Global Warming

[Sporty Dan]

Well.....yet more evidence that humans are not the cause of planetary climate change.....

A study of trees living 1000 years ago shows evidence that tempurature change over the last millennium was higher then previously thought and comparable to current global tempurature changes. It also shows that the earth can undergo much larger spontaneous tempurature changes all by itself then previously thought.

Oh well.........


http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/295/5563/2227



dan.

 

[Sporty Dan]

dan.

 

[Jeffsus]

Remember the 80s'?

And environmentalism?

hjeheehehe.

ANd David Suzuki? BUWAHAAHAHAHHAhaah/a/h/a/h.a.ah.h.a...

ahhh.

GOod times.

-jM
A&D

 

[noahmintz]

I just read a book on this ... plus I'm taking a Climatology class so I'm learning all about it
It's really amazing how up to 80% of the global warming trend is actually occuring naturally

stu

 

[AdRiaN]

Or ...

Remember the 1970s? When environmentalists were sounding the alarm bells about climate change ... except it was the coming ICE AGE?

Phew. We really dodged a bullet on that one!

 

[Subsonic Chronic]

So I guess this means that we should just keep going about our business as usual?

All this time I've been waiting for an excuse to buy an SUV.

Pete

 

[KickIT]

So this summer when the city is under a smog alert. People who are asmatic or who have heart problems (which is on the rise) can't go outside because the air is so polluted should be glad that this is a naturally occurring event?

I don't disagree that global warming may be a naturally occuring event. Does that mean we have the go ahead to continue polluting the air. We should bring back PCBs and CFCs, chop down forests at 10 times the rate they replenish? Do corporations and individuals have the right to produce whatever waste they wish without consequence, because the planet is naturally heating up?

I'm just curious if those who are so anxious to call environmentalist's bluff, if you think everything is koshur. Do you have any environmental concerns at all, because I'm curious to know what they are. Sporty Dan, Jeffsus and Adrian, I'd honestly love to see your responses.

*c*

 

[AdRiaN]

My Response

Please do not confuse "air pollution" with "global warming".

I fully support reductions in the emission of harmful chemicals into the air. The less SOx, NOx, mercury, the better. No argument here. But reducing the emission of CARBON DIOXIDE is an entirely different matter.

The Kyoto protocol calls for fairly drastic reductions in carbon dioxide emissions from industrialized countries. Unlike other chemical products, the only way to reduce CO2 is to stop burning fossil fuels. We can develop super-clean automobiles and power plants which cut down on air pollution, but so far, no technology exists to reduce CO2 emissions.

The economic cost of cutting down on the burning of fossil fuels is enormous. Why should we impose trillions of dollars of costs when no evidence exists that global warming is a MAN-MADE phenomenon?

As I mentioned, cleaning up the air should be a priority, and it's quite an attainable goal. But this idea of "stopping" global warming through international accords is ridiculous. Strangely, the only world leader who realizes this situation is the evil Mr. George Bush.

 

[silver1]

Originally posted by KickIT
Does that mean we have the go ahead to continue polluting the air.

*c*

No. It means that the "Let's thoughtlesly throw billions and billions of dollars into environmental concerns" mentality is flawed.

 

[silver1]

There is also plenty of evidence that suggests the cause of global warming over the last half century might be attributed to increased solar activity.

BBC Article

 

[KickIT]

Originally posted by silver1


No. It means that the "Let's thoughtlesly throw billions and billions of dollars into environmental concerns" mentality is flawed.

Well thoughtlessly throwing billions of dollars at anything is flawed. I also don't think that's the case either. The Kyoto agreement may be flawed and the way things are looking, probably won't be ratified by the countries that are necessary for it to work as drafted anyways. I don't fully agree that reducing carbon dioxide emmissions won't accelerate or at least magnify the effects of global warming (natural or not) but that's just my opinion.

