Climal Warmging Thread?

[Perchoutofwater]

It seems like global warming is a hard thing to prove because we're talking about how the whole world potentially contributing to it. Its not something that can be tested in a lab. Its also something that happens over a long long long time. I don't know if it'll ever be proven, because folk can just go back to the cyclic climate thing.

 

With that said - should all protential problems be ignored if the cause is not 100% understood?

 

Absolutely not, but should we write legislation that will have a significantly negative impact on our economy and what little competitive advantages we still have in the world market based on on such nebulous theories? I think it deems additional study and consideration, but I think that study needs to be done without trying to come to a predetermined outcome, and that it should be done above board without data suddenly being destroyed and where dissenting opinions can be heard and published within the IPCC, rather than hushed and forced to the realm of bloggers.

[Ursa Majoris]

With that said - should all protential problems be ignored if the cause is not 100% understood?

I have pretty much given up getting involved in these threads. There is no way the ostriches will take any notice because they don't want to. You can present all the science you want, it will make no difference. They'll focus on Al Gore and ignore any and all data presented.

 

What a shame they didn't apply the same litmus tests to Iraq.

[McBoog]

I have pretty much given up getting involved in these threads. There is no way the ostriches will take any notice because they don't want to. You can present all the science you want, it will make no difference. They'll focus on Al Gore and ignore any and all data presented.

 

What a shame they didn't apply the same litmus tests to Iraq.

 

Ditto back aatcha! Ostrich at you!

[Perchoutofwater]

I have pretty much given up getting involved in these threads. There is no way the ostriches will take any notice because they don't want to. You can present all the science you want, it will make no difference. They'll focus on Al Gore and ignore any and all data presented.

 

What a shame they didn't apply the same litmus tests to Iraq.

 

Ursa, what is the optimal temperature for this planet? Nobody has even addressed this. We know that there are glacial and interglacial periods, and have been through out time. Do we as a species do better in glacial or interglacial periods? What percentage of global warming is contributed to CO2, and what percentage is contributed to other gases particularly H2O? How much of the CO2 produced daily is produced by humans, and how much of it is produced by the rest of nature? What relationship does the sun have with glacial and interglacial periods, and where is it in relation to where it has been with past periods?

 

I don't know of anyone that is denying that the globe is warming, and for the most part it is warmer than at anytime in any of our lives, but haven't there been much hotter periods of time in the past? If CO2 was the cause of this, then wouldn't it stand to reason that CO2 would have had much higher levels in those times than now? I think most wish to be good stewards of our planet, and want to avoid placing toxins into the air, water, and soil to the greatest extent possible, but I think the majority of people want something more than a theory that is as much politically motivated as it is scientifically motivated drastically change the way we live our lives without something a little more concrete than what has been presented thus far.

Edited December 3, 2010 by Perchoutofwater

[Duchess Jack]

Absolutely not, but should we write legislation that will have a significantly negative impact on our economy and what little competitive advantages we still have in the world market based on on such nebulous theories?

 

Perhaps not - but when you consider how we are funding terror (or Russia or Hugo Chavez) with our addiction to petrol and the American addition to the 'bigger is better' mindset - than there are many other considerations.

 

There's a 1,001 reasons to act as global warming is real and there are 1,001 opportunities to innovate, make a profit and regain some of our economic and innovative relevance.

 

You and I seem to agree that this needs to be done on all ends (nuclear, clean coal, hyrdro and wind power) - all of which can boost the economy and cut the funding from our enemies. Its one thing to not agree with the science, but many global warning doubters seem yammer on all the time about how proud they are to burn as much oil as they do.

 

Isn't it a matter of patriotism to want to use less oil regardless of global warming?

[Perchoutofwater]

Perhaps not - but when you consider how we are funding terror (or Russia or Hugo Chavez) with our addiction to petrol and the American addition to the 'bigger is better' mindset - than there are many other considerations.

