- 07-30-2006, 01:12 AM
Anyone read the newest issue of National Geographic? WOW is it good, apparently we need to lower the amount of carbon in the air by 70% to restore the balance in the atmosphere. And for those of you that think "oh yeah who cares?" well you better start carrying because we will see all of the negative effects in OUR life time not our kids or our grand kids life times. In 2005 alone their was 16 hurricanes! 4 of which were devastating. Reading this article has REALLY opened my eyes to how bad we have let it get. We have only thought about what will grow the economy and not about the consequences. Well as it is here in Canada we are already seeing the changes, our winter this year was pathetic and today it was 45 degrees outside with the humidex! We so we are getting less and less snow and hotter and hotter summers. So what does this mean? Well the lakes will dry up and pests that normally die in the winter will survive, i'm already seeing WAY more flies and hornets. The polar icecaps are melting so that sets off a chain reaction all across the world, something melts in one place and we have a Tsunami in another. We are actually going to have to change our lifestyles, build more windmills to generate power, use more hydrid cars, make ourselves less dependant on cars, by from local markets and not rely on eating things like oranges in the winter. I just thought i'd make you guys aware of this, because now it's REALLY got me thinking.
- 07-30-2006, 01:17 AM
a while ago I was at the movies and as the previews were playing, one of them was Al Gore's doc on Global Warming.. near the end of it I heard some older, moustached jackass mutter "Bull****"... It made me want to drop kick him in the nuts... the ignorance of people... Proven facts, before their eyes... and they mutter "bull****"...
- 07-30-2006, 02:08 AM
Chaps...we've hit this subject quite a few times. Search it up. As part of my Honors Majors Biology II course I was required to do a symposium on Global Warming based off of research found in a book called State of Fear by Michael Chricton. He provided sources for all of his materials and he provides a damn good case.
Any retort of his book involved "he has no credibility" or "he's an idiot" b/c that's the best anybody has against the information he provided. In short, with just the information you'll find in that book you'll probably conclude that Global Warming is not only blown way out of proportion, but even something we shouldnt be concerned about. In addition to that, most green movement postulations are overblown, wrong, or dangerous. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the green movement has been one of the largest disasters for human life (yes, human life) of the past century! The world-wide [near] banning on DDT, a pesticide that is "common knowledge" dangerous but laboratory proved safe, has resulted in MILLIONS of deaths per year in 3rd world countries b/c it was the only good line of defense to mesquito-born malaria we know of! Just recently, a couple years back, South Africa finally said F U to the world and started using DDT again b/c they had a 50 fold increase in deaths after it was removed from the country. The worst it has been proven to do is bioaccumulate in some animals, such as fish
Read the book or get the audio CD's.
07-30-2006, 02:15 AM
07-30-2006, 02:18 AM
Image:Phanerozoic Carbon Dioxide.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Carbon Dioxide Levels over the past 500 million years (familiar life supporting years. I'm not talking about chemo-synthetic bacteria living in the harshest imagineable climate here...).
07-30-2006, 02:20 AM
07-30-2006, 02:22 AM
Also, make sure whatever data you're looking at is RAW DATA. The green movement people tend to add "adjustments" to their numbers and multipy adjustment factors through their equations etc.
07-30-2006, 03:38 AM
The Day After Tomorrow, is a movie that i liked talks about it in hollywood way but the visualization was out of this world, worth watching in my opinion
07-30-2006, 04:12 AM
Yeah, great entertainment value But, horribly poor 'education' value.
07-30-2006, 04:47 AM
Actually I think the greater arguement right now isn't if there is or isn't global warming but if we're a large enough cause that reducing our pollution output would actually have an effect.
Personally, I think the reductions should be pursued for a couple reasons. a) The planet is staying the same size while the population grows. b) While the planet may be fine the people will still suffer. c) Which suffers more from being wrong?
Our 'science' has changed 180 degrees many, many times over. I think putting trust into the safer of the two if we were to be wrong would be the best bet.
Solar Variation Theory
Just posting some oposing views/theories
07-30-2006, 05:25 AM
b) Not necessarily. Increased CO2 production and temperature may have minimal effect on weather, but it will definitely be favorable for crop growth.
c) We'll suffer from "precautionary measures". What the green hippies are asking for would call for a drastic overhaul of our world and would ruin lives across the globe. EVERYTHING would change. We're moving toward energy efficiency anyway withotu the intervention of the green freaks...and at a reasonable pace. The hippies are trying to force it on us right away and that's prob not a great idea.
