Global Warming

[hawklen]

The problem is, english is not my first language, then, sometimes, i say something thinking im saying another... my words may be not so clear, and my translation not perfect.

Its fine leoglas! Its a fun conversation so far

[scifibarbie]

My 2 cents

Yep, we humans are screwing up the environment and definetly contributing to the global warming. The normal heating and cooling of the planet exists, but we have kinda screwed it up and put it well beyond anything we have recorded or discovered over the course of earths history.

Theres too much real science behind it at this point to discount it. Plus I like the before and after pictures of glaciers taken over the last 50 years.

Now you see it them...now you dont.

Personally....I cant wait for the end of the earth party! Its gonna be to die for!

Bad..bad..bad... O.o


P.S>..feeling a bit nihilistic right now

[scotcar]

Interesting reading.
I should declare my hand as I work for a big evil multinational and work with bio-engineered crops.  Not that it changes my opinion mind you!  

I thought that Al Gore's movie was brilliant.  It was an absolute mastery of pseudoscience.  He did not demonstrate a scientific link between CO2 and the earths temperature.  I have heard counter arguments that CO2 is the least of our worries, as it works both to heat and cool the earth.  I think it was more aimed at political gain than anything else

[darkstorme]

Can you cite any arguments re: CO2 cooling?  That's a new one on me.

[AeonBlues]

Can you cite any arguments re: CO2 cooling?  That's a new one on me.

Reference Rush Limbaugh?

When I read Carl Sagan's book Cosmos, I learned that CO2 emissions does raise the earths temperature, and will set off a chain reaction.  As the earth continues to get warmer, the earth will release more CO2 on it's own.  Notice that is problem is also compounded by deforestation.

What I never understood is how people that call them selves "conservative" will make decisions that threaten the very survival of future generations and economic prosperity.

How a conservative mind should work.  "We should have conclusive evidence that what we are doing will not threaten life as we know it on earth."

How a conservative mind does work.  "Unless you can prove to an impartial judge that what we are doing is harmful, then we are much too busy looking at our projected profit earnings over the next fiscal period to care about the future our species."

AeonBlues

[XBlade]

Even if everyone is suggesting that the information we are provided is not good.

Even if everyone is suggesting that science is not true. (I believe science can never be accurate in anyway.

You have to look at your own empirical evidence, it started snowing in the summer a few years back at my school, our summers are hotter, I notice the winters are not as chilling-to-the-bone as they used to...I feel something is changing, and feel powerless to do anything about it. Everyone says it's our responsibility but I don't think alot of people are going to face up to it.

[Dorganath]

@AeonBlues:
Please refrain from making such blanket and often inaccurate statements in a thread that is already teetering on a fine balance.  This topic is a highly-charged political, social and economic issue, with far ranging implications on both ends of the spectrum. Your stereotyping was neither contributive to the discussion and served only to insult a group of people whose greatest fault may be that they don't agree with you.

@Everyone here:  Discuss this topic all you want, but be aware that there is a reason why we generally will shut down political discussions here.  The comment above is a prime example of the snowball that becomes an avalanche.  Keep the comments and arguments on the issue at hand, accept possible opposing arguments in the spirit of debate, and above all, keep it civil and respectful.  The next thing that even begins to smell like an attack against a person or group of people will result in the thread being locked.

[AeonBlues]

I request that this discussion be frozen.

When I first saw this discussion, I thought, "Oh no, this is a trap.  Political discussion is not part of Layonara and my views will result in me being banned."

I have tried to keep it mild, but apparently I have failed to do that.

Rather then going into a detailed explanation of my beliefs....

I ask that this thread be frozen.

Thank you.

AeonBlues

[Dorganath]

Nope, sorry.  I won't do that out of respect for others who might find the discussion enriching.  I believe I explained myself pretty well above.

My comment above has nothing to do with your beliefs or whether or not I agree or disagree, in full or in part.  Sweeping generalizations about "conservatives" simply do not contribute at all to the issue of global warming.

If you wish to continue by providing your detailed thoughts on global warming and can do so in a constructive manner without alienating or insulting what may be a significant portion of our community, then by all means, continue.

However, if you cannot express the details of your beliefs without resulting to insults, stereotypes and sensational generalizations, then I humbly request that you recuse yourself from this discussion.  

For the record, I would be saying the exact same thing had you, or someone else, made similar disparaging comments about "liberals".  In my experience, political discussions, whether in person or on-line (and yeah, I've been in plenty of both), will often degenerate into bickering and name-calling that has nothing to do with the original topic, and it almost always starts with someone making negative comments about a person or group within the discussion.  At that point, it loses all value.

As it stands, this discussion still has value, and as such, it will stay open for those who wish to contribute constructively.

[Pseudonym]

Right on Dorg. I personally have nothing really to contribute *scratches armpit with vacant expression on face* but have found the conversation interesting and thought-provoking.

