darius
Guest
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/story.jsp?story=603975
Found this on www.drudgereport.com. Pretty scary stuff.
Found this on www.drudgereport.com. Pretty scary stuff.
size
Well-known member
- Awards
- 1
I certainly am not educated in climatology but I have always been amused how, during different portions in my life, experts have preached "global warming" to "dramatic cooling" back to "global warming".
While I believe that people should respect the environment, I also believe that the earth like other celestial bodies is consistently changing.
While I believe that people should respect the environment, I also believe that the earth like other celestial bodies is consistently changing.
kwyckemynd00
Registered User
- Awards
- 1
During the 70's they were so worried about global cooling that they almost covered the polar icecaps wtih black soot (sp?) to melt them down....:think:...I'm not too worried.
lozgod
Active member
- Awards
- 1
I remember when what I read in the magazines, papers, and now the internet used to scare me. Then not a single thing they said was going to happen happened. Now I just read it and wait for the next movie based on it and the bad ass special effects.
200wannabe
Board Supporter
- Awards
- 1
A recent Horizon programme covered this in the UK. Global cooling (or dimming) is caused by atmospheric pollution, airbourne particles carbon, ash, ect.. The effects of which have been monitored and recorded for years. Global warming is caused by greenhouse gases. The two actually counteract each other. Global warming has been masked by the cooling/dimming affect of atmospheric pollution, in areas where atmospheric pollution has been reduced the effects of global warming are becoming much more apparent. This is a very real problem, current estimates are that unless we change our output of greenhouse gases we will reach a point where it will be to late in about 10-25years. At this point any reduction will have no effect. I could go on and on but this is a very real and very scary problem.
bioman
Well-known member
- Awards
- 1
Advanced computer models show with a few more degrees of warming, the Pacific oscillating currents may very well change direction bringing about a few decades of intense, unstable weather that would gradually lead up to an ice age. This has happened somewhat regularly over the last few million years so I very much believe it will come again..maybe or maybe not in or lifetimes.
Whether we are exasperating the cycle with our pollutants and activities is debatable, the point is it will happen and no it won't look anything like that stupid movie.
A drastically changed climate means drastically changed food chain..something none of us can escape.
Whether we are exasperating the cycle with our pollutants and activities is debatable, the point is it will happen and no it won't look anything like that stupid movie.
A drastically changed climate means drastically changed food chain..something none of us can escape.
CEDeoudes59
USA HOCKEY
- Awards
- 1
Ruh-Roh!
lozgod
Active member
- Awards
- 1
I seen that movie. Plot sucked but great special effects.
CDB
Registered User
- Awards
- 1
Advanced computer models still can't accurately mimic weather, so they're essentially useless. There's always a group of doomsayers, as someone else mentioned way back when it was global cooling that was the bugaboo of the day. The bottom line is weathermen, climatoligists and scientists in general with the most advanced tools available can't accurately predict the weather five days out. Fifty to hundreds of years out is impossible. There's also no where near as wide agreement in the scientific community about global warming as one would think. Greenies and their ilk have controled the debate for too long is all, and all people have heard is essentially one point of view. Nowadays we're seeing more critical questioning of the Chicken Littles and it turns out their theories aren't as sound as they'd have everyone believe. For instance when some advocates of the global warming theory got up before congress recently they were questioned by PHDs who did not agree with them, and they fell apart. Little things like how can you accurately track weather trends over a hundred years? How do you know what the temperature over the Pacific was two hundred years ago? Satelite data does not always agree with ground level temperature monitoring and the satelites are generally more accurate over time, why isn't that accounted for?
The problem is there's no way to test it because the 'theory' is barely even a hypothesis. There's no way to falsify it. If we get more extreme weather, it's due global warming/cooling and human polution. If we get more moderate weather it's due to global warming/cooling. If there's a higher instance of storms, same thing. A lower instance of storms, same thing. A drought, a deluge, extreme cold and moderate winters, hotter and cooler summers, polar melting, polar expansion, all of it according to the theory's advocates are evidence of its validity. A theory that can't be falsified because according to its advocates everything is evidence for it, is useless. And of course one should be suspicious of the fact that answers advanced by these people are always more command and control regulations and expanded government power and imposed limits on the economy. These people seem blissfully unaware that governments are the biggest polluters and mismanagers of the environment, so trusting the government to save the environment is a bit ridiculous.
The Earth goes through glacial and interglacial periods regularly, and has done so since our current environment has been dominant. Humans were not responsible for all the previous periods of warming and cooling. There's some evidence we are contributing to environmental change now, but no where near enough for people to say that they not only know exactly what the problem but also what the solution is, and the debate needs to be opened up beyond the lefty radicals that have essenitally controled it for the last few decades. Global warming has become dogmatic, like evolution, and that's dangerous because science is not about proposing definite answers, it's a process for finding the most likely answers. If people think they already know the answer, the true science stops and what's left is a pseudo religion that doesn't progress towards the truth and greater understanding but remains static.
