A Question for all you Global Warming skeptics
- Thread starter TheRealCJ
- Start date
Recommended Videos
As usual it doesn't show the big picture. The phases between hot and cold periods are shortening, but not becoming more intense.Bantarific said:
http://www.longrangeweather.com/images/GTEMPS.gif
@ jpoon did you even read any of my posts at all? Just refer to this website please.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/
I'll take the time to point out in this thread that that statement is utter fucking shit. Believe it not, becoming more environmentally sustainable goes hand in hand with creating a better, more enjoyable, more equitable society. Unfortunately, there's not a lot of people or groups that look at these things as an overall paradigm shift. Essentially, steps taken to solve climate change (and air pollution in general, and water pollution, and habitat destruction, and energy inefficiency) are a means towards the same end as steps taken to solve world hunger, poverty and general economic inequality, unhealthy and unfulfilling lifestyles, and autocracy. There's huge amounts of material on this; it's a total myth that we'll have to go back to the dark ages to combat global warming and pollution in general.sneakypenguin said:
In reply to the OP: Basically? When efforts like these begin to infringe upon my money, either personally or through taxation; my quality of life; or my time; I have about as much respect for them as you would probably have for federal taxpayer-funded efforts to prepare for the return of Jesus Christ, or the alleged 2012 Mayan Apocalypse.
"Do what you want with your own money, but don't come hounding after mine," in other words.
"Do what you want with your own money, but don't come hounding after mine," in other words.
@omicron1 So basically even though we could provide clean water to the entire world at the cost of 10 billion dollars, if it makes you pay an extra dollar on a candy bar, well thats going to far.
@ Jedihunter 4 would you like me to repost again my 5 sources and 10 quotes? I would really like it if you would go and them because 4 of them aren't from NASA. Also, I'm sorry but private contractors would cut costs like everything else they do in the US and try to make the thing out of foam from China.
I think global warming is bullshit. I am against sustainable energy sources like wind and solar power because they are really expensive to set up and maintain and they don't generate enough power to be worth it. I believe the climate IS changing, but I also believe it has been doing so for millions of years. That's why the UK isn't covered in jungle and why the Sahara is desert instead of lagoons. So what if it's never happened this fast? Man made global warming on a massive scale just sounds outrageous to me. I think the government should push the development of efficient energy sources for when we run out of oil (like nuclear power), but I think wind, wave and solar should be left behind as good but flawed ideas.
GLOBAL WARMING IS A MYTH
GLOBAL WARMING IS A MYTH
Mostly because the ideas proposed are entirely unreasonable. If all power was renewable the cost of electricity would increase to 5 times current levels, and the cost of many other things would rise too. Electric vehicles, just as expensive. Recycling does absolutely nothing but waste electricity and fuel unless your recycling Aluminium so that is not an option.
With the measures that would be needed, living costs would double overnight. It would be bad enough to cause many people to simply starve to death, especially in poorer countries that could not afford the change.
With the measures that would be needed, living costs would double overnight. It would be bad enough to cause many people to simply starve to death, especially in poorer countries that could not afford the change.
Well, I believe in Global Warming, just not some points of it that seems to be focused upon. (Melting icecaps will not flood the earth, that's not how ice works.)
I do believe, however, of the natural fauna changing and species' survival to be endangered.
I do believe, however, of the natural fauna changing and species' survival to be endangered.
*Sigh* Okay really guys this isn't a scientific magazine, and the fervor to which some of you take this on either side is a little scary. There is debate in the scientific community as to what is going on and we still don't have all the evidence, and as it appears we don't even have the evidence of what we could do to slow such a problem. Pollution is bad yes, we all learned this as children, and we have significantly cleaned up a lot, we actually pay attention to it now which is great but the problem isn't the industrialized countries to begin with, even if we were at one point.
