Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Yes, I would like evidence of warming. Believe it or not, glaciers melting in one place is not evidence of global anything. If your town is on fire, is that global fire? Of course not. Nor is it evidence that the whole world is about to burn.
Temperature would be considered evidence of warming, except for the tiny little problem that the global temperature is dropping. Hence, you point to a glacier melting and say "see". No, I don't. But if you have evidence as opposed to propaganda, I would love to take a look at it.
No you wouldn't. You have a closed mind.
We have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years. We are adding 10 BILLION TONS of CO2 to the atmosphere every year. The glaciers are melting and so is the polar ice cap. All this in spite of the fact that the Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years. Soon we will have DOUBLED the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Those are the facts. Try to dispute them.
As long as we are uncertain of how we affect the climate, shouldn't we do what we can to reduce our impact on the environment?
It's like...
- Alright, you have cancer in your lungs. We are not entirely sure that it is because of you smoking 2 packs of cigarettes every day - but we think there might be a chance of that.
- Great, I'll stop smoking when you have some proof.
And Babe Ruth hit 60 Home Runs in a single season.
Stray facts are only that. Connect them to Global Warming and you will have something going. As of now, all you have is a set of bif numbers and a series of half truths and inuendo.
As long as we are uncertain of how we affect the climate, shouldn't we do what we can to reduce our impact on the environment?
It's like...
- Alright, you have cancer in your lungs. We are not entirely sure that it is because of you smoking 2 packs of cigarettes every day - but we think there might be a chance of that.
- Great, I'll stop smoking when you have some proof.
It's not quite that simple. The connection that is cited is that CO2 is the cause of warming. CO2 is produced by Man (as fossil fuels are burnt) in quantities that are miniscule compared to the production of Nature, but this is what is cited by the Alarmists to inspire action.
The burning of fossil fuels warms us, cools us, produces food, transports food, creates commerce and in every way supports the life that our planet's human population has come to enjoy. It is not an overstatement to say that Fossil Fuel is civilization.
Abruptly stopping the use the use of fossil fuel will cause planetary famine, world wide economic collapse and a return to a bare bones basic life for the survivors, roughly 10% of all of us, from the calamity that would ensue.
Watch "Mad Max" to see a world that has no fossil fuel.
If eating any food was the example in your analogy above instead of smoking, it would be more accurate. Stop smoking is one thing. Stop eating is what you propose.
And Babe Ruth hit 60 Home Runs in a single season.
Stray facts are only that. Connect them to Global Warming and you will have something going. As of now, all you have is a set of bif numbers and a series of half truths and inuendo.
What is your attitude towards environment and climate? Do you think we should have any considerations at all? I mean... If we waste even more rainforrest and pour out - lets say tenfold - the amount of CO2, would feel you uneasy about that?
As long as we are uncertain of how we affect the climate, shouldn't we do what we can to reduce our impact on the environment?
It's like...
- Alright, you have cancer in your lungs. We are not entirely sure that it is because of you smoking 2 packs of cigarettes every day - but we think there might be a chance of that.
- Great, I'll stop smoking when you have some proof.
It's not quite that simple. The connection that is cited is that CO2 is the cause of warming. CO2 is produced by Man (as fossil fuels are burnt) in quantities that are miniscule compared to the production of Nature, but this is what is cited by the Alarmists to inspire action.
The burning of fossil fuels warms us, cools us, produces food, transports food, creates commerce and in every way supports the life that our planet's human population has come to enjoy. It is not an overstatement to say that Fossil Fuel is civilization.
Abruptly stopping the use the use of fossil fuel will cause planetary famine, world wide economic collapse and a return to a bare bones basic life for the survivors, roughly 10% of all of us, from the calamity that would ensue.
Watch "Mad Max" to see a world that has no fossil fuel.
If eating any food was the example in your analogy above instead of smoking, it would be more accurate. Stop smoking is one thing. Stop eating is what you propose.
Perhaps the analogy isn't perfect, and you point out where it fails. And I don't advocate going back to the stoneage (I'm conservative, I want to go back to how it was before all that stone made us morally corrupt) <- Joke, I am not conservative.
The thing is that we are at a point where we know that we affect the world in a greater scale than we knew before.
As for analogy going I think "Mad Max" was probably worse. I don't think the movie shows a society after humanity made an effort to care for the environment... do you?
And Babe Ruth hit 60 Home Runs in a single season.
Stray facts are only that. Connect them to Global Warming and you will have something going. As of now, all you have is a set of bif numbers and a series of half truths and inuendo.
What is your attitude towards environment and climate? Do you think we should have any considerations at all? I mean... If we waste even more rainforrest and pour out - lets say tenfold - the amount of CO2, would feel you uneasy about that?
A ten fold increase would be a daunting task to achieve. Right now, Man contributes about 3% of the CO2 that is contributed to the air. Nature takes care of the 97% balance.