One major problem with this debate iand the people involved is the general lack of knowledge about economics. For example, people often compain about private industry raping resources like forrest and ocean. It never occurs to them to ask why private industry hasn't raped other resources like steel for instance. A specific example is forrests here within the US. Most forrests are owned by the government and logging rights are leased out to companies. There's no ownership of the resource so it's in the interest of the company to go in and rip out as much of the resource as possible. Next election cycle they may lose the rights to the area. For the same reason repletion methods and technology aren't developed/used.
However in an industry where direct ownership of the resource is allowed the costs of nonstop production become internalized. This means that a company that owns a copper mine for example, will have to balance the long term value of the mine against current needs and production. It's not in their interest to go into a mine that has say 2 million in value and rip all of that out of there and sell it on the market right away and watch prices drop. Rather it's in their interest to take a more balanced approach so the full value of the mine is leveraged over time. For example say copper's going at 2 bucks a pound, but the guy who owns the mine knows there's going to be a general shortage in a year. He'll cut production back now, you'll see a slight price rise, but the copper production will pick up during the shortage. So instead of rising to 5 bucks a pound the price will only rise to 3 or 4 bucks a pound. You won't see this type of behavior in the example of logging except in privately owned forrests. Whether there's a shortage of lumber coming in the future or not, since they're not guaranteed ownership of the resource they'll pull out as much as possible as soon as possible and sell it right now, taking what they can for it.
The biggest waste of a resource is to not use it, and while we may be able to affect our world in detrimental ways this sky is falling nonsense is just that, nonsense. And it's way past the time people started realizing that the government is not necessarily the solution. More often than not it's the cause of the problem.
A further example is pollution of the water ways. In some countries, England I think is one of them, when you buy a house on a river you own that portion of the river. Anything that gets dumped in there can only go it with your permission. In the US no such ownership rights exist, so companies get away with a lot more pollution here, and in England the rivers tend to be a lot cleaner.
One of the best and most immediate measures we can take to protect the environment is to allow people to own it so it's value is their direct concern. That way when it gets affected in a detrimental way there is legal recourse available to stop it immediately. People will generally tend to treat their own property a lot better than someone else's, or no one's. It's the tragedy of the commons basically.
Bottom line, there could be a problem with global warming/cooling, we may have something to do with it, but once more the debate is way too one sided regarding causes and solutions to take seriously, and needs to open itself up if any progress is going to be made. The Paul Erlichs of the world need to shut the **** up and stop predicting all these world wide disasters, none of which have happened by the way, and let other people weigh in. Otherwise the points they make which are valid will never get the attention they deserve.
The problem is there's no way to test it because the 'theory' is barely even a hypothesis. There's no way to falsify it. If we get more extreme weather, it's due global warming/cooling and human polution. If we get more moderate weather it's due to global warming/cooling. If there's a higher instance of storms, same thing. A lower instance of storms, same thing. A drought, a deluge, extreme cold and moderate winters, hotter and cooler summers, polar melting, polar expansion, all of it according to the theory's advocates are evidence of its validity. A theory that can't be falsified because according to its advocates everything is evidence for it, is useless. And of course one should be suspicious of the fact that answers advanced by these people are always more command and control regulations and expanded government power and imposed limits on the economy. These people seem blissfully unaware that governments are the biggest polluters and mismanagers of the environment, so trusting the government to save the environment is a bit ridiculous.
The Earth goes through glacial and interglacial periods regularly, and has done so since our current environment has been dominant. Humans were not responsible for all the previous periods of warming and cooling. There's some evidence we are contributing to environmental change now, but no where near enough for people to say that they not only know exactly what the problem but also what the solution is, and the debate needs to be opened up beyond the lefty radicals that have essenitally controled it for the last few decades. Global warming has become dogmatic, like evolution, and that's dangerous because science is not about proposing definite answers, it's a process for finding the most likely answers. If people think they already know the answer, the true science stops and what's left is a pseudo religion that doesn't progress towards the truth and greater understanding but remains static.
One major problem with this debate iand the people involved is the general lack of knowledge about economics. For example, people often compain about private industry raping resources like forrest and ocean. It never occurs to them to ask why private industry hasn't raped other resources like steel for instance. A specific example is forrests here within the US. Most forrests are owned by the government and logging rights are leased out to companies. There's no ownership of the resource so it's in the interest of the company to go in and rip out as much of the resource as possible. Next election cycle they may lose the rights to the area. For the same reason repletion methods and technology aren't developed/used.
However in an industry where direct ownership of the resource is allowed the costs of nonstop production become internalized. This means that a company that owns a copper mine for example, will have to balance the long term value of the mine against current needs and production. It's not in their interest to go into a mine that has say 2 million in value and rip all of that out of there and sell it on the market right away and watch prices drop. Rather it's in their interest to take a more balanced approach so the full value of the mine is leveraged over time. For example say copper's going at 2 bucks a pound, but the guy who owns the mine knows there's going to be a general shortage in a year. He'll cut production back now, you'll see a slight price rise, but the copper production will pick up during the shortage. So instead of rising to 5 bucks a pound the price will only rise to 3 or 4 bucks a pound. You won't see this type of behavior in the example of logging except in privately owned forrests. Whether there's a shortage of lumber coming in the future or not, since they're not guaranteed ownership of the resource they'll pull out as much as possible as soon as possible and sell it right now, taking what they can for it.
