[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Bobboau
what was it Bush was saying about Iraqs WMDs? we can't wait untill we loose a city? were threatened with looseing  thousands of miles of land and millions of our people alone dieing. while I am not convinced that we are the cause of the problem, there is a problem, and you seem to have a far too dismissive attitude about it, it seems, because it might hurt you politicaly.

Without wishing to stray into Iraq-war-debate territory, global warming does have the benefit of stuff like evidence and ongoing research and soforth ot back up action.

Incidentally, RE: that graph I put up earlier.  IIRC here is quite a bit evidence of an increase in the rate of temperature rise over the last 50 years (if you look at that graph, it's not a linear rise but a curved, increasing one).  Alone it's obviously not proof of a relationship to human activity (although it parallels somewhat the industrialisation of the world), the connection is backed up by studies and soforth into the effect of pollution in terms of climate change.

Also, tacking climate change doesn't entail a wholespread change of human civillisation.  Things like tightening control over emissions regulations, focusing on replaceable fuel sources (waves, wind, solar), encouraging use of non-petrol based cars (hybrid, electric, natural gas) and reducing car use (encouraging carpooling, putting money into subsidised public transport).  Not to mention the simple benefit of requiring people switch the power off - how many offices do you see at night with the lights, computer screens, etc left on?

None of these require fundamental changes; they won't solve the problem, but they will make a start.

[EtherShock]

That article was incredibly disturbing karajorma. Hopefully we won't get the worst-case scenario if we can't curb global warming.

Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
You guys are acting like this stuff that is preached in the pulpits of labratories is gospel. These clowns cant even predict correctly or not if it is going to rain or not much less predict the end of the world in 20 years. Even if we found a nice spot in the middile of the pacific and detonated a thousand nuclear weapons, we couldnt destroy the atmosphere. Gosh in order to destroy the atmosphere the planet would have to look like Couroscant from space.

You think this civilization which 'exploits and destroys' the earth purposefully for financial gain is evil anyway, so why should you have any qualms about letting it destroy itself?

If we are going to die anyway, why should we waste our last days in fear, panic, and uncertainty about whether our foolish notions that we can fix the planet like they do in the movies, that we destroyed no less, rather than just accept our fate and get on with our lives? You know what, if the world as we know it does come to an end because of global warming, does that mean that fewer sperm will be produced because of the increase of temperature in the male gonads? We are doomed no matter what.

This is an example of the kind of attitude that will lead to our destruction, basically ignoring the problem. I say it's better to act on the information we have than to sit back and see what happens.

[Bobboau]

Originally posted by aldo_14


Incidentally, RE: that graph I put up earlier.  IIRC here is quite a bit evidence of an increase in the rate of temperature rise over the last 50 years (if you look at that graph, it's not a linear rise but a curved, increasing one).  Alone it's obviously not proof of a relationship to human activity (although it parallels somewhat the industrialisation of the world), the connection is backed up by studies and soforth into the effect of pollution in terms of climate change.

Originally posted by Bobboau

geometric growth

[IceFire]

Wow...that Pentagon report adds another dimension I hadn't really considered.  I hope we never see that day...

[Mongoose]

Originally posted by aldo_14
This has been responsible for at least 2 mass extinctions; including the Permian extinction 250m years ago, that nearly wiped out all lif on earth - 94% of oceanic life died, oxygen levels plumetted, it took about 20-30m years for the coral reefs to regrow and about 100m for ecosystems to recover to the same extent as before..

It's believed that was caused by CO2 emissions from volcanic activity.  Humanity is capable of the same output levels.

Isn't this extinction now believed to be caused by an impact with an asteroid or comet, similar to that of 65 mya (link)? Or are you referring to the aftereffects of said collision?

[Ford Prefect]

You think this civilization which 'exploits and destroys' the earth purposefully for financial gain is evil anyway, so why should you have any qualms about letting it destroy itself?

