Ranger68 said:
No one ever said the earth is ours to keep. Like all species here we are just quests on this rock.
Is global warming bad?
- Thread starter shadeau
- Start date
No one ever said the earth is ours to keep. Like all species here we are just quests on this rock.
So, I guess we shouldn't try to figure out if global warming is occurring - something which the science community is NOT divided over, just to make things clear - or if we're doing anything about it, or even try to do anything about it even if it is happening and will be bad for us.papasmerf said:
I guess we should just sit back and do nothing.
Here's another look at global warming from yet another pinko-commie-liberal-environmentalist-tree hugger publication, Time Inc:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101041122-782114,00.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101041122-782114,00.html
If you live in Canada, global warming is not a bad thing...LOL
On a serious note. I find it pretty pretentious that any scientist can draw conclusions from a thousand year of weather data. The earth is several million years old. How do we know that the increase in temperature over the last 80 years, is part of global warming and not part of a larger cycle?
I am not suggesting we should ignore the signs and just go on with our lives. Running around in panic and shouting "the world is coming to an end" is a bit extreme too.
On a positive note: Since we are running out of fossil fuel soon, this won't be an issue in the future anyway
Disclaimer:
The last sentence was a sarcastic remark.
On a serious note. I find it pretty pretentious that any scientist can draw conclusions from a thousand year of weather data. The earth is several million years old. How do we know that the increase in temperature over the last 80 years, is part of global warming and not part of a larger cycle?
I am not suggesting we should ignore the signs and just go on with our lives. Running around in panic and shouting "the world is coming to an end" is a bit extreme too.
On a positive note: Since we are running out of fossil fuel soon, this won't be an issue in the future anyway
Disclaimer:
The last sentence was a sarcastic remark.
Ranger68 said:So, I guess we shouldn't try to figure out if global warming is occurring - something which the science community is NOT divided over, just to make things clear - or if we're doing anything about it, or even try to do anything about it even if it is happening and will be bad for us.
I guess we should just sit back and do nothing.
Ranger
what would you do??
are you heating only with thermal energy? Do you walk or only ride a horse? (anything made with steel or alluminum is made with heat, causes hydrofarbon to be released). Are you growing you own food, thus boycotting the trucks that bring it to market?
Or are you as much the cause as you figure everyone else is?
Ranger68 said:Good. Now you're at least *thinking* about the problem.
But what are you doing besides saying the US government is wrong??
Better yet why is it up to the government???
Shouldn't privite enterprises be out there selling better for, as good as, runs like?
Technically, aluminum can be made without carbon emissions. The process involve electrolysis and due to the large electricity consumption some firms have private dams.
Iron production on the other hand results in carbon emission. Hematite and magnetite are reduced to iron with CO from the burning coke.
The base metals are ok. Most of the important ores are metal sulphides. The sulphides burn during smelting - all one has to do is add air or oxygen. The vast majority of the sulphur dioxide is captured and turned into acid and sold to various customers. Sulphur dioxide isn't a greenhouse gas due to its short retention time - it converts to acid in the presence of water
Iron production on the other hand results in carbon emission. Hematite and magnetite are reduced to iron with CO from the burning coke.
The base metals are ok. Most of the important ores are metal sulphides. The sulphides burn during smelting - all one has to do is add air or oxygen. The vast majority of the sulphur dioxide is captured and turned into acid and sold to various customers. Sulphur dioxide isn't a greenhouse gas due to its short retention time - it converts to acid in the presence of water
papasmerf said:
I started out by saying that those who questioned whether or not global warming was occuring, or wondering whether or not we should be worried about it, were living in some fantasy reality.papasmerf said:
I'm not sure where I ever said the US government is wrong.
???
I think you better reread some of the previous posts.