The biggest waste of a resource is to not use it, and while we may be able to affect our world in detrimental ways this sky is falling nonsense is just that, nonsense. And it's way past the time people started realizing that the government is not necessarily the solution. More often than not it's the cause of the problem.
A further example is pollution of the water ways. In some countries, England I think is one of them, when you buy a house on a river you own that portion of the river. Anything that gets dumped in there can only go it with your permission. In the US no such ownership rights exist, so companies get away with a lot more pollution here, and in England the rivers tend to be a lot cleaner.
One of the best and most immediate measures we can take to protect the environment is to allow people to own it so it's value is their direct concern. That way when it gets affected in a detrimental way there is legal recourse available to stop it immediately. People will generally tend to treat their own property a lot better than someone else's, or no one's. It's the tragedy of the commons basically.
Bottom line, there could be a problem with global warming/cooling, we may have something to do with it, but once more the debate is way too one sided regarding causes and solutions to take seriously, and needs to open itself up if any progress is going to be made. The Paul Erlichs of the world need to shut the **** up and stop predicting all these world wide disasters, none of which have happened by the way, and let other people weigh in. Otherwise the points they make which are valid will never get the attention they deserve.
size
Well-known member
- Awards
- 1
CDB...make you posts shorter and more concise so I will take the time to read them 
jarhead
Well-known member
- Awards
- 1
Interesting article. I think the evidence has always been there for global warming. I just saw an article in the paper the other day that linked it to the disappearance of the dinosaurs. I think to say that it's nonsense is a pretty strong opinion, just the same as to say it will DEFINITELY will happen. Exactly how many people on this board are world renowned experts in a field, or doctors, or hold phd's? Honestly I think this board could be serving a greater good than we are because it seems that we have so many political,econimical,scientific,social,medical, etc. etc., geniuses that frequent this site. Seriously though, and I'm not just talking about this thread, having an opinion is one thing, but to make a strong statement like "will" or "won't" is a bit much IMO.
Seriously though, and I'm not just talking about this thread, having an opinion is one thing, but to make a strong statement like "will" or "won't" is a bit much IMO.size
Well-known member
- Awards
- 1
I think you would be surprised about the education of some.
Regardless, planets/stars/celestial bodies all have life cycles. Consequently, the real issue should be whether or not humans have a correlating effect that exacerbates the cycle.
Last edited:
jarhead
Well-known member
- Awards
- 1
I understand there are educated people here. Being educated is one thing, being 100% right ,or being absolutely the last word on a subject is another.
size
Well-known member
- Awards
- 1
On this particualr topic, I wonder if an absolute answer truly exists. My belief is that the answer is no.
jarhead
Well-known member
- Awards
- 1
I agree. The evidence is there, but bruce willis can fly a nuke to a comet and hillary swank can drill to the earths core.
CDB
Registered User
- Awards
- 1
I understand your point, but you honestly don't have to be a genius to understand most of this stuff. I don't claim to have the last word on anything, but I do know a line of crap when hear one, and in the end despite the fact that everyone has an opinion there is such a thing as right and wrong, correct and incorrect. In short, reality exists. There's a hell of a lot more to both global warming and cooling trends than SUVs.
The people screaming about the upcoming catastrophe of global warming are the same people who thought that by the eighties we would all be dying of starvation and/or living under a sheet of ice. These are the same people who clamored to ban DDT to protect the environment and then turned a blind eye as malaria killed thousands in the third world. Or if they weren't turning a blind eye they were clamoring for the government to "Do Something!" Consider that when the dinosaurs walked the Earth it was a hell of a lot hotter, average temperatures the Earth hasn't seen since, and life was flourishing, the ice caps didn't melt and drown everyone, etc. Interglacial periods are almost always shorter, almost half the length as glacial periods, and our current warm climate hasn't come close to the temperatures estimated to have been hit during some of the Earth's more extreme hot snaps. The Sahara desert was once covered with lakes and plant life, no longer obviously. That's a pretty drastic climate change, but the world didn't end because of that change and countless other such changes that have occurred throughout the Earth's history. In the end in fact it's global cooling that would be a bigger problem. Would you rather live in Antarctica or Puerto Rico? We could ban all SUVs, move to a totally clean and renewable energy economy, and you know what? The Earth still might go into a cold or warm snap, and we'd still be screwed either way if it was too extreme.
Like I said, the debate has been way, way too one sided on this particular subject. It's no surprise that most people take the idea for granted, it's all they've been hearing for decades. There are seriously smart people out there in the relevant fields who think it's way overblown, if not false. Considering the track record of the people who are clamoring for the government to "Do Something!" about global warming, I'm siding with the skeptics for now.
jarhead
Well-known member
- Awards
- 1
Good points.
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Global Warming!!!!!!!!!!!!!! | Politics | 150 | |
|
"The Great Global Warming Swindle." | General Chat | 2 | |
| Is global warming true? | General Chat | 62 | ||
| Article - Media Shows Irrational Hysteria on Global Warming | Politics | 22 | ||
| Global Warming | General Chat | 80 |