Global Warming.. Real?

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Fern
Is Global warming real, and are we the responsible?

I, like some others here, am of the opnion that the Earth does go through climitoligical (sp?) cycles. Whether or not any current cycle will prove significant is, IMHO, still an open question. When I was much younger science was certain we were facing a cooling trend, not a warming trend like now.

I have lived through so much, "butter is bad, margerine is good", no wait "margerine is bad, butter is good" type scientific reversals I remain doubtful that they have the ability to accurately gauge/forcast such trends. I.e., I really doubt the scientific community has "cracked" the all the complicated "secrets" of the Earth. Time has taught me to be very sceptical of anyone who says they have.

Are we the cause? Notwithstanding the above question, I do not find it hard to belive that we humans have some effect, the unresolved question in my mind is "how much"?. We (humans) tend to overestimate our presence in every possible way, and underestimate the impact of natural forces. I am doubtful our impact is as great as claimed, and doubtful of the ability of present day science's to both accurately identify all factors involved in any changes as well as understand the complexity of the interrelationships of such factors.

It was much simpler when I was in college. I just believed in what the "experts" taught us.

Fern

I'll get tired of repeating this eventually, but not yet.

-yes, the earth undergoes cycles.
-no, what we have today is not a cycle, its a spike caused by the industrial revolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

If you'd like to disagree, please:
-provide a counter example (show that this isn't a human-caused spike but a natural event)
-provide an alternate explanation (something that explains the spike, but doesn't involve humans)
-revise your view to fit the accepted one.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Should we be so cavalier as to give up our advancements in technology that have allowed us to live as freely, safely, comfortably, and timely as we do today?

We don't have to give up our advancements in technology. They're not saying we should be living back in the stone age. What they are saying is that we should decrease the amount of CO2 output per person. There are a number of ways to due this like increase the average MPG a car gets, start replacing coal plants with less polluting power sources, etc. These wouldn't move us back in technology by any means.

Should we really wait until we are absolutely sure about this? The worst case scenario if we try to stop/slow global warming is that we make use of energy sources that pollute less. It may cost a little more in the short run but it may pay off big time in the long run. I'd prefer to err on the side of caution rather than ignoring the problem until we get all the kinks worked out.

I agree with you. I think the global warming alarmists here would have more credibility if they argued along these lines instead of fearmongering about global warming while at the same time proclaiming that consumption is a right.

 

[oldman420]

so the fact we are so different is a myth? answer me a few questions please.
why are we as humans enclined to war , murder ,theft and other crimes against our own species?
why are we the only animals that require shelter ,clothing and infrastructure just to survive?
why are we SO different from every other species on the planet?
what would happen to us and our society if we were to lose electricity and gasoline?
in order to survive we have to cause environmental damage why so?

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
There are a number of ways to due this like increase the average MPG a car gets, start replacing coal plants with less polluting power sources, etc. These wouldn't move us back in technology by any means.

Has the average MPG a car gets increased or decreased in the past 50 years? The demand for more efficient, clean cars and industry pushes the market to do so.

I agree there are so many tiny little things we can do, but I also believe that we can sort them out without panic and without a ton of government intervention.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: oldman420
so the fact we are so different is a myth? answer me a few questions please.

We have opposable thumbs. Why are birds so different from other animals?

why are we as humans enclined to war , murder ,theft and other crimes against our own species?

Countless other species wage war against their own kind, from ants to chimps.

why are we the only animals that require shelter ,clothing and infrastructure just to survive?

Bees don't have hives, beavers don't make dams? Could bees survive as a species if they didn't have hives? No.

why are we SO different from every other species on the planet?

We have opposable thumbs. Why are birds so different from other animals?

what would happen to us and our society if we were to lose electricity and gasoline?
in order to survive we have to cause environmental damage why so?

What happened to us before electricity and gasoline?

 

[oldman420]

ok vic whatever you say.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Should we be so cavalier as to give up our advancements in technology that have allowed us to live as freely, safely, comfortably, and timely as we do today?

The funny thing here is that advancement always trend to more and more environmentally friendly. Imagine if there were 200 millions sh!tting horses in the US instead of 200 millions cars!! Think of the foul black smoke spouting factories of yesterday compared to the (comparitively) sparkling clean factories of today. Look at where pollution is the worst in this world compared to where it is best. Going backwards, technology-wise, would be the worst thing we could do for the environment. What we must do is push technological advancement further forward past this issue.
This is so factually open-your-eyes-to-the-real-world obvious I don't even know what to say beyond that.

What you're missing is the not-so-obvious that technology itself causes sometimes problems, so instead of shitting horses we have smog and oil spills.