 

There's a 1,001 reasons to act as global warming is real and there are 1,001 opportunities to innovate, make a profit and regain some of our economic and innovative relevance.

 

You and I seem to agree that this needs to be done on all ends (nuclear, clean coal, hyrdro and wind power) - all of which can boost the economy and cut the funding from our enemies. Its one thing to not agree with the science, but many global warning doubters seem yammer on all the time about how proud they are to burn as much oil as they do.

 

Isn't it a matter of patriotism to want to use less oil regardless of global warming?

 

I agree that we need to continue to look for additional sources of energy but we are not realistically at a point where we can get away from oil without a significantly negative impact on our economy and our way of life. I would love to see us less addicted to foreign oil. There are long term and short term solutions to this. The best short term solution is to drill for more domestic oil, but this is at odds with most liberal's agenda. The medium term solution is to bring more nuclear power on-line, and to continue to build more mills to capture our wind resources, and more solar installation in our desert areas, as well as look at capturing tidal energy off our coasts. Unfortunately this is running afoul with animal rights activists, which are slowing down the expansion in these areas, particularly the solar fields. The long term solution is to continue to try create new technologies that will eventually help us become less dependent of fossil fuels. This is constantly being done, by both government and private concerns worldwide. I would even argue that government funding should probably be cut in this area as there is significant private research in this area, because everyone knows that whoever invents this sliver bullet will quickly become the richest man or organization in the world.

 

You ask if it is patriotic to continue to use foreign oil, I'd ask how patriotic is it for our president and those on the left that do not wish for us to drill our domestic resources? You can't very well have it both ways.

[Ursa Majoris]

I agree that we need to continue to look for additional sources of energy but we are not realistically at a point where we can get away from oil without a significantly negative impact on our economy and our way of life.

And we can't get out of our financial crisis without a negative impact on our economy and our way of life. One way or another, the piper is going to have to be paid. Whether in the financial case we pay him or our children do is an argument where you've lined up in favor of us doing it. Why do you want to kick the climate can down the road?

[McBoog]

I see you conveniently abstain from answering the last question in Perch's post.

 

[Duchess Jack]

You ask if it is patriotic to continue to use foreign oil, I'd ask how patriotic is it for our president and those on the left that do not wish for us to drill our domestic resources? You can't very well have it both ways.

 

I think I am on record as being for domestic drilling - which goes back to what I have been saying for a while here - that we need to stop talking about terms of 'us and them' within our country. We should all be on the same team, so we should look at individual ideas for their individual merits and not who proposed things. Until we all get on the same team we are going to continue to plumet.

 

With that said - you mentioned a negative impact on our way of life. Is that way of life the right way of life no matter what? Is it bad to try to adjust the 'bigger is better' mindset to something a little more consciences . Think of all the SUVs on the road... does it really hurt people to buy a car that fits their needs rather than a car to be like the jonzes?

 

If you are a contractor, live in an area with a lot of snow, have a lot of kids, etc - I understand why you might need an SUV - but addressing that issue is one easy way we can address our fuel consumption w/o negatively effecting our way of life. But when you mention that - the folk that I was talking about, the folk who brag about all the oil we use - instantly go into attack mode and make it like your talking about everybody driving a smart car.

 

I can see why people would not want a smart car. I can see why people would want a safe car. It is not about SUVs vs smartcars. There is a middle ground. This is the reactionary mindset that is holding us back.

[Perchoutofwater]

And we can't get out of our financial crisis without a negative impact on our economy and our way of life. One way or another, the piper is going to have to be paid. Whether in the financial case we pay him or our children do is an argument where you've lined up in favor of us doing it. Why do you want to kick the climate can down the road?

 

Have you answered or even looked at my questions regarding the climate? I'm not for kicking the can down the road, I'm for trying to identify which can we should be messing with, if we should be messing with it at all.

