I urge anyone interested in this subject to do a lot of research before you make a decision.
Far too much conflicting data to only listen to one side.
[quote]vroom wrote:
So just like you may not want to play roulette with your own body, we should not do it with the earth either.
Lorisco, I’m not sure if I was responding to your post or not, but we are already playing roulette right now. Perhaps we should simply stop playing roulette?
Letting nature take it’s course would not be playing roulette. I find it disconcerting to assume that NOT generating an incredible quantity of pollution is suddenly deemed environmental roulette.[/quote]
First of all, I’m not advocating no action. The action is to research the issue more by actualy non-politically motivated scientists to see what is really going on and then act accordingly. Action on the junk science that the media pushes is not the best approach to fix the problem, if one exists. It may make many feel better, but feeling better is not the goal is it?
Next, on what basis do you call C02 pollution? So what you are breathing out right now is pollution? Well, it may be depending on how bad your breath is, but a substance that we naturally breath out and all green plants naturally take in to live, IS NOT POLLUTION!
Remember, it is C02 that the media “scientists” say is causing the warming. So they are saying that a natural substance that actualy helps all plant-life is destroying the earth. This doesn’t make sense and is why more actual reserach needs to be done before we try and fix something that may not exist. It’s also why many other scientists disagree.
Now I realize that there is other pollution in the air like Ozone that we need to stop. But that is NOT what the egg-head media scientists are saying is the issue. So this again, just shows how little is really known about this issue.
So we need to use our heads with this issue, not just kneejerk some half-ass response that may cause more problems than it fixes.
I know the climate is changing but the earth warmed up before and humans had nothing to do with it.
I am sure the human race has speeded this process up a little bit but I do not believe that we can stop the Earth from warming up.
We are all along for the ride.
[quote]oboffill wrote:
JPBear wrote:
I don’t know anything about science but I have always rejected the whole global warming gloom and doom story, mostly because it seems to come from the granola munching tree hugging commie types.
Wow, that’s a damn ignorant comment. Not believing in something just because some crazies believe in it tells the world that you really don’t care about facts. What concerns you is popularity of opinion among like-minded individuals.
The story of the evaporating forest is sad, though.[/quote]
No, I think her issue is that there are no credible facts to base a decision on. So you saying you make your decision on “facts” is as erroneous as making a decision on no facts, becuase there are none.
No one was taking climat temp readings 500 yrs ago, so we have no way of knowing if this is a normal cycle or something we are doing. Rememeber, way back then when lightening would strike a forest it would burn until it rained or until it was all burned. There was no way to put it out. So those millions of acres would put out a hell of a lot of C02.
Anyway, the issue is way too unscientific to be putting people down for not using “science” to make a decision.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Nope, nobody in the world agrees that this global warming thing has any bearing on anyone…
Yep, looks like it would be costly to try to do anything about it. Some excerpts for the lazy… notice that China and India appear to agree also and then see if you can read between the lines.
Dammit, we aren’t playing roulette if we curb our own pollution levels. We are playing roulette now. I hope the human race gets lucky for a change…
–
OSLO (Reuters) - Unconvinced that the world is warming,
President Bush looks set to shun pleas by his main industrial allies to step up a fight against climate change at a Group of Eight summit next month.
–
The July 6-8 talks will test how far other G8 nations, and big developing countries whose leaders will also attend, are willing to stick to U.N. schemes to curb emissions of heat-trapping gases without the United States, the top polluter.
–
Many scientists are aghast – the science academies of all G8 nations as well as of China, India and Brazil said this month that burning of fossil fuels in power plants, cars and factories seemed the main cause of recent warming.
“I think the consensus is very, very strong and very compelling that we are on a warming trend,” said Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of a panel of more than 2,000 scientists that advises the
United Nations on climate policy.
–
Environmentalists hail Blair’s drive against climate change, even though it always seemed wishful thinking that Washington might repay Blair’s support for the 2003 war in
Iraq by joining other G8 countries in capping greenhouse gas emissions.