But in general you're right and I agree with you, and that's the reason why I argue against poeple like GenX and BN - because they are the ones that are mindlessly defending today's shitting horses, dirty factories, unnecessary waste etc.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Martin
But in general you're right and I agree with you, and that's the reason why I argue against poeple like GenX and BN - because they are the ones that are mindlessly defending today's shitting horses, dirty factories, unnecessary waste etc.

Yup, that's me alright :roll:

When have I ever defended unnecessary waste?

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: oldman420
ok vic whatever you say.

lol

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
There are a number of ways to due this like increase the average MPG a car gets, start replacing coal plants with less polluting power sources, etc. These wouldn't move us back in technology by any means.

Has the average MPG a car gets increased or decreased in the past 50 years? The demand for more efficient, clean cars and industry pushes the market to do so.

I agree there are so many tiny little things we can do, but I also believe that we can sort them out without panic and without a ton of government intervention.

Have greenhouse gas emissions per capita increased over the last 50 years? Yes.

While things like turning off your computer when you're not using it are up to you, government action is needed on things like closing coal plants, mandating higher MPG, providing research and subsidy money for clean energy etc.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Martin
But in general you're right and I agree with you, and that's the reason why I argue against poeple like GenX and BN - because they are the ones that are mindlessly defending today's shitting horses, dirty factories, unnecessary waste etc.

Yup, that's me alright :roll:

When have I ever defended unnecessary waste?

I call em as I see em. If there is a disconnect between how you see yourself and how others see you, that's not my problem.

 

[GoPackGo]

The thing most people ignore is global cooling and global warming has happened in the past, time and time again...and it will happen time and time again.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: oldman420
ok vic whatever you say.

lol

Apparently he thinks that beavers don't build dams and ants don't wage war against their own kind.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Martin
Have greenhouse gas emissions per capita increased over the last 50 years? Yes.

While things like turning off your computer when you're not using it are up to you, government action is needed on things like closing coal plants, mandating higher MPG, providing research and subsidy money for clean energy etc.

I don't deny those emission have increased. What you are suggesting is more of what has caused some of the instability and lack of progression in clean energy: government.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Should we be so cavalier as to give up our advancements in technology that have allowed us to live as freely, safely, comfortably, and timely as we do today?

The funny thing here is that advancement always trend to more and more environmentally friendly. Imagine if there were 200 millions sh!tting horses in the US instead of 200 millions cars!! Think of the foul black smoke spouting factories of yesterday compared to the (comparitively) sparkling clean factories of today. Look at where pollution is the worst in this world compared to where it is best. Going backwards, technology-wise, would be the worst thing we could do for the environment. What we must do is push technological advancement further forward past this issue.
This is so factually open-your-eyes-to-the-real-world obvious I don't even know what to say beyond that.

What you're missing is the not-so-obvious that technology itself causes sometimes problems, so instead of shitting horses we have smog and oil spills.

But in general you're right and I agree with you, and that's the reason why I argue against poeple like GenX and BN - because they are the ones that are mindlessly defending today's shitting horses, dirty factories, unnecessary waste etc.

I was NOT missing or ignoring that. If I had been, I would not have also called for more improvement.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: oldman420
ok vic whatever you say.

http://www.beaversww.org/beaver.html

"After eating, beavers use the peeled sticks to build a teepee-like lodge (house) on the shore and/or a dam."

Using the earth's resources and building shelter? Man, those beavers are going to be the death of this planet.

http://www.saburchill.com/ans02/chapters/chap006.html

"When two ant colonies fight each other, the winners invade the nest of their opponents and carry off the larvae for food. In fact, some species of ants live in this way."

How barbaric of those ants. Man...they are going to destroy the planet with all of their warfare.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
The thing most people ignore is global cooling and global warming has happened in the past, time and time again...and it will happen time and time again.

You're the third person that I've replied to so far.

-yes, the earth undergoes cycles.
-no, what we have today is not a cycle, its a spike caused by the industrial revolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

If you'd like to disagree, please:
-provide a counter example (show that this isn't a human-caused spike but a natural event)
-provide an alternate explanation (something that explains the spike, but doesn't involve humans)
-revise your view to fit the accepted one.

I'm waiting for responses...

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Genx87
What I disagree with is the fear mongering blind sheep mentality of people to believe we are the sole cause of it and can actually stop it if we suddenly go back to the 1400s technology wise.

Nobody is saying we should go back to the middle ages. IIRC, foreign auto companies are doing just fine in U.S despite tougher emissions standards in their home country.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: oldman420
ok vic whatever you say.

http://www.beaversww.org/beaver.html

"After eating, beavers use the peeled sticks to build a teepee-like lodge (house) on the shore and/or a dam."

