such thing as irreparable human-caused damage. Remember what this planet has been through? Dinosaurs all over the planet wiped out from the Yucatan meteor strike some millions of years ago.

– And here the Earth is still, teeming with life like always.

How do you know what our “smog” can do over hundreds of years? Are cars even 120 years old yet?

I know what it CAN’T do: Destroy the atmosphere.[/quote]

…just one thing lothario: i’m sure the earth will bounce back from anything, i’m just not sure we’ll be here to enjoy it. Isn’t that the issue?

[Professor_X]

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Perhaps some of the measures the administration have taken are questionable[/quote]

Perhaps?

I will repeat myself. If we set off all of our nuclear weapons, it would fuck the earth up for a little while. We might even manage to make our species extinct. The earth will bounce back just fine after a number of years.

Gee, Cletus, this isn’t about whether the Earth will still keep floating in space. If we “might even manage to make our species extinct”…drumroll please…that means we FAILED.

[quote]
I think this is the stumbling block here. There is no such thing as irreparable human-caused damage. Remember what this planet has been through? Dinosaurs all over the planet wiped out from the Yucatan meteor strike some millions of years ago.[/quote]

Is my mic on? This isn’t…is NOT…about whether the planet keeps floating, but whether we kill ourselves through our own actions. How is it you don’t get this?

[quote]
I know what it CAN’T do: Destroy the atmosphere.[/quote]

You believe that humans abolutely can not cause any damage to our atmosphere, at all, ever? If you believe this, you are as much of a nut job as anyone quoting “junk science” in an effort to claim the sky is falling today.

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]JOG wrote:
… Further refining US and Western environemental policy is a (relative) waste of time.[/quote]

Key point.

[Zap_Branigan]

How the hell does CO2 emission get compared to detonating enough nukes to destroy life on earth?

Global warming and cooling has been going on since the earth was formed.

Global warming is happening on Mars right now. The sun is putting out more energy now than it has in the recent past.

When you look at the totality of the information if any real global warming is going on on earth right now it is minor.

It is impossible to determine if man is contributing substantially or at all.

The global warming debate is politics.

We should focus on cleaning our air and waterways. There is much work to be done and it is expensive. We have come a long way in the last 30 years but there is more work to be done.

Much real work needs to be done in China, India and other developing countries.

[Lorisco]

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Was this thread about GLOBAL WARMING or not? You guys have twisted this into a pollution debate, which isn’t even a debate because all of us without exception want a clean local environment.

My whole point about the fearmongering was in the bullshit science which was concocted to demonstrate that humans are killing our atmosphere… which we quite obviously aren’t. There is no global warming, unless you want that measurement error of 0.6 degrees centigrade to mean that the world is going to end.

Is there anyone in this thread that thinks we humans have caused and are continuing to cause a disastrous climate change? Anybody?

Is there anybody in this thread who believes that the Kyoto Accord is a necessary thing because otherwise we are doomed to melt Antarctica? Anybody?[/quote]

I agree that the left jumping on this junk science bandwagon called Global Warming and pushing it as proven science is fear mongering. I also think that this very fact has caused a lot of issues with the environmental position in general as it makes people not want to listen to anything else you have to say.

Crying “wolf” about the environment for political means has damaged the cause of those who really want to clean up pollution and make this a better place to live. That is the real tragedy of the GW scam.

[adamhum]

Regardless if global warming is real or not, it’s just stupid to pollute the environment. If it takes a global warming scare for us to pay attention then so be it.

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]adamhum wrote:
Regardless if global warming is real or not, it’s just stupid to pollute the environment. If it takes a global warming scare for us to pay attention then so be it.[/quote]

It doesn’t take a global warming scare to cut pollution and clean up our mess.

In fact it takes away from the real effort.

[vroom]

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
We are not destroying the ozone layer.
[/quote]

Are you suggesting that certain (now mostly unused compounds) don’t actually have an effect on the ozone layer?

We are not producing CO2 gas in any where near the amounts that are needed to convert our atmosphere to a greenhouse.

Are you suggesting that different gases don’t have different effects with respect to reflecting infrared radiation (otherwise known as heat) that otherwise would head off into space?

Let’s keep our minds foused on honesty. If you want people to stop producing smog (which IS something our technology makes if we aren’t careful), then you don’t do it by lying about shit. Our cars produce smog. They do not cause a climate shift which leads to the end of all life as we know it.

There are a whole host of issues, and the lumping of issues happens on both sides of the debate whenever it is convenient.

Hybrid technology = good. But not because you’re saving the world. You’re helping to keep your neighborhood clean. That’s it.

Keeping your neighborhood clean helps people with respiratory issues and allergies, as well as (depending on the severity) various plants or animals that have a harder time of it as well. I’m sure the planet doesn’t actually care if we make ourselves suffer, but why shouldn’t we care?

Again, having an impact on the biology of the planet is certainly something we can do. Having less of an impact, in a multitude of ways, is a good thing. True, not everything is related to the theory of global warming, but you just go relax in your asbestos room and don’t worry about getting lung cancer.

Oops. Look. We do it all the time. We do things we think are safe and find out later that we’ve been screwing up and causing ourselves problems. This is just another area that we should be sensitive to the same effect.

It’s just as silly to blindly believe we can’t have an impact on the planet as it is to imagine that it will blow up tomorrow if we don’t stop all activities on the planet.

A little bit of caution and prudence are in order… although, sadly, it might be inconvenient for various large corporations if we were to exercise such caution. That seems to be the real issue with environmentalism these days, because it isn’t cheap.

[Professor_X]

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
adamhum wrote:
Regardless if global warming is real or not, it’s just stupid to pollute the environment. If it takes a global warming scare for us to pay attention then so be it.

It doesn’t take a global warming scare to cut pollution and clean up our mess.

In fact it takes away from the real effort.[/quote]

I disagree with that. Apathy is growing at alarming rates when it comes to any aspect of our reality outside of the average person’s own immediate vision. Most people don’t know a damn thing unless they are made to fear it and thus pay attention to it. The average person is content being overweight, gulping Starbucks cappucinos by the gallon and ignoring the real issues around them. We grew up on Captain Planet cartoons. What the hell does this generation have? Smokey the Bear is even long gone.

[rainjack]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Lorisco wrote:

It does not take a rocket scientist to know that continuing to pollute the earth will have some consequence, even if that consequence is a lower quality of life for all of us. I for one don’t what to live on a trash heap. I want to see blue skies and not smog. I want to swim in the ocean and not have to get a penicillin shot afterwards because of the pollution.

Just wanting to live in a world that is worth living in should be motivation enough to deal with pollution in a responsible manner.

So why have some people turned this into some kind of pollitical issue where they completely disregard the health of the planet simply because it might be a position held by someone in another party? You would think this would be the one area we all would agree that something needs to be done. That isn’t “fearmongering”. It’s common sense.[/quote]

It is a political issue. Global warming - or at least man’s role, particularly the U.S.'s role - is nothing but a political issue.

When there is real proof that the U.S. is at fault for the risong global mean temps - then maybe I will change my tune. But I doub’t I will have to learn any new songs in the near future.

As for fear mongering - Algore said 22 years ago that we only had 20 years to change our ways and end evil man’s destruction of the ozone, and rising temps. He now says we have only 10 years left to turn around.

But that’s not fear mongering. Nope - not even a little bit, because Algore is a real scientist.

[Professor_X]

Captain Planet says, “What is it harming to scream ‘Global Warming’?”