[Perchoutofwater]

I think I am on record as being for domestic drilling - which goes back to what I have been saying for a while here - that we need to stop talking about terms of 'us and them' within our country. We should all be on the same team, so we should look at individual ideas for their individual merits and not who proposed things. Until we all get on the same team we are going to continue to plumet.

 

With that said - you mentioned a negative impact on our way of life. Is that way of life the right way of life no matter what? Is it bad to try to adjust the 'bigger is better' mindset to something a little more consciences . Think of all the SUVs on the road... does it really hurt people to buy a car that fits their needs rather than a car to be like the jonzes?

 

If you are a contractor, live in an area with a lot of snow, have a lot of kids, etc - I understand why you might need an SUV - but addressing that issue is one easy way we can address our fuel consumption w/o negatively effecting our way of life. But when you mention that - the folk that I was talking about, the folk who brag about all the oil we use - instantly go into attack mode and make it like your talking about everybody driving a smart car.

 

I can see why people would not want a smart car. I can see why people would want a safe car. It is not about SUVs vs smartcars. There is a middle ground. This is the reactionary mindset that is holding us back.

 

I agree with most of what you have written above. However I'm not sure we can or even sure we should dictate what types of cars people drive. I actually drive a smaller SUV with a 6 cyl. engine. The reason I drive an SUV rather than a sedan is because I'm always driving out on job sites and would bottom out in a sedan. Since I typically put a lot of miles on it I opted for the smaller V6 rather than the optional V8. My wife has the big SUV, but that is because she carts the kids around most of the time, and she keeps our three nephews when schools out for holidays. I'd love for my wife to have a smaller car because it would save me quite a bit of money, but it isn't practical. I think that most people purchase vehicles that fit their lifestyles. The life styles of families are often very different than the life styles of single adults or even married adults without children, so it is hard for me to judge what car a particular person should be allowed to drive.

 

I think people are becoming more conscience about what they are doing. That is part of the reason one of my garages is full of recycle material that is waiting to be taken to the recycling center. We don't have recycling pick up and the center is only open to receive items from people outside the city limits two weekends a month. We also have a compost bin, this is partly due to eco-friendly reasons, but also because of economics and partly because I hate bagging leaves. Point being people are doing more now than they ever have before to try to be good stewards. I think this is one of the greatest benefits of what I view to generally be the over zealous environmental movement.

 

Along the same lines, I've recently changed out my windows and my AC to make it more environmentally friendly but also to make it more cost effective. I haven't gone whole hog on the CFL thing because being in the construction business I knew more about them than your average Joe, and knew they put out horrible light and knew about the high mercury content. I'm still buying incandescent waiting on LED to become more cost effective and for them to work out the heat shielding problems on the LED can lights.

 

I guess the point being is most of the stuff is common sense, and if you show people that they can save money by doing it and still have a similar product they will go for in 9 times out of 10. The problem comes in when the government goes off half cocked and forces us to do certain things like the CFL lights without really studying it in depth. I'm afraid that the CO2 issue could be similar. We need to know what we are doing and the side affects both to the planet and to the economy before we can make that determination. Most of the people that are the biggest opponents to global warming aren't saying it isn't happening, but are saying we don't want the government to pull another CFL type thing times 1,000,000. We want all the facts and we want to know what happens if we do nothing vs if we do something? We also would like to know is warming actually bad overall? Sure it may be bad for some coastal areas, but for the majority it may be beneficial is staving off the next glacial period. We just don't know and I don't want to wreck the economy and drastically change the way we live our lives until we do know.

[Azazello1313]

My wife has the big SUV, but that is because she carts the kids around most of the time, and she keeps our three nephews when schools out for holidays. I'd love for my wife to have a smaller car because it would save me quite a bit of money, but it isn't practical.

 

whoa whoa whoa. I thought you put her in a v8 tank because you think it's safer.

[Perchoutofwater]

whoa whoa whoa. I thought you put her in a v8 tank because you think it's safer.

