What should be done about global warming??

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by redacejr, May 3, 2008.

  1. redacejr

    Thread Starter Active Member

    Apr 22, 2008
    85
    0
    i thought i'd start some discussion . wt do you think should be done because of the global warming and greenhouse effect thingy???
     
  2. HarveyH42

    Active Member

    Jul 22, 2007
    425
    5
    I think we should stop wasting time and resources on this pseudo-hippie-problem. It's all propaganda to get you to go out and buy new more expensive products, justify higher taxes and fuel costs. And lastly, it's an attempt to wake people up, get the to stop wasting and polluting the environment.

    I don't believe mankind has had that big an influence over global temperature changes, nor are we likely to figure out a way to control it. Earth is a huge planet, it's been taking care of it's self for a long time. Man is only a minor contributor to the 'greenhouse' gases released, the bulk comes from natural sources, which are needed for other reasons we couldn't live without.

    I do believe we need to clean up our act, and quit destroying our environment. Who wants to live in a toilet? There is way too many 'disposable' products on the market, which only provide only a few minutes of use, before they are ready to join tons of needless trash buried in a hole several acres wide. I'd rather see all that greenhouse/global warming money go to making recycling more affordable and attractive (made from garbage, yuck... image). I'd like to see all the effort go toward getting people away from single use, throw-away products of convenience.
     
    Hypatia's Protege likes this.
  3. scubasteve_911

    Senior Member

    Dec 27, 2007
    1,202
    1
    I think the only real solution is government regulation of our pollution. So, no relying on individual environmental consciousness, since it is definitely non-uniform and off and on. The sad thing is, most environmentalists contribute the same towards corroding the earth, but feel like they are making a difference by only eating organic fruit or using cloth diapers.. I find a lot of environmentalists delusional in their role on environmental protection and do it for selfish reasons.

    Concerned citizens should be pushing the government to control the masses, because people in the end are, by nature, selfish and really don't care.

    Sorry for my Marxist-type view on humanity :p

    Steve
     
  4. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,766
    2,536
    I've seen this thread on other forums, it is a hot button topic, that ranges from complete denial to the sky is falling. My other home this discussion gets incredibly nasty, so I'm treading carefully. The real answer, IMO, is that all our governments need to contribute to R&D. Anytime a government mandates a solution it usually goes incredibly wrong, but with R&D multiple solutions will likely present themselves, giving everyone the chance to make realistic choices.

    My own point of view is to deny completely is to ignore the basic evidence. Yes, there are other causes, but if they all add up to major climate shift then most people loose. There will be winners in this scenario, but not many. The fact is CO2 is up, by a lot more than double than anything that has been seen before. It has been pretty much established there is a major disinformation campaign by many special interests (oil companies predominate), but even they are starting to get flack from some of their major stockholders, such as the Rockefeller's, for their head in the sand attitudes.

    Oil will not go away as a commodity, even if we come up with 100% solutions for the energy issues (which would take Divine intervention). As a base chemistry commodity it will always be a staple.

    Humans will survive in spite of all the doom and gloom. We (humanity) will survive and thrive even with a 50% kill off. As one of my favorite authors once said, tough times for the individual are good times for the race. So the question is, how good do we want times to get? BTW, the USA isn't immune either, nor is any country really. I suspect this fuels a lot of the denial, in that it can't happen here. It will be hard to find people who were pushing for the status quo if most of our coastal cities become flooded, and the world is in a global depression.
     
  5. HarveyH42

    Active Member

    Jul 22, 2007
    425
    5
    All those catastrophic events Al Gore was promoting would happen over night, or in the course of just a few years, as implied. It would take generations, if he's 100% correct...
    Global Warming Theory is based on ice core samples... Anybody care to guess what percentage of the earth surface is covered in ice thick enough to take samples from 100 years ago? Personally, I'm not buying the absolute accuracy of ice samples as a recording medium. If there were unusually hot periods in the past, wouldn't that reduce the amount of ice deposited, perhaps even melt or erase previous years? Wouldn't temperature effect the quantity of gases trapped in the ice? Just need more evidence that supports the theory. Find it ridiculous that so much panic is being generated over a simple observation, that may and may not have anything to do with climate changes.

    In 2004, we had the most active hurricane season in 20 years. The last three years have been unusually quiet, not progressively worse. The conditions change and fluctuate. It should be obvious the Al Gore's claims are exaggerated, how often are weather reports on the news 100% accurate? If we can only do a little better then guess at whether it's going to rain tomorrow, how can anyone know what's going to happen in the next 100 years?
     
  6. mrmeval

    Distinguished Member

    Jun 30, 2006
    833
    2
    "Glowbull cooling", "Glowbull Worming", "Glowbull change"

    Because of the lying scientists, scam artists and others who've jumped on this to either bilk money or push an agenda or seize power I don't much listen to them. I damn well don't want them in office.
     
