Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rictor on September 17, 2005, 02:47:43 pm
-
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article312997.ece
Wonderful. Just f*cking wonderful. I wonder, though, do we really know enough about global warming? After all, does a complete consensus among the world's scientists really give us enough to go on? Let's debate some more.
A record loss of sea ice in the Arctic this summer has convinced scientists that the northern hemisphere may have crossed a critical threshold beyond which the climate may never recover. Scientists fear that the Arctic has now entered an irreversible phase of warming which will accelerate the loss of the polar sea ice that has helped to keep the climate stable for thousands of years.
The greatest fear is that the Arctic has reached a "tipping point" beyond which nothing can reverse the continual loss of sea ice and with it the massive land glaciers of Greenland, which will raise sea levels dramatically.
-
Liberal propaganda! The environment's condition is doubleplusgood!
-
Yay...
-
So how long until the Gulf Stream Current collapses due to the addition of massive amounts of fresh water?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Wonderful. Just f*cking wonderful. I wonder, though, do we really know enough about global warming? After all, does a complete consensus among the world's scientists really give us enough to go on? Let's debate some more.
People don't realise that the icecaps is only the half of it. It's the methane hydrate that scares the s**t out of me. The only thing keeping that stuff from bubbling out of the sea and drastically raising the temperature is the fact that the world is too cold at the moment. The temperature changes cause by the ice caps melting is nothing compared to what will happen when that stuff starts coming out.
Originally posted by Grey Wolf
So how long until the Gulf Stream Current collapses due to the addition of massive amounts of fresh water?
Already showing signs of collapse from what I hear. Goodbye mild English winters. Say hello to temperatures like Canada gets. :(
-
Great I don't get to live my life out because of some stupid ass polititians. Whoop de mother ****ing doo!
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Already showing signs of collapse from what I hear. Goodbye mild English winters. Say hello to temperatures like Canada gets. :(
The British Isles are about as far north as Newfoundland, right?
-
Further north actually. London is about parallel with the north of it. Thanks to the gulf stream weather people don't realise how far to the north the UK actually is.
-
IIRC London is (also) more or less on the same latitude as Moscow.
Oh, and Siberian peat bogs are thawing for the first time in 11,000 years (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4141348.stm); which has the potential to release billions of tonnes of trapped methane. Of course, that's not new - 4 years ago scientists were warning that artic permafrost was now melting and releasing CO2 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1158269.stm); and also across the world (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4120755.stm)
And there's the increasing evidence that the Permian mass extinction was caused by global warming (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4184110.stm) exactly as kara alluded to. But that's only if worsening hurricanes triggered by increasing sea temperatures don't get us first (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4249138.stm).
But, hey, if people think the next generation should worry about us, then we can just leave it to them and technology to fix, right?
.
.
.
.
Right?
-
Originally posted by Swantz
Great I don't get to live my life out because of some stupid ass polititians. Whoop de mother ****ing doo!
Yeah, suckle on the blessed propaganda of the environmentalist lobby like a good *****.
a) There's conflicting evidence about the root causes of global warming - human industry does not necessarily contribute a significant amount
b) Global warming isn't going to kill you. The world won't go *snap* and suddenly change by magic.
-
Originally posted by SadisticSid
Yeah, suckle on the blessed propaganda of the environmentalist lobby like a good *****.
a) There's conflicting evidence about the root causes of global warming - human industry does not necessarily contribute a significant amount
b) Global warming isn't going to kill you. The world won't go *snap* and suddenly change by magic.
A) The conflicting evidence usually points to how exactly humans are responsible...not IF they are. Only a very small group, usually funded by the very large corporations, tend to contradict that little one. We know we've had an impact on the global climate...the thousands of tonnes of garbage we pump into the air each year has an influence that although small by itself is building up with the last 200 years of industrialized activity.
B) Global warming doesn't really kill anyone. The stuff thats spawned because of global warming can, will, and probably already has. The hurricanes are going to get worse, the flooding is going to be worse, some areas are going to dry out and crop yeilds are going to drop in some areas (although potentially other areas will become more fertile - thats not as likely but possible).
We're going to have to adjust ourselves to a new climate that is now not the same one that has been relied on for the last 1000 years. Global patterns that have scarecely shifted in the long run (sure some winters are warmer and some summers are cooler but its usually fairly balanced) are going to shift dramatically for some.
Scientists are concerned about global warming, not because its not something that hasn't already happened, but because its becoming largely felt that we, as a species, have triggered it and moved it along faster than normally. The special report by the Pentagon done a few years ago that has passed through this forum and others suggests that Global Warming is felt to be a threat greater than terrorism to the national security of the United States and allies.
Time to get our heads out of the sand and hope that it all blows over. Time to adapt and time to change our ways.
-
Originally posted by SadisticSid
Yeah, suckle on the blessed propaganda of the environmentalist lobby like a good *****.
a) There's conflicting evidence about the root causes of global warming - human industry does not necessarily contribute a significant amount
b) Global warming isn't going to kill you. The world won't go *snap* and suddenly change by magic.
b) Global warming isn't going to kill you. The world won't go *snap* and suddenly change by magic.
I'm not an uber environmentalist it's just that most politicians and practicaly everyone wants to try and throw this issue on the backburner. No one seems to think ahead, I mean I understand things won't just go *snap* but just because it won't be an immdiate thing doesn't mean we shouldn't deal with it now and wait till it's a major problem later.
a) There's conflicting evidence about the root causes of global warming - human industry does not necessarily contribute a significant amount
Ok, so thousands of power plants and millions of cars burning up fuels that produce Carbon Dioxide does nothing to the atmosphere.
Sure:doubt:
-
Originally posted by SadisticSid
a) There's conflicting evidence about the root causes of global warming - human industry does not necessarily contribute a significant amount
Absolute nonsense. If it's not human industry what is it? And if you say volcanoes you're going to feel like a right prick when I prove you wrong with the evidence I've already linked to twice before on these forums.
-
We're screwed.....
-
To be optimistic, the Northwest Passage will soon exist...
-
Indeed. And then the spices will flow freely from Asia through the Colonies and back to Europe. A new golden age is upon us!
-
It's actually still useful, incidentally. Much of the world's shipping is still done at sea, as air is a bit more expensive.
-
Yeah, no more being raped by the airlines if I want to go to Arizona.
-
It's worth noting that part of the issue over global warming is not whether human activity is the largest source of it, but whether it's the tipping point.
Of course, global dimming - the effect of fossil fuel pollution upon clouds, making them denser and more sun-heat reflective - has been directly linked to changes in the rain patterns over Africa, contributing to the deaths of millions from famine. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_trans.shtml)
-
Sits back and waits until someone blames Kat on Global Warming.:p
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
Sits back and waits until someone blames Kat on Global Warming.:p
It's been done already; see my earlier post with all the links. It's been suggested that the (recorded) increase in sea temperatures over the past 35 years has intensified severe weather activity (hurricanes, tropical storms, typhoons). http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4249138.stm
-
I blame Ghostavo for global warming.
-
...
EDIT: OMFG I can post again!!! It's a miracle!!!
-
Greeeeeaaaat, you Northern Hemisphere dullards have screwed it up for all of us down here in the Southern Hemisphere, not to mention yourselves in the process, I hope you're right bloody happy with yourselves for that one...! Here we are, minding our own business, and BAM! You lads up there trigger what might very well end almost all life on the Planet Permian-style...:hopping: Just further evidence that the Southern Hemisphere is the better hemisphere...!
[tokenBushBashing]Oh, and $20 says Bush blames this on Terrorism[/tokenBushBashing]
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
...
EDIT: OMFG I can post again!!! It's a miracle!!!
You should get back on IRC.