Not that the US is "wrong", just that as the single largest consumer of petroleum, and with more technological resources available than any other country, it has a certain obligation to lead the way. At Kyoto, and a few years later at The Hague, Bush and the US showed not only were they not interested in leading, but weren't much interested in serious discussion at all. Business as usual. Ultimately, the rest of the world will take the lead of the US, and figure if we don't care, why should they.papasmerf said:
Since Happygrump and Ranger68 are still contending that desertification will be a problem, I guess I'll have to go back and defend my Mesozoic-era-argument. Happygrump says that we don't know if desert conditions were widespread during the Mesozoic era. Happy-g, I think you're wrong and I think the dinosaurs prove it. They existed for 130 million years and for most of that time they were the dominant animal on the planet. They covered all of the inhabitable continents in incredible variety. Not only were there lots and lots of them, but they were big. To feed that many large creatures, there had to be lots and lots of plants around. there had to be a thriving, healthy eco-system. Desert conditions were not widespread during the mesozoic era. Warmer temperatures will not necessarily lead to desertification.
Happygrump also thinks that the "inundation of coastal communities" will lead to some sort of mass panic. According to the article about climate-change in THE CANADIAN ENCYCLOPEDIA [p. 485, 2000 ed.] "by 2100... sea-levels will rise by about a half-metre". "Inundation" doesn't seem like the right word -- it's usually used to convey a sense of suddeness that doesn't jive with a half-metre of water in 100 years. I'm not saying that that amount of water won't flood some land, but the water's progress will be so slow that no one's going to be thrown into a panic about it.
And the imminent influenza pandemic has nothing to do with global warming.
Ranger68 states that there will be "death by starvation... of a billion people or so." I don't see why. Some farm-land will be lost to rising water-levels, but warmer temperatures will also mean that some areas of the planet that had previously been unfarmable will now be agriculturally productive. On top of that, farming seasons will be lengthened.
Also according to Ranger68, scientists "are pretty much unanimous" that "global warming is a bad thing for us." You might get that impression if you only listen to CBC or NPR. You should try reading the right-wing magazines I subscribe to to be exposed to a broader range of scientific thought and to see that there still is debate on the matter. And even if every scientist in the world was in agreement, you'd have to remember that there was a time when all of the learned minds in Europe believed that the Earth was the centre of the universe. An opinion that everyone believes can still be false. There are likely many things that scientists believe today that will be proven wrong in the future.
I had asked that my fellow terbites explain to me why global warming was bad, so I was particularly amused when Woodpeckr pointed out "that last year the average temperature in Alaska was 5 degrees above norm". Right -- and WHY is that a bad thing? I'm sure most Alaskans enjoyed the warmer temperatures.
And regarding Woodpeckr's comment that malaria is a tropical disease and that increased warmth will spread it -- not true. Malaria is currently mostly found in tropical locales, but it isn't inherently a tropical disease. it has been a problem as far north as England in the past. Why isn't it found there now? Population density and economic development. From THE ULTIMATE RESOURCE 2 by Julian Simon:"[T]he history of England was heavily affected by the decline of malaria induced by population growth. In London, 'Westminster was paved in 1762 and the City in 1766... and the marshes near London were drained about the same time.' In 1781 a writer observed that 'very few die now of ague [malaria] in London.' The history of the United States also reveals the interplay between malaria, population, and economic development: '... As the country was settled, the marshy land where malaria was bred was filled in. Buildings covered the waste spaces where [disease carriers] could survive.'"[p. 462] In worrying about malaria, we should concern ourselves with economic and political matters, not climatic ones.
Happygrump also thinks that the "inundation of coastal communities" will lead to some sort of mass panic. According to the article about climate-change in THE CANADIAN ENCYCLOPEDIA [p. 485, 2000 ed.] "by 2100... sea-levels will rise by about a half-metre". "Inundation" doesn't seem like the right word -- it's usually used to convey a sense of suddeness that doesn't jive with a half-metre of water in 100 years. I'm not saying that that amount of water won't flood some land, but the water's progress will be so slow that no one's going to be thrown into a panic about it.
And the imminent influenza pandemic has nothing to do with global warming.
Ranger68 states that there will be "death by starvation... of a billion people or so." I don't see why. Some farm-land will be lost to rising water-levels, but warmer temperatures will also mean that some areas of the planet that had previously been unfarmable will now be agriculturally productive. On top of that, farming seasons will be lengthened.