07-30-2006, 05:46 AM
Yeah, gradual increased efficiency and reduced emissions is the best way, imho.
07-30-2006, 10:24 AM
I love that book, State Of Fear. It really makes you think twice about some of the rubbish you hear on the news.
07-30-2006, 03:57 PM
Kwycke, don't make me dropkick you in the nuts....
07-30-2006, 06:06 PM
Duh!! You must have missed the news in the Politics section... Mikey is definitely part of the "5" global clearing houses of everything we see and read and know. In other words, he is part of the Illuminati !!Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
BTW, that is a very well argued post of yours.
07-30-2006, 07:38 PM
It just baffles me when I can walk into D.C. and barely breath or see on a smog heavy hot day but leave the city and be fine and people will argue we have no effect on the earth's natural process. I guess nature just tends to do this in heavily populated areas.
07-30-2006, 07:43 PM
I"m feelin it this summer here in Ontario, Canada, you walk out the front door and it's hard to breathe and you instantly feel wet from the humidity. I've talked to a guy from Jamaica and Barbados and they both said this summer has been worse than anything they ever experienced. I can handle heat, just dry heat i hate this humid crap, makes your feel gross.
It's nice to see everyone is realizing that things have to change, apparently you all were WAY more aware of it that I was. I new it was getting bad just not HOW bad. Apparerently Bush is going to have a plan to cure global warming, ready in 6 months. Hopefully his many advisors and daddy will be doing the thinking for him on this one.
07-30-2006, 07:45 PM
The needing a shower right after you shower weather? Yeah gotta love that crap.
07-30-2006, 09:22 PM
That's not the point. Industry does have an effect especially if you take an incredibly small sample, like right where it's centered, and postulate on that. The point is what is the effect of human industry on global climate, if it is at all measurable in the aggregate, and then once we know that (which we still don't) what can and/or should be done about it? There have been short lived hot and cold patches as well as long lived hot and cold periods. Deserts were once oceans, jungles are now grass lands and glacier covered dirt is now arable soil. The world didn't end because of those changes, and the challenge is to take with a grain of salt the natural human tendency to see pattens and deep meaning in shifts of the weather, tossed chicken bones and teas leaves alike. Especially when there is, once you research it, a long history of Chicken Littles claiming the imminent end of the world unless the rest of the population defers to them and allows them, in their infinitely enlightened and far visioned disposition, to run every single aspect of the rest of the world's lives.Originally Posted by Jayhawkk
There hasn't been a single generation in history that didn't have its doomsayers claiming we are all going to starve, melt, freeze, be damned or turned to dust presently unless we allowed them to run our lives. Those of us in this day and age just need to educate ourselves so that when the Chicken Littles cloak their claims in 'science' - science always being mistaken as a set of "facts" rather than a process of inquiry by the Chicken Littles and their dupes alike - we can be as skeptical as we need to be so we don't fall for what is and always has been through history the biggest line of **** anyone ever cut up and tried to convince someone else to snort.
07-31-2006, 12:26 AM
I couldn't care less about the global repositioning of the jetstream or any other crap really. I care enough about those incredibly small areas that are effected. I'm not a doomsayer either. I just want gradual changes over time that will slow the results you see in populated cities because as we continue to grow on this planet we're going to have a lot more of those example places.
07-31-2006, 12:32 AM
As long as I get snow in the winter and a tan in the summer, I could care less. Look at the Japanese, they have crazy population density, and pretty bad polution but they live FOREVER.. which means .. nothing.
07-31-2006, 12:41 AM
I believe global warming to be a "gross exaggeration almost at the point of a myth, but not quite", so this is simply a corrective statement: pollution in one place doesn't mean it'll have no effect. Where the pollution is taken to, by jetstreams and such, is where the effect will be felt. So, you can pollute like crazy in Place X and never feel it while Place Y could feel it all and never pollute.Originally Posted by Skyblue
07-31-2006, 12:43 AM
We definitely can have an effect on "air quality" that can effect our health and the health of other life. But,that's not the argument hereOriginally Posted by Jayhawkk
07-31-2006, 12:47 AM
LOL...that's what all of my opponents say at the end of our global warming arguments especially after I show them the raw data on global temperatures over the past 100 years. lol.Originally Posted by Ubiquitous
if anybody has State of Fear on hand, there is a link to those numbers courtesty of NASA I believe. I made my grandma read the book after she came over talking about global warming she's got like 40 pages left (of 700).