-
Just last week, my thermodynamics professor talked at length about the facts of global climate change. Let me see what I can recall, so I can try to cut through some of the politics and bull that always surrounds this topic:
-Yes, the global climate has experienced change over the last several decades. If you check out the data, you can actually start to trace this to around 1850, which coincides with the start of the Industrial Revolution. (It may seem like a direct correlation, and I'll agree that it seems likely, but if you're calling yourself a scientist, you'd better have the whole picture before you start calling things "facts.") The phenomenon's not anything new.
-What I found interesting is that it is true that humankind's output of carbon dioxide represents a small fraction of the total global carbon dioxide cycle. The largest proponent of the cycle is the emission/re-absorption of CO2 from the world's oceans, followed by the cycle between photosynthesis and organism respiration. Also interesting is the fact that both the oceanic and plant cycles collectively lead to a negative flow of CO2 from the atmosphere. While humanity's input is small, it does put the net input of CO2 into the positive direction. We don't know yet whether this output will level out at some point in the future or is in a "runaway" effect. Another possible implication is that, were human activity to be curtailed somewhat, the planet would be able to remain at its current atmospheric levels without any problems.
-Yes, it's true that sea levels have risen. However, the media often grossly exaggerates this problem. Even the worst-case scenarios put the increase at about a meter over the next 50 years, which is a seemingly manageable value.
-While the increased frequency of hurricanes this year would make most people immediately think of a correlation, we just don't have enough data yet for it to be proven. We're only talking about an increased pattern over several years; that's far from enough time to be talking about long-term patterns.
-Yes, the Arctic ice is shrinking (as my professor put it, this poses problems for the polar bears, at least :p). However, the Antarctic ice hasn't exhibited any significant reductions. Take that as you will.
-Currently, global warming is seen as a purely negative effect. However, there are areas in which it could actually prove to be beneficial. Treating it at the same level as an asteroid strike is pure media sensationalism. (My professor's reaction to a picture he showed in which a glacier had receded to leave a lake is that "it's much nicer-looking now than it was." :p)
-Even if humanity stopped absolutely all CO2 output tomorrow, temperatures would continue to rise due to the levels that are already in the atmosphere. There's no "magic switch" that we can simply switch off, no matter what some people may say.
-One interesting thing to consider would be the use of biomass fuels such as ethanol. By growing plants for conversion into fuel and then its subsequent combustion, you could potentially have a self-sustaining cycle with no net release of CO2. Something to think about.
-Most importantly of all the points I've made, I want to reinforce that far too many people are calling for changes to be made without explaining exactly how they are going to be made. Let me put it bluntly: it is economically impossible (not infeasible, impossible) to eliminate fossil fuels as a source of energy. Go ahead, try doing it; then watch the global economy collapse to hell. I don't have any easy answers as to what should be done; in fact, there aren't any. However, blaming policies of the past few years is just a waste of air.
To tell you the truth, I generally hate fearmongering headlines like the title of this thread. It doesn't do anybody every good to yell, "We're all gonna die!" It's not going to solve anything. Rather than wasting their breath, perhaps the scientists mentioned in the article should start working on some practical steps that should be taken to start to deal with the issue, and even above that, to determine beyond a shadow of a doubt exactly what impact human activity is having on global climate change. That's what we truly need, not Greenpeace propaganda.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
It's been done already; see my earlier post with all the links. It's been suggested that the (recorded) increase in sea temperatures over the past 35 years has intensified severe weather activity (hurricanes, tropical storms, typhoons). http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4249138.stm
And over the past 40 years we have also jumped into the golden age of Meteorology, whitch would show an increase in stronger hurricanes, as tornados has increased from a few hundred a year in the 60s and 70s to a couple of thousand a year now.Is that global warming, no, better radar and reporting.As with hurricanes we now have Hurricane Hunters, Radar, supercomputers, bouys of the coast, better wind speed measuring equipment, and perhaps the most important of them all, advanced satelites.
And if you want to blame Kat on Global Warming, you need to look into the past, Kat. was not the strongest Hurricane ever recorded by a long shot, and you also have to think, what if we had all the advanced things in the past? It took the NHC 10 years to raise Andrew to a Cat.5 at landfall, and if thats the case, what would they have found in monster storms like Gilbert, or Camille or The Labor Day Hurricane of 1935.
I'm not saying that it's not global warming helping these monster storms form, and I'm not wanting to get in a debate about it. However strong storms has acurred in the past and they will happen again.
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
-Most importantly of all the points I've made, I want to reinforce that far too many people are calling for changes to be made without explaining exactly how they are going to be made. Let me put it bluntly: it is economically impossible (not infeasible, impossible) to eliminate fossil fuels as a source of energy. Go ahead, try doing it; then watch the global economy collapse to hell. I don't have any easy answers as to what should be done; in fact, there aren't any. However, blaming policies of the past few years is just a waste of air.
Good post for sure!
I think this one point that I've quoted here is most relevant. I think most here accept that fossil fuels aren't going to disappear. I think the problem is that we continue to use them in even greater amounts without thinking of alternatives that can be introduced slowly.
Change the economy over 20 or 30 years to a new emphasis.
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
-Most importantly of all the points I've made, I want to reinforce that far too many people are calling for changes to be made without explaining exactly how they are going to be made. Let me put it bluntly: it is economically impossible (not infeasible, impossible) to eliminate fossil fuels as a source of energy. Go ahead, try doing it; then watch the global economy collapse to hell. I don't have any easy answers as to what should be done; in fact, there aren't any. However, blaming policies of the past few years is just a waste of air.
How about the US - one of the largest contributers of Greenhouse Pollution per capita in the world - gets off its high horse and signs in with the Kyoto Protocol. I'm not going to delude myself, the Protocol is flawed, but it's a start. The US signing into the Protocol would increase its credibility, and thus other countries holding out may give in a sign it. Yes, I agree that we're (humanity) one of the smaller contributers of Greenhouse Pollution on this planet, but we are contributing! Honestly, i'm not calling for a major reform, just for the US to get its arse in gear and sign the ****ing protocol...! We did it with the Montreal Protocol and those darn CFC's, and we can do it with this...! But alas, as the current US administration has shown, pulling out of beneficial Treaties & Protocols seems to be all the rage - Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty anyone...?
Now, deny it if you will, but seriously, throwing as much CO2 into the Atmosphere are we are now cannot be good for the Planet, whichever way you look at it. I don't really care if you guys want to nitpick over whether or not it's causing Climate change, whether or not it's going to cause major changes to the environment, I don't really care. But what we should at least agree on is that Global Warming is a clear and present danger to our species, and if not us, then the other species on the planet...!
-
Kyoto wouldn't do a damned thing about the problem, unless you think that China not being in a more advantagous position than it currently is, is 'the problem'. asking the US to unfairly cripple itself is only good for one thing, makeing sure you have a political weapon to use against them.
-
Hey, Kyoto calls for a gradual decrease in CO2 emmissions, not a complete upheaval of the entire economy. While i'll admit that there are situations where it becomes unfeasable - ie. Australia - the US is "one of the most powerful nations on the planet economically", i'm sure they could do much to decrease their emmissions without crippling themselves...and if they do cripple themselves in the process, I won't be complaining :p [KIDDING!]...
-
yeah, a treaty that calls for reductions in emmissions, yeah, who wouldn't go for that, everyone has to cut there emmissions, yeah, well exept for countries that are 'developing' yeah, there developing so that means there to primitive to bother with, how much problem are they going to cause anyway, they couldn't do a thing anyway. yeah, let's just make the developed countries cut back, there the greedy ones causing the problems, and there most of the world developing nations are just little chuncks, right?
(http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/course/79-104/Readings/Gallery/Gallery1/WC953.jpg)
oh, yeah, the entier fukcing world is developing exept the US, parts of europe and austrailia, oh, yeah. thats fukcing fair.
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
-Yes, it's true that sea levels have risen. However, the media often grossly exaggerates this problem. Even the worst-case scenarios put the increase at about a meter over the next 50 years, which is a seemingly manageable value.
