There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

by Elsewhere 109 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  SixofNine

  
  AuldSoul, all I can say is, huh?
  
  

  I haven't staked out a position as regards kyoto anywhere have I? I will admit that when I hear people talk about the huge dollar cost of it, I get VERY suspicious. I will admit that any position Rush Limbaugh rushes to get behind, is most likely going to turn out to be rubbish. So if I do my research, I'll bet I'll find out the U.S.A. is not unfairly targeted by Kyoto.

  If a consortium of energy moguls (or a government serving at their pleasure) tells me something is going to cost a...a....a.....(dr. Evil pinky) triiiiillion dollars, I think it's reasonable to speculate that the reality might be closer to "it will cost them (the energy moguls) the operating freedom to milk every last billion out of existing technologies, and it might actually add billions to other industries (and the people who work in them) who will compete with said energy moguls".

  "Therefore, any expense to address an uncertainly defined problem is a possibly a waste of time, energy, and money that could be better spent developing ways of counteracting any potential negative effects from Global Warming. If we spend countless billions addressing emissions and it turns out it is the sun and we can do nothing about it anyway, where will the billions come from to hurriedly prepare for the inevitable?"

  Frankly, I think the above completly off target. As if we can't do both. As if addressing emissions is a big loser if it turns out to not completely fix the problem. As if new emissions technology is financially a zero sum game.

  But in saying that, I'm not supporting Kyoto (as I know almost nothing about it), so put Cheney's pacifier back in your collective mouths as regards that hot button.
• 

  SixofNine

  btw, I didn't sit down yesterday with the idea that I would take the next few days researching kyoto, so if I don't get back to this, it's because I haven't had time to.
• 

  acsot

  For an overview of Kyoto and how Canada could benefit (economically and environmentally) if it actually got on board and did something rather than just sign papers and then ignore its responsibilities, you could read this (for those who love stats, there are plenty):

  http://www.davidsuzuki.org/climate_change/kyoto/economics/default.asp

  It's about 40 pages long.
• 

  AuldSoul

  It's funny to watch, as more and more evidence comes available, people start to sound more and more like Witnesses or fundies pooh-poohing that crazy notion of evolution, as they pooh-pooh that crazy notion that humans can hurt the environment and should actually think about what type of planet they leave for their great-grandchildren.
  Working to reduce human impact on the earth is as pure WIN/WIN as anything on this planet could possibly be.
  When people are fighting against win/win, you know you have BELIEF problems to deal with.

  I apologize, SixofNine. I apparently made an incorrect assumption about your position on Kyoto from the content of posts preceding this one.

  Here is a fact that I do not believe anyone can successfully argue against: There is NO WAY for humans to minimize our impact on earth.

  Why do I state this? Every choice we make, to act or refrain from acting, impacts the earth. We have no way of knowing the eventual outcome of any act or abstention from action, we cannot successfully predict the long-term effects of anything we do or don't do.

  So, how can you prove that action x will produce a win/win? Without such proof, your statement is part of a largely successful marketing campaign and nothing more.

  I notice you did not address the two infamous skepticism-free Carl Sagan models I mentioned. Do you believe that thermonuclear war would lead to a nuclear winter? If so, on what do you base that belief? Do you believe that emissions of "Greenhouse Gas" causes Global Warming? If so, on what do you base that belief?

  If you have nothing more than consensus of opinion to base your belief on, how is that different from flat earth theory circa 1300? If you believe "Greenhouse Gas" harms the environment, surely you have proof on which to base this belief.

  Otherwise, to what "win/win" are you referring in the context of this discussion? If you aren't talking about "win/win" with relation to minimizing human impacts on Global Warming, all I can say is, huh?

  If you ARE talking about minimizing human impacts, I would first ask you to demonstrate with data that humans are negatively impacting Global Warming. That is, I see no point in minimizing human behavior of any sort that has not been proven harmful. That said, I do consider myself to be "environmentally conscious."

  I just hate to think of legislating someone's concept of "environmental consciousness" without their first having met the burden of proving that their concept will improve or lessen the damage to the environment in a specific way. As part of that proof, they would have to establish that the environment is being damaged. I agree with Crichton, there is no such thing as consensus science. There is science and there is consensus. The two concepts share nothing apart from being elements of the English language and having some letters from the English alphabet in common.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  mkr32208

  Most environmentalists are not fighting for a win/win. They are fighting to force their agenda down our throats like any other shallow thinking control group

  Wait just a cotton picking minute! I'm confused...

  I thought the homosexual agenda was to ram something down peoples throats???
• 

  upside/down

  mkr....made a funny!

  u/d
• 

  mkr32208

  Can Global Smelling be far behind?

  Ever been to LA? NYC in July? Mexico city pretty much ANYTIME? Ok, now, just for me for the love of f*cking christ could people PLEASE stop cut and pasting entire websites into their arguments! Make a short summery IN YOUR OWN WORDS and then provide a link to the information...
• 

  SixofNine

  I thought the homosexual agenda was to ram something down peoples throats???