 

I said smaller, I didn't say a compact. I have no problem with the safety of certain mid-size cars. It would depend on the vehicle.

[bpwallace49]

Ursa, what is the optimal temperature for this planet? Nobody has even addressed this. We know that there are glacial and interglacial periods, and have been through out time. Do we as a species do better in glacial or interglacial periods? What percentage of global warming is contributed to CO2, and what percentage is contributed to other gases particularly H2O? How much of the CO2 produced daily is produced by humans, and how much of it is produced by the rest of nature? What relationship does the sun have with glacial and interglacial periods, and where is it in relation to where it has been with past periods?

 

I don't know of anyone that is denying that the globe is warming, and for the most part it is warmer than at anytime in any of our lives, but haven't there been much hotter periods of time in the past? If CO2 was the cause of this, then wouldn't it stand to reason that CO2 would have had much higher levels in those times than now? I think most wish to be good stewards of our planet, and want to avoid placing toxins into the air, water, and soil to the greatest extent possible, but I think the majority of people want something more than a theory that is as much politically motivated as it is scientifically motivated drastically change the way we live our lives without something a little more concrete than what has been presented thus far.

 

Perch, isnt it in the best interest of the human race to keep the temperature optimal for human beings with the small part that is under our direct control?

 

Look, unlike all your other points (which all have influences) what HUMAN BEINGS do can be controlled by our own free will. We can actually change behaviors of they are destructive to the world around us. Sun, ice ages, CO2 by plants, are all outside our control, so leave that alone. By waiting until problems are so bad they cannot be reversed, why blow off indicators that humans DO have something to do with altering the environment and do what we can to start the process of changing behaviors? Not by being hyper political about the subject (like the Republicans and Democrats are . . . and the right invokes the political catch phrases of "Al Gore, cap and tax, and oil drilling" a LOT more than the other side brings up politics, didya notice that?) but by 1.) realizing that humans CAN affect the environmnet and 2.) starting to do some common sense changes that can start addressing the problem.

 

By waiting for the "smoking gun" causal link, that is no different than cigarette companies denying that smoking was bad for you because there was no "direct causal relationship" between lung cancer and smoking for decades. And they got away with it too . . . . .

 

How many times in this thread has the economy and our "way of life" been invoked to say why nothing should be done? If everyone is strictly out for themselves (Ayn rand) then we are all frucked as we will continue to make decisions without thoughts of the long term consequences of our actions.

 

As nothing is totally "green" yet, I see a lot of stuff being an avenue for innovation and for the US to try and take the lead in devloping the nergies and technologies for the future instead of stubbornly holding onto oil as a be-all end all. I am not convinced that CO2 is the end of the world, but I can get behind being stricter with industrial poillution and making transportation as efficient and "clean" as possible for overall emissions.

 

Can we control what other countries are doing? of course not, at least directly. But we CAN change what we are doing to try and solve the issues that will go way beyond all of our lifetimes. Instead of being strictly reactive when a problem becomes untenable, we can actually try to anticipate problems before they grow beyond our ability to ameliorate the issue.

 

So instead of the cap and trade stuff, instead of demanding "drill baby drill" and instead of nonsense blather about dinosaurs, volcanoes and what the earth was 200,00 years ago, why dont we actually focus on what behaviors that our society is doing that is harmful to the environmnet and try to change them responsibly and sensibly? That doesnt mean put corporate profits ahead of everything else in the world, and it doesnt mean that everyone goes off the grid and wears all hemp clothing. It is a middle ground that continues to put a premium on reducing pollution, new energy sources, building nuclear to get off fossil fuels, and work on prerserving natural resources instead of gobbling them up as rapidly as possible.

 

But I understand how people would rather keep bringing up silliness about dinosaurs, ice ages, the sun (on one side) and ice caps melting, drowning polar bears, and the world turing into Kevin Costner's "Waterworld" (on the other side) because it tends to fall along political lines and people can easily identify with the parties that represent each viewpoint.