"Seemingly" is the operative word. Unless, of course, you're willing to argue with Harvard and the Smithsonian? http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/space_geodesy/SEALEVEL/
-
It seems that this theory hasn't been presented here yet...
If the ice caps melt, that means more water. That also means more water in the athmosphere. Right? That means more clouds. Yes? Hence, the result would be the opposite, golbal cooling. Because of sun not getting trought the extensive cloud cover...
It's a fairly new theory. I read it from some science article a year or two ago... Cant really remember where and when, I read so many of them.
However, the theory makes sense. Doesn't it?
-
Are you sure it was an article, Prophet? ...Are you sure it wasn't...nothing...?
-
Increased water vapor can also lead to more of a greenhouse effect due to water being a greenhouse gas.
However, the last ice age occured when the temperature rised, began to melt the ice caps, and a variety of factors (sudden sea level shift, abledo change, etc.) all led to rapid cooling.
Regardless, this isn't a good thing that's happening.
-
Originally posted by Mefustae
Are you sure it was an article, Prophet? ...Are you sure it wasn't...nothing...?
I'll give you props for the usage of that line. :lol: However, the US isn't going to be the country you'll have to worry about in the next 20-30 years. It'll be China and India. Both of those countries have rapidly growing economies. With growing economies comes growing per capita wealth; with growing per capita wealth comes increased automobile usage; with increased automobile usage comes much more CO2 emission. From the one graph my professor showed us, the US and Europe's increase in automobile purchases will climb very gradually over the next 20 years, while those in India/China will absolutely skyrocket. It's not like we can just tell them to stop buying cars when we all use them so much ourselves and have for so long.
Grey Wolf, no one's saying that rising sea levels are a good thing. But many of the problems in that article can be addressed, providing we do it right. Levees can be raised; beaches can be built up (just take some sand from Wildwood, NJ; they have about a mile of it from the boardwalk to the ocean :p); houses can be moved back. I'm not saying it will be easy, but it can be done. Considering the fact that my professor is from the Netherlands, I'm pretty sure that he knows at least a little bit about dealing with land below sea level. :p
Bobboau hit the nail on the head, as I mentioned above. The Kyoto Protocol is all well and good, but when it comes down to it, it's nothing more than a voluntary document that's working toward relatively minor reductions in greenhouse emissions. In doing so, it completely ignores the countries that have the most rapidly incresing emissions. Also, last time I checked, it doesn't say much about exactly how the respective nations' economies are going to handle things. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this point. I'm all for idealism, but global warming requires a huge dose of practicality if anything's ever going to be done about it; that was the main point I had hoped to make above. IceFire's got the right idea; any change that takes place will have to happen slowly and will have to start with reforms to the economy, not to oil production. Only after we're set up for it, and after alternative technologies start to come into fruition (fuel cells are far too much of a pipe dream at this point), can we start to lessen our dependence on petroleum.
-
So Bobboau, you're saying that, because Developing Countries don't have to reduce their emmissions, that for some reason makes everyone else reducing their emmissions...bad...?
Funnily enough, that's pretty much the exact same response given by George W. Bush when queried about signing the Protocol; "The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. This is a challenge that requires a 100 percent effort; ours, and the rest of the world's. America's unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change. Our approach must be consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere."
Basically, he's saying; '...because China isn't gonna be cuttin' them emmissions, we won't either...we still support that dang ol' treaty in spirit, but we're just gonna ignore it...'
It's also interesting to note how much the US contributes;
(http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/9703/carbonemissionbyregion9ni.png)
You can see that almost every other country/continent curbed their emmissions by 2000, and yet the US [and Canada] continue to rise steadily, easily the largest contributers in the World. If Eastern Europe & Russia, recovering from the shackles of the USSR, can curb their output so damn much, why can't the US...? I don't buy for a second that the US economy would be severely destroyed in the process of conforming to the Protocol, but adaptations will have to be made, which may affect it adversely. But I still fail to see why the most powerful nation economically, and also the biggest contributer, in the world chooses to ignore this 'flawed' protocol...!
Regarding developing nations, I do believe that them being exempt from the Treaty is a point of interest - the exemption of China first and foremost - but using that as an excuse not to sign the Protocol is just plain silly. Given that the Protocol is indeed flawed, it can be changed over time to include rapidly industrialising nations like China. I'm not saying rip up your economy to do it, i'm just saying make an effort for the betterance of Humanity...!
-
we ignore it because it is flawed, because it basicly targets us and only us.
-
Well obviously, you guys are the biggest bloody contributers to Global Warming on the Planet...! Who the hell else are we going to target...? The Mexicans...? :p
-
and here I thought you might be willing to back down over this. but no, your actualy going to try to lay a guilt trip on us because we don't endorse a treaty that basicly does nothing but restricts us without anyone else haveing to make any sacrifices (other than aulstrailia and *parts* of europe). yes we happen to be the highest users of energy in the world, as you can also see in that little image I found we also provide nearly a quarter of the worlds manufacturing, we are emiting because we are makeing stuf, it's not like were just liteing oil drums on fire for fun. and if the protocalls have so minimal of an impact on industry, why is it such a big deal to extend them to everyone, not just us.
and one of the wonderfull things about not being an ideolog is that just because Bush says something you can still agree with it if you think it's correct.
and I can see by "almost every other country/continent" you mean europe, (good for them by the way, but) that's hardly every one else.
-
and look at that chart, if you take china India and southeast asia, the reagons I mostly think of in terms of places that should be getting an equal sized stick, they add up to be about the same output as us, also as good as europe may have done in curtailing it's emmissions, if you combine east and west europe (interesting how it was split up) they'r still produceing more than us, acording to your own sources.
now even though we are the biggest minority, we are still a minority, how is this suposed to have any real effect on the environment if it only effects 25% of the total emmissions, anything it calls for will only be 1/4th as effective as it would appear to be, so is it realy that absurd for us to demand it encompases everyone before we sign on to it? is it realy that horable that we ask everyone to to make the same sacrafice as us?
further examination of the chart reveials that the most dramatic drops in CO2 were in the former soviet states during and after the time that the USSR was colapseing, obviusly if your economy goes down the drain, you aren't going to be doing much manufacturing, and thus your not going to be emitting too much.
-
So what is the US doing instead then Bobboau? Cause all I see the USA doing is sticking it's head in the sand and hoping the problem will go away. If you have a problem with China being exempt lobby for a version of the protocol which China isn't exempt from.
What the US is doing is saying "It's not fair. China don't have to do it" and then completely ignoring the problem!. The whole thing with China is just an excuse to stop the US from having to show some responsibility. It's nothing to do with China and everything to do with the fact that the US doesn't want to have any limits on their pollution. If China was the problem we'd hear a lot more from the US about making a fair version of the protocol.
Originally posted by Prophet
However, the theory makes sense. Doesn't it?
Not really. Look at Venus. Lots of very thick cloud cover and yet it's actually hotter than Mercury despite being further away from the sun.
Originally posted by Mongoose
-Most importantly of all the points I've made, I want to reinforce that far too many people are calling for changes to be made without explaining exactly how they are going to be made. Let me put it bluntly: it is economically impossible (not infeasible, impossible) to eliminate fossil fuels as a source of energy. Go ahead, try doing it; then watch the global economy collapse to hell. I don't have any easy answers as to what should be done; in fact, there aren't any. However, blaming policies of the past few years is just a waste of air.
*Points at Iceland and their move towards a hydrogen economy* With the price of oil being what it is now they're doing quite well out of it no doubt. Yes it's impossible to get rid of fossil fuels but that doesn't mean we should do nothing. That's what I see being done.
-
so explain to me again why cutting emmisions falls exclusively upon America's sholders? You've got to think were prety freacking stupid if we're going to just unilateraly place additional burdens upon our industry. haveing just the US cut it's emissions isn't going to solve the problem, though it might hold the US econimy down for a while, while letting everyone else 'catch up', but na... that couldn't posably have any effect on the politics of the situation (I am specificly refering to the suporters here, obviusly)
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
and I can see by "almost every other country/continent" you mean europe, (good for them by the way, but) that's hardly every one else.