  LOL!

  Here is a fact that I do not believe anyone can successfully argue against: There is NO WAY for humans to minimize our impact on earth.

  AuldSoul, I'm too busy to give real attention to your comments at this time, but before I do, is the above what you really want to convey?
• 

  AuldSoul

  Yes, SixofNine, that is what I wanted to convey. Until you find a way to discover where evolution will end up and what sorts of adaptations will become necessary, you have to face the reality that we have no clue what anything we choose to do or choose not to do will lead to (as a species). Since humanity cannot project whether a given impact on the earth will be beneficial or harmful in the long term, humanity cannot effectively state knowledge of what will or will not harm the earth.

  How would you measure that? For instance: If six species die within one year, is that a good or bad thing? If bad, why? What will the end of those species lead to? What would their continued existence lead to?

  In answering such a question nothing beyond speculation can be offered. Nothing beyond speculation.

  The same is true for "Greenhouse Gas" emissions reduction. You and I and the entire world community of humanity are incapable of projecting longterm harm/benefit from anything we, as a species, currently do. It is an inherent limitation of perspective that scientists frequently lose sight of. Several historic examples have been provided in this thread.

  In the 1870s scientists were desperately worried about a pressing environmental concern. They had no clue what to do to arrest the impending doom that they knew would be visited on all major cities earth wide. They couldn't figure out what they were going to do about horse manure.

  Would you say that is still a pressing environmental concern? Could a human in the 1870s have possibly predicted the world of the 1970s? Does it seem reasonable that in an age when species knowledge is growing at an exponential rate that we can accurately predict the world of 10 years from now, much less 50 years from now?

  I am currently using a machine that sits on my desk rivaling the computing power of the supercomputer that existed in the late 70s. I am typing on a forum the nature of which would not have been DREAMED in 1991 when the Internet first became commercially available (even though this one is now becoming dated). I am viewing this forum at a resolution and color bit-scheme that was not possible as late as 1995. Knowledge is being shared and consumed at a rate that dwarfs the capacity of just five years ago.

  But we are going to be stuck on oil (manufacturing plants included) in 2020? If the Kyoto treaty (and similar methods) address issues that will likely be moot long before the realization of their proposed benefits to the earth, for what purpose would we spend a penny on it?

  Hindsight being 20/20, would you propose an incredibly expensive system of manure management for those fellows in 1874 that projected appreciable benefits on the manure problem by as early as 1966?

  Just curious. How do you know that your concept of environmental consciousness is actually beneficial for the earth?

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  SWALKER

  Here is a fact that I do not believe anyone can successfully argue against: There is NO WAY for humans to minimize our impact on earth.

  Why do I state this? Every choice we make, to act or refrain from acting, impacts the earth. We have no way of knowing the eventual outcome of any act or abstention from action, we cannot successfully predict the long-term effects of anything we do or don't do.

  As...I can't believe you would even make a statement like that! Of course we know the impact that man's actions have and will have, to say otherwise puts us back in the ape-class. It's called "reasoning", common sense (which has long been forgotten), etc. Thank goodness there are scientists willing to put their minds to work and come up with plausible ways to minimize environmental mistakes.

  There are many nations around the world that are seeing the impact that bad decisions are causing in their countries and globally. It saddens me that the U.S. is one of the main last hold-outs. I put us in the same category as China or Russia. Australia even made the statement recently that the U.S. should and could be using other fuel sources and not be so dependent on oil...Brazil has weened itself of oil dependency, but supposedly the smartest country in the world can't figure out how to do it!!!

  So for all of those that can't see or agree with what is going on around the world and choose to close your eyes and ears, I feel sorry for you and future generations.

  If my health problems weren't so bad, I'd jump in and become an advocate for pushing my state and country into designing better environmental laws. I have written letters to congressmen and signed petitions, etc., but it's depressing to me to be in the condition where I can't actually get out and actively pursue these issues.

  I hope that those of you that COULD have an impact on our lives aren't sorry later that you didn't at least try when you had the chance.

  One thing that I do plan on doing is to vote in the up coming elections. I am starting now to find out what the representatives ideas are regarding environmental and other issues and I hope to be ready to cast my vote for the most competent...irregardless of party lines! Just as we made an impact on the drilling for oil in Alaska issue, people can have a say in what is done in this country. Our REPUBLICAN senator voted AGAINST it due to the huge numbers of calls his office recieved!!! (Shortly, thereafter there was another terrible oil spill in Alaska...which you can google and see the amount of damage that was done, by the way! That sure was swept under the rug and got very little mention in the media...wonder why?)

  Here is a good site for news on global environmental issues that are affecting the world:

  http://www.baselpretoria.org.za/News.htm

  Swalker