    Hypatia's Protege likes this.
  7. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,766
    2,536
    Ancient history does have examples of really warm periods, at one point several million years ago the arctic was thought to be a temperate zone, work the math and think what the equator would be like. I don't think anyone is lying, their is sound physics involved here. We're releasing carbon that had been firmly locked down through artificial means, ie burning. End of life on earth isn't the issue, although we could take out most of the species on this planet, faster than we already are. People used to scoff at making Bison extinct, until is was almost accomplished, almost by accident. Are humans so stupid as to take most lifeforms out on this planet before becoming concerned? My answer is yes.

    If we succeed in causing the release of the huge quantities of frozen methane slush buried in the frozen lands we might live to see the arctic a warm place again. A few of us, at least. The earth isn't that big, no so big it can take the abuse 6+ billion humans can generate casually. And the number of people is growing every year, although their does seem to be a reduction in the rate of increase.

    Humans will survive. We are as hardy as any rats or cockroaches. You could kill 5.99 billion of us and we would recover just fine, as measured in geological time frames.

    Hurricanes are a good example of where the math can go wrong. It'll take another 20 years before we really know if we are just in the normal maximum of the seasons cycles or if we're really making a huge difference. Some changes are hard to measure with certainty.
     
  8. Mark44

    Well-Known Member

    Nov 26, 2007
    626
    1
    IMO Al Gore is a liar and a hypocrite.

    He has predicted in "An Inconvenient Truth" a rise in sea level of 20 feet by the end of this century, in contrast to UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates of around 10 inches. At that, the report released by the IPCC was a policy report put together by government types, rather than by the scientists who worked on it. The report, therefore, was more political in nature than scientific.

    It is uncontestable that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere than there was in the recent past, although there have been times in the longer-ago past when the CO2 was massively higher than it is today. Two of the graphs Gore shows in his dog and pony show are very suspect: one shows the global temperature steadily rising (the "hockey-stick" phenomenon, the other tracks the relationship between CO2 and global average temperature. The "hockey-stick" graph just happens to omit the Medieval Warm Period, in which temperatures were as warm as or warmer than today. Records from England at the time indicate that the weather was warm enough to support the growing of grapes to make wine, but I don't believe it has been warm enough lately to do so. The other graph compares CO2 and temperature over the last 650,000 years, from which Gore attempts to imply that increases in CO2 cause increases in temperature. A closer look at the graph shows that each increase in CO2 was preceded by an increase in temperature, making temperature the driver of CO2, rather than the other way around.

    Gore also claims that there is a "consensus" of scientists on anthropogenic global warming. In fact, a list of the names of 400 Actual Climate Scientists who disagree in whole or in part with Gore's view was presented to the US Senate in December, 2007 (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport). More than 500 scientists have published peer-review papers that counter the notion that global warming is human-caused(http://www.prnewswire.com/news/inde...&STORY=/www/story/09-12-2007/0004661425&EDATE).

    All the while Gore was excoriating fellow humans for contributing to the CO2 in the atmosphere, he was living in a home that, until recently, used 20 times the energy of average American homes (http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367).

    I'm not denying that the average global temperature may be rising. On the other hand, I've seen reports that the global average temperature has not risen in the past 10 years, and has even declined by a degree. There is also a peer-reviewed paper by a couple of Chinese scientists who are predicting global cooling in the next 30 years, based on their study of the various cycles at work, including the biggest driver, the sun, and its variability due to sunspots (http://www.springerlink.com/content/g28u12g2617j5021/fulltext.pdf).

    So I don't know what's going to happen, and don't claim to know. One side marginalizes the statements of the other, saying the deniers are in the pockets of "Big Oil." On the other hand, many of the scientists are on government payrolls or are the beneficiaries of government grants, and feel the need to produce the sort of reports that keep the grant money coming in.

    I can deal with facts and logic. It is my opinion that much of the hysteria we are being subjected to is a smokescreen for an entirely different agenda. I remember that some of the same people were nearly as frantic 30 years ago when the big fear was Global Cooling.

    Mark
     
  9. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,766
    2,536
    It is interesting that when arguing side personalities seem to enter in, which is one of the many reasons it is hard to discuss this issue rationally. I am not a defender of Al Gore, he probably did get a lot of his facts wrong, but what does that have to do with the core issues?

    Anytime a personal attack is used as an argument it shows a weakness in the arguments being used, it is a major misinformation tactic. This is not an accusation, but a suggestion to stick to the facts. Having seen this road gone down before I would like to see this thread stay open, because it is a discussion that needs to happen, everywhere. Once name calling starts it is only a matter of time before it gets really personal.