Actually, by "curbed their emmissions by 2000", I wasn't saying their emmissions would drop drastically, I simply meant that emmissions in the time approaching 2000 began to level off and/or drop. As you can see in the graph, "almost every other country/continent" includes everyone except India/Southeast Asia (that doesn't include China obviously), and to a lesser extent the Middle East.
Originally posted by Bobboau
and look at that chart, if you take china India and southeast asia, the reagons I mostly think of in terms of places that should be getting an equal sized stick, they add up to be about the same output as us, also as good as europe may have done in curtailing it's emmissions, if you combine east and west europe (interesting how it was split up) they'r still produceing more than us, acording to your own sources.
Now, that's just a little be silly. You're comparing completely different Geographical areas, meaning different climates, landmasses, and amount of developed land. Not to mention you're ignoring the stark differences in population and such present between the areas you described.
I agree with you here, if you add up India/Southeast Asia and Communist China, you do get the pretty much the same emmissions as the US, there's no denying that. However, the populations differ greatly between that combined area and the US. Adding the two zones, you get roughly the same approximate landmass, on which Industry can be stationed, that seems fair doesn't it? Except for the fact that the population of that area would be many, many times larger than that of the US, meaning that while these areas are roughly producing the same amount of Greenhouse emmissions, they're supporting a much larger population, on the order of hundreds of millions (and perhaps Billions). Regarding combing East & West Europe, it's the same case. Their emmissions rival your own, but in doing so, they are supporting a much larger population in a much harsher climate (Siberia anyone). The point is, the US is not only the highest emmission producer on the planet, but it possesses the highest emmission count per capita in the world (aside from Australia, but that's an entirely different case altogether). Now then, that comparison isn't really fair, is it...?
Originally posted by Bobboau
now even though we are the biggest minority, we are still a minority, how is this suposed to have any real effect on the environment if it only effects 25% of the total emmissions, anything it calls for will only be 1/4th as effective as it would appear to be, so is it realy that absurd for us to demand it encompases everyone before we sign on to it?
I'm not entirely sure of your arguement here, but if you're argueing that only a 25% drop in your Emmission level - as stipulated in the Kyoto Protocol - would not be very big, think again. One quarter of US & Canada's emmissions (most of which likely comes from the US) is around the same amount as Central & South America's emmissions combined. So, think about it for a second; adhering to the Kyoto Protocol would effectively cancel out the emmissions of the rest of the Americas. Call me crazy, but that's quite a bit right there.
Originally posted by Bobboau
further examination of the chart reveials that the most dramatic drops in CO2 were in the former soviet states during and after the time that the USSR was colapseing, obviusly if your economy goes down the drain, you aren't going to be doing much manufacturing, and thus your not going to be emitting too much.
Well, i'll concede to this, you've got me here. It's really quite logical that with the fall of the Soviet Union, the area would be thrown into such disarray that manufacturing and power production - both of which contribute heavily to emmission levels - that levels would continue to drop regardless of what happened, and Russia likely signed only for the trade and diplomatic benefits afforded to it by the Protocol.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
so explain to me again why cutting emmisions falls exclusively upon America's sholders? You've got to think were prety freacking stupid if we're going to just unilateraly place additional burdens upon our industry. haveing just the US cut it's emissions isn't going to solve the problem, though it might hold the US econimy down for a while, while letting everyone else 'catch up', but na... that couldn't posably have any effect on the politics of the situation (I am specificly refering to the suporters here, obviusly)
Where did I say that China shouldn't cut their emissions? What I said is that if that was the US's only objection and they really wanted to cut emissions they'd be lobbying for a different version of the Kyoto Protocol.
Instead the US is hoping the problem will go away without them doing anything. That's obvious proof that the US doesn't care about reducing its emissions and that the whole complaint about China is simply a smokescreen.
-
we may be the worlds highest per capita poluters, but were also the worlds highest per capita producers, we aren't any more waistfull than anyone else, we just do a lot more.
"you get roughly the same approximate landmass, on which Industry can be stationed, that seems fair doesn't it?"
yes, that seems perfictly fine, what doesn't seem fair is there industry doesn't count for some reason because there larger population is on average poorer,I doubt the industrial people are signifigantly worse off than our industrial people, and even if they were I don't see how being poor makes your polution less damageing. and what's so silly about compareing the emmissions of a roughly equivilant sized reagon? these are the reagons that will go unscathed by Kyoto, what is silly about saying that it's going to totaly ignore equivilant polution elseware in the world, I think that's actualy a rather good reason to recognise it as impotent to the problem it is suposed to solve.
and Ill admit that China's graph there does seem to be going down at the moment, but that could easily be a sort term thing, and probly will be, China is going to be on par with us in a few decades. asside from Europe everyone else, to me, seems to be on the same uninterupted growth paturn, I don't think environmentalism played any role in the shapes of there charts.
and as far as the largest minority thing goes, let me put it this way,
Kyoto says we cut what? 5% (I think that's it) of our greenhouse gasses, if Kyoto only applys to 25% of the total polution created then the actual reduction will only be 1.25%.
on top of that Kyoto is simply impotent period, it won't do anything meaningfull, the most optamistic projections are that it will reduce global temperature by about a fourth of a degree, were the temperature change is expected to be somewere on the order of 10 degrees. the only purpose it serves is political.
-
the thing about China (and elseware) is a legitimate problem with the protocall, no we aren't to terably axious about reduceing our emmissions, but isn't the fact that it targets us unfairly a decent reason for us not to get involved in it?
the fact that your focusing so much on us and not all the other people who are getting a free ride shows that you only want this as a political stick. no we aren't going out of our way to do anything about it, but asside from parts of Europe, neither is any one else. why are we getting singled out?
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
we may be the worlds highest per capita poluters, but were also the worlds highest per capita producers, we aren't any more waistfull than anyone else, we just do a lot more.
Well, charts and graphs seem to be all the rage, so let's see it...i'll take any other sort of evidence...
Originally posted by Bobboau
"you get roughly the same approximate landmass, on which Industry can be stationed, that seems fair doesn't it?"
yes, that seems perfictly fine, what doesn't seem fair is there industry doesn't count for some reason because there larger population is on average poorer,I doubt the industrial people are signifigantly worse off than our industrial people, and even if they were I don't see how being poor makes your polution less damageing. and what's so silly about compareing the emmissions of a roughly equivilant sized reagon? these are the reagons that will go unscathed by Kyoto, what is silly about saying that it's going to totaly ignore equivilant polution elseware in the world, I think that's actualy a rather good reason to recognise it as impotent to the problem it is suposed to solve.
Things brings us back to Kara's arguement; using the excuse that China doesn't have to adhere to the Protocol - something that could be changed in the near future, not unlike the changes currently being debated in The Hague - is just a cheap way of 'passing the buck' if you will. Again, comparing the North America's emmissions to India & China's emmissions, means absolutely nothing, as the population and standards of development are completely different. It's like comparing the amount of rubbish your household outputs to a squatter settlement of comparable size. They're too different to draw any accurate conclusions from.
Originally posted by Bobboau
and Ill admit that China's graph there does seem to be going down at the moment, but that could easily be a sort term thing, and probly will be, China is going to be on par with us in a few decades. asside from Europe everyone else, to me, seems to be on the same uninterupted growth paturn, I don't think environmentalism played any role in the shapes of there charts.
