Global Warming: The other side of the story

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by squeeks, Oct 22, 2007.

  1. squeeks macrumors 68040

    squeeks

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Location:
    Florida
    #1
  2. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #2
  3. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #3
  4. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #4
    Who can't appreciate those delicate, slender necks, and graceful bird-like bodies? Ostriches are clearly the kings of the animal kingdom, and you'd do well not to forget it.
     
  5. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #5
    id like to ask you can you prove global warming is manmade or simply a coincidence with natural cycles that have happened many times before?
     
  6. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #6
    Can you prove that dumping thousands upon thousands of tonnes of man-made chemicals into the atmosphere, ground, oceans and freshwater, destroying thousands of acres of habitation, eradicating thousands of species isn't having a negative effect on natural ecological systems? Even if unproven, do you think that continuing on a course that results in the rapid destruction of huge amounts of life on Earth is going to end in a land of rainbows, puppies and sunshine?

    Bonus Question: Can you prove the geometrical meaning of the central extension of the algebra of diffeomorphisms of the circle? (Show your work.)
     
  7. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #7
    im just saying that the amt of co2 and the like humans emit is MINISCULE to that outputted by volcanoes and things. not saying we dont have an impact but how can you be so sure unless you know all the facts and can get through the biased media?

    i dont know all the facts but refuse to believe everything reprters tell me

    prove the meaning of life: show all your work please
     
  8. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #8
    That wasn't my question.

    Climate change is a reality.

    I've no doubt that in the past the climate has changed in more or less natural cycles.

    Neither I nor anyone else can prove that at least part of what we're experiencing is a natural occurence.

    However, I do know that mankind has had a huge impact on local climates. The pea soup fog of London at the turn of the last century. Desertification of the middle east a few thousand years ago. Lake Baikal, etc, etc.

    It doesn't take a huge leap to see that if humans can have a massive impact on localities then it's very possible that we can also have an impact on a global scale.

    While all of you are denying that humans are having any impact, the sheet ice of Greenland, the North Pole, Antarctica, the glaciers in the Andes, Himalayas amongst others is melting at an astonishing rate. Fish stocks have plummeted around the world in the last 20 years, drought is extremely common in areas that have never known it.

    It's almost a moot point whether it's human caused or part of a natural cycle. Las Vegas is doomed, Atlanta may well run out of water next year, Washington DC could well become uninhabitable if the oceans rise even a tiny bit.

    What are all you naysayers prepared to do about it? Nothing is not an acceptable answer.

    I repeat, do you simply have a fascination for ostriches or are you simply blind to what's happening to the planet?
     
  9. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #9
    Who cares what reporters say? I think more people are concerned with the general consensus in the scientific community, but even that isn't entirely relelvant. You don't need to have all of the "facts" to recognize that what we're doing is unsustainable and bad for the planet, and what's bad for the planet is bad for us. Our CO2 emissions could be having no impact whatsoever on the planet. We're doing far more damage than just that, and if you're willing to dismiss the idea that hey, maybe we should stop ruining our only planet just because all the facts for one facet of our impact "aren't in", then you're not taking an objective or logical look at the picture.

    Additionally, there are no good estimates for how much CO2 volcanoes are emitting, to use your example. But what's missing here is balance; yes there are natural fluctuations, but it's almost always balanced out by the opposite end of the cycle. Plant decay creates carbon. Plant growth consumes carbon. The oceans cyclically release and absorb carbon. Some organisms consume one greenhouse gas and emit another.

    Your argument is based on the idea that natural processes create more emissions than anthropogenic processes. Even though this is the case, should a single species, reasonably speaking, be able to wield enough environmental power to even rival natural processes? If the scales have 60 pounds on each platform, even one or two pounds is going to have a significant impact on which way they tip.

    This goes to show that you're missing my point, but OK. The meaning of life is to perpetuate our own species. Ergo, part of this process involves maintaining a suitable habitat for one's offspring. A planet stripped of resources is not conducive to survival.
     
  10. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #10
    I don't know all the facts either, but having actually read some of the scientific papers, worked through the literature, and browsed articles in National Geographic, Scientific American, Science...I'm more than willing to accept that Anthropogenic Climate Change is happening.

    If you're so worried about 'biased media' then go to the library and read the actual articles. Do the work.

    One of the easiest examples of an obvious change is the rise of carbonic acid in the oceans, which breaks down coral skeletons. This is unusual.
     
  11. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #11
    oh i agree prevention is best solution and dont deny that we dont have an impact. i just dont know how significant

    but at the same time, who is willing to give up their current llifestyle. for me personally it will be hard
     
  12. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #12
    while i agree i also realize that there are probably equal reports from scientists saying the opposite but remember how powerful the media is. i mean remember shark year? the media really overplayed shark attacks when they were normal during that year.

    does anyone see where im coming from or maybe im waaaaay off

    media controls government to some extent so i would not be suprised at all if research grants are picked out selectivly to support a case they want to make.

    NOW i do think our actions cant be good for global warming but you have to remember the source of the information. you can come close to proving anything in science that supports your view based on controlled experiments

    like i said we should work on cutting back emissions and the like but part of me wouldnt be suprised if it is being overplayed.
     