–
G8 nations Japan, Germany, Britain, France, Italy, Canada and Russia have all signed up for the U.N.'s
Kyoto protocol, which aims to cut emissions of carbon dioxide by 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-12
–
Harlan Watson, the chief U.S. climate negotiator, said a U.S. drive to clean carbon dioxide emissions from coal – now one of the dirtiest fuels – and U.S. energy security were reasons to oppose emissions caps.
“Coal is around 55 percent of our electricity production. We have bountiful supplies of 200 plus years of coal at current usage,” he said. A sudden cap on carbon would force power plants to shift from coal to imports of less polluting natural gas[/quote]
vroom,
While it’s interesting that China’s and India’s science academies hold these opinions, unless their governments are going to reduce their emissions based on those opinions they matter about as much as those of U.S. scientists who agree with them.
In other words, this doesn’t address the issue, which is that, even to the extent you think emissions are a problem, Kyoto is worthless if it exempts China, India, Brazil et al and they don’t reduce their emissions.
[quote]JPBear wrote:
oboffill wrote:
Wow, that’s a damn ignorant comment. Not believing in something just because some crazies believe in it tells the world that you really don’t care about facts.
Read what you wrote there and tell me you are serious.
By the way, I was admitting my ignorance on the subject before offering a little anecdote for interest?s sake. The commie thing was intended to be an overboard, tongue-in-cheek comment. I was trying to give the environmentalist side of the argument some credit by making fun of my own bias.
I’m sorry it went over your puny little head.
[/quote]
You admitted your ignorance in regards to the science of global warming. But you attacked the validity of the argument for global warming with your comment. I just want to point out that those tree huggers are not the only believers of global warming.
Hopefully your puny little head understands.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
oboffill wrote:
JPBear wrote:
I don’t know anything about science but I have always rejected the whole global warming gloom and doom story, mostly because it seems to come from the granola munching tree hugging commie types.
Wow, that’s a damn ignorant comment. Not believing in something just because some crazies believe in it tells the world that you really don’t care about facts. What concerns you is popularity of opinion among like-minded individuals.
The story of the evaporating forest is sad, though.
I think she makes a good point here.
She does not trust the messenger so she questions the message.
[/quote]
So your saying that tree huggers are the only believers of global warming? Because that is false. That is why I thought here comment was ignorant.
[quote]While it’s interesting that China’s and India’s science academies hold these opinions, unless their governments are going to reduce their emissions based on those opinions they matter about as much as those of U.S. scientists who agree with them.
In other words, this doesn’t address the issue, which is that, even to the extent you think emissions are a problem, Kyoto is worthless if it exempts China, India, Brazil et al and they don’t reduce their emissions. [/quote]
BB,
Are you doing the all or nothing thing? It is stupid to throw away a chance at a good start just because not everybody is participating.
If everyone agreed it was a problem, that wouldn’t mean that it would all have to be solved at once. Clearly, those that don’t start off participating would be coerced to participate at a later date.
Anyway, I’m so goddamn sick of reading talking points in here I can’t stand it. Never mind the administration rewriting scientific statements to match their own agenda, no, its the media that is completely biased.
The media reports what groups tell it they have found. Look into the groups, not the damned media.
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
Commies, eh? When was the last time you saw one of those? I guess this is another recycled word, like ‘fascists’?
[/quote]
Not at all. The utopian ideal of granolas and other assorted hippies is pretty close to the goal of Communism. Communist governments and their supporters claim that such an ideal is not possible until human beings change, and thus in the meantime it is necessary to break peoples’ thumbs with a hammer if they speak against the government.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
There’s always a cost/benefit analysis, even w/r/t human life, though it’s not really polite to discuss it in mixed company. We don’t require automakers to include absolute top-of-the-line safety features in every car sold, because it’s a tradeoff. We don’t shut down all our airports even though there’s still a threat terrorists could hijack the planes. It might not be overt, but it’s a cost/benefit analysis that’s occurring.[/quote]
Those are completely different cases – this might surprise you, but the correlation between the safety features of a car and the chances of you getting killed in it is insignificant. It might surprise you to know this, but there are several studies that show that, for example, cars with ABS are NOT less likely to be involved in an accident than cars without ABS. It might even surprise you more to know that cars with airbags are not less likely to be involved in fatal accidents either.
