WinCustomize Forums
| Umm...they aren't destroying the report |
| Global warming is a fact, recognised by the whole world's scientific community. Politicians are trying to refute it because of its economic consequences. |
| Politicians try to avoid things that make conflicts between certain communities of ppl, such as the scientific community which is already on shaky grounds with politicians |
SHC, you just got to listen to the rehetoric of Mister Klein - he's all about conflict with everyone but big business.
Actually, no. Global warming and the greenhouse effect is undisputed, so is the fact that certain gases produced by humain activities increase the natural greenhouse effect on the planet. On the other hand, what is not clear is how much (estimates vary between 1.5 and 5 degrees celcius), and what consequences it may have. Some say that for every 1 degree increase, the level of water in the ocean rise so much (I don't remember how much), and others say that a little increase wouldn't change much.
BTW, here is an intersting reading for those who want to understand what climate change is, how it's affexted and what it could mean: http://www.rppi.org/environment/peg3.html
| Actually, no. Global warming and the greenhouse effect is undisputed |
Actually, I don't think that it is "undisputed". I have read many theories from climatologists that think that the warming trends that we see are natural. The earth is always in a change of weather patterns. The hole in the ozone was a huge deal until they realized that it may have always been there.
It think that the whole point of this is: we don't know enough about this to start stating "facts". the government doesn't want language in documents that state things as facts when it's still too early to tell if the scientific evidence is completely proven. Think of how many chemicals and medicines have been thoroughly tested as "safe" only to find out that they really were not.
Kona, if you believe everything that you state about that you want to quit being part of the problem, then quit using electricity. Why are you using a computer? I think you better do some studies on how much power plants pollute. People can say all they want about people polluting, but what will change it? Am I going to quit my job so that I don't have to drive a car? Lets be realistic here. And, it really sounds stupid when you say "you guys" need to do something. Lead by example. Don't drive your car at all as I doubt it meets current emissions. Don't use electricity or anything manufactured as *all* manufacturing plants pollute in some form. Compost your garbage and recycle the rest. You better go live in a tent out in the wild so that the exhaust from your heat in your house/apartment doesn't pollute..... Get the point?
Well, it is well known that there is a natural greenhouse effect that has always been there. Without it, the average temperature on earth would be something like -18 C. And MOST (there may be a few oddballs) scientits agree that some gases due humain activities do contribue to increase that effect somewhat. As I said, what isn't sure is how much so.
But even if they don't all agree, shouldn't we still be alarmed and try to be safe rather than sorry?
OK, say you are walking blind-folded.
Then somebody tells you: "STOP! There is a 200 feet ravine in front of you! You will kill yourself if you continue!"
Then somebody else says "No, that's not true, you can walk safely".
What will you do? You have a 50%/50% chance of killing yourself if you continue. Will you go on?
| Why are you using a computer? I think you better do some studies on how much power plants pollute. |
| But even if they don't all agree, shouldn't we still be alarmed and try to be safe rather than sorry? |
When I was a kid, there were many who said "global cooling" was a fact.
Similarly, by 1979 we were supposed to run out of aluminum, copper, and other important metals according to many scientists.
I am not convinced that humans are having a discernable effect on the global temperature. 2003, for instance, has been unusually cool here in Michigan.
If one looks back at temperatures for the past 3000 years, they'll find that it isn't even particularly warm right now.
There are numerous obstacles in front of those who worry about global warming.
#1 They have to prove (i.e. really prove -- I know I'm not convinced and I'll put my scientific knowledge up against anyone here) that the recent increase in temperature is a trend that is going to continue into the future. I can be persauded on this but I'm not convinced. There have been similar rises and falls in temperature in the last 10,000 years.
#2 If #1 is demonstrated, then they have to prove that humans are doing so. To a lay person, the amount of CO2 we humans put into the atmosphere sounds huge. But compared to say, a volcanic eruption, it's trivial.
#3 If #2 is proven, then they have to show that global warming is harmful. The planet has, historically speaking, been warmer than it presently is for most of its existence. Sure, we can talk about the ice caps melting as some sort of dooms day worse case scenario but even that is unlikely. And many parts of the world would benefit from it being warmer. I"m not saying that we're better off with global warming, I am saying that we cannot assume that temperatuers of say 5 degrees are going to be definitively worse for humans on the whole.
#4 If they prove #3 then they have to come up with a plan of action that is effective. The Kyoto treaty, for instance, was a joke. India and China, two of the biggest polluters on the planet, weren't even required to do anything getting "developing country" status. My rule of thumb: If you can develop nuclear weapons, you're not a "developing country". A useful treaty would be to have energy used be based on economic output. This is what Bush proposed and was laughed at by environmentalist. But that should be the goal. Efficiency of energy use.
I'm particularly skeptical of #4 because a truly workable solution would require some real sacrifices and sacrifices that wouldn't be proportional. It would also require the same enviromental wackos who worry about global warming to quit blocking nuclear power which is the one high volume energy source that has no significant CO2 emmissions. Crippling the US economy through arbitrary limits on CO2 emmissions is not the answer. It not only won't make much change in how much CO2 humans put out but it would have very negative effects on the rest of the world too.
In other words, the blame America first crowd would need to straighten out and look at this issue as an engineering problem rather than a big political axe to grind.
My general view is that if there is indeed global warming and humans are the cause of it, we better get used to it.
| My general view is that if there is indeed global warming and humans are the cause of it, we better get used to it. |
Very true, oh green one....
| amount of CO2 |
Well, once you've stepped off the cliff, it's a little too late to try to come back.
jcg: it has nothing to do with progress. Progress would actually be to find effective alternative.
If I read an article telling me that McCain juice can cause brain damage to my kids, and another article that says that it's not true. You can bet I'll buy Oasis juice or another kind next time, whether I'm sure or not. I'm not going to take the chance.
We are talking about the possible end of humain life on this planet, should we play the guessing game?
|
is isn't co2 that is the problem: it is carbon monoxide and that comes from US humans burning fossil feuls |
It's not Carbon Monoxide. It's Carbon Dioxide that is the issue. If we were pumping mass amounts of CO into the atmosphere, global warming would be the least of our worries. 
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