  13. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #13
    I gave up my "current" lifestyle about 5 years ago... I've changed my diet, where I live, where I work, what I do with my time, what I buy (and where), where I volunteer, who I donate to, and next year I start carbon offsetting. It was hard, but it's rewarding to know that you are making a difference, even if only in a small way.

    Additionally, vegan girls are really cute.
     
  14. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #14
    Several things I'd like to point out:

    1. The "media" is a pretty broad brush and doesn't make a clear difference between the "bleeds it leads" hysteria of nightly TV news and the well-researched reports from a magazine like Harpers. Or for that matter the difference between a local news report or an episode of Frontline.
    2. With the above in mind we can clearly see that "shark year" was hysteria brought on by a flood of TV news reporters hauling it to the coast.
    3. Numerous shark experts wasted significant amounts of oxygen trying to point out that shark attacks are rare, even when considering the number that happened that year. The scientific media was considerate on this story and avoided the hysteria that the TV news reports lived on.

    does anyone see where im coming from or maybe im waaaaay off

    So there might be a conspiracy to keep data (that incidentally the current administration would love to have) or research from happening? I need more than this to start doubting the work of numerous scientists and science reporters working for a wide range of periodicals.

    Worse case scenario, we stop cutting down old-growth trees, our oceans are healthier, our air is cleaner, we have cities designed to walk rather than 2-hour commutes, clean and efficient public transportation. If all the good that comes from reform happens, finding out that the whole thing was crap will be met with a collective shrug.
     
  15. Marble macrumors 6502a

    Marble

    Joined:
    May 13, 2003
    Location:
    Tucson, AZ
    #15
    We have very little to lose when it comes to playing nicer with the environment. Since we have control over our ecological footprint, whatever it might be, why don't we err on the side of caution?
     
  16. GfPQqmcRKUvP macrumors 68040

    GfPQqmcRKUvP

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Location:
    Terminus
    #16
    And emaciated...


    EDIT for all you PC people: The above comment was put in for comedic purposes and not as an insult to anyone who may or may not eat the wonderful bounty that the earth has given us...meat.
     
  17. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #17
    Better than obese and dieabetic :3
     
  18. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #18
    On behalf of MR diabetics (a club of which thankfully I am not a member) I would point out that not all diabetics are obese.
     
  19. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #19
    Didn't say they were! Just that "emaciated" would be preferable to someone who is both diabetic and obese. Which is an aside, as we're joking (I hope!) as none of the three are healthy.

    edit: edited many times for sucking.
     
  20. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #20
    The point is, you might not have a choice. The NYT had an excellent article on the lack of water in Colorado and the rest of the west. Colorado has about 20-30 years of water left before drastic restrictions will be put into place.

    It really is irrelevant whether you are willing or not. Climate change, man made or naturally occurring is taking place as we speak.
     
  21. Much Ado macrumors 68000

    Much Ado

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #21
    (Emphasis mine)

    Name more than three. Go.
     
  22. Much Ado macrumors 68000

    Much Ado

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #22
    Exactly. It's like Pascal's Wager, only without the glaring flaws :D
     
  23. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #23
    My wife and I spend ~10 years as professional whitewater guides (we actually met on a river). Our love for rivers, watersheds and river eco-systems encouraged us to devote a great deal of our time protecting them. In fact, my wife is going to be a feature story in American Rivers Magazine.

    What we soon learned was, you cannot separate the river from its surrounding environment. Soon we were also working on shorelines management, forestry, in-stream flows, hydro-power, etc. Today, I have changed focus to politics, but my wife is heavily involved with local salmon restoration projects, growth management and surface-water management.

    Modern man has been a dreadful steward of his environment. There is no other way to put it. For many years, we could rightly claim ignorance. But, that will no longer wash. There is no excuse for anyone in western civilization not to understand what the major environmental concerns are, and what role they play in solving them, or continuing to contribute to them.

    This thread was about the "...The other side of the story...". Well, that is over twenty years-old. The minute corporations found out the 'cat was out of the bag', they went to plan "B"; disinformation, discredit, threaten jobs. In America, when weighing the truth in two opposing viewpoints, follow the money. Who is gaining, where is the profit motive? You usually do not have to look too hard.

    I though hulugu made a very good point at the end. If we were to make a concerted effort to reduce our use (and dependancy) on fossil fuels, clean-up our air, restore our forests, etc and it still does not arrest global warming, we are still restoring our environment back to its natural state. That in itself is worth the effort.
     
  24. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #24
    It still doesn't address the basic problem where any efforts at increasing our conservation won't make up for the additional one, two, three, etc. billion people that will be added to the Earth's population over the coming decades and centuries.

    The reason this whole thing is a hard sell to a lot of industrialized nations and more specifically the individuals living in them is that we feel what's the point of scrounging and saving resources if it's just to allow five additional people to consume that and more somewhere else.
     
  25. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #25
    The people alive in the coming decades and centuries will have to work something out, won't they? If we don't take a lead now, there won't be anyone around in the coming centuries. We need to be able to offer our descendants something a bit better than a suffocated, burnt out, used up planet.

    Isn't it time we tried to lead by example? Who exactly are these "five additional people"? Are they your grandchildren? Are they foreigners? Are you admitting that you consume five times as much as they do? Does that tell you anything?
     

Share This Page