What global warming will mean to you

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

In other words, global warming is natural. By trying to stop it, we are fighting with nature. Why? Because nature might have plans for the world that we do not like.

Natural:
Polio, small pox, plague, AIDS, diabetes, etc....

Maybe they are part of nature's plan, too. Should we not try to reduce their effect on us?

[mnischalke 0]

Quote

...global warming...

Damn, I am doing everything I can!!! I gutted my catylytic converter, I burn all my styrofoam cups when I am done with them (I use at least a dozen a day), I put cheap mexican R12 refrigerant in my rather leaky A/C systems. I buy hairspray just to make inexpensive flame throwers. Really, what more can I do??? It's been really freaking cold!!! Where is the global warming you promised me?????

ya know this really has me wondering about the validity of any of these claims:

Quote

Over the past century, the average global temperature has increased by 0.6 degrees Centigrade, the largest rise for the northern hemisphere in the past 1,000 years, Swiss Re said.

So, like for the last thousand years, there have been scientists standing around with thermometers measuring and coming up with average temperatures? Wow! I had no idea!

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[gary350 0]

Quote

Quote

In other words, global warming is natural. By trying to stop it, we are fighting with nature.

I don't think there's a big debate that global warming is natural. I think the debate is how much are humans exacerbating it.

What he said. I would just add drastically exacerbating it.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

In other words, global warming is natural. By trying to stop it, we are fighting with nature.

I don't think there's a big debate that global warming is natural. I think the debate is how much are humans exacerbating it.

There you go. A "debate." It's not proven that humans have an effect on it. Who knows? Maybe humans are slowing it down. We just do not know! Until we do know, we're walking blindly. It's best not to walk blindly, for there is an equal chance of goigng the wrong way

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Natural:
Polio, small pox, plague, AIDS, diabetes, etc....

Maybe they are part of nature's plan, too. Should we not try to reduce their effect on us?

I wrote this earlier in this thread.

Quote

Are we merely changing the natural course of things to suit our human needs and desires?

I do not have a problem with that. But it is anathema to the environmental cause to do so. Or, at the very least, to their publicly stated goals.

No, I do not have a problem with it. My thought is to use the earth to the advantage of humans. I'm not Earth First! I'm People First!

Now, there must be a balance to this. I don't necessarily buy an insurance company saying that the environment is responsible for their planned rate increases. I'm surprised nobody pointed out that it was Swiss Re saying, "We're raising our prices because of pending environmental doom."

I trust if Haliburton said, "We're going to charge more because our reconstruction has to survive pending ecological catastrophe" you'd seriously doubt it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Keith 0]

Quote

We just do not know! Until we do know, we're walking blindly. It's best not to walk blindly, for there is an equal chance of goigng the wrong way

So then why is everyone so up in arms if all the environmentalists want to do is keep us from walking blindly. Why should we go on with business as usual if we're not sure of the consequences? Why not take the side of caution and stop damaging our environment until we know for sure?

edited 'cause I can't spell.

Keith

Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville

[Amazon 7]

Still looking around the forums for who looks edible

[BikerBabe 0]

Quote

I'm not Earth First! I'm People First!

I think the original intent of Bill's post was to point out that they are the same thing.

I know to me they are the same thing. Trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is putting me and my children and their children first. They are all (or will be) people.

So when we get down to brass tacks, enviromentalists and those who put "people first" essentially want the same thing. The two groups just have different ideas on what is good for people.

SUVs for all, good for people.

Clean air, good for people.

Which do you choose?

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[Keith 0]

There are a few edible ones out there. Aren't there Jeanne?

Keith

Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville

[jumper03 0]

Quote

Still looking around the forums for who looks edible

you keep that fork on your plate missy....

Jump

Scars remind us that the past is real

[Salamander 0]

Quote

So then why is everyone so up in arms if all the environmentalists want to do is keep us from walking blindly.

Because too many believe that the science behind global warming is sound. That these environmentalists aren't walking blindly. Truth is, science is blind in this issue. The blind leading the blind.

The resources to compute the actual affects of any additive to the atmosphere are not available.

The models that are used to predict this problem are so weak that anyone could easily turn them the other way around and say the earth will get colder.

Just for the record... The environment is important to me. Wasted energy, pollution, water etc... are definite environmental issues. Global warming the greenhouse effect and such are as of now wild unscientific attempts to correlate a human affect on the world.