We have now many nations, very poor ones, starting to develop, they are acquiring technology, getting education, starting to use more modern methods of farming and irrigation, starting to industrialize. The problem is, the technology they can afford to use is generally 20 or more years old, meaning it is dirty and gas guzzling but reliable and cheap. Now their are a lot more of them then their are of us (All the 1st world countries may make up 1/6th of the population and likely a good number less) But with so many more using these dirty older technologies we are going to have far far more pollution. So what is the answer? If you take away their old crappy technologies you are killing people, that's right killing people so you had best think long and hard on if you think what you are doing is the right thing to do. Another option is to give them the modern technologies, the modern, complex technologies that they don't have the infrastructure to support or the expertise to maintain, meaning we would not only have to supply the materials, the experts and probably the labor (I realize there is a lot of unskilled labor there but I wouldn't want them near a future nuclear reactor without a loooot of training) but teachers, set up universities or at least classes on the subject and offer it for very little or let the cost come out of our pockets. And this is assuming they want our interference at all. Until we come up with a solid solution researching renewable energy is great, but we have to make sure it is available to everyone, not just us entitled jokers in the richest nations who have never known what it was like to not eat for a week.
We have now many nations, very poor ones, starting to develop, they are acquiring technology, getting education, starting to use more modern methods of farming and irrigation, starting to industrialize. The problem is, the technology they can afford to use is generally 20 or more years old, meaning it is dirty and gas guzzling but reliable and cheap. Now their are a lot more of them then their are of us (All the 1st world countries may make up 1/6th of the population and likely a good number less) But with so many more using these dirty older technologies we are going to have far far more pollution. So what is the answer? If you take away their old crappy technologies you are killing people, that's right killing people so you had best think long and hard on if you think what you are doing is the right thing to do. Another option is to give them the modern technologies, the modern, complex technologies that they don't have the infrastructure to support or the expertise to maintain, meaning we would not only have to supply the materials, the experts and probably the labor (I realize there is a lot of unskilled labor there but I wouldn't want them near a future nuclear reactor without a loooot of training) but teachers, set up universities or at least classes on the subject and offer it for very little or let the cost come out of our pockets. And this is assuming they want our interference at all. Until we come up with a solid solution researching renewable energy is great, but we have to make sure it is available to everyone, not just us entitled jokers in the richest nations who have never known what it was like to not eat for a week.
An easy example; cutting down on long-distance freight. What does this do? Well it cuts huge amounts of GHG emissions from cargo ships and freight trucks, but it also necessitates more local economies, meaning more local industry (good for the majority of the world who's local industry has been undercut by the few huge industrial centres in the cheap-labour developing world.)Jedihunter4 said:
Another one, cutting down on coal use. To stop using coal means to cut back on a huge source of GHGs and black carbon (another source of global warming.) But it also means that coal won't pollute the waterways of coal-producing and coal-consuming regions, allowing locals to fish and drink water. It means that there won't be coal power plants for neighbours to get sick from (cancer and respiratory problems.)
Cutting down on oil use: Certain countries no longer have an uneven stake in the world economy, oil-related conflicts and autocracies, such as Iraq, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela have much less of a reason to exist. Other pollution from oil, such as oil spills, and runoff from roads and gas stations can't pollute waterways. Higher oil prices may also sway the paradigm of auto use in North America, changing the face of urban areas along the trends of New Urbanism, which postulates that reversing suburbanization could solve the issue of inner city poverty, as well as leave space for agriculture or natural space, and more vibrant urban areas.
And it works the other way, or going together. For instance, a big factor in global warming is the destruction of carbon sinks such as swamps and rainforests. Do something like stop rainforest destruction from logging and farming, and you improve air and water quality, but doing so would also require the elimination of poverty and economic necessity that lead to much of the logging and farming in the developing world.
Again, the whole process of "greenification" (I forced myself to use global warming-related examples, but there's tonnes of other issues, from excess raw material consumption, to dangerous chemicals manufacturing, to habitat destruction, that would see huge benefits in all parts and walks of the world: human health, economic prosperity, environmental health, and general quality of life, in both the developed world and developing world, in the event of a large-scale paradigm shift away from the current direction of our society.
And of course starve everyone who could not afford the living cost increases.Blue_vision said:
Of course: those damn living cost increases that'll come from consuming less stuff, less energy, energy that doesn't require nearly as much manual labour or resource use to produce. Not to mention those wage drops that'll come for poorer people from having more local industry to work in with higher wages, and (as a part of such a paradigm shift,) higher education, smaller family size, and less foreign exploitation.Blaster395 said:
I'm "living green," and my cost of living has gone way down. I'm not sure where you're coming from here.
Not to mention, the ultimate people that'll be starving are the next generation, and the generation after that, and the generation after those guys, if we don't get some major changes through. Environmental sustainability is just one of those major changes. It just makes sense to do.