Really made me somewhat ashamed of my ignorance and if nothing else, I guess you've had a win there if you can do that for a few people.

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

Science is as accurate as the framework in which it works is perfect.

After all, it's every engineer's dream to work with perfectly voidless solids, infinite, frictionless planes, and the occasional perfectly elastic spring.

(How do you get two flutes in tune? Make sure their perfectly elastic springs are attached fully to their perfectly voidless solids. If you get that, you're a horrible nerd. If you actually thought it was funny, you're hopeless.)

@Dorg: Right on.

[Skywatcher]

Another interesting observation about the limitations of science is that the perfect application of the scientific method requires a perfectly objective observer without preconceived notions of what will be observed or what the observations may indirectly imply.  People are not perfectly objective.  

We all have our ideological view points and ideas on the nature of the universe and the laws that govern it so when two human scientists take a look at the same data it is possible and often happens that they draw different conclusions because of what they have previously thought about things.  

I have observed that one of the most important skills for a good scientist is an understanding of his or her preconceptions otherwise sometimes data or truth can get thrown out because it doesn't fit the model or views of the scientist.  

To tie this to the global warming discussion one scientist working for a company that sells renewable energy products amy look at data and see some data points that show high temps and focus on those since they seem to make the case he is try to prove while another may throw out the same data points as anomalous because they don't track with the averages or some other reason.

I am a firm believer in the scientific method as a valid and wonderful way to study things and find out how things work but it is very important that the observer is part of the process and must be aware of how he/she may influence his/her observations and conclusions.

[ycleption]

You have to look at your own empirical evidence, it started snowing in the summer a few years back at my school, our summers are hotter, I notice the winters are not as chilling-to-the-bone as they used to...I feel something is changing.

Please remember that we are talking about a global change here. Even if the weather where you lived had changed radically in your lifetime, that would not be evidence of global warming. You could argue that global warming caused it, but to argue the other way around does not make logical or scientific sense.

@CO2 cooling
Are you perhaps referring to the idea that an increase in CO2 brings an increase in vegetation (and increases the rate of plant's chemical processes), which causes more evaporative cooling?

[AeonBlues]

My key point here is that our environmental laws are being governed by economic trade agreements, corporate law makers, business men that become politicians to further their political/economic agenda, and special interest groups.  Our entire government was written and founded by people that maximize profits, for the purpose of protecting interest of maximizing profit.

Fact: ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.

Fact:  The Kyoto Protocol was negotiated in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, opened for signature on March 16, 1998, and closed on March 15, 1999. The agreement came into force on February 16, 2005 following ratification by Russia on November 18, 2004. As of December 2006, a total of 169 countries and other governmental entities have ratified the agreement (representing over 61.6% of emissions from Annex I countries).[7][8] Notable exceptions include the United States and Australia. Other countries, like India and China, which have ratified the protocol, are not required to reduce carbon emissions under the present agreement despite their relatively large populations.

Fact: 90% of U.S politicians elected into office are the ones that spent the most money on their election campang.

Fact: In the corporate law academy today in the United States, the dominant view is that corporate law requires managers to pursue a single aim: the maximization of stockholder profits. ~ Stanford Journal of Law, Business & Finance (March 2005)
Corporate Law, Profit Maximization
and the “Responsible” Shareholder by Ian B. Lee

Fact: In 1995 Venezuela filed a complaint against the U.S clean air standards with the WTO.  The WTO ruled that the U.S clean air act was a violation to this trade agreement.  Two years later the U.S amended the clean air act to lower its standards.

Fact: The Bush family is heavily invested in the oil industry.  Just to through some salt on the wounds here.  Our presidents grand father Prescot Bush donate money to Hitlers Nazi party.  Also, the Bush family was directly involved with the Binloden family prior to 911.  O.o



AeonBlues

[Acacea]

I think everyone else has been trying pretty hard to avoid turning this discussion to political commentary. It really was not the point. It was a decent discussion while it lasted, though.

[darkstorme]

@CO2 cooling
Are you perhaps referring to the idea that an increase in CO2 brings an increase in vegetation (and increases the rate of plant's chemical processes), which causes more evaporative cooling?

While an increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere would, on its own, have a positive effect on global plant growth, a recent (2002) study from Stanford suggests that when coupled with the other dominant symptoms of climate change, carbon dioxide retards plant growth.  So the mitigating, cooling effect of carbon dioxide through the propagation of carbon-sequestering plant growth seems a reasonably flimsy hypothesis.

Carbon dioxide's role in a greenhouse effect has been empirically proven, and with the recent conclusions from the IPCC, humanity's role in raising the CO2 level in the atmosphere by 25% in the last two hundred years is rather concrete... so the climate change resultant from the anthropogenic greenhouse effect would likely nullify any positive influence the carbon dioxide might have.

*pointedly ignores political blandishments and sticks with the topic he finds interesting*

[hawklen]

*throws a random tidbit and walks away*

Canada has produced more pollutants than the US, and they signed the accord.