If it did, trust me, you’d have a question in your life insurance asking you “do you drive and does your car have frontal and side airbags?”.
The only exception is the seatbelt, and because of exactly that, my friend, it is NOT an option; Why? The correlation WAS established with seatbelts and hence it became a no-brainer. So now all cars have it and you’ll get a ticket if you don’t use it; and your life insurance coverage might be void if you don’t use it and you die in a car accident!
About airports: there’s absolutely no scientific way you can establish a correlation between closing airports and reducing the chances of a terrorist attack; terrorists would simply find some other way. Actually, basic laws of probability point to any future attack, if it happens, will NOT be involving airplanes at all.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Now, I realize where you’re coming from in terms of how unpredictable a system we’re dealing with – but we have to make a decision one way or another based on the best info available. And there are quantifiable benefits that have occurred in past historical periods of higher average world-wide temperatures – at least in certain regions.[/quote]
As I explained before, that’s not how it works. You cannot assume the best outcome when you cannot assign any probability to it. When you have a range of possible outcomes that have either identical or unknown probabilities, your only way to manage it is to reduce the range by cutting the upper limit.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
So, granted we aren’t going to know for certain what’s going to happen, and if the worst-case scenario were to unfold in which higher temps melted the icecaps and an ice age occurred, or whatever horrible combination is a worst-case scenario, then I’m certain whatever decision we make now will appear to have been wrong in hindsight.[/quote]
Absolutely. But does that justify inaction? On the contrary.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Just as if a massive earthquake hits the eastern seaboard we’ll be kicking ourselves for only having earthquake-safe building standards in CA, or if a huge asteroid comes and hits the earth we’ll wonder why we aren’t currently plowing every last dollar into a program to avert such a happenstance. Perhaps this is because we constantly undervalue the harm and probability of the worst-case scenario, or perhaps it’s because we have limited means and cannot possibly address each and every worst-case scenario out there.[/quote]
Again, your examples are completely different from the climate change problem; we know enough about earthquakes that it is possible to calculate what the probability of a massive Earthquake in the Eastern Seaboard is. We can’t predict when, but we know approximately how probable it is. And it is, for all intents and purposes, p ~ 0. Not only that, we know the probability of smaller earthquakes, and we have a pretty good idea of what the consequences of that would be.
In CA, we know that the probability is palpable, and hence we prepared for it; in fact, we’re spending billions of dollars preparing for it right now, with the Bay Bridge retrofit.
As for the asteroid hitting the Earth; even with the flurry of movies dealing with that situation, the probability of such an event is X (with X being small), and we have a pretty good idea of the consequences; we know that even with all the money in the world put into it, our chances of affecting the worst case scenario are slim. We can’t do anything to change the worst-case scenario, really. So what are we doing about it? We’re reducing the consequences by working in increasing our ability to predict such an event. So we are spending money on it, doing the only thing we can do.
Plus the climate change problem is widely different: we do not know what the probability of each possible scenario is (we don’t even know all of the scenarios). We don’t know what the consequences of each scenario are; BUT we have many ways we can reduce the upper limit of the range of scenarios, and we have ways to reduce the consequences of these scenarios.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
But stepping back from the worst-case for a moment - especially given how useless the proposed “fixes” seem and given the apparent disagreement over how much effect industrial human CO2 emissions actually have on the warming and cooling cycles - don’t you think it’s an interesting idea?[/quote]
It’s a great idea for most everything. But, in this case, we simply cannot afford to not do anything. The cost should be in the back seat, we should just go ahead everything that is technically possible, and that we can afford without putting more human lives in danger (immediate needs like food, health and education should of course still take precedence).
Hspder’s post makes perfect sense to me. We must act, to reduce the potential damage.
Whether global warming is a natural process or a cyclical one, one thing is certain: the emissions from cars and industry is not a natural process of our earth. Neither is massive deforestation. This, for me, tips the balance towards the point of view that what we humans are doing may be causing climate change.
Reducing emissions cannot hurt us, and may help us. We need to do this.