See, right there is the problem. You're making it a moral issue when it doesn't have to be. I hate camping and I think whales are boring as sh!t, but I recognize that curbing pollution is not about being nice to the cute furry animals, it's about our survival. We won't know how long we can survive unless we try.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
You are right, im too stupid to understand the importance and the reality of global warming, and since i dont have a degree in climatology, and not a certified 'expect' i can never talk any sense about global warming and i must listen and believe without question everything they say, even if it includes altering the way of life of every person in a civilized country.

I don't have a degree in climatology but I'm talking. Talking is fine as long as you don't act like you know everything. You've yet to provide me with one reason why global warming isn't real. The articles you linked to generally support that it is real (Including the one on global dimming which you probably though was a contradiction).
 If you've got a real point to make I'm happy to listen but at the moment all I'm hearing is tin foil hat theories about how all the climatologists are wrong but you're right and no evidence whatsoever of why you're right.
 All I see from you is a case of someone who wants to stick his fingers in his ears and pretend that it isn't happening. If you think it's not happening prove it.

Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
If you want to alter the way of life of everybody just wait another 20 years and everything will chage. At least we will know if its all just a buch of bulsht or not. We will save lots of money, lots of work hours, and lots of problems. But even if it isnt 20 years, im predicting that Global Warming will go on, just the predictions will change to be 20 more years

We've waited 30 years already and the effects are already obvious. Out of the top ten hottest years since recording began almost all (if not all of them) are within the last 30 years. That's not isolated data. That's a trend.

Sure solving global warming might cause lots of problems but ignoring it will cause a f**kload more.

Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
Another thing why isnt global warming called Worldwide Warming?

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.

Originally posted by Mongoose
Isn't this extinction now believed to be caused by an impact with an asteroid or comet, similar to that of 65 mya (link)? Or are you referring to the aftereffects of said collision?

I don't know if I believe that an asteroid or comet impact could cause the Permian extinction. It seems unlikely that a single impact triggered the million year long erruption of the Siberian Traps.

I tend to go with the theory here.

The exctinction due to warming was slow until the methane hydrate bubbled out of the ocean. After that happened 95% of sea life died within 4,000 years.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Mongoose

Isn't this extinction now believed to be caused by an impact with an asteroid or comet, similar to that of 65 mya (link)? Or are you referring to the aftereffects of said collision?

Effects; see
[q]The collision wasn't directly responsible for the extinction but rather triggered a series of events, such as massive volcanism and changes in ocean oxygen, sea level and climate[/q]

My understanding is that climate change is regarded as the most likely cause, although I think the triggering factor for that change is still a matter of debate.

[DeepSpace9er]

The exctinction due to warming was slow until the methane hydrate bubbled out of the ocean. After that happened 95% of sea life died within 4,000 years.

So basically the earth killed everone on it due to its own warming, or the dinosaurs had internal combustion engines?

If the earth is warming itself, how do you think that any solution of ours could fix it? Volcanoes erupt all the time, and they release more gases and heat than mankind could ever pump out.

But seriously you didnt think that the story about clearer skies killing off the planet was comical? That flies in the face of all the scientists that state how we are producing so much smog and pollution that its warming up the planet, but when the skies are clearer than expected, its still a problem.

[Ford Prefect]

Volcanoes erupt all the time, and they release more gases and heat than mankind could ever pump out.

I think you're underestimating the sheer amounts of gas produced by human machinery. There are six billion people on this planet. Just because the earth has warmed itself in the past doesn't mean we can't do it too. Again, I'm not saying that humanity is "evil", just that we're going to have to start paying real attention to this issue for our own good.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
So basically the earth killed everone on it due to its own warming, or the dinosaurs had internal combustion engines?

More ignorance. The question is whether or not Trilobites had the internal combustion engine. The dinosaurs didn't evolve until after the Permian extinction.

Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
If the earth is warming itself, how do you think that any solution of ours could fix it?

