Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

the supreme court rules ...


zmanzzzz
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 346
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

+1, I have more rational discourse with my 2 year old son.

 

 

That's because like you in global warming, your 2 year old son is willing to take your word without any questioning.

 

I can be convinced by a rational fact-based argument, and I have no qualms about trying to reduce fossil fuel emissions into the air as long as it's done in a rational economically feasible manner - unless of course the world is about to come to an end as we know it in the next decade or less, like the fear-mongering enviro-nuts like Gore would like us to believe. But there is no valid evidence to support that scenario that I've come across. The scare-tactic artists have been roundly debunked.

 

So, can you convince me beyond the CO2/greenhouse gas argument, which appears to be invalid and uses clearly trumped up data, that there is an immediate, dire need to reduce emissions immediately at great economic distress and significant government intervention?

Edited by Bronco Billy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's because like you in global warming, your 2 year old son is willing to take your word without any questioning.

 

I can be convinced by a rational fact-based argument, and I have no qualms about trying to reduce fossil fuel emissions into the air as long as it's done in a rational economically feasible manner - unless of course the world is about to come to an end as we know it in the next decade or less, like the fear-mongering enviro-nuts like Gore would like us to believe. But there is no valid evidence to support that scenario that I've come across. The scare-tactic artists have been roundly debunked.

 

So, can you convince me beyond the CO2/greenhouse gas argument, which appears to be invalid and uses clearly trumped up data, that there is an immediate, dire need to reduce emissions immediately at great economic distress and significant government intervention?

 

ok would it be easier and cheaper to do it now or in 50 years.... i dont think anyone here is saying the end is coming next year or in the near future but history has shown that if we wait on problems its more expensive and takes longer to fix... both sides have the extrem dodo's squawking the loudest but in the middle there has to be something that can be worked out or it will be ;more expensive and harder to fix... humans dont adapt very well compared to ants and cockroaches...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll grant the anti-GW crowd that human-caused GW is not 100% for sure in my mind. I think its right to be suspicious of both sides in such a politically-charged issue. Threatening catastrophic events is counter-productive for a variety of reasons. I don't like using scare tactics, and catastrophic scenarios are largely based on computer models which may lack critical variables. It does make me concerned that the authors are at least partially inspired to do the modeling to get their name in the paper (Al Gore).

 

Anyway, what is interesting to me about our little Tailgate debate is that sides seem to be drawn largely based on whether you are sympathetic to environmental issues or not. So, here are my enviro-sympathetic thoughts and links on some previous posts.

 

Something to think about for the sun-causes GW crowd.

 

Sci Am

 

For the, but CO2 is such a small percentage, its insignificant lobby:

 

CO2 info

 

 

Some thoughts about Az's article.

 

Indeed, one overlooked mystery is why temperatures are not already higher. Various models predict that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will raise the world's average temperature by as little as 1.5 degrees Celsius or as much as 4.5 degrees. The important thing about doubled CO2 (or any other greenhouse gas) is its "forcing"—its contribution to warming. At present, the greenhouse forcing is already about three-quarters of what one would get from a doubling of CO2. But average temperatures rose only about 0.6 degrees since the beginning of the industrial era, and the change hasn't been uniform—warming has largely occurred during the periods from 1919 to 1940 and from 1976 to 1998, with cooling in between. Researchers have been unable to explain this discrepancy.

 

There is not a 1:1 relationship between CO2 and warming, although the author makes this assumption to "prove" the inconsistency. Its a bit disingenuous to only look at CO2 in a bubble as if it is the only greenhouse gas, since it is not. There are other variables to warming. The ocean's capacity to absorb heat being a hugh player.

 

Also, human caused - GW hypothesis have always allowed for variation - especially locally - in climate. The author is suggesting otherwise. Having a collection of cooler or warmer years strung together within a century neither proves nor disproves GW. Variation is not a discrepancy.

 

Is there any point in pretending that CO2 increases will be catastrophic? Or could they be modest and on balance beneficial? India has warmed during the second half of the 20th century, and agricultural output has increased greatly.