The ill effects of destoying the rain forests are legion. The impact to the Global warming debate is negligable. Planting trees elsewhere would be a good thing. I suppose we could invade Brazil, overthrow their government, enslave their population and create a reserve in the rain forest area to stop that. It seems a tad extreme.
The plot of Mad Max revolves around a post apocolyptic world where the trappings of civilization have vanished. The thing that is coveted above all else is fuel. Whether we reach that point by nuclear war or by self imposed measures, we reach that point.
The use of fossil fuels is a blessing beyond anything that the world has seen to this point. We are warm and fat because of the inspired uses of them. Contriving an ill effect to curtail their use is stupid. This is why I constantly demand proof of the connection.
We have the technology to eliminate most uses of fossil fuel in as little as a decade. We will not, and our children and grandchildren will pay for that ommission.
Many of the ill effects of the use of fossil fuels are already happening and clearly evident. From the accelerating melting of the glaciers and ice caps, to the acidification of the waters of the oceans.
But it is far easier, and much more profitable for a very few, to do nothing until the situation cannot be rectified. So, I suspect Lovelock is correct, there will be a very large die off of the human population. Hardly enough to threaton our existance as a specie, but enough that the result will be a civiliazation unrecognizable to us at present.
The science of the GHGs has been well established for over a century now. The predictions made concerning the effects of the warming are being fulfilled at a rate that is surprising the scientists that made them. And those that are in denial remain in denial. And will do so until, once more, the results are to obvious for any to ignore. Ten years ago, they were stating loudly and repeatedly that there was no warming. Today, they are stating loudly and repeatedly that we have nothing to do with the warming. They are just as wrong today as they were yesterday.
What is your attitude towards environment and climate? Do you think we should have any considerations at all? I mean... If we waste even more rainforrest and pour out - lets say tenfold - the amount of CO2, would feel you uneasy about that?
A ten fold increase would be a daunting task to achieve. Right now, Man contributes about 3% of the CO2 that is contributed to the air. Nature takes care of the 97% balance.
The ill effects of destoying the rain forests are legion. The impact to the Global warming debate is negligable. Planting trees elsewhere would be a good thing. I suppose we could invade Brazil, overthrow their government, enslave their population and create a reserve in the rain forest area to stop that. It seems a tad extreme.
So, to some extent you think that we (humanity) could be wise to use some caution regarding how we use our environment - although not the atmosphere?
Nature doesn't "take care" of things. Atleast not with us on its mind.
I don't see this as realistic. There will be no sudden stop. If, hypthetical, we would just stop - chaos would erupt everywhere. In the long run though, I belive a total dependancy on oil will cause the same effect....Abandoning the use of fossil fuels equals planetary famine.
We have it in our hands to MAKE something better come along. If we just wait - maybe nothing will come along in time.Continuing their use until something better comes along equals good sense.
One reason is to ease the strain of a scarce resource, another is environmental and a third is to spure the development of alternatives.What is the argument for immediate reduction
and what is the proof of the dire consequence that accompanies no artificially motivated change?
It may well be too late already. Even if we were to just stop emitting GHGs instantly, impossible of course, but the results of that would be fifty years down the road. What we see today are the results of the GHGs in the atmosphere fifty years ago. A decade drawdown of the use of fossil fuels is practical, but will not happen until it is far too late.
As far as famine goes, you will see that and more as the feedbacks begin the change the climate even more rapidly than it is doing right now.
It may well be too late already. Even if we were to just stop emitting GHGs instantly, impossible of course, but the results of that would be fifty years down the road. What we see today are the results of the GHGs in the atmosphere fifty years ago. A decade drawdown of the use of fossil fuels is practical, but will not happen until it is far too late.
As far as famine goes, you will see that and more as the feedbacks begin the change the climate even more rapidly than it is doing right now.
I can see the urge and feel your anguish. But there is a whole world population to be taken in account. Everyone with his or her own fear. Some people won't recognize the problem at all. Some to an extent. As of now different bids about what is going to happen and what solutions can be developed rains. I think, in order to get any thing constructive done, we need to make people feel good about the future. Things are going to change - things are going to get better!
This is no ones fault or a certain peoples way of living that has caused. This is us - given some 40000 years of progress. So there is no need to point finger, blaming oil industry or SUV owners. And it isn't too late. Sure, we have done something to the climate - perhaps something really bad. But we can't fix that. So get the grinding started - it has started - this debate is a part of it. A relentless push towards a more stable and endurable society.
If we put too much strain on economy, laws and people in general we will end up with nothing constructive.
I am driving a hybrid engine car right now. Never though about it before. It is a change. A small one and the car is great - a bit cheaper to operate a bit slower from 1-100, but then again I hardly race.