07-31-2006, 12:58 AM
Too many scientists on both sides of this particular arguement and me without my degree in this field can only go with what seems like the best arguement. My side has the benefit of having no bad side effects if we're wrong
07-31-2006, 01:44 AM
Just making a small update:
Solar Activity & Temperature over time.
Courtesy of Standford Uni: Global Warming & Solar Variability
Notice the correlation? I didnt know we were responsible for variations in solar output, too...damn humans
I'll try to address the "so many scientists on both sides of the issue" thing later. I had, a while ago, some good statistics from a poll that reviewed the scientists who produced peer reviewed global warming research. Pretty good stuff...
07-31-2006, 01:46 AM
I don't think so mutha****a!!! You will adress my so many scientists, right NOW!
07-31-2006, 01:46 AM
Damnit...I just looked for 30 minutes. I'm done. It was in "state of fear" in the bibliography, but I gave it to my grandma to read
07-31-2006, 01:50 AM
Don't torture your grandmother with that kind of crap. give her porn.
07-31-2006, 01:54 AM
Jayhawkk has a small peepee and doesn't know anythign about global warming
Last edited by kwyckemynd00; 07-31-2006 at 04:39 AM.
07-31-2006, 04:15 AM
Once more Jay, that's not the point. As people become more wealthy they can afford to use cleaner technologies, and there is some evidence that's the route people choose. So in 200 years we may all be voluntarily living in near zero emission zones using technology that has little or no environmental effect. However, if that type of wealth isn't allowed to grow, especially in third world countries, significant amounts of people will never be able to afford the cleaner technology and then the effects of industry might become huge over time. In other words it goes to the question of what we can and should do about pollution in the short term, and the answers if you give any creedence to the above are the direct opposite of the greenies and their propositions.Originally Posted by Jayhawkk
07-31-2006, 04:17 AM
Have a few cites saying this? From what i've seen. Cleaner and safer technology isn't used by corps and individuals until it's pretty much forced on them.As people become more wealthy they can afford to use cleaner technologies, and there is some evidence that's the route people choose.
07-31-2006, 04:17 AM
The lost jobs and wealth that will result from new strangling regulations beg to differ.Originally Posted by Jayhawkk
07-31-2006, 04:23 AM
First, wealth isn't everythingThe lost jobs and wealth that will result from new strangling regulations beg to differ.
Second, you would be surprised the jobs created from regulations
Third, if you read my posts you'll see that i'm for long term,slow progress. Not a over night or economy breaking approach.
07-31-2006, 04:26 AM
It's hard to tell, it's been postulated and when you look at pollution relative to productivity and wealth creation there is a justification for the view. As to the no consequences, that's like saying there's no cost to theFDA delaying the release of drugs. The people who die while waiting for potentially effective therapies would disagree. And grant everything the environmentalist move says as true, it still is a long way from that to the command and control methods government uses. Case in point: stack scrubbers for coal plants which many plants were forced to install to reduce emissions. Command and control. Burning different types of coal, low sulphur coal, would have helped lower emissions just as much for some plants, they were simply denied this choice to comply with standards. In a general sense also when the government comes out with rules saying everyone must lower emissions of pollutant X, greenies love it, even though it forces massive costs on insignificant emitters of that pollutant. Say one plant is emitting 1 part per million per hour, other plants are emitting 4000 parts per million per hour. The latter would have to lower their rate to 2000, the former have to shoulder the cost of lower theirs to .5, regardless of the fact that their emissions were already insignificant.Originally Posted by Jayhawkk
That's the kind of legislation the greenies love though. Once more, grant their arguments as true, their solutions don't follow. In fact more often than not they are way off base and do everything to destroy wealth creation and industry and do little to 'help' the environment that couldn't have been done more effectively in a different manner.
07-31-2006, 04:33 AM
I'm in agreement with you on that. I'm for intelligent solutions and the gov't has a history of having anything but. There was a story lastnight how the FDA and the makers of Vioxx had a little thing going to release it although thre were concerns.
Gov't runs poorly and inefficiently but that is really another thread all together.
My generic solution: Look for and fund alternate fuels. Work on ways for businesses to reduce pollutants. Do this with a strict but reachable goal that has a sliding scale due to the variety of business.