Does that mean that we should all just give up on the planet? Ignore the problem until the Pacific Ocean is lapping at our doorstep, or Hurricanes like Katrina are knocking down our neighbourhoods? (not to say that Katrina was in any way related to Global Warming, i'm just using it as an example)
Originally posted by Bobboau
and as far as the largest minority thing goes, let me put it this way,
Kyoto says we cut what? 5% (I think that's it) of our greenhouse gasses, if Kyoto only applys to 25% of the total polution created then the actual reduction will only be 1.25%.
on top of that Kyoto is simply impotent period, it won't do anything meaningfull, the most optamistic projections are that it will reduce global temperature by about a fourth of a degree, were the temperature change is expected to be somewere on the order of 10 degrees. the only purpose it serves is political.
Actually, the Kyoto Protocol calls for a drop of 5.2% in emmission levels as measured in 1990, but note that, compared to the emissions levels that would be expected by 2010 without the Protocol, this target represents a 29% cut. Just because it's a small decrease doesn't mean it's insignifigant or not worth doing. By starting the process, our children or our children's children could grow up in a world where we contribute negligable amounts of Greenhouse Gases to the Atmosphere, and where Global Warming will be something seen only in the history books...
-
alright the sun is comeing up I am sleepy, sence we seem to have diverged from the central argument, I'll reclarify it, is the US realy so evil for not going along with this particular plan?
currently I am against us signing on to it because of all the nations that would be exempt, if that was removed I'd be nutral because it would be fair (in principal anyway, probly not in practice) but still innefectual, so if you fix what's wrong with it, it still doesn't mean there'd be anything right in it, honestly we should probly just start over, focusing more on infastructure changes were posable rather than simple emmission reduction.
-
Bob, China has been able to more or less curb it's emissions. If a poor country with 1.2 billion mouths to feed can do it, why can't the richest country in the world? It hasn't crippled the economy here. The economy here is still growing 2 or 3 times faster than the american economy.
Face it, Bush is just using it as an excuse to do nothing about it. They want to destroy the environment because it would, theoretically, bring on the second coming (despite the fact that they are supposed to take care of the environment). Where do I get this stuff from? Just look at James Watts famous quote to Congress.
-
Well, nobody wants to change their way of living (and nothing else helps here) until forced to do that.
Forced by governments or forced by the nature itself, the outcome is the same, only the level of ugliness changes.
We don't need to do anything we don't want to.
-
But something the US needs to wake up to is that this is the 21st century and a lot of things are going to change for everyone. You can either adapt (in their case making lifestyle adjustments), or be left in the dust.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Absolute nonsense. If it's not human industry what is it? And if you say volcanoes you're going to feel like a right prick when I prove you wrong with the evidence I've already linked to twice before on these forums.
Well before you declare it nonsense look at research done by Harvard CFA that revealed temperatures between the ninth and fourteenth centuries were much higher than today. Funnily enough, history for that period does not document the presence of factories, cars and power stations.
http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/06/nclim06.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/04/06/ixhome.html
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/press/pr0310.html
I don't know how valid the research was but the only denial of validity I've so far seen came from the IPCC which is an organisation guilty of bias and misinformation (http://www.john-daly.com/guests/un_ipcc.htm).
-
OK, so even if we give the critics the benefit of the doubt, for the sake of conversation, is that any reason to throw caution to the wind? Alright, so the sh*t wont hit the fan tommorow, but what about the day after? I don't think anyone is arguing that human industry is having no effect, and with much of the world industrtializing this will likely increase dramatically
Is it better to wait until it's too late? There is absolutely no reason not to take action, even if you accept the critic's arguements.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
the thing about China (and elseware) is a legitimate problem with the protocall, no we aren't to terably axious about reduceing our emmissions, but isn't the fact that it targets us unfairly a decent reason for us not to get involved in it?
the fact that your focusing so much on us and not all the other people who are getting a free ride shows that you only want this as a political stick. no we aren't going out of our way to do anything about it, but asside from parts of Europe, neither is any one else. why are we getting singled out?
You know the whole protocol thing doesn't target the US specifically...it targets the biggest polluters. Which infact is the US and Canada combined.
The local industry around here (I live in a steel town as they call it) has changed quite a bit in the last 10 years. Where there used to be piles of stagnant water, they have planted reids and created swamps that channel potentially hazardous water through natures own filtration system. They have planted trees all around the industry (tree's love them CO2's) and they have installed new technology that have supposedly cut emissions by 50%. The steel they sell still remains amongst the most profitable and best around (lots of you driving American made cars were probably built using some or all of the steel produced in my home city).
Now its still kinda bad around here but things are starting to improve. Fish that have not been seen in the wetland areas for 15 or 20 years are returning in great numbers and some of the local species that had been dying off has been starting to return. There are definate improvements to the areas ecological health and the economy is not any worse for wear.
So while most of this has been voluntary, Kyoto and all that seems to be taking hold as a responsibility in Canada (so has the 1 ton challenge which seems to have had some effect), so lots of us are asking why hasn't the US. We're both responsible for the worst polution on the planet and we need to do something about that.
If China, India, and other countries can curb their emissions (and seemingly Canada is starting to although very slowly) then why can't the impressive, dynamic, techologically advanced United States? Its a matter of personal and political willpower. Frankly Democrats and Republicans alike should be making environment and economy their top issue. Economy is but environment hasn't been linked yet...it should be.
I have some hope...the political changes abound since 911 have had some positive effect. Many right wing conservatives in the U.S. are calling for alternative fuel supplies (which are also clearner) because they say that the oil reliance just feeds money to terrorists. In the face of that sort of thinking, many of the Oil companies are starting to think about changing what they do...alternative fuel supply options could be just as or more profitable than their current setups.
-
I don't disagree that our CO2 emissions contribute to the effect, I'm just skeptical of the extent to which it does. But what I think most people have forgotten is that global warming is just one of many issues caused by industrial and consumer pollution.
Off the top of my head there's also acid rain, the effects on health of intense concentrations of polluted air - Kuala Lumpur and LA come to mind. Ozone depletion is arguably far worse an issue than global warming; unfiltered UV radiation will kill you, as opposed to making life more/less convenient.
-
Originally posted by SadisticSid
I don't know how valid the research was but the only denial of validity I've so far seen came from the IPCC which is an organisation guilty of bias and misinformation (http://www.john-daly.com/guests/un_ipcc.htm).
David E. Wojick;
Host of climatechangedebate.org
Science adviser to the Greening Earth Society Editor of WashingtonPest.com Greening Earth Society is a PR organization dedicated to discrediting global warming theories. It is funded by Western Fuels Association, an alliance of coal burning companies
News analyst for Electricity Daily Electiricty Daily is an offshoot of the Electricity Journal, which is the leading policy journal of the US electricity industry
Wojick is a consultant to industry and corporate-funded groups such as the Heartland Institute, Cato Institute and Citizens for a Sound Economy. His clients have included several government agencies, trade associations such as the International Pest Management Association, and corporations ranging from U.S. Steel Corp to CitiBank. Source: http://www.bydesign.com/powervision/clients.html
I'll focus on the thinktanks....
Heartland Institute - ran as a mouthpiece for industry, including reprentatives from tobacco companies, General Motors and Exxon on the board
Cato Institute - Libertarian (although supported restriction on civil liberties by the Bush government) thinktank with strong connections to the Republican party; main funders include Exxon (again), Chevron, Shell, and the American Petroleum Institute
Citizens for a Sound Economy. - Another industry funded think tank. 85% of funding in 1998 came from big industry like moco, Bell Atlantic, Citibank, General Electric and General Motors. One notable case is opposing FDA drug regulation procedures, blaming 4,000 deathson slow FDA certification of nitrazepam in a speech to congress members. When asked what nitrazepam was for, the representative didn't actually know (insomnia).
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
the thing about China (and elseware) is a legitimate problem with the protocall, no we aren't to terably axious about reduceing our emmissions, but isn't the fact that it targets us unfairly a decent reason for us not to get involved in it?
the fact that your focusing so much on us and not all the other people who are getting a free ride shows that you only want this as a political stick. no we aren't going out of our way to do anything about it, but asside from parts of Europe, neither is any one else. why are we getting singled out?