[Keith 0]

Quote

SUVs for all, good for people.

Clean air, good for people.

Which do you choose?

Currently, and for the foreseeable future, instant gratification is the order of the day. Everything is always someone else's responsibility.

Keith

Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville

[billvon 3,070]

>Environmentalists should simply admit that the goal is to make the
>climate the way they want to make it - in other words, fight nature.

I don't know if I'm an environmentalist or not, but my goal is to leave nature alone as much as possible i.e. don't mess with what we don't understand. It seems like many other groups want to "fight nature" as hard as they possibly can, whether it's blacktopping acres of watershed, pumping unimaginable quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere because it's profitable to do so, or killing off entire species.

The ecosphere does a pretty good job for us - makes our air, cleans our water, provides food and building materials for us. Doing our best to break it is a mistake.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

We just do not know! Until we do know, we're walking blindly. It's best not to walk blindly, for there is an equal chance of goigng the wrong way

So then why is everyone so up in arms if all the environmentalists want to do is keep us from walking blindly. Why should we go on with business as usual if we're not sure of the consequences? Why not take the side of caution and stop damaging our environment until we know for sure?

edited 'cause I can't spell.

That's the issue. You look at the cost of going blindly one way versus the other way.

Goin blindly the way the environmentalists would like us to, we could be wrong. In doing so, we would ravage the economies and development of the world. Industry and commerce will be devatastated, as well as development of third world countries. Even unemployment (which is Bush's fault, anyways, I guess) will rise. In sum, a total shock to the world's way of doing business. And it stands a greater than chance of failing than working. So, we are left with nothing.

Or, we proceed along the same course we have now, and keep tthings the same while trying to figure out what's going on and how to do it. The world economy moves on, and development proceeds like it has. The status quo maintains (with its problems and benefits), but there is at least some economic stability, and maybe some of the people in the world can eke out a living. This stands an equally good chance of leading us to the same place as ravaging the world economy and status quo. And if it fails, at least we are left with something.

Here are the options. Keith thinks that there is a chance of saving his mother's life. He has two choices, both of which stand an equla chance of success, but in all probability, neither will work. Keith can either:

1) Give up his house and his car and his lifestyle to find a way to mother on the off chance it works; or

2) Keep going the way he is going while looking for a way that would work, and have the same odds of saving his mom as giving up everything.

I suspect that if the odds of the outcomes are the same, one would prefer not turning life upside down. It's best to be left with a guarabteed something than a possible nothing.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,070]

>Humans are part of nature..
>if we do something, it's no different than any other animal doing it.

Rabbits will multiply until 99% of them starve to death. Is that the "natural" result you want for humanity? For most of us to die in our own wastes? I hope we're a little smarter than that.

>Humans are part of the evolutionary path . . .

Nope. Evolution stops when a society protects its weaker members; indeed, since genetic drift is towards entropy, we begin to devolve.

[Keith 0]

Quote

Because too many believe that the science behind global warming is sound. That these environmentalists aren't walking blindly. Truth is, science is blind in this issue. The blind leading the blind.

OK suppose you're driving down a dark winding road at night and due to an electrical short your head lights fail. Do you keep driving because, after all, you don't know if something will be in your path or do you pull over because it's the safe thing to do. Why is it that we humans insist on doing things we don't know the consequences of, and blame those who caution us, of being blind? I don't get it. This goes along with the thread about skydivers taking responsibility for ourselves instead of suing every one when we mess up.

Keith

Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville

[jumper03 0]

Quote

Doing our best to break it is a mistake.

Amen. I think the better approach to this issue is not to couch the problem in terms of global warming. I'm much more worried about the depletion of upper level ozone - UV rays can be a bitch and I don't want to run around in a space suit unless I'm on Mars. I'm worried about the increase in lower level ozone - yeah the stuff is great way up but downstairs it's a monster. I'm worried about the levels of other pollutants in the atmosphere as well - I like being able to breathe.

I've always thought that saying all of these contribute to global warming so we should stop polluting was a way of scaring the entire planet. We should concentrate on those problems because of the more immediate health concerns. Don't try to scare me about oceans rising and ice caps melting when I'm hacking because your Hummer is choking me to death.

Is there anything more sickening than looking at a major city from a distance and seeing a shroud of brown air over it? We fix that - global warming will take care of itself.