Fixing the watch dog gov't among other things is the next broken link.
07-31-2006, 07:46 AM
Without wealth we have nothing. Family doesn't matter much when you can't afford the medicine needed to keep your kids or parents alive. It's the creation of wealth that has advanced us so far and kept the wild at bay. Get rid of wealth, which is essentially accumulated surplus productivity, and you put us ever and ever more in an environment where scarcity in the basics of life is the rule, not the exception. Wealth is everything. Wealth also is not money, as some modern economists think, nor is it the tendency toward prolific consumption.Originally Posted by Jayhawkk
As a second point, government created jobs are not adding to the overall creation of wealth. If they were socialism would work and why not simply have the government create a job for everyone. Government jobs are by definition parasitic, they have to come after the productive process and leech off of it. There may be some productive value in government action but since there's no balance sheet, no profit and no loss it's impossible to identify where resources are well spent and where they are wasted. For example a government employee who nets 50000 a year and grosses 60000 a year is being paid 50000 a year. The 10000 A year in taxes is an accounting fiction. However, to maintain that fiction people are paid every year to assess these 'taxes' and levy them, make sure they are enforced, etc. Those are not productive jobs, if a true incentive toward efficiency existed in government they'd simply admit the fiction and pay their employees untaxed. Instead even more money is used to maintain it.
Regulation almost always does more harm than good, and the 'jobs' it creates are not the result of a genuine economic opportunity to profit which is what a job really is, but are the result of government coersion. Since the need for the job was not the result of true demand, and since the wages are not set freely but determined a priori by the government, there is no way to determine if the job is a good or bad allocation of resources.
07-31-2006, 08:06 AM
Grant that alternatice fuels are a good idea, which ones should be developed? You see all government decisions are political, not economical. In a free market say there is a legitimate demand for an alternative fuel to petroleum in its various forms. Prices are affixed freely to the resources available for development of such fuels through R&D. Once more, in the free market, those prices would be reflective of the collective judgement of tons of people as to the viability of each fuel. The cheapers ones would be more economical, easier to develop, easier to transition into the current infrastructure, etc. In other words there is a built in incentive to develop the 'right' fuel, the one that will best satisfy the demand.Originally Posted by Jayhawkk
Get the government involved and well, corn growers are a huge lobby therefore corn based ethanol is the way to go. And regarding far future technologies, we'll fund everything else the same way (politically) despite the whether or not the technology is feasible or even necessary given other less costly alternatives. All that money is then taken from tax payers and disbursed politically to favored businesses. Much of that is essentially wasted resources. Something might come of it, a viable technology that leads to an alternative fuel source. What about the tons of other resources spent on developing other technologies that never made it? That's a cost, it may be one you're willing to shoulder but it is a cost.
If you leave the economy alone to actually work it will meet the demand for cleaner energy, and it will do so a lot better than the government. Want to spur that jump? Get the government out of the oil business, allow prices to adjust freely. If they go down minus the government interaction, so much the better. We get to be more productive with petroleum and generate more wealth to generate more solutions to cleaning up the pollution it can cause. If the prices go up then the alternatives become more economical to invest in, capital is made available as outlined above in the free market approach and we end up wit cleaner energy. Either way it's the government standing in the way, not helping the situation. I'm sorry, but it seems to me very naive to think that the government could ever act as a solution to such a problem as the evironmentalists say we are facing. The government is in fact one of the biggest polluters on the planet, its time horizon is not dictated by a long term investment in the capital interest of certain resources, simply by the next election cycle.
If you like, here's a free market take on how to deal with air pollution: Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution - Mises Institute. It's a long (webwise) but worthwhile read.
07-31-2006, 09:54 AM
I'll take a look.
07-31-2006, 11:12 AM
By the way, your avatar is freaking me out. It's like the pig is looking at me the same way I look at a fresh pork chop.Originally Posted by Jayhawkk
Similar Forum Threads
- By mrcoolboy15 in forum General ChatReplies: 62Last Post: 02-16-2007, 09:10 PM
- By size in forum PoliticsReplies: 22Last Post: 01-02-2007, 04:49 PM
- By QUICKRYDE in forum PoliticsReplies: 70Last Post: 10-10-2005, 07:49 AM
- By kwyckemynd00 in forum PoliticsReplies: 29Last Post: 09-06-2005, 05:49 PM
- By darius in forum General ChatReplies: 16Last Post: 01-25-2005, 01:28 AM