Using the earth's resources and building shelter? Man, those beavers are going to be the death of this planet.

http://www.saburchill.com/ans02/chapters/chap006.html

"When two ant colonies fight each other, the winners invade the nest of their opponents and carry off the larvae for food. In fact, some species of ants live in this way."

How barbaric of those ants. Man...they are going to destroy the planet with all of their warfare.

Don't forget that ants are far and away the most numerous land animal species on earth. They not only outnumber humans, they outweigh them. There are so many ants in fact that it is estimated that they make up roughly 20% of all land animal biomass (humans make up less than 1%).

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Martin
Have greenhouse gas emissions per capita increased over the last 50 years? Yes.

While things like turning off your computer when you're not using it are up to you, government action is needed on things like closing coal plants, mandating higher MPG, providing research and subsidy money for clean energy etc.

I don't deny those emission have increased. What you are suggesting is more of what has caused some of the instability and lack of progression in clean energy: government.

In a democratic system, the government is a pretty good approximation of the society: When people's opinions change and they start to value the environment, you'll see this reflected in your government.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Genx87
What I disagree with is the fear mongering blind sheep mentality of people to believe we are the sole cause of it and can actually stop it if we suddenly go back to the 1400s technology wise.

Nobody is saying we should go back to the middle ages. IIRC, foreign auto companies are doing just fine in U.S despite tougher emissions standards in their home country.

The US (especially California) has the world's toughest emissions standards for new vehicles.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Genx87
What I disagree with is the fear mongering blind sheep mentality of people to believe we are the sole cause of it and can actually stop it if we suddenly go back to the 1400s technology wise.

Nobody is saying we should go back to the middle ages. IIRC, foreign auto companies are doing just fine in U.S despite tougher emissions standards in their home country.

The US (especially California) has the world's toughest emissions standards for new vehicles.

California has the world's toughest emissions standards, but as a nation do we actually have the toughest emissions standards?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Genx87
What I disagree with is the fear mongering blind sheep mentality of people to believe we are the sole cause of it and can actually stop it if we suddenly go back to the 1400s technology wise.

Nobody is saying we should go back to the middle ages. IIRC, foreign auto companies are doing just fine in U.S despite tougher emissions standards in their home country.

The US (especially California) has the world's toughest emissions standards for new vehicles.

California has the world's toughest emissions standards, but as a nation do we actually have the toughest emissions standards?

For new vehicles, yes. European and Japanese automakers actually have to beef up the emissions controls on their vehicles in order to sell here. For example, the reason Subaru didn't bring the WRX to the US until 2001 was because they couldn't make it meet US standards until they acquired improved catalytic converter technology from GM during their brief partnership. The US is also ahead of Europe as far as implementing CO2 standards.
For used vehicles, the US is a bit behind, except in certain urban areas that require regular testing.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Genx87
What I disagree with is the fear mongering blind sheep mentality of people to believe we are the sole cause of it and can actually stop it if we suddenly go back to the 1400s technology wise.

Nobody is saying we should go back to the middle ages. IIRC, foreign auto companies are doing just fine in U.S despite tougher emissions standards in their home country.

The US (especially California) has the world's toughest emissions standards for new vehicles.

California has the world's toughest emissions standards, but as a nation do we actually have the toughest emissions standards?

For new vehicles, yes. European and Japanese automakers actually have to beef up the emissions controls on their vehicles in order to sell here. For example, the reason Subaru didn't bring the WRX to the US until 2001 was because they couldn't make it meet US standards until they acquired improved catalytic converter technology from GM during their brief partnership. The US is also ahead of Europe as far as implementing CO2 standards.
For used vehicles, the US is a bit behind, except in certain urban areas that require regular testing.

They?ll be hard pressed to believe we?re not purposefully causing death and destruction and the end of the world. Nice try though.

Truth like this is subjective to whatever we feel like cherry picking. In which case it?ll easily be excused as not enough.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
There are a number of ways to due this like increase the average MPG a car gets, start replacing coal plants with less polluting power sources, etc. These wouldn't move us back in technology by any means.

Has the average MPG a car gets increased or decreased in the past 50 years? The demand for more efficient, clean cars and industry pushes the market to do so.

I agree there are so many tiny little things we can do, but I also believe that we can sort them out without panic and without a ton of government intervention.

Sure the average MPG a car gets has increased over the last 50 years but it hasn't moved much in the past 20 years. We're way behind Europe and Japan when it comes to the average MPG a car gets. One reason for this is because gasoline tax is so damn high there. That's one reason I think we should be increasing the gas tax although not to the ridiculously high levels they have. A study I recall glancing at said a gas tax of a little over $1/gallon would be optimal. Currently I think Washington state has one of the highest taxes on gasoline and the total amount of tax we pay on gas comes to about $0.50.