*he winks as he walks away*

[scotcar]

Hrm...I had written more than that but for some reason it does not like being copied and pasted from word....

Just did a random search and came across the following paper Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide - Global Warming Petition Project

Haven't looked into the researchers and the source etc so I don't know how valid it is but just as an example to alternatives.

I also like this site for a lot of science myths.  Of course, take it with a pinch of salt JunkScience.com -- The Real Inconvenient Truth: Greenhouse, global warming and some facts

I would like to state that I am not against cleaning up pollution (and you should never assume that all those opposed to your point of view don't care about pollution) and agree that politically some really stupid things are done.  What I object too is when someone identifies a relationship between one factor and another and says "That's the answer".  Especially when the system is much more complex than that.  Using that reasoning I can say there is a relationship between the speed of computers and global warming.  By using data I could even "prove" that.  I could even do something more stupid and blame it on left handed people as there are now more of them in the world then there was 200 years ago. Thing is, you can't prove that it isn't true (science can't prove a negative).

As for maximising shareholder value, that is true.  However, if someone develops a product that is better for the environment and extracts a premium brining more wealth to the share holder, is that bad?  I wouls also argue that any company doing a dodgy activity that pollutes is putting at risk shareholder value.  Cleaning up can be very expensive.

After studying ecotoxicology (from  the environmentalist side) I agree with my supervisors comment "give me data and the right statistical tools and I can prove anything.

Also, regardless of all the evidence, you can't prove gravity exists.  If I hold a spoon I can't actually prove that it will drop.  I can demonstrate it and there is a huge body of evidence but I can't prove it before hand.

Guess that I am also old enough to remember the old "the next ice age is coming"  There is historical data to show that in the last 1000 wheat was cropped across Greenland and that the country was also locked in ice.

Everything they have at the moment are models based on assumptions.  We only have detailed temperature data going back 150 years.  Ice cores/tree rings are much more localised then global temperture data now available.

Fear is a great mechanism to drive change.  Personally I would prefer good data to do that.  Or better, people to actually give time and clean up after themselves.  A novel idea I know, but one day it may actually happen.

[lonnarin]

I work for a big evil multinational and work with bio-engineered crops.

I have no problem with eating genetically enhanced tomatoes, nor do I fear any health risks in them beyond any natural species.  Honestly, most of the hippies who protest them on the basis that only organic is healthy should go live in the woods and contract malaria, and get dissentary from unfiltered river water the way nature intended.  My only qualm with genetically engineered crops is that some companies are making their versions of the plants sterile past one generation, so farmers have to keep buying the same seeds again and again.  On the plus side, I suppose if some unforseen mutation took place and we were attacked by the Killer Tomatoes, we'd only have to deal with them for one crop cycle or so.  The negative is that it makes the engineering companies seem like drug dealers in a sense, hooking farmers on their fix and making them come back again and again.

I also wish the bioengineeers would quit focusing their efforts into seedy profits and would redirect their energy towards the forces of pure evil.  Then I could run wild through the streets with a machette, hacking at vine monsters and massive venus flytraps like in Little Shop of Horrors.

I do however, look favorably on the idea of a vidallia onion the size of a basketball.  I think they'd sell well with the buy-in-bulk crowd at Sam's Club.

I saw the Penn & Teller BS episode covering genetic crops, and they had largely the same take I do.  Just because something's genetically engineered doesn't make it any less healthy to digest than the junkfood we already poison ourselves with.  Now trans fats...  whew. yeah, they're an abomination.

Back to Global warming, don't worry about the cars so much.  Sure they're bad, but the biggest culprit is air conditioning.  Just ask an environmentalist here in Florida how often they go without that, however.  We're currently doing a transition from Freon to a new chemical Puron though that should be a little more eco-friendly, so we'll see.

I'm all for electric cars and finding better fuel methods.  I think ethanol from corn and such is a step backwards, no point in combustion with the power of fuel cells today.  Just wait though, once we convert, somebody will start complaining about the toxins emitted by old, discarded fuel cells.  Utopia is ultimately unattainable... we must be content in our role of finding as many planets we can settle and turning them all into barren wastelands.  It is our nature, and being an organism that developed on this earth, that makes us and our civilization all part of nature.  Henceforth, all pollutants and toxins we produce are natural and organic by definition; only the devastation of paranormal creatures like demons and werewolves could be considered unnatural.

[Laldiien]

I think everyone else has been trying pretty hard to avoid turning this discussion to political commentary. It really was not the point. It was a decent discussion while it lasted, though.

Agreed.  Feel free to post political discontent, but try to confine your ire to Lord Broegar, Milara, or the recent ruling of the Port Hempted council.

RL politics have no place here, and everyone knows better.  Nothing will inflame and cause OOC hard feelings faster.

Global warming = Bad
Think Globally, act locally = Good