[Perchoutofwater]

bp, you still didn't answer my question. What is the optimal temperature? I agree that we should do common sense things to reduce our impact on the planet and our energy consumption. I do not think that we should drastically change the way we do things based on supposition. You haven't seen me invoke Gore at all in this thread. Does the economic ramifications of a half cocked cap and trade bill concern me, absolutely especially when there still isn't any real proof that CO2 affects temperature an that it isn't the other way around, and when people can not tell me what the optimal temperature is.

 

That is my whole argument. Tell me what the optimal temperature is, and if we perform better as a race above or below that temperature. Until you can do that really there isn't much to talk about regarding global warming. Once that is established then we can look at the link between warming and CO2, which we still don't know whether or not it is a cause or an effect of global warming. We should do what we can to reduce our impact on the planet, but we should do it within reason. I'm basically saying the same thing you are with this, I'm just apparently a little bit on the other side of center than you are.

[bushwacked]

bp, you still didn't answer my question. What is the optimal temperature?

 

There isn't an optimal temperature and you aren't really making a point. What is the optimal amount of blood cells a human should have?

[Perchoutofwater]

There isn't an optimal temperature and you aren't really making a point. What is the optimal amount of blood cells a human should have?

 

If we don't know what the optimal temperature is, how do we know that global warming is bad, and is not in fact good as it could be staving off a glacial period, which I would think would be much harder on us?

[bushwacked]

If we don't know what the optimal temperature is, how do we know that global warming is bad, and is not in fact good as it could be staving off a glacial period, which I would think would be much harder on us?

 

If we don't know what the proper number of blood cells a human being should have, do we know that loosing blood cells is bad, and is not in fact good as it could be healthy?

[bpwallace49]

bp, you still didn't answer my question. What is the optimal temperature? I agree that we should do common sense things to reduce our impact on the planet and our energy consumption. I do not think that we should drastically change the way we do things based on supposition. You haven't seen me invoke Gore at all in this thread. Does the economic ramifications of a half cocked cap and trade bill concern me, absolutely especially when there still isn't any real proof that CO2 affects temperature an that it isn't the other way around, and when people can not tell me what the optimal temperature is.

 

That is my whole argument. Tell me what the optimal temperature is, and if we perform better as a race above or below that temperature. Until you can do that really there isn't much to talk about regarding global warming. Once that is established then we can look at the link between warming and CO2, which we still don't know whether or not it is a cause or an effect of global warming. We should do what we can to reduce our impact on the planet, but we should do it within reason. I'm basically saying the same thing you are with this, I'm just apparently a little bit on the other side of center than you are.

 

Perch . . . your question is pure tripe. What does a planetary optimum temperature have ANYTHING to do with what is going on? Answer: it doesnt.

 

Your completely spurious question has nothing to do with the fact that unlike all the other factors like sunspots, planetary changes over time, and volcanic activity, we CAN directly change and effect what humans do to the surrounding environmnet! And as such, we should be as responsible as possible to what is best for the continued well being of the human race. The optimum temperature strawman is really beneath you. . . c'mon maaaan.

 

You are using POLITICAL reasons to justify your opposition, because it will support your personal pocketbook. Your concern is over a cap and trade bill (which I am not in favor of either, because it it politicized.) Perch, from everything I have read that you have said on the subject it could be boiled down to "pollution is bad, I think that should be curbed, but as long as it doesnt effect me, my lifestyle, or my business at all, then I am in favor of whatever is done."

 

Just like your "requirements" that have to be satisfied before anything is done. So in my parallel to cigarette companies refusing to admit or state that cigarettes were bad for your health or cause cancer for decades because there was no "causal link" . . . you are taking the side of saying the cigarette companies were correct, right? Becasue without a causal relationship, then it is impossible to make a correlation and take steps to change behavior? Poppycocck.