There is another phrase for the rejection of emission control on an economic cost/benefit basis. It is short-sighted greed.
[quote]larryb wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
Commies, eh? When was the last time you saw one of those? I guess this is another recycled word, like ‘fascists’?
Not at all. The utopian ideal of granolas and other assorted hippies is pretty close to the goal of Communism. Communist governments and their supporters claim that such an ideal is not possible until human beings change, and thus in the meantime it is necessary to break peoples’ thumbs with a hammer if they speak against the government.[/quote]
Let me get this straight: hippies and people who eat granola like to break peoples’ thumbs with hammers?
[quote]JPBear wrote:
Ha! You obviously have never lived in Canada have you? There are commies in these here parts.
…
I was asking for smart people like you to come to my aid and explain to me if perhaps something other than emissions could be causing this drop in climate. I was wondering if maybe weather patterns go through cycles. If we are pretty sure that this is being caused by our own behavior, then that personally makes me reexamine my own opinion on the whole matter. Sometimes it takes seeing something in your own back yard to do that. I am open to learning new things and questioning my own beliefs. Maybe my questions sound stupid to you. I’m sorry if they do. There are things I study diligently and consider myself knowledgeable about, but science isn’t one of those things. I thought I mentioned that.
[/quote]
Well, no, never lived up there. Almost might have a few months ago - a job on Victoria Island. So what do your commies do up there exactly? Y’all already have the dreaded socialized medicine.
Anyhow, sorry, my bad. A reasonable question from some folks, not others.
It’s circumstantial evidence, but it’s pretty damned strong circumstantial evidence. We have some notion of the history of climate change, because you can see history in things like tree trunks and ice cores, and many other things. It can be put together into a kind of global climatic history. So for sure we have seen there are all kinds of natural cycles, from big ones that spell the occasional ice age to the little 11 year solar one.
Lately however we see a new bump in the curve for climate, not clearly part of any preexisting cycle. In historic terms, it is a relatively rapid rate of change. It correlates suspiciously with a big bump in the curve that describes how much stuff gets burnt each year by human beings. 6 billion human beings - at last count - burn a lot of stuff. Burning stuff is one of our favorite hobbies. We’re not the only source of greenhouse gasses, but it doesn’t take a huge change in some things like CO2 level to make large changes in something else, like mean temperature.
Planetary atmospheres are pretty complicated things so there is always room to improve the models and always room to talk about what is what, but lately when it comes to global warming the talk is dying out among most scientists, who turn to look at the remaining discussants questioning global warming as if they were either a) blind or b) crazy or c) on the take.
Because yes, there are economic impacts. In your particular case you once had a flourishing forest, a renewable resource, and soon you won’t. The planet is minus one fir forest. That some loggers will have to lose their jobs or move out of the area is the least of the problem. These forest things have ecological uses no economist can dream of. There will be impact on animals, for example. The ripples spread out.
Tryin to put a dollar figure on the loss doesn’t really help. As some of the foregoing posts attest, it’s hard to come up with a complete list of economic costs and benefits, never mind ones you can put valuations on. So yours isn’t the only head spinning in that regard.
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
larryb wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
Commies, eh? When was the last time you saw one of those? I guess this is another recycled word, like ‘fascists’?
Not at all. The utopian ideal of granolas and other assorted hippies is pretty close to the goal of Communism. Communist governments and their supporters claim that such an ideal is not possible until human beings change, and thus in the meantime it is necessary to break peoples’ thumbs with a hammer if they speak against the government.
[/quote]
Let me get this straight: hippies and people who eat granola like to break peoples’ thumbs with hammers?
Oh wait, I get it, you’re thinking about the hippies who lived in communes. Sorry, this was not like the bolsheviks in Russia. Mostly those little outfits were pretty famous for letting people share their thoughts and have their space. Breaking thumbs with hammers was not part of the scene in most communes - other than maybe the religiously oriented ones. Breaking thumbs in order to get somebody to go chop wood or clean house might have been more like it.
Remember that the Shakers were also communists in this loose sense. Perhaps the nicest communists anybody ever knew - even though they were religious. They tried to be true Christians.