And here we go again with the anti-americanism defense just by another name. Bob your country is the biggest producer of greenhouse gases. It has refused to do anything about this at all and in fact until last year continually denied that the problem even existed.
THAT is why you're being singled out. Once America admits that there is a problem. Once America realises that new technologies aren't going to be available to save us in time. Once America stops being part of the problem and tries to be part of the solution (Something which China is doing) then you'll find no one is picking on you.
If you don't like Kyoto fine, work on a better solution. What Americans like you are doing however is saying I don't like Kyoto do all the work for me on another protocol so that I can reject that too for equally spurious reasons.
Originally posted by Bobboau
I'll reclarify it, is the US realy so evil for not going along with this particular plan?
As I've pointed out before and reiterated about, what makes you so evil is that you don't want to go along with it because you think you can keep ignoring it until the problem goes away. The problem is nothing to do with Kyoto and everything to do with the fact that the US wants to do nothing
Originally posted by SadisticSid
Well before you declare it nonsense look at research done by Harvard CFA that revealed temperatures between the ninth and fourteenth centuries were much higher than today. Funnily enough, history for that period does not document the presence of factories, cars and power stations.
http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/06/nclim06.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/04/06/ixhome.html
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/press/pr0310.html
Well Aldo's already shown why it's ridiculous to claim that the IPCC is biased based on the word of a corporate mouthpiece like Wojick so I'll point out some of the flaws in the rest of the study and your other comments.
1) If it's not due to mankinds influence why is the temperature rising? Global temperature change doesn't occur simply because the planet feels like moving closer to the sun. So if you're saying that the planet is coming out of an ice age I ask you why? What's changed?
2) This medieval warm period you mention may not have been a global phenomenon. Despite claims that it lasted from ~800AD to 1300AD the fact remains that antartic ice cores show that temperatures 1000 to 900 years ago were actually quite cold.
Other studies put the temperature of the medieval warm period as lower than that which the Harvard study claims and many others claim that the medieval warm period was neither global nor as severe as current climate change even if it was.
3) None of that takes into account the effect of global dimming which has had the effect of hiding from us the worst effects of global warming. Climatologists are only recently realising that their models of global warming were actually too optimistic since they didn't realise that they were using a false baseline as it was causing around a 10% drop in the effective amount of warming caused by the sun. Global dimming has reversed since the 1990's and this will result in global warming being far worse than predicted.
Originally posted by SadisticSid
I don't disagree that our CO2 emissions contribute to the effect, I'm just skeptical of the extent to which it does. But what I think most people have forgotten is that global warming is just one of many issues caused by industrial and consumer pollution.
Off the top of my head there's also acid rain, the effects on health of intense concentrations of polluted air - Kuala Lumpur and LA come to mind. Ozone depletion is arguably far worse an issue than global warming; unfiltered UV radiation will kill you, as opposed to making life more/less convenient.
CFCs which cause ozone depletion are actually very potent greenhouse gases too. That means that we should be taking steps to eliminate them as much as possible I agree. However the world has taken steps to reduce the emissions of CFCs and the general consensus appears to be that the hole is repairing itself. However global waming is actually likely to reverse that trend and create more ozone holes.
As for acid rain etc. sulphur dioxide is a large cause of global dimming. I'm all for removing it and ending the problem but at the moment it's mitigating the effects of an even larger problem so we need to tackle them both at the same time or otherwise we risk solving one problem to have a bigger one bite us in the arse.
-
Originally posted by Kosh
Face it, Bush is just using it as an excuse to do nothing about it. They want to destroy the environment because it would, theoretically, bring on the second coming (despite the fact that they are supposed to take care of the environment). Where do I get this stuff from? Just look at James Watts famous quote to Congress.
Yeah...you just keep wearing that tinfoil hat there :rolleyes:
Originally posted by Sadistic Sid
I don't disagree that our CO2 emissions contribute to the effect, I'm just skeptical of the extent to which it does. But what I think most people have forgotten is that global warming is just one of many issues caused by industrial and consumer pollution.
Off the top of my head there's also acid rain, the effects on health of intense concentrations of polluted air - Kuala Lumpur and LA come to mind. Ozone depletion is arguably far worse an issue than global warming; unfiltered UV radiation will kill you, as opposed to making life more/less convenient.
Actually, those other problems aren't as bad as you might think. Industrial pollutants like sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide have dropped substantially from their highest levels thanks to new technologies like catalytic converters; most are now relatively easily managed. I just heard a story about a week ago saying that it's now thought that the ozone hole will start to shrink over the next couple of years, due to the severe decreases in CFC usage by developed countries. Things like smog and acid rain aren't as bad as they used to be; the CO2 emissions is definitely the major issue when it comes to pollution.
To many of you, why do you automatically assume that, just because the US hasn't signed Kyoto, we're not taking other steps to start to reduce CO2 emissions? Using that particular protocol isn't the only way to go about things. From what I've heard, many large industries (Shell, for instance) are voluntarily cutting back their emissions. Individual states are developing stricter regulations for industry. The hybrid car market, although admittedly small at the moment, will continue to pick up (even if I personally think that at least one of the Big Three should have the balls to declare one single brand entirely hybrid). Things are being done; we Americans aren't doing anything as ridiculous as pretending that climate change isn't an important issue. This is where I think that some of you are showing at least some level of bias; you're making blanket statements about all Americans that are completely ignoring the facts.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
1) If it's not due to mankinds influence why is the temperature rising? Global temperature change doesn't occur simply because the planet feels like moving closer to the sun. So if you're saying that the planet is coming out of an ice age I ask you why? What's changed?
Climates fluctuate naturally. There has been a minimum of nine warming-cooling cycles in the last couple million years, we happen to be in the middle of one such. Don't be fooled. The Ice Age is not over and we are in a period of short-term (in geologic terms) climatic shifts.
(http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400000yearssmall.jpg)
As you can see, it's a cycle. What's scary is that our actions may be tipping things more quickly into an ice age . . . . or keeping us out of one for longer. And we just don't know.
But it's a complete and utter mistake to say that we've came out of an ice age and that global temperatures are at all stable over centuries and millenia of time. They've actually been more stable now than they were in previous intraglacials, which is possibly all that allowed us to form an advanced civilization.
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
To many of you, why do you automatically assume that, just because the US hasn't signed Kyoto, we're not taking other steps to start to reduce CO2 emissions?
It's hard to believe that you're doing anything about it when your own president was claiming as recently as last year that there was no evidence that global warming is due to human activity.
Originally posted by Mongoose
hings are being done; we Americans aren't doing anything as ridiculous as pretending that climate change isn't an important issue. This is where I think that some of you are showing at least some level of bias; you're making blanket statements about all Americans that are completely ignoring the facts.
I'm making blanket statements that your government is completely ignoring the facts. And they are. No bias. Clinton was just as big a dick about it as either Bush.
The problem is that not enough is being done. The little dribs and drabs you mention just isn't good enough. More is needed.
Originally posted by Shrike
Climates fluctuate naturally.
Every time I think I'm labouring my points too much I get a response like this that shows I'm not doing it enough! :D
Of course climates fluctuate. Now tell me why they fluctuate. In other words what is the direct cause of this rise in temperature. For the people who claim that it's not mankinds fault tell me what is to blame.
When you talk about the permian extinction you can point at the Siberian Traps or methane hydrate.
What's to blame here? Cause something must have changed. And the only excuse I've ever heard from the anti-global warming lobby is to shrug their shoulders and say I don't know.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
we may be the worlds highest per capita poluters, but were also the worlds highest per capita producers, we aren't any more waistfull than anyone else, we just do a lot more.
Yeah ..trash..
An US citizen spends more energy and water and produces more garbage then any other in the world as I recall..
But that's not the point - you tell me exactly how is trying to stop pollution crippling US economy? Oh .. a few millions companies must invest in filters for their factories or modernization processes? Big loss - better spend them there then for the bosses Jacht or private jet...