Also according to Ranger68, scientists "are pretty much unanimous" that "global warming is a bad thing for us." You might get that impression if you only listen to CBC or NPR. You should try reading the right-wing magazines I subscribe to to be exposed to a broader range of scientific thought and to see that there still is debate on the matter. And even if every scientist in the world was in agreement, you'd have to remember that there was a time when all of the learned minds in Europe believed that the Earth was the centre of the universe. An opinion that everyone believes can still be false. There are likely many things that scientists believe today that will be proven wrong in the future.
I had asked that my fellow terbites explain to me why global warming was bad, so I was particularly amused when Woodpeckr pointed out "that last year the average temperature in Alaska was 5 degrees above norm". Right -- and WHY is that a bad thing? I'm sure most Alaskans enjoyed the warmer temperatures.
And regarding Woodpeckr's comment that malaria is a tropical disease and that increased warmth will spread it -- not true. Malaria is currently mostly found in tropical locales, but it isn't inherently a tropical disease. it has been a problem as far north as England in the past. Why isn't it found there now? Population density and economic development. From THE ULTIMATE RESOURCE 2 by Julian Simon:"[T]he history of England was heavily affected by the decline of malaria induced by population growth. In London, 'Westminster was paved in 1762 and the City in 1766... and the marshes near London were drained about the same time.' In 1781 a writer observed that 'very few die now of ague [malaria] in London.' The history of the United States also reveals the interplay between malaria, population, and economic development: '... As the country was settled, the marshy land where malaria was bred was filled in. Buildings covered the waste spaces where [disease carriers] could survive.'"[p. 462] In worrying about malaria, we should concern ourselves with economic and political matters, not climatic ones.
I still have to wonder why any government should be the ones to pioneer the production of anything. Privite enterprise stands to gain from the sale in any arena. As such they should likely be the ones to put forth the cutting edge products that those interested will riot to obtain.
The Mesozoic era was a few hundred million years ago. The planet has changed significantly in that time. If you need me to outline how, I'll do so.shadeau said:
And we're not talking about GLOBAL desertification, just a lot of increased LOCAL desertification, which will be disastrous to LARGE PORTIONS of humanity.
See above. You couldn't be more wrong about your conclusions.shadeau said:
I don't see ANY significant debate on the matter, where there was PLENTY a decade or more ago. Give me some sources that back up your view that drastically increased global temperatures will not be a VERY BAD THING for the vast majority of the species.shadeau said:
There are ALWAYS dissenting opinions. This is not the same as *broad* scientific debate. And it's awfully decent of you to name and besmirch all my sources without knowing the depth of my knowledge on the subject.
Awfully ignorant, I should say.
Your statement that science has gotten things wrong before is, you must admit, PAINFULLY weak. Why don't you just drop it.
The fact that a few thousand Alaskans might benefit or appreciate the global climactic changes is of little consequence to the few billion of the rest of us.shadeau said:
How is rampant - that is, abnormal - global warming a bad thing? How about large-scale death of oceanic life?
I guess that's not such a big deal, huh?
Take a look around. Read some of your vast knowledge of scientific literature, tell me what's happening to the oceans right now, to practically EVERY species of big fish around (many of which are NOT commercially fished), to the coral reefs, and then tell me why you think these things are happening and whether or not we should just say "oh, it's normal" or "don't worry - everyone who lives in Alaska will be fine" or "science is probably wrong again".
The global extinction of dominant species is normal, too - is this something we should therefore be unconcerned about??
I guess that's not such a big deal, huh?
Take a look around. Read some of your vast knowledge of scientific literature, tell me what's happening to the oceans right now, to practically EVERY species of big fish around (many of which are NOT commercially fished), to the coral reefs, and then tell me why you think these things are happening and whether or not we should just say "oh, it's normal" or "don't worry - everyone who lives in Alaska will be fine" or "science is probably wrong again".
The global extinction of dominant species is normal, too - is this something we should therefore be unconcerned about??