[bushwacked]

Perch . . . your question is pure tripe. What does a planetary optimum temperature have ANYTHING to do with what is going on? Answer: it doesnt.

 

Duh.

[bpwallace49]

If we don't know what the proper number of blood cells a human being should have, do we know that loosing blood cells is bad, and is not in fact good as it could be healthy?

 

Until your prove that there is a causal relationship between how many cells I should have and whether or not losing cells IS bad (beyond a shadow of a doubt) then I refuse to believe.

[Perchoutofwater]

Perch . . . your question is pure tripe. What does a planetary optimum temperature have ANYTHING to do with what is going on? Answer: it doesnt.

 

Your completely spurious question has nothing to do with the fact that unlike all the other factors like sunspots, planetary changes over time, and volcanic activity, we CAN directly change and effect what humans do to the surrounding environmnet! And as such, we should be as responsible as possible to what is best for the continued well being of the human race. The optimum temperature strawman is really beneath you. . . c'mon maaaan.

 

You are using POLITICAL reasons to justify your opposition, because it will support your personal pocketbook. Your concern is over a cap and trade bill (which I am not in favor of either, because it it politicized.) Perch, from everything I have read that you have said on the subject it could be boiled down to "pollution is bad, I think that should be curbed, but as long as it doesnt effect me, my lifestyle, or my business at all, then I am in favor of whatever is done."

 

Just like your "requirements" that have to be satisfied before anything is done. So in my parallel to cigarette companies refusing to admit or state that cigarettes were bad for your health or cause cancer for decades because there was no "causal link" . . . you are taking the side of saying the cigarette companies were correct, right? Becasue without a causal relationship, then it is impossible to make a correlation and take steps to change behavior? Poppycocck.

 

How hard is it for you to understand this?

1. We don't know what the optimal temperature is, so we don't know if warming is going to have more negative impact on the majority of people than cooling will. It wasn't that long ago that the same scientists were saying we were entering another ice age. All the same magazines that now headline global warming were headlining the coming Ice age.

2. We don't know if CO2 is a cause or an effect of global warming.

3. If we don't know the answer to 1 and 2 above we shouldn't write legislation that will have a negative impact on our economy and put us at a competitive disadvantage to the rest of the world.

 

If you show me where we need to be temperature wise and that indicates that we need to be cooler, and show me that CO2 is an actual cause and not an effect, then I'll be all for common sense gradual restriction that don't shock the economic system. All I'm saying is lets use some common sense and really find out what is happening before we go off an make some rash decisions that will negatively impact the economy. Obviously the planet is more important than the economy, but at this point we don't even know if we are having a significant effect, or if that effect is in fact bad, so I don't see any rational reason to go and do something rash.

[redrumjuice]

Are we freezing because of global warming?

[Clubfoothead]

We should make it a point to maximum pollute.

[bpwallace49]

If you show me where we need to be temperature wise and that indicates that we need to be cooler, and show me that CO2 is an actual cause and not an effect, then I'll be all for common sense gradual restriction that don't shock the economic system. .

 

 

Your drowned polar bear carcass with a thermometer stuck up its rectum should be arriving just in time for Christmas.

 

Happy Holidays!!

 

Perch, you REALLY arent getting to what I am saying. You are obsessed with Co2 and the cap and trade. Get. Past. It. I am referring to larger global issues that we can do to start reducing our impact on the environmnet as a whole immediately, becasue unlike every other thing you (and others ) have quoted, we are in control of our actions.

 

You seem to have no problem with anything that is done, because "you dont believe" that it is bad, or I need to show you a report from the Heritage foundation that says burning oil and coal is bad before you can "believe".

 

But to your credit I think we are closer than appears. You want a certification from jeezus in triplicate before we even consider changing our behavior, even though it may be too late by that point. I would us to start gradually changing our behavior NOW, while we can. (and by "we" I mean as a global community, not just the US, however, the US could start doing some immediate changes that would lead from the front instead of being dragged along unwillingly).