Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by sushi, Apr 24, 2007.
Go to Test
in central europe: we are just experiencing the driest April since that data is collected, after the hottest fall since data is collected and the hottest winter since it is collected
farmers already talk about a catastrophe
Wow sushi... this was interesting. Almost like an anti-global warming test. I can almost see where the Bush admin gets some of this data.
I'd almost be convinced with some of their explanations, if I didn't have some experience in the sciences. That question about coal hurting the forests was so skewed it really made me laugh. First off, the problem is not that coal plants produce CO2. It's that they produce so much of it. Increased levels of CO2 will actually feed vegetation up to a point, following which the Calvin cycle of plants will become saturated (mainly due to an inability of rubisco to keep up with the increase in carbon). This will eventually stunt plant growth and will lead to plant death (think of it as stuffing yourself to death). Moreover, coal leads to the production of particulates, which, when shot up in the atmosphere, will do 2 things- 1). Decrease the amount of light that reaches plants (ever seen what Pittsburgh looked like in the 60's?) resulting in an inability to photosynthesize, and 2). Will bind with water particulates to produce phosphoric and sulfuric acid, which is that acid rain thing. I think we can all agree that acid rain is never good for the forests.
I can probably go on and on about this, but my point is that over-simplifying things, like the test did, is never a proper solution. I'm not a environmentalist/democrat, but just someone that likes to draw my own conclusions based on evidence.
I don't think we have enough information yet to make a decision on what is the cause. I am all for reducing pollution and the use of ever more expensive fossil fuels but I am not yet convinced that humans are the major cause of a world that is slowly, but surely, getting warmer. I liked the test as I don't think there is enough balanced information available to the general public at the moment.
That's why I posted it in the PRS forum!
While nothing is completely accurate, the survey does bring out some areas where there is disagreement with regards to Global Warming.
I remember when we went through the Global Cooling scare in the 70's. Same type of thing only temperatures were getting cooler.
While man may play a role, mother nature, the sun, and other factors affect the temperature of the Earth more than man.
After seeing first hand what Mount St. Helen's did to the surrounding area and the atmosphere, one can really see the force of mother nature. For a lack of a better analogy, it was like being on the moon. (Actually flew up in a helicopter and landed at the base of the mountain when the ground was still warm -- hot if you put your fingers in the ground about 1.5-2 inches.)
Anyhow, right now Global Warming seems more like a political football than an issue that has been thoroughly explored scientifically. As more data is analyzed it will be interesting to see if Global Warming really exists as it is being portrayed by Al Gore and others, or is it going to be like Global Cooling where in 30 years it will be a non issue.
What a bunch of crap. I especially like author's inability to understand why warmer temperatures in the arctic, Siberia, and Canada could possibly be a problem.
I also liked the author's proof that warming and cooling periods fluctuate every 500 years by, get this, a sample that included the last 1000 years (500 warm, 500 cool, currently warm). I'd like the people who questioned the accuracy of a poll with 1500 participants to defend this methodology.
I think the global warming debate has turned into a big brain washing. You have one side saying if we don't stop it now we will all die, the other side says its not a big deal. I think the answer lies in the middle. There is a problem with global warming but how much of that is man made versus natural occurrence.
That's not necessarily a key question. What if it is completely natural? If it's still going to cause us problems, we should try to do what we can to alleviate those problems.
I agree there's some scare mongering and hyperbole out there, especially in popular culture. I think some people think that drumming up fear is acceptable if it gets people motivated to do what you want them to do (say, for example, pass legislation giving sweeping power to the executive). That doesn't change the potential problems.
I think that realistically one of the biggest problems is that the projections are that climate change would have the greatest impact on the middle east and Africa, and on the poor. That kind of information doesn't motivate most Americans.
Hmm... that's alright. I can't wait until we get demolished by the big meteor and then the problem will be solved. No earth, no problems which will be a happy situation.
Yeah, that's obvious. No one cared about the African-Americans during the Katrina so I doubt that the Africans would score very big on the media circuit. Back to Paris H. TV now.
Now, now, princealfie. There was a black mayor and a liberal Democrat as governor. The governor, by refusing to request the FEMA aid or federalize the National Guard, maintained control over the relief effort and the post-disaster spending. I really doubt there was a lack of caring.
Then we should adapt.
Not at all true.
Which means what, exactly?
Exactly? Well, generally... Get used to living in a warmer climate with a higher sea level. Move away from areas that will be prone to flooding or drought. You get the idea.
Of course, BOTH the Democrats and Republicans don't care about the blacks either, but only about the almighty dollar!
Yes, there was a lack of caring. Nagin was too busy looking at his business contracts and Blanco was doing something else but not interested and of course the fed admin well they were busy with the other battle.
So the people were abandoned in the superdome instead...
Doesn't matter, the world's gonna burn up anyways.
Simple as that?
What should the people who live in areas prone to flooding and drought do if people in the less affected areas don't accept them with open arms? What should countries that are more damaged by the effects do vis-a-vis countries that are less damaged?
I didn't say it was going to be simple or pretty. If you want easy solutions, try watching some Hollywood movies.
"One side" is every single reputable scientist related to the field. The "other side" is a bunch of paid hacks hired by the corporations who are causing the pollution.
When you try to find a middle ground, you're still going to end up way off because one of the reference points is so far off.
Let me illustrate it this way: try to find the middle ground between Oprah and Fred Phelps. Yeah, you're only 50% of the way to ******* crazy ****ing nuts then. Congrats on your wise compromise.
I wasn't suggesting that I expect easy solutions. Why are you pretending that I did?
So, you don't think that it's going to be simple or pretty? By that do you agree that climate change will lead to increased armed conflict (especially) between resource poor / vulnerable groups, as well as declining health and economic situations? That doesn't bother you? Why not?
I didn't say it doesn't bother me. Where did I say that? It just seems to me the natural course of events given past experiences of human nature.
You seem to be getting pretty worked up over this.
So, the "good" scientists work for free?
OK, I see, you're just pessimistic about human nature. Fair enough. We've done plenty to deserve that assessment (myself included, of course).
I do find this issue pretty frustrating, to be honest. Given that I've chosen to work in international develoment, I think I should get a little worked up over issues like this. Someone has to.