Who said that the Earth is warming itself this time? Do you not understand the basic concept that mankind can duplicate the effects of nature? Previous extinctions have caused deforestation so I guess what's going on in the Brazillian rain forests must also be natural and not due to people cutting down trees. I suppose that since the H-Bomb is similar to the processes in the centre of the sun it must also be a natural phenomenon?

Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
Volcanoes erupt all the time, and they release more gases and heat than mankind could ever pump out.  

Volcanos do not pump out more gases than mankind does. Last time someone made that assertion I found sources to prove it *digs up old thread*

The eruption of Mount Pinatubo released 42 Megatons of CO2 into the atmosphere (source). Remember that Pinatubo is considered one of the biggest eruptions of recent times (if not the biggest).

The USA however produces emissions of 5,500 Megatons each year (source)

In other words the USA alone pumps out more CO2 than all the volcanos on Earth.

Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
But seriously you didnt think that the story about clearer skies killing off the planet was comical? That flies in the face of all the scientists that state how we are producing so much smog and pollution that its warming up the planet, but when the skies are clearer than expected, its still a problem.

Nope. It isn't comical. It's tragic. If you pay attention scientists have never been claiming that smog was warming the Earth. The comments have always focused on CO2, Methane, CFCs and various other greenhouse gases.

Air pollution is bad for other reasons. Mainly because of damage to the ozone layer and also because of the effects of smog on peoples health. I've never seen a single scientific paper that blamed smog for global warming.

Scientists have always known that smog would cool the Earth. The mistake they made is that they didn't realise how much because greenhouse gas emissions were masking this effect and there are very few ways you can directly measure the effect of particulate matter on global temperature.  As a result the effects of smog and particulate matter were always taken as being nearly negligable.

[Nico]

Kara, why do you even bother?

[karajorma]

Cause maybe some bystanders other than DeepSpace9er might actually sit up and take notice. I know he's a lost cause but hopefully a few other people will read things like the Pentagon report and realise what a big problem this actually is.

[Mongoose]

Originally posted by aldo_14


Effects; see
[q]The collision wasn't directly responsible for the extinction but rather triggered a series of events, such as massive volcanism and changes in ocean oxygen, sea level and climate[/q]

My understanding is that climate change is regarded as the most likely cause, although I think the triggering factor for that change is still a matter of debate.

I guess it would be nice if I managed to read my own links.

[DeepSpace9er]

Just  to clarify a little bit on where i stand. I am not a destroy-the-environment types, but i understand that pollution is a necessary evil that must exist for society to continue to exist. Being realistic there is no way we can become completely green; there will always be pollutants.

What i am against is going to extremes to protect the environment even to the point of accepting what these scientists say without question because it fits the green template: that mankind is ruining the earth and we must fix it. I dont think that we should pollute unchecked, and that unoverbearing emissions controls can be a good thing, but Kyoto is too much.

Another illustration of where i stand would be: I would consider buying a hybrid car, because it has better gas milage not that its a green car.

Could you just give me a simple illustration of what civilization would be in your perfect society where we dont pollute the world?

[aldo_14]

Do you actually know what Kyoto required?

It set targets ('credits') upon CO2 emissions which were actualyl higher than the emissions at the time of ratification (targeted at reducing the rise in temperature to 0.8c).  Nations which hit/were under these targets (such as Russia) can sell the 'credit' from this to other nations (i.e. countries can actually make money from being under their targets).  Additionally, nations receive credit based upon environmental measures such as reforestation.

Strangely, the EU has implemented the protocol (on target to reduce emissions to be 4.7% less than 1990 by 2008); and yet I don't see the UK economy collapsing.  Although I believe  the main argument is that Kyoto is itself quite weak and serves a purpose as groundwork for further reductions rather than being a be-all and end-all. (It's worth noting preventing global warming has its own financial benefits; 141 countries don't ratify a treaty out of the goodness of their hearts)

It's probably worth noting China - one of the worlds fastest growing economies - has managed to reduce CO2 emissions 17% since 1997, and it's not even formally covered by Kyoto yet (although it has ratified it and is expected to declare itself an Annex-1 country by the end of the decade).