 

This one just makes me laugh. What, now the author is crediting increased CO2 for better rice yields? As if biotechnology, education, better harvesting machinery, world-wide recognition and humanitarian support for poor areas have little or no credit-worthy effect? Come on now.

 

An interesting study on the affect of CO2 and crops:

 

U of I looking into it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

they adapt pretty dam well, considering they inhabit pretty much every part of the globe, from one end of the extreme climate scale to the other.

 

um not really , but within the scope of the planet as it is now yes... how many people live in the extremes of the planet, not many , were will they go if those extremes expand....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

um not really , but within the scope of the planet as it is now yes... how many people live in the extremes of the planet, not many , were will they go if those extremes expand....

 

Apparently you've never lived in the south. It's called air conditioning. Humans have also invented this stuff called sun tan lotion. Oh, and a few of them have even lived on a space station for years on end. Not adaptable, my ass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a "political thread" this has been one of the most interesting and informative threads that I've seen on the Tailgate in a long time.

 

I hope that if/when it fianlly gets out of hand, that it only gets locked and not gunned so that we can go back and reference it in future searches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently you've never lived in the south. It's called air conditioning. Humans have also invented this stuff called sun tan lotion. Oh, and a few of them have even lived on a space station for years on end. Not adaptable, my ass.

 

im glad youre lernedness can help the discussion...

 

7 billion will not adapt

 

how many can the space station hold anyway?? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how many people live in the extremes of the planet, not many

 

eh, i'd have to disagree. you give me a climate and i'll give you a hugh f'n city right in the middle of it. obviously, nobody really lives at the poles because nobody wants 3 months of 60 below and never seeing the sun. but aside from that, you name it, people live there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

im glad youre lernedness can help the discussion...

 

7 billion will not adapt

 

how many can the space station hold anyway?? :D

 

Do you care to show me the post where I said that 7 billion people would adapt?

 

I simply said that humans are very adaptable. In fact, I'll go out on a limb and say that we're the most adaptable species on the planet at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

eh, i'd have to disagree. you give me a climate and i'll give you a hugh f'n city right in the middle of it. obviously, nobody really lives at the poles because nobody wants 3 months of 60 below and never seeing the sun. but aside from that, you name it, people live there.

 

Sahara, most of Russia , northern china, Mongolia, the oceans, most of Canada, most of the amazon basin, most of Australia, the Himalaya's , if the oceans rise most islands will not be able to hold humans for long, the plans of the u.s that are not on a river, sierra madre's,

 

now some of these have cities, small but there are people living there but just.

Edited by Yukon Cornelius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you care to show me the post where I said that 7 billion people would adapt?

 

I simply said that humans are very adaptable. In fact, I'll go out on a limb and say that we're the most adaptable species on the planet at this point.

 

you go girl...

 

we dont deal with change well, especially quick changes in environment....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll grant the anti-GW crowd that human-caused GW is not 100% for sure in my mind. I think its right to be suspicious of both sides in such a politically-charged issue. Threatening catastrophic events is counter-productive for a variety of reasons. I don't like using scare tactics, and catastrophic scenarios are largely based on computer models which may lack critical variables. It does make me concerned that the authors are at least partially inspired to do the modeling to get their name in the paper (Al Gore).

 

i agree with that completely, and that's really my main point in these threads.

 

There is not a 1:1 relationship between CO2 and warming, although the author makes this assumption to "prove" the inconsistency. Its a bit disingenuous to only look at CO2 in a bubble as if it is the only greenhouse gas, since it is not. There are other variables to warming. The ocean's capacity to absorb heat being a hugh player.

 

Also, human caused - GW hypothesis have always allowed for variation - especially locally - in climate. The author is suggesting otherwise. Having a collection of cooler or warmer years strung together within a century neither proves nor disproves GW. Variation is not a discrepancy.