Either way, the one thing the Kyoto protocol does is set some sort of vision for the future. I find it difficult to believe that in today's day in age that the one thing we lack is vision. The Kyoto accord is at least an agreement on principle that something needs to be done. The language of the agreement may be flawed but at least its something. Maybe this is why people are fighting so hard for this because it at least contains some vision for a brighter future. Whether the accord ratifies or not I do not think we should stop future agreements from taking place.

*c*

 

[silver1]

Originally posted by KickIT


Well thoughtlessly throwing billions of dollars at anything is flawed. I also don't think that's the case either. The Kyoto agreement may be flawed and the way things are looking, probably won't be ratified by the countries that are necessary for it to work as drafted anyways. I don't fully agree that reducing carbon dioxide emmissions won't accelerate or at least magnify the effects of global warming (natural or not) but that's just my opinion.

Either way, the one thing the Kyoto protocol does is set some sort of vision for the future. I find it difficult to believe that in today's day in age that the one thing we lack is vision. The Kyoto accord is at least an agreement on principle that something needs to be done. The language of the agreement may be flawed but at least its something. Maybe this is why people are fighting so hard for this because it at least contains some vision for a brighter future. Whether the accord ratifies or not I do not think we should stop future agreements from taking place.

*c*

For certain. I don't think anyone will disagree with the fact that less pollution and finding ways to do it is a good thing. And having a vision for the future is great. But passing the Kyoto protocol WOULD have wasted billions of dollars because parts of it were flawed.

But environmentalists were crucifying GW for basically saying, "This is a great start, but lets take it back to the drawing board for a second before I put my signature on it".

 

[KickIT]

Originally posted by silver1


But environmentalists were crucifying GW for basically saying, "This is a great start, but lets take it back to the drawing board for a second before I put my signature on it".

Probably because they trust Dubyah about as far as they could throw him. Dubyah is not the ideal candidate to be talking about such things.

I don't know:

- Dubyah coming from an oil background
- Enron consulting and influencing much of the administrations energy policy
- openning up the Alaskan Refuge for oil drilling (I don't want to start this debate - safe to say Killing Kyoto while pushing for this probably wouldn't sit well with most environmentalists)
- the head of EPA regulatory enforcement resigning due to his hands being tied
- Dubyah is an idiot

All this probably doesn't make the messenger look good whether it is right or not. Also their unilateral approach to their handling of foreign policy doesn't win them any brownie points either.

*c*

 

[Sporty Dan]

Originally posted by KickIT


Probably because they trust Dubyah about as far as they could throw him. Dubyah is not the ideal candidate to be talking about such things.

I don't know:

- Dubyah coming from an oil background

.....Yes.... its MUCH better to take the words of someone who has NO experience in the oil industry when talking about energy and the environment.

- Enron consulting and influencing much of the administrations energy policy

......uh.... a company that was on it;s way to bankrupcy well before Bush took office was influencing his decisions eh? .......right..........
If their influence was that important why did the government not bail out their loans?
.....if you wanna look for an Enron scandle, look to Clinton. 22 of 24 Enron energy recomendations where implemented by his administration.

- openning up the Alaskan Refuge for oil drilling (I don't want to start this debate - safe to say Killing Kyoto while pushing for this probably wouldn't sit well with most environmentalists)

They are 2 completely unrelated issues.
The environmental debate is using oil, versus not using oil.
This is an issue of using oil from America, or oil from foreign countries.

- the head of EPA regulatory enforcement resigning due to his hands being tied

.....the EPA is a department of the government and as such should not expect free reign and when they are using government money to publish blatent lies about the adminstrations environmental record. He is perfectly free to do so with money from private sources.......

- Dubyah is an idiot

....whatever......

Also their unilateral approach to their handling of foreign policy doesn't win them any brownie points either.

.....I don;t even know what you are talking about there....... but I;m sure it has nothing to do with the environment.......




dan.

 

[KickIT]

Ok Sporty Dan,

You're so quick to jump on every point made, I'd like to know where your stance is. I can appreciate those like Adrian who have opions that I may not agree with but I can see his point of view. You on the other hand are so quick to shoot down any theory yet have nothing to contribute instead.