-
This is bordering on absudity. The US needs to sign into Kyoto NOW!! Bush needs to sign an executive order turning over the powers of the government to the UN so that the US will stop polluting up the world!!
Bush is such a wacked out Christian nut that he wants the environment to be destroyed so that Western Civilization will fall apart because thats what his religion says.
I never saw the truth until now.. you guys are all right! There is global warming and mankind is causing it. So we should all immediately commit hara-kiri and let evolution continute from the broken thing its become!
Back to Reality....
People should protect the environment and im not one who looks out over LA, breaths in deeply and says "ahhhhh progress!" 50 years ago companies couldnt care less about polutants and chemicals, now our laws have gone to the other extreme, cant build a highway because of "wetlands" There has to be a balance somewhere, and we shouldnt have to sacrifice entirely our way of life to get there. Not related to global warming but still environmentally related.
Another thing, why isnt global warming called "world warming" or something else... why global if it only effects the ice caps apparently?
-
It affects everything, the effect is most profound at the poles and the equator.
-
[q]why global if it only effects the ice caps apparently?[/q]
Venus. Go look. Consider. Restate idea.
-
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
The US needs to sign into Kyoto NOW!! Bush needs to sign an executive order turning over the powers of the government to the UN so that the US will stop polluting up the world!!
The US needs to stop polluting, as does everyone else. Whether they do that by enacting local laws, signing on to a UN program or by doing some sort of elaborate tap-dance is really irrelevant. They could call in the shaman for all I care, as long as it works.
Like I said: even if you accept all the arguements of the critics, there is no reason to throw caution to the wind. Long term consequences have to be considered above short term consequences, and global consequences have to be considered above national consequences. Even if you are a skeptic, it's far better to be safe than to wait until it's too late and until no sacrifice, no matter how large, will save the situation.
-
I guess i should point out that i was being extremely sarcastic.
-
What Shrike said. And since he didn't say this yet: Earth first! We'll stripmine the other planets later...
:p
On that note, global warming is so nineties. The current bogeyman is terrorism. You guys are so terribly passé.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Every time I think I'm labouring my points too much I get a response like this that shows I'm not doing it enough! :D
Of course climates fluctuate. Now tell me why they fluctuate. In other words what is the direct cause of this rise in temperature. For the people who claim that it's not mankinds fault tell me what is to blame.
When you talk about the permian extinction you can point at the Siberian Traps or methane hydrate.
What's to blame here? Cause something must have changed. And the only excuse I've ever heard from the anti-global warming lobby is to shrug their shoulders and say I don't know.
Milankovich cycles is a prime contender. Possibly long-term cooling/dimming cycles in the Sun. Nobody really knows for certain. But ultimately it's just a red herring. The global climate has been changing over time, repeatedly, and without any human intervention.
Our contribution to this is disturbing a pre-existing cycle. To reiterate: We don't have a clue what our actions are really doing over the long term. But there's something already happening and we're just mucking with it.
Personally I'm all for emission reduction, via Kyoto or not. Actually I dislike some of Kyoto's points, such as selling emission credits which I think is counterproductive.
In other news, let the stripmining of the solar system begin! First planet to resource exhaustion wiiiiiiiins!
-
Bobboau i cannot believe you - you've boughten into the bull**** oh-so-completely.
Signing onto Kyoto would not hurt our economy - it would hurt certain excessively wealthy polluting groups of *******s whom own a bunch of senators and have "pocket 'scientist'" to spew bull**** to confuse the public all day long.
Yes the planet's temperature fluctuates on it's own - so let's not contribute ti the instability by excess polution and deforestation
-
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
This is bordering on absudity. The US needs to sign into Kyoto NOW!! Bush needs to sign an executive order turning over the powers of the government to the UN so that the US will stop polluting up the world!!
Bush is such a wacked out Christian nut that he wants the environment to be destroyed so that Western Civilization will fall apart because thats what his religion says.
I never saw the truth until now.. you guys are all right! There is global warming and mankind is causing it. So we should all immediately commit hara-kiri and let evolution continute from the broken thing its become!
Back to Reality....
People should protect the environment and im not one who looks out over LA, breaths in deeply and says "ahhhhh progress!" 50 years ago companies couldnt care less about polutants and chemicals, now our laws have gone to the other extreme, cant build a highway because of "wetlands" There has to be a balance somewhere, and we shouldnt have to sacrifice entirely our way of life to get there. Not related to global warming but still environmentally related.
Another thing, why isnt global warming called "world warming" or something else... why global if it only effects the ice caps apparently?
1) I have to ask why yet another highway needs to be built over wetlands. Considerations have to be made for both environmental and economic impact...sometimes the benefit can be for both.
2) U.S. laws on environmental protection are not nearly as strong as they are in other western nations.
3) The melting of the icecaps has the possibility of huge impacts felt globally. From previous discussions, I remember you displaying several times that you hadn't quite wrapped around the concept of the world as a system. An impact in one corner of the world (the icecaps as you have mentioned) affects the entire planet. There is a balance and a system...the impacts are felt globally. Thus global warming as the average temperature is rising (locally it can be plus or minus 3-4 degrees on average).
Again, the question is not about if there is a warming trend. The question is how much we're going to tip the scales. The ecosystem on Earth has not been static for its entire history...at one point the planet was a frozen iceball. In another, it was inhospitable and multitudes of species died. Infact mass extinctions have happened several times over.
The difference now is that we're here and we're quite unlike anything else.
Now consider a hypothetical situation. Global warming leads to a pattern change in the U.S. Midwest. Crop yeilds dimminish and continental food supplies are diminished...food becomes more expensive and people begin to be more desperate as once plentiful food supplies become increasingly hard to find. Not good news...could be a bit of a problem if it were to happen. We will have to adapt one way or another....but whats really bad is if we were the determining factor that tipped the scales and put the planet over the top.
-
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
Another thing, why isnt global warming called "world warming" or something else... why global if it only effects the ice caps apparently?
Asked and Answered (http://207.38.10.121/~freespace/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33607&highlight=worldwide+warming) previously.
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
Another thing why isnt global warming called Worldwide Warming?
Originally posted by karajorma
That's a rather silly question. Why the hell should they have called it that. Besides worldwide warming implies (to me at least) that everywhere in the world will get warmer. As I've already stated that's not true. Britain for instance will get colder (at least in winter). Global Warming on the other hand indicates that the Earth as a whole will get warmer which is exactly what will happen.
Only this time you're getting even more silly with it. You're the only one saying that global warming only affects the ice caps. I've never heard anyone from either the pro or anti camps say anything so preposterous before.
-
Many people here also don't seem to understand the fact that global warming also DOES **** up the current system real bad. When those grind to a halt, then the rainfall patterns will change.
And yes, Bush is a whacked out Christian. He attacked a country 3 years ago because he thought God wanted him too. That's all the proof his is whacked out most people will need.
-
*Cocks rifle* Well, God told me to do something too, it's time to pay Bush a visit...*Slams door* :devil:
...To the CIA/NSA/FBI lads who picked up on this post through your monitoring system, one word for you...KIDDING...! :p
-
Nuke the planet, it's more fun and has prety explosions that you can seen/experience for a few seconds:D
/runs
-
Originally posted by Kosh
And aye, Bush be a whacked out Christian. He attacked a country 3 years ago on account o' he thought God wanted him too. That's all th'proof his be whacked out most people will need.
That gets a royal dose of :wtf: from me...
-
You can hide from th'truth all ye want, but that doesn't change th'fact that Bush be insane.
EDIT: With the pirate talk on that actually does sound kind of cool.
-
I'm not hidin' from th'truth; I just think ye're takin' yer disapproval o' him t'a ridiculous level. I can understand that ye might think that he's a bad president; even though I'm usually in agreement with his policies, thar are many issues where I think he should have done things differently. However, resortin' t'questionin' his sanity be pretty childish IMO.