(China, incidentally, produces 2.3tonnes of CO2 per capita; the US produces 20.1 and the EU 8.5)

your main arguement seems to be that 'we can't eliminate all pollution, so lets do nothing atall'.  Unfortunately that's akin to some sort of damage maximisation programme... although there's probably a strong argument that with switches to sustainable energy, investment in electric rather than petrol transport (incidentally, IIRC they just tested an elctrically powered jet aircraft), reforestation, etc you could create a natural balance where reduced emissions can be controlled through said reforestation.

It's probably an attitude akin to the people in the Us government who thanked the Exxon corporation for their input into US climate policy. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1501646,00.html)

[karajorma]

Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
What i am against is going to extremes to protect the environment even to the point of accepting what these scientists say without question because it fits the green template: that mankind is ruining the earth and we must fix it.

Oh dear. This just gets worse by the second.

So now that we've proved every single ill-informed assertion you've made on this thread incorrect you resort back to your tin foil hat assertion that the entire scientific community is involved in some kind of secret agenda designed to cripple economies just because they are tree-huggers.

You can't produce a single shred of evidence that this is the case but because conspiracy theories are so hard to catagorically deny you've decided to latch on to the one argument you know can't be refuted.

Absolutely pathetic.

While you might think that the emission controls laid out in Kyoto were bad for America you'll find out soon enough that they are nothing compared to what the Pentagon thinks is going to happen when the world warms up.

You're doing to a great job of protecting American industry all the way down the toilet.

[Kosh]

It's probably worth noting China - one of the worlds fastest growing economies - has managed to reduce CO2 emissions 17% since 1997, and it's not even formally covered by Kyoto yet (although it has ratified it and is expected to declare itself an Annex-1 country by the end of the decade).

(China, incidentally, produces 2.3tonnes of CO2 per capita; the US produces 20.1 and the EU 8.5)

And China is a much poorer country than the US. The government there has a much larger population to take care of, and has fewer resources to do it with.

Just to clarify a little bit on where i stand. I am not a destroy-the-environment types,

Prove it.

What i am against is going to extremes to protect the environment

The US spends many times more in a month occupying other countries than it spends in 3 years on the development of cleaner energy sources/fuels.


I swear I feel the IQ of this country dropping every second......

[EtherShock]

Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
Just to clarify a little bit on where i stand. I am not a destroy-the-environment types, but i understand that pollution is a necessary evil that must exist for society to continue to exist. Being realistic there is no way we can become completely green; there will always be pollutants.

What i am against is going to extremes to protect the environment even to the point of accepting what these scientists say without question because it fits the green template: that mankind is ruining the earth and we must fix it. I dont think that we should pollute unchecked, and that unoverbearing emissions controls can be a good thing, but Kyoto is too much.

Another illustration of where i stand would be: I would consider buying a hybrid car, because it has better gas milage not that its a green car.

Could you just give me a simple illustration of what civilization would be in your perfect society where we dont pollute the world?

 *Sighs* Why must "being realistic" mean "pessimistic" so often? Is this really America I live in, or is it an alternate dimension America?

Did you ever have an environmental science class? Pollution is unnecessary. There are ways to live with clean burning fuels in combination with renewable resources resulting in virtually no pollution from emissions today. The technology is there, but it needs proper funding to get going. We're not saying the only way to survive is to go back to hunting and gathering, but if nothing is done about this, we just might.

I agree that money will be the big motivator for a lot of people to conserve. It is truly sad that a lot of people think like this. "What's in it for me?" You're saving the earth and preserving the human race! What more could the people want?

We will fight this threat to the bitter end though. The price of failure is far too high to ignore this. It's suicide if we do...as a species.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Kosh


And China is a much poorer country than the US. The government there has a much larger population to take care of, and has fewer resources to do it with.

I think it's even more important to note that the Chinese economy has been growing whilst doing so; which flies in the face of the belief that environmental responsibility would destroy the economy.