I must say I think the whole "global warming is no problem" shtick is really a shameful instance of ideology controlling knowledge. And yes, perhaps there is ideology working on the other side, but it is ludicrous to believe that the scientists who first alerted us to the problem were working from some anti-industrial agenda.
Ranger is right - shadeau's arguments aren't merely disproved by the facts, they're also counter-intuitive. For every acre of land that sees its arability increased, another acre futher south would be unable to sustain food in higher temperatures and drier conditions.
If this the kind of thinking "right-wing magazines" foster, I'll stick with my pinko rags, thank you.
Ranger is right - shadeau's arguments aren't merely disproved by the facts, they're also counter-intuitive. For every acre of land that sees its arability increased, another acre futher south would be unable to sustain food in higher temperatures and drier conditions.
If this the kind of thinking "right-wing magazines" foster, I'll stick with my pinko rags, thank you.
A few years back my boss set up a think tank to deal with implementation of Kyoto. We invited a professor highly qualified in this field. His lectures were fully backed up - he demonstrated his methods and presented the evidence.
What is known is that carbon dioxide levels are on the rise. "Global warming" on the other hand is useless conjecture. The only things known about this conjecture are that there is no data - we have a few decades of reliable temperature measurements. The other fact is very well established: global warming, in whatever scope, has been going on since the end of the last ice age.
Apart from that, we must determine what potential outcome due to the increasing carbon dioxide levels. That will be difficult.
As for Kyoto, it is absolutely useless. Even with immediate and full American participation, it would only delay by seven years the further increase of carbon dioxide. That is because Kyoto does not address the problem: growth. As is, Kyoto is nothing but a left wing circle jerk produced by the junk science crowd. It was blatantly discriminatory concerning the US and rightly died a 95-0 death in the Senate.
Byrd-Hagel Resolution link
What is known is that carbon dioxide levels are on the rise. "Global warming" on the other hand is useless conjecture. The only things known about this conjecture are that there is no data - we have a few decades of reliable temperature measurements. The other fact is very well established: global warming, in whatever scope, has been going on since the end of the last ice age.
Apart from that, we must determine what potential outcome due to the increasing carbon dioxide levels. That will be difficult.
As for Kyoto, it is absolutely useless. Even with immediate and full American participation, it would only delay by seven years the further increase of carbon dioxide. That is because Kyoto does not address the problem: growth. As is, Kyoto is nothing but a left wing circle jerk produced by the junk science crowd. It was blatantly discriminatory concerning the US and rightly died a 95-0 death in the Senate.
Byrd-Hagel Resolution link
The rate of warming of the earth has increased DRASTICALLY over the last few decades.
There is PLENTY of evidence - raw statistics - to back that up.
To argue otherwise is to deny reality, unfortunately. Whether or not you can conclusively align that with increased greenhouse gases - well, at this point, we can't. To THEREFORE conclude that we as a species are NOT influencing the rate of global warming is bad logic. Regardless, runaway gh gas emissions are NOT going to help the situation, which is RAPIDLY becoming critical.
Kyoto was not blatantly discriminatory concerning the US, but was also not the best solution. But, to condemn it as junk science is far too harsh - there are far more scientists from all disciplines, from all areas of the earth, in FAVOUR of Kyoto than against it.
Of course it rightly died in the Senate. The US Empire won't exist long enough for them to worry about it.
Viva la Pax Americana.
There is PLENTY of evidence - raw statistics - to back that up.
To argue otherwise is to deny reality, unfortunately. Whether or not you can conclusively align that with increased greenhouse gases - well, at this point, we can't. To THEREFORE conclude that we as a species are NOT influencing the rate of global warming is bad logic. Regardless, runaway gh gas emissions are NOT going to help the situation, which is RAPIDLY becoming critical.
Kyoto was not blatantly discriminatory concerning the US, but was also not the best solution. But, to condemn it as junk science is far too harsh - there are far more scientists from all disciplines, from all areas of the earth, in FAVOUR of Kyoto than against it.
Of course it rightly died in the Senate. The US Empire won't exist long enough for them to worry about it.
Viva la Pax Americana.