Edit: I vote we keep the pirate speak, at least for the political threads. It's hard to get annoyed at someone when everything looks like this :p
-
I believe 'whacked out Christian' is a humerous exaggeration. There's no evidence Bush is actually Christian, what with the lack of compassion for the poor or charity. Plus that whole thing with Rumsfeld breaks the 'graven images' commandment.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I believe 'whacked out Christian' be a humerous exaggeration. There's nay evidence Bush be actually Christian, what with th'lack o' compassion for th'poor or charity. Plus that whole thin' with Rumsfeld breaks th''graven images' commandment.
Despite the fact that he claims he is.
-
Seriously Kosh you're moving away from reasoned discussion and into conspiracy theory here.
-
Maybe you're right. So, let's get back on topic, shall we? Global warming is bad. :p
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Seriously Kosh ye're movin' away from reasoned discussion an' into conspiracy theory here.
Ooooooh no, we're not even close t'gettin' into conspiracy theory stuff here. It's common conjecture that Bush be indeed a whacked out Christian Fanatic, what's not known be that he's actually th'forerunner o' an Alien Invasion that's tryin' t'dumb down our species and/or make us blow ourselves up, so we'll be easily conquered. You see, th'Aliens don't actually want us specifically, they want a Sub-Fusion Reactor Core located in th'sunken City o' Atlantis located several kilometres beneath present day Arctic Circle. The closest we came t'discoverin' this was th'unmanned probe that was sent t'the Moon in 1968 - launched t'lay mirrors an' such t'prepare evidence for th'faked moon landings, t'be filmed th'next year at a set adjacent t'Area 51 - which stumbled across their Invasion Fleet lyin' under th'surface o' th'moon, which be in actuality entirely hollow (it was built by these Aliens as part o' their first invasion several hundred years ago, more commonly known as th'"Crusades")...
...Of course, that only scratches th'surface o' how deep this conspiracy goes, from th'Whitehouse, t'the local police station, t'that midget in me bookclub what keeps stealin' all me ideas, they're all in on it...in fact, i'm pretty sure you're in on it too, Kara! *puts on tin foil hat* Stay out o' me head Kara!!!
-
Originally posted by Mefustae
. The closest we came t'discoverin' this was th'unmanned probe that was sent t'the Moon in 1968 - launched t'lay mirrors an' such t'prepare evidence for th'faked moon landings, t'be filmed th'next year at a set adjacent t'Area 51 - which stumbled across their Invasion Fleet lyin' under th'surface o' th'moon, which be in actuality entirely hollow
No, when we went to the moon we found that it was made of cheese, and the goverment tryed to hide it from the public, and in Area 51 they have brought some back and are tsting it's flavors, Moon Cheddar, Moon Swiss, ect. and it's a disgrace they keep it all to themselves.;7
-
(http://www.wallaceandgromit.com/images/gallery/gdoGal4Large.jpg)
(http://www.wallaceandgromit.com/images/gallery/gdoGal1Large.jpg)
-
Quote from Eishtmo on WS in this thread (http://warpstorm.com/community/index.php?topic=7468.msg167381#msg167381).
BAH! Radioactive Hamster from a Planet Near Mars my ass. Totally pathetic creatures honestly, went down in under two hours. Now the Sectoids, they were a real opponet.
It was back in the early sixties, when Kennedy was President, Vietnam was heating up and forks walked around in public. Don't remember the forks? Eh, it doesn't matter, I think the planetary brain wipe of '77 probably removed that. Anyways, I was running a sting in San Fransisco against the shipment of time altering drugs (which were, are, will be, responsible for the return of bell bottoms, but that wasn't my fault, I was working a different case at the time) when the call went out for the best to report to our Jersey HQ. Jersey stank then as it does today, but that was the result of the processing of Jersey Devil manure which we used for things you haven't even imagined yet.
The news was grave. An alien ship, a Sectoid ship we learned later, had landed on the moon and had begun constructing a base. We've been aware of aliens for decades, since the first run in them during the Civil War when the CSS Virgina was forced to fight one of their primative ships in Charlston harbor (later, the Union would calim that the Monitor was the ship in the battle, and that was fine in the long run), but after we showed them that our weapons were more than up to the challenge of a fight, none came to call again.
Of course, as soon as they had landed, we sent an official protest to the galatic council regarding it. We hadn't even been contacted regarding a reseach colony of any kind (there's some doubt as to whether we would have approved of one or not), and it was initally assumed that this was such a colony. The council responded with a short, but firm message: "We're at war with them, we can't spare the resources to help you. You're on your own."
The phrase "Can't spare the resources" scared us more than anything else. If they couldn't spare a single ship to deal with these losers, or even a tech expert, these Sectoids must have been very, very nasty. I was put in charge of finding a way to extricate the bastards from the moon, a job harder than any I've taken before (though long overshadowed by the pie rebellion that eventually brought down the Soviet Union and nearly the entire world). I gathered the smartest people I knew and began planning. The plans, however, were huge. Gigantic, in fact, requiring massive resources and manpower, something we've lacked since World War II. I took this problem to the my surperiors, and they seemed dumbfounded on how to do it. Then our Soviet friends launched the first man into space.
Things went quickly from there. The President was contacted and it was through him that the project finally got off the ground. The base, as far as we could tell, would be fully operational in about 9 years (it was a big base), so we set a timeline: We had to destroy the thing by the end of the decade, or kiss our collective asses good bye.
I'd like to say everything went smooth as silk, hell, we were even ahead of schedule for a while, but it didn't. The Sectoids found out about our plans, or at least thought they did. They caught one of our people on a spy mission near one of their smaller observation outposts in India. To this day I don't know how much he told them, but in the end, they didn't even show him mercy. Over the next two years, we were forced to fight off a succession of Sectoid raids on various military bases all over the world. The battles were terrible affairs, and many died, but we repelled them every time, and managed to keep the bulk of our equipment and plans hidden safely. But they set us back, big time. The last fight was in '67, when they attacked the launch pad of Apollo one. A single stray shot managed to hit the capsule, and killed the three men inside. They didn't even know there was a battle going on outside.
It wasn't until '69 that the weapon was ready. I won't go into details, but it was a glorious achievement, one that has paid dividends in the years since. The problem was that it required someone to actually use it while in orbit. You could ask Michael Collins about it, but he'll deny it (part of the brain wipe thing again, that was something totally man made and completely unrelated to the Sectoids). Yet he was the best we ever had. Not long after Armstrong gave his famous words, Collins fired the weapon at the base on the dark side of the moon. If it could have been seen from Earth, the explosion would have been spectacular. As it was, the world was more fixated on the moon landing, and so it went unnoticed, just as planned.
Later, we decided to rake the base again, you know, just to be sure, but damn it all if the thing didn't malfunction and send Apollo 13 spinning out of control. Despite that, the council paid well for the weapon, and beat the Sectoids back in a grand series of battles. The last actually happened near Mars, as the Sectoids had finally figured out who and doomed them and came after us. In the end, instead of targets, we were mearly observers to the destruction. We were all pleased with the results, but the funding finally had to dry up. NASA had to abandon Apollo, and began spiralling down into obscurity and underfunding. Honestly, we haven't needed them since we got those three battlecrusiers from the council. Part of the payment, and a whole mess of UFO sightings. But then, that's all part of the job.
Let's see if quoting WS works...
EDIT: Partially. Needed to edit it a bit though.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I believe 'whacked out Christian' is a humerous exaggeration. There's no evidence Bush is actually Christian, what with the lack of compassion for the poor or charity. Plus that whole thing with Rumsfeld breaks the 'graven images' commandment.
I believe it is naive and unrealistic to think that a creed's stated tenets have anything to do with what it actually is. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who declares himself a Christian is a Christian. It's just a name with some pretty symbols attached to it.
-
edit; what the hell was I on about?