    Historically CO2 levels have been much higher, about the time the arctic was beach front property by way of example. I've caught several PBS shows about global dimming, where sunlight is being blocked by about 10% because of particulates in the atmosphere, another man made phenomena. To some extent this offsets global warming, which might be a good thing, but we are getting a handle on the particulates issue, while barely scratching the CO2 emissions issue.

    We are on a grand experiment, how much can we affect the weather and climate of the earth and keep our current lifestyle? The fact we can isn't really open to question, as anyone who lives in a big city can tell you. When I moved here I would see fronts on radar regularly come over Dallas and hit Garland, nowdays I see the hot spot that is Dallas open up the front and evaporate the rain locally. We get significantly less hail than we used to also (good along with bad). Why is it so hard to visualize us making a difference on the global scale?

    There are cusps out there, big ones. The methane I mentioned is one of them. Once it melts there is no going back, only trying to survive the changes. I doubt any of the current geopolitical setups will survive, which will probably mean big wars, as the populations move north.

    I'm old enough that it isn't an issue for me. I would like to see my family continue enjoying a decent life though. Technology got us here, it will have to get us out. Energy is the real key, if we can come up with true renewable sources then a lot of good things happen. For example, water is beginning to loom large as a major issue, but this planet is 2/3 covered with water! We know how to purify it, it's just expensive. Another example, any home with air conditioning throws about 10 to 25 gallons down the drain every day in the form of condensate, which could easily be used for yards instead. Green plants have a proactive result on urban heating, and can even influence droughts.

    This planet is awash in energy, and the potential for other sources on the horizon are getting closer. Fusion comes to mind. We just need to figure out some new ways of doing things. We don't have to go down the road to disaster, it is a choice. I've said it before though, government regulations aren't a good answer. R&D, on the other hand, usually comes up with something, though not always what you expect.
     
  10. mcewendavid

    New Member

    Aug 8, 2007
    7
    0
    The big thing here is Australia isn't global warming or pollution....our air is very clean due to the spread of the population. But here the heat and lack of rain is soooo damaging, especially in the last 20 years. We are running out of water all over and it just seems like it's never going to get any better. I think halving the Aussie population would fix so many of our problems. Halving the worlds population would probably save the planet too, at least for many more years than it's going to last at the moment.

    Less people means less fossil fuels, less food, less land degradation, less fresh water use etc etc.

    Global human culling is required!
     
  11. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,766
    2,536
    (Tongue in cheek) Are you volunteering?

    If the problem gets out of hand it could happen by itself.
     
  12. mabsj2

    Member

    Apr 24, 2008
    22
    0
    i understand why people are so worried about Global warming. lots of bad stuff have been said about it especially by the media. so what do you expect people to do, they must believe whatever they hear.

    personally i do not believe Global warming is a big deal. its just one of those natural things that were bound to happen some time.

    such events have always happened in the past and we just have to watch them happen because there is nothing we can do. its Nature......

    God knows what will happen to us. may be we shall all die out and humans will become extinct or better some us might under go evolution and become other species or much more advanced species.
    you can never know what this might lead to..... just have to let nature take its course.....
     
  13. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,766
    2,536
    Problem is, it ain't natural. It's man made, and as such we have some control over it.

    Declaring it an act of God is a major cop out, and an excuse to do nothing, not even try.

    If we try and fail, we'll have at least learned something in the process. If we sit on our butts and hope God sorts it out we deserve all we get.
     
  14. Mark44

    Well-Known Member

    Nov 26, 2007
    626
    1
    Bill, I can't help but think that your comments here are meant for me. I'll admit to a personal attack on Gore when I call him a hypocrite, but I don't believe he merely got his facts wrong; there are so many errors, misstatements, and omissions that I have to believe that he had a purpose behind them. My purpose in saying what I did about Gore is not to cast aspersions on his character or lack thereof: it was to convince some of the participants in this forum that the matter is NOT settled, and that there are reputable climate scientists who disagree with what Gore purports to be "fact."

    I agree. Unfortunately, many of the personal attacks have come from the people on Gore's side. The most egregious examples are slurring dissenters of his theory as "deniers," an attempt to lump them in with Holocaust deniers, labelling them as "flat earthers," and, as I mentioned earlier, marginalizing what they are saying by accusing them of being in the pocket of Big Oil.

    Amen, brother. Unfortunately, many on Gore's side, including Gore himself, do not want this conversation to occur, saying that the time for debate is over, that the vast majority of scientists are in agreement, et cetera, et cetera.

    I am absolutely for as much open exchange of ideas and information as possible; that's the only way we can get at the truth.