Also, while I don't think the energy sector should be excluded from the process, I definitely don't think they should leading it as well. Their sole interest is to protect their interests and maximize their future profits. While I can appreciate this, it is not in the best interests to the rest of us and any administration who acts to protect the interests of a sole group is IMO not credibie to lead the world on such an important issue.

As for the issue of unilateralism, if you haven't noticed the American arrogance in the way of global politics (whether it be political, economical, millitary or environmental) then you've been sleeping under a rock. I'm not saying that the US doens't have a right to disagree, its the manner they go about it that has landed them in hot water on the international stage.

*c*

 

[PosTMOd]

The earth's climate changes very rapidly when changes are past a certain limit.

In other words, it flips over from being warm (or cold) to being the opposite in a very short period of time.

Do humans want to be responsible for causing this enormous change by adding enough CO2 to the environment, and causing just enough change for the flip?

Personally, I don't care. We are fucked... 90% of species we know of right now will be extinct in 50 years... I wonder what this will do to us...

In this case, I really, really hope I'm wrong. And if 50 years we can all have a good fucking laugh over me calmly stating that the sky is falling.

 

[Moez]

Originally posted by Sporty Dan
.....Yes.... its MUCH better to take the words of someone who has NO experience in the oil industry when talking about energy and the environment.

Although I detect more than a bit of sarcasm in that remark, you're absolutely right. The Oil Industry has been in general one of the worst polluters. Shell made a mess out of Nigeria, people in Central America are dying from pollution left behind by oil companies, and so on, and so forth.

......uh.... a company that was on it;s way to bankrupcy well before Bush took office was influencing his decisions eh? .......right..........
If their influence was that important why did the government not bail out their loans?
.....if you wanna look for an Enron scandle, look to Clinton. 22 of 24 Enron energy recomendations where implemented by his administration.

The point he was trying to make is that giving an enegry company, traditionally a heavy polluter, the power to influence government environmental decisions represents a clear and obvious conflict of interest. Do you really think that Enron would benefit AT ALL from stricter environmental laws, when they can loosen the laws and save millions of dollars a year?

Pete

 

[Ditto Much]

desertification

Spread of a desert environment into arid or semiarid regions, caused by climatic changes, human influence, or both. Climatic factors include periods of temporary but severe drought and long-term climatic changes toward dryness. Human factors include artificial climatic alteration, as through the removal of vegetation (which can lead to unnaturally high erosion), excessive cultivation, and the exhaustion of water supplies. Desertification drains an arid or semiarid land of its life-supporting capabilities. It is characterized by a declining groundwater table, salt accumulation in topsoil and water, a decrease in surface water, increasing erosion, and the disappearance of native vegetation.

Add this to an impending water shortage by 2025 in mainly semi-arid regions.

Its not a matter of if we're fucked or not. Its simply how much the numbers are going to thin out. An extreme climate change caused by a good sized volcano could potentially take out hundereds of millions in starvation caused by environmental damages. No inheritly the car and air pollution aren't are biggest problems as a global culture right now. But on the same token in my local neighborhood I'd preffer having it clean and healthy myself. I'd rather not fuck things up more with my own ignorance.



I guess its just a matter of how ignorant you want people to view you as.

 

[Ditto Much]

1. The Parties included in Annex I shall, individually or jointly, ensure that their aggregate anthropogenic carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of the greenhouse gases listed in Annex A do not exceed their assigned amounts, calculated pursuant to their quantified emission limitation and reduction commitments inscribed in Annex B and in accordance with the provisions of this Article, with a view to reducing their overall emissions of such gases by at least 5 per cent below 1990 levels in the commitment period 2008 to 2012.


Drastic my ass, if Canada dumped it coal hydro plants and built another half doven reactors we could easily accomplish this goal. Unfortunately then we're stuck with waist.

I have an easier time with spent uranium than with our CO2 levels continuing to climb.

 

[Jeffsus]

I wonder what Blümchen would have to say about this....

-jM
A&D