I sort trash in different containers. A bit akward at first - perfecly natrual now.
So small working steps should work. Thats why we should try all those things, solar power, wind power, wave power and so on. Try - refine - and suddenly it will be working. It will be standard.
What am I saying? We need to pursue this. Even harder. But we can't do it with force.
All of my power tools for yard wark are electric. Like you, small steps. Why do i use electric? I don't see a significant fall off in efficiency and I do see a big reduction in the blue clouds of smoke from th small engines.
Equal to or better than is the key for me. Better than is the key for widespread use. It's coming. It will be here soon. Cars that cost less, run better, are more dependable and are less expensive to operate will be all around us very soon and then the smart move will be the green move.
Until that time, it's hot air.
I have said on this board before that in 100 years, the gasoline powered car will be as quaint as a horse and buggy is today. Rooftops will be covered with solar cells. There may be an energy source that we do not even forsee. When it makes sense to do something, it will make sense to everyone who is thinking about it.
I have a satelite dish on my roof. In 1909, this was not anticipated. By 2109, who knows what will have been brought onto the scene.
All of my power tools for yard wark are electric. Like you, small steps. Why do i use electric? I don't see a significant fall off in efficiency and I do see a big reduction in the blue clouds of smoke from th small engines.
Equal to or better than is the key for me. Better than is the key for widespread use. It's coming. It will be here soon. Cars that cost less, run better, are more dependable and are less expensive to operate will be all around us very soon and then the smart move will be the green move.
Until that time, it's hot air.
I have said on this board before that in 100 years, the gasoline powered car will be as quaint as a horse and buggy is today. Rooftops will be covered with solar cells. There may be an energy source that we do not even forsee. When it makes sense to do something, it will make sense to everyone who is thinking about it.
I have a satelite dish on my roof. In 1909, this was not anticipated. By 2109, who knows what will have been brought onto the scene.
100 years seems so long... but the curve won't be linear ofcourse. At some point the peak will have been passed. Perhaps that is a milestone. The first time we need less fossil fuel than yesterday. I wonder how far off that is.
Nations that have started to have the economical means to get more motorized, like China pose a problem in my eyes.
100 years may seem long. But for gasoline powered car to be quaint as horses, maybe it is realistic. I don't know.
The mobility is one thing, powerplants is another. They already deliver electricity and we don't need to push out anything different to the consumers. We should be able to change and avoid construct new fossile fuel powerplants much faster than 100 years.
I see your concern, and I agree to some extent - but doing nothing is also a decision that will affect our future. We need to get in to a change-mindset based on positive values. Market, standard of living are areas that comes in to play.This is why it's so important that we not make decisions that will affect the next ten, twenty, or 100 years on information that is rigged, biased, unfounded, panic driven and politicized. We have the capability to make a big change, but making the right change is what is needed and that will happen, certainly, driven by market forces.
I see your concern, and I agree to some extent - but doing nothing is also a decision that will affect our future. We need to get in to a change-mindset based on positive values. Market, standard of living are areas that comes in to play.This is why it's so important that we not make decisions that will affect the next ten, twenty, or 100 years on information that is rigged, biased, unfounded, panic driven and politicized. We have the capability to make a big change, but making the right change is what is needed and that will happen, certainly, driven by market forces.
Some of the bad descions are going to be made I am sure. But I am totally against forcing ill decievd plans into action. We (humans) are not capable of "fixing" nature, for all we know we can make things a lot worse.
If we don't get in to mindset however I think we are destined to go by our usual ways: Use up all oil, fighting war over it and selecting all the easy shortsighted solutions at every time. And yes, war is an easy solution for our little spiecie. This debate is highly needed.
I see your concern, and I agree to some extent - but doing nothing is also a decision that will affect our future. We need to get in to a change-mindset based on positive values. Market, standard of living are areas that comes in to play.This is why it's so important that we not make decisions that will affect the next ten, twenty, or 100 years on information that is rigged, biased, unfounded, panic driven and politicized. We have the capability to make a big change, but making the right change is what is needed and that will happen, certainly, driven by market forces.
Some of the bad descions are going to be made I am sure. But I am totally against forcing ill decievd plans into action. We (humans) are not capable of "fixing" nature, for all we know we can make things a lot worse.
If we don't get in to mindset however I think we are destined to go by our usual ways: Use up all oil, fighting war over it and selecting all the easy shortsighted solutions at every time. And yes, war is an easy solution for our little spiecie. This debate is highly needed.
The biggest problem we have though is that the scientists which the government uses to invoke change are those being controlled and paid by only a few corporations and have their own interests at heart. With the "official" reports stacked to make these failing companies look like a good idea, there is no way to find out what we really should do. Until they stop listening to just those scientists, it's just a con game, with our future as a species and our financial security forced to play a game of Russian roulette with only one empty chamber.
