Great points of reason!
Cheers!
And I thought I was going to have to stop drinking soda pop (Co2 release) and farting (methane release) to save the planet, whew!
u/d
Is Global Warming just a load of BS...
by Zep 46 Replies latest social current
-
-
Zep
FOUR QUESTIONS TO ASK A PERSON WHO DENIES MAN HAS ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR GLOBAL WARMING: "If ever you meet one of these people[people who deny man has any responsibility for global warming], I suggest you ask them the following questions: 1. Does the atmosphere contain carbon dioxide? 2. Does atmospheric carbon dioxide influence global temperatures? 3. Will that influence be enhanced by the addition of more carbon dioxide? 4. Have human activities led to a net emission of carbon dioxide? It would be interesting to discover at which point they answer no – at which point, in other words, they choose to part company with basic physics." http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/04/27/the-fossil-fools/
-
Zep
SATANUS (apologies for lack of paragraphing, I'm using a different browser(Opera) that doesn't work too well on this site).................................................................................I just read what you wrote about the ocean acting as a carbon sink. You make it sound like there is no problem, that the ocean has almost an infinite ability to absorb carbon dioxide. Thats probably not what you meant, but thats how I'm reading what you just wrote. Is that what your implying? I looked at one of the sites you posted, the PLANKTOS site. They certainly dont seem to believe that the ocean has an almost infinite ability to absorb C02. I refer you their homepage, and just one quote from it: "...the ocean ecology is so delicately balanced it is already showing devastating change due to rising atmospheric CO2 levels.".................................. .................................................................... In a previous post I said that some scientists are saying we might have to migrate to Nuclear technology in order to avoid the effects of global warming caused by increased burning of fossil fuels. The source of that claim was an interview of scientist James Lovelock. From what I read, he actually works in this area of science dealing plankton and the marine evironment. The interview can be seen here: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2004/s1222553.htm. In it he says that basically the ocean has a tipping point where it will no longer be able to act as a carbon sink, where the plankton will begin to die due to warming of the ocean that si already happening. This is along similar lines to what PLANKTOS seem to be saying on their homepage.
-
Zep
ABOVE ARTICLE SAID: "Under the Kyoto Protocol, undeveloped Third-World nations – including China, India, Brazil and Mexico – will be free to produce whatever they want. Yet 82 percent of the projected emissions growth in future years will come from these countries. This is why many critics see is global wealth redistribution scheme rather than a real plan to improve the environment."...................................... "The wealth of the United States is, and has always been, the target," ............................................................................This is a very interesting. The flip side of this is that although these countries will account for 82% percent of projected emissions growth (note it isn't saying they will increase world emissions by 82%)I mean, developing countries tend to initially have a higher rate of economic growth than developed nations until it eventually levels out around the 3% mark as they become more developed, big deal. The biggest polluters as far as Greenhouse gas emmisions, would, I bet, still be, Western developed countries. They have been using fossil fuels far longer and in greater quantities than any developed nation has yet to do. They have reaped enormous benefits technology wise from their use. They themselves, if you believe global warming is real and caused by man, have largely used up the green house credit limit of the earth all by themselves. It is therefore just not fair for the developed world to say to developing world: "Hey, we caused this problem, we benefited greatly from the uninhibited use of greenhouse gases, you now have to shouldler the same burden as us in reducing them, you shouldn't be allowed to profit like we did"...................................................Kyoto, acording to Lomborg(author of the sceptical enviromentalist meantioned earlier), won't put a dent in the Global warming problem, the cuts in emissions are not enough. This is nothing new, Scientists and politicians, HELL, the Green movement have been saying the same thing for ages. Why they still want to implement the accord(as opposed to Lomborg), as far as I understand, is that it gives the world a foot in the door to work collectively on the problem of Global warming, it's a start not an end. Future discussions and agreements would eventually happen. These future agreements could involve cut backs in the emissions of developing countries, FOR THOSE STINGY INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE CONCERNED THAT DEVELOPING COUNTRIES MIGHT USURP U.S. MARKET DOMINANCE THROUGH THE KYOTO PROTOCOL. WHAT BULLSH*T!
-
Poztate
I really don't know...Hang on ...I have to go open a window (hot) and I will get back to you.
-
designs
'The world's oceans now contain an estimated 46,000 pieces of plastic trash per square mile'.
-
Band on the Run
I agree with Logansrun completely. The vast number of scientists, with training I don't have and access to data that I don't have, believe in global warming. Some ecological prudence sounds wise. I would never extrapolate to the entire world by antecdoal impressions.
We are raping the earth. What we possess are minds that can comprehend the problem and remediate it.
Sometimes this forum staggers me with the world views expressed here. Icebergs aren't melting outside my window. There must be no global warming.