    The reason that I am going after Gore so strongly is that he is the most visible of the proponents of the theory of human-caused global warming. He is also, not coincidentally, poised to reap the monetary benefits of cap-and-trade legislation with the company he founded and heads, Generation Investment Management (GIM).

    Mark
     
    Hypatia's Protege likes this.
  15. mabsj2

    Member

    Apr 24, 2008
    22
    0
    well yeah, i agree we have played a part in increasing Global warming but Nature too has played a part. No matter what we do, we can not completely combat this problem.
     
  16. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,766
    2,536
    Perhaps, but what does attacking Gore have to do with the science? Focus on facts, and the thread stays civilized. Attacking or defending personalities is worse than a waste of time, it is a distraction from the real issues, and a major tactic by any authority wishing to not discuss the real issues. Discredit the individual and you discredit his message. Not rational, but human.

    There is an old concept that vaguely applies, the old men have to die before new ideas have a chance. It happens in science all the time, and the same tricks are used.
     
  17. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,766
    2,536
    So giving up and not trying is an answer? I think not. Fatalistic attitudes can only make this problem worse. The people and corporations who depend on it only get richer, they'll have the money to get out of the way of whatever happens. Most of them can't see further than 5 years into the future anyhow.

    I don't believe direct government intervention is the answer either, as bureaucrats have the same time planning problem, and are usually more interested in maintaining the status quo or increasing their power base, which is usually telling us what to do and curtailing our freedoms.

    Side note, the Rockefeller's became involve in Mobile/Exxon policies this week, wanting a major change of policies and/or the board of directors. Their feeling isn't so much about global warming, but using the oil up without having new products ready to introduce when it happens. The end effect can be the same though, they are insisting R&D projects be started. If we come up with a way to recirculate the carbon, remove it from the atmosphere and use it for energy transport, then a lot of the problem is solved. Nature has some pretty good methods of locking carbon down if we give it a chance.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2008
  18. mabsj2

    Member

    Apr 24, 2008
    22
    0
    yeah, i guess your right. its all about facts here!!! no personal attacks.
     
  19. beenthere

    Retired Moderator

    Apr 20, 2004
    15,815
    282
    Just a notice from the moderators here. The topic is not going to become a rant. We will simply lock this thread if is exceeds the bounds of polite discussion.

    On a personal level, the slogan "think globally, act locally" applies here, too. We cannot force others to behave as we might desire, but we can each behave in a way we believe is correct.

    beenthere
     
  20. HarveyH42

    Active Member

    Jul 22, 2007
    425
    5
    I used Al Gore only because he is a focal point. His movie kind of condenses the views of those who support this theory. The man won the Nobel Prize, for a propaganda film... will never understand that one. He was most likely just the spokesman, and just reading a script. Might not even understand much of it. I do believe making money is in his blood, he's good at it, and wouldn't be in this without a huge profit for his investment. It's part of who he is, his nature. Admittedly loosing to Bush hurt him badly, might have knocked a few screws loose, but not enough to destroy his core behavior.

    The best efforts right now, are to reduce carbon emissions, not stop them. We are being told that the warming is already well in motion. With just a reduction, can we really expect any sort of delay, of what's coming? In order to have any effect, we would need actually reverse things, not just reduce or even completely stop carbon emissions. I doubt any of the current proposals will have any effect at all, most like make things worse. It requires substantial energy to manufacture all these 'Green' machines, to replace all our wasteful ones, which the bulk of which will end up in landfills, or require more energy to re-process and re-purpose. Switching over is going to be costly to our pockets, and the environment. These are some of the reasons, I don't believe this is 100% about saving the planet.

    So if the ice core samples, which seem to be the biggest piece of evidence that we are killing this planet, are accurate. Just how much influence does carbon emissions have on the warming trend? Certainly there must be other factors involved. We have never been able to accurately predict the weather, earthquakes, or any other natural event, how can we be so firmly positive about this particular one? The observed trends in the ice cores, doesn't really qualify it as basis for this theory. What is the supportive evidence? Recorded history goes back maybe 2-3 thousand years, but mostly guessing past a few hundred years. This trend is based on really poor science, least as I was taught in school.

    Hurricanes cause a lot of death and destruction every year. They usually don't know if or where it'll make landfall, until maybe an hour before, and within 50 or so miles. Happens almost every year here in Florida, probably since the beginning of time. We have many instruments to measure, most ever aspect of the storms. Yet, there aren't any attempts to prevent them from forming, or steer them away from populated areas. Don't think mankind has enough stuff in their pants to control a hurricane, do have enough to tackle global environmental changes. I believe this thing started long before mankind discovered fire, and it's going to happen on schedule. We can waste our time, effort, and resources trying to hold it back. Or we can just go with it, and adapt to the changes as needed (which is what we are really good at).
     
Loading...