 

well, it's also a bit disingenuous to reduce his argument on this particular point to "a few warmer or cooler years strung together." he's talking about a quarter century of sustained cooling, from roughly 1940 to 1975 (resulting in all the 1970s media hype of a coming ice age), right at the particular point in human history, wwii and the post-wwii economic boom, when human CO2 emissions were going through the roof. i think it's fair to argue that this fact poses a rather profound challenge to the anthropogenic GW theory.

 

What, now the author is crediting increased CO2 for better rice yields? As if biotechnology, education, better harvesting machinery, world-wide recognition and humanitarian support for poor areas have little or no credit-worthy effect? Come on now.

 

 

i think it's a great point. not so much his illustrative example of india (i don't know enough about that either way), but the notion that climate change means different things for different regions. warming carries both positive and negative potential effects, yet the alarmists tout only the negative and hype them up to a cataclysmic scale. and i don't think it's ridiculous to hypothesize that, on balance, a little warmer may be a little better. :D

Edited by Azazello1313
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...So, can you convince me beyond the CO2/greenhouse gas argument, which appears to be invalid and uses clearly trumped up data, that there is an immediate, dire need to reduce emissions immediately at great economic distress and significant government intervention?

 

 

If this is the only factor B-Billy, the CO2/greenhouse gas argument, I agree completely with you. But I think the greenies are missing the real immediate issues with emissions, those that have clear and immediate impact on our, and the environments, daily lives. There seems to be an overall failure on both sides to look at the BIG picture and incorporate all factors as to cause and the reality of what emissions do to the environment. The left demands that you to think as they do. Man made CO2 is the solitary cause of global warming and it is our fault. The problem here is that the left's self-hatred mentality runs past us Americans and turns into us Humans and the right's non-intervention dogma, clouds the ability on both sides to readjust a thought pattern or even compromise.

 

Mexico City is a perfect example of why emissions need to be controlled and it has nothing to do with global warming. The place has improved greatly over the last decade. I hated to even drive through the place at one point, but spent a very nice week on business there a short while ago. I don't agree with Government intervention at this point. I do believe there is an immediate need to reduce TOXIC emissions from our machines and hopefully new technologies will help this.

 

Rationally, it is OBVIOUS that emissions of all types need to be reduced from our vehicles. Run your car (with you in it) in a closed garage and you die! The black and gray crap that you see build up on the snow can't be very good for any of us. Toxic or acidic concentrations of these goodies kills water systems and eats the paint off of your car. These are the things that need to be specifically targeted when talking about emissions and make the environmentalists position much more credible. IF CO2 is a contributor, then cleaning up these other emissions from coal and oil burning engines will cause CO2 to likewise be reduced.

 

As a biologist by education with a lot courses on eco-systems under my belt, the whole issue frustrates me. I think the end result demanded by the left is an important and valid one. I just think they have chosen the wrong battlefield and extremist, fear-mongering methods to push their agenda. Their position, data and tactics discredits an overall very important theme. We have to get better at keeping the planet clean for our own survival. The planet and life will carry on with or without us. I fully support a cleaner environment and hope that efficient energy sources like nuclear power are embraced by the left. :D Well, one can only hope! :D

 

OK, let the abuse begin... :tup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On another related topic, did anyone catch the Planet Earth show that came on after the 2 new episodes this past week? They asked the scientist how many humans the Earth could comfortably support and he answered around 3 billion (current pop ~6 billion).

 

Obviously we need to kill off half the people...but which half. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On another related topic, did anyone catch the Planet Earth show that came on after the 2 new episodes this past week? They asked the scientist how many humans the Earth could comfortably support and he answered around 3 billion (current pop ~6 billion).

 

Obviously we need to kill off half the people...but which half. :D

 

 

Lets start with the 29% that support GW and go from there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And which "quick" changes would those be? The not-so-quick changes that the agenda-driven "consensus" is projecting?

 

no i dont think in 2010 that Kalifornia will sink into the ocean, even if i want it to bad enough.

 

lets just say water gets a little low in Arizona, how long can a human go without water ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information