Jump

Scars remind us that the past is real

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The ecosphere does a pretty good job for us - makes our air, cleans our water, provides food and building materials for us. Doing our best to break it is a mistake.

True. It does a good job. Maybe it is warming up to provide other benefits and costs, as it has innumerable times in the past.

Do we want to break that pattern? Do we want to break nature?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,070]

> Really, what more can I do??? It's been really freaking cold!!!

Which makes as much sense as saying you don't believe the earth revolves because you're not dizzy. Increasing the temperature much might well cause the gulf stream to stop, which would plunge the US northeast and Europe into freezing winters.

>So, like for the last thousand years, there have been scientists
> standing around with thermometers measuring and coming up with
> average temperatures?

Nope. Tree ring size is a good way to tell what local climates do. Ice layer thickness tells how much snow there was on a given year. Oxygen isotopes in that ice tells what the average ocean temperature was.

[jumper03 0]

Quote

which would plunge the US northeast and Europe into freezing winters.

Well, I don't live in the NE anymore...let the damn yankees freeze.......

Jump

Scars remind us that the past is real

[happythoughts 0]

Just an idle question... there are people who drive around in their SUV because it is their version of fun. There is no practical reason, just fun. There are people who burn a lot of Jet-A for fun. Those planes always seem to be over at the snozzle for a sip.

Are any of the people who are complaining about SUVs going to give up their pointless burning of Jet-A? Maybe it's the "others" that need to be environmentally good.

[billvon 3,070]

>The resources to compute the actual affects of any additive to the
>atmosphere are not available.

They are readily available; they just do not provide certainty, only odds on final outcomes. For example, there is no question whatsoever that adding CO2 to an atmosphere increases its ability to trap IR radiation, which is the definition of a greenhouse effect. You can demonstrate this in a fish tank. Opponents of the greenhouse effect imagine some sort of "counter-effect" caused by clouds or ice that will completely negate the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere.

The smart thing to do when you don't understand what you're screwing around with is to not screw around with it. The stupid thing to do is to screw around with it until it's broken and you realize you can't fix it.

[Salamander 0]

Quote

Why is it that we humans insist on doing things we don't know the consequences of, and blame those who caution us, of being blind?

Caution all you want. However, don't ask for the world to build biased panels, spend billions, drop what is becoming doctrine on what we can only assume based on invalid science.

“The intensity of the conviction that a hypothesis is true has no bearing on whether it is true or not.” - Sir Peter B. Medawar, British immunologist, Nobel Prize 1960.

I am only fighting global warming here. I do believe that humans aren't doing good with our environment. However, I have yet to see even remotely convincing evidence that global warming is a concern that validates the attention it has been and continues to receive to this day.

[Keith 0]

I understand what you're saying and I still disagree. Moving forward blindly could cost us far more in the end.

Quote

Here are the options. Keith thinks that there is a chance of saving his mother's life. He has two choices, both of which stand an equla chance of success, but in all probability, neither will work. Keith can either:

1) Give up his house and his car and his lifestyle to find a way to mother on the off chance it works; or

2) Keep going the way he is going while looking for a way that would work, and have the same odds of saving his mom as giving up everything.

I suspect that if the odds of the outcomes are the same, one would prefer not turning life upside down. It's best to be left with a guarabteed something than a possible nothing.

You picked a bad analogy. I'd burn everything I have if I thought it had a 1% chance of saving my Mom's life. Your hole point seems to be that possessions are worth something, weighed against life, they aren't worth a thing.

Keith

Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville

[elfanie 0]

Quote

>Humans are part of nature..
>if we do something, it's no different than any other animal doing it.

Rabbits will multiply until 99% of them starve to death. Is that the "natural" result you want for humanity? For most of us to die in our own wastes? I hope we're a little smarter than that.

Of course not.
But if it happened...it would be nature.

I also don't want an asteroid to pulverize our planet...but if it did, that's nature at work.
I also don't want a disease killing 99% of the population..but if it did...

Just because something is 'nature' or 'natural' isn't the same as being "good" or "desirable"...

Quote

>Humans are part of the evolutionary path . . .

Nope. Evolution stops when a society protects its weaker members; indeed, since genetic drift is towards entropy, we begin to devolve.

I think you misunderstand my statement..
I'm not talking about evolution of humans..
I'm talking about evolution of the world and nature. Evolution continues..it's just guided evolution..

--------------------------------------------
Elfanie
My Skydiving Page
Fly Safe - Soft Landings