Most hippies hated the government, about as much as your average libertarian and for much the same reasons, BTW. It’s really funny to see some of the flames hippies take here. Hippies were pretty clueless in some regards, but maybe not so much more than the rest of us, on aggregate.
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
Oh wait, I get it, you’re thinking about the hippies who lived in communes. Sorry, this was not like the bolsheviks in Russia.[/quote]
I meant that the stated ideals of hippies (the ones that have ideals) and Communists are almost identical. I’m quite familiar with the ideals of Communism as they are presented by the Chinese government to their citizens, and their excuses for the present level of oppression.
My brother, who is about as far from being a hippie as you can get, once lived in a sort of hippie-commune house (former frat house at a university). He secretly delighted in filling the house with the smell of frying bacon.
[quote]larryb wrote:
I meant that the stated ideals of hippies (the ones that have ideals) and Communists are almost identical. I’m quite familiar with the ideals of Communism as they are presented by the Chinese government to their citizens, and their excuses for the present level of oppression.[/quote]
The hippies used to say “Power to the People” a lot. That meant that government should get off people’s backs. I don’t see this sentiment much among the current Chinese leadership. Tanks to the People is more like it. I think you are misinformed about hippies, the historical ones at any rate.
The hips talked a lot about when the revolution comes, but they were talking about a restoration of democracy, taking it all back from the corporate lobbyists and the power brokers like Richard “I am not a crook” Nixon.
Other than Wavy Gravy, I’m not sure anyone still living deserves the sobriquet. You should read up on Wavy, he made hipness into a powerful force for good in the world, acting locally and thinking globally - another hippy sentiment.
You have to watch out here a bit because Jesus Christ expressed many hip-like, communist-like sentiments also. But neither the hippies nor Jesus were into repression.
[quote]oboffill wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
oboffill wrote:
JPBear wrote:
I don’t know anything about science but I have always rejected the whole global warming gloom and doom story, mostly because it seems to come from the granola munching tree hugging commie types.
Wow, that’s a damn ignorant comment. Not believing in something just because some crazies believe in it tells the world that you really don’t care about facts. What concerns you is popularity of opinion among like-minded individuals.
The story of the evaporating forest is sad, though.
I think she makes a good point here.
She does not trust the messenger so she questions the message.
So your saying that tree huggers are the only believers of global warming? Because that is false. That is why I thought here comment was ignorant.[/quote]
I said no such thing. JPBear said she rejects the arguments of the granola munching tree hugging commies.
I was pointing out that her distrust of the messengers is a good reason to distrust the message.
I have also posted a number of things showing tha the CO2 induced global warming theory is only a theory.
There is considerable evidence that indicated the increase of CO2 in our atmosphere does not correlate with the increase in surface temperatures.
Please be aware that surface temperaures in urban zones have been
greatly increasing and surface temperatures in rural area have been relatively stagnant and have actually dropped in many areas.
The computer models predicting the increased temperatures in developing urban areas have proven much more accurate than the computer models predicting CO2 induced global warming.
The point I am trying to make is it is quite possible that the increases in temperatures we are seeing in many areas are due to the cutting of trees and the pouring of concrete and asphalt rather than CO2.
This is a serious subject and very few posters here appear to have studied it.
I believe mass deforestation is bad. We must do a better job managing this, especially in the third world.
The third world does not care about environmental niceties, they care about surviving.
I also believe more efficient energy use is vital, but with a growing world population I cannot imagine actually reducing total energy use or emissions.
The global warming issue needs a lot more study before we act rashly. We need the skeptics to have a voice. We need the IPCC to stop squashing dissent.
Hahahahaha. Rashly? Bahahahahaha! Yes, indeed, trying to limit our pollution levels is an unwise rash act. Bahahahahaha!
There is nothing wrong with being unwilling to believe in the concept of global warming. However, please don’t try to suggest it is “rash” to think we should limit our creation of pollution.
I think that it’s relatively open question whether CO2 is “pollution” – that, after all, is the crux of the debate on whether we’re causing global warming.