August1991 Posted November 1, 2004 Report Share Posted November 1, 2004 I think we can all agree that George W. Bush, the Republican Party, the United States (or Americans wherever they live) did not cause the last Ice Age. But is Kyoto a 'good' thing or a 'bad' thing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caesar Posted November 1, 2004 Report Share Posted November 1, 2004 Stoker may want "proof". He doesn't believe in a little common sense most times, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eureka Posted November 1, 2004 Report Share Posted November 1, 2004 So far, Kyoto is the only thing. It does not go far enough, though, and disaster is coming apace. One little noted aspect of the Greenhouse gas debate is the increasing desertification of the planet. It is not only about ice and melting, though that is now a huge concern. Desertification of drylands is epidemic. 70% of the world's drylands have degraded in the last 25 years. Deserts, too are expanding. And, it is primarily caused by the increasing greenhouse gases. There have been international confrences on that also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoker Posted November 1, 2004 Report Share Posted November 1, 2004 caesar, since you don't seem to believe in sources, I'll play along also......... Because I said so, the enviroment is infact getting better, to the tune 79.2% better, due to the leadership of the Bush administration, and over the next few years, we will see the better factor reach 142%. Use some common sense Back on topic though... Who caused the Ice Age? And is the culprit that caused the ice age part of the Kyoto treaty? Why has only 32 countries ratified Kyoto, of the 120 that signed on? Why did China and India abstaine from ratification? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cartman Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 If I may alter the question a little August? As scientists have only been able to measure changes to the environment for a relatively short period of time, they will likely never be able to PROVE changes are caused by human activities. Therefore, A. Should the world even sign a global agreement on environmental concerns? B. If so, what should that agreement look like? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cartman Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 To answer my own questions, it seems that an agreement should be signed especially since world productivity is increasing. As the third world continues to industrialize, environmental degradation will also continue. The truth is that science cannot prove anything, it can only rule out possibilities (that is the nature of scientific reasoning). Indeed, the tobacco companies were correct and still are correct when they say scientifically, we cannot prove that smoking causes cancer. Common-sense tells us that smoking causes cancer. So, better to play it safer. A global agreement should provide incentives for corporations to modernize their productive techniques and provide incentives for individuals to reduce waste. Even if degradation can never be proven, is it not simply better to be environmentally conservative than wasteful? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maplesyrup Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 Even if degradation can never be proven, is it not simply better to be environmentally conservative than wasteful? Cartman....good point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remus Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 As Oil prices increase with the every increasing demand from developing countries, incentives to conserve enery and to produce technologies to more efficiently use fossil fuels, and to replaces fossil fuels will be to great to ignore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoker Posted November 4, 2004 Report Share Posted November 4, 2004 As the third world continues to industrialize, environmental degradation will also continue. I'm of the belief that second world nations will have the oppurtunity in some areas to "by-pass" the most pollutive periods that the current first worlds went through. I would be 100% behind the sharing of more efficent and enviromently friendly technologes (clean coal, fuel cells etc) with the growing second world. Not just for the "green reasons", but I also think that would help reduce the demand on certain resources. A global agreement should provide incentives for corporations to modernize their productive techniques and provide incentives for individuals to reduce waste. Another very good point........I'm of the mind that it's better to reward then threaten and punish. Even if degradation can never be proven, is it not simply better to be environmentally conservative than wasteful? I agree here also.......in the long run reduction in waste equals money (Duh). Not too mention, alternative fuels and the reduction in the usage of crude oil (and this is coming from someone that worked in the oil industry) will allow the west to lessen it's need for middle east oil and all the associated headaches that come with...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caesar Posted November 4, 2004 Report Share Posted November 4, 2004 Just remember who is the biggest polluter; answer the USA. Less industrialized countries such as China and India have not contributed as much to world pollution. I would be we Canadians are among the top polluters, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maplesyrup Posted November 4, 2004 Report Share Posted November 4, 2004 Bush administration seeks to avoid mandatory action The world's scientific community must be in serious depression after learning the results of the recent US election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remus Posted November 7, 2004 Report Share Posted November 7, 2004 Just remember who is the biggest polluter; answer the USA. Less industrialized countries such as China and India have not contributed as much to world pollution. I would be we Canadians are among the top polluters, too. What is meant by biggest polluter? After reading a recent issue of the economist, I would rather breathe the air in the U.S. than the air in China. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blue Machine Posted November 8, 2004 Report Share Posted November 8, 2004 Americans produce the biggest amount of pollution, but they try to clean the air. China people don't do that stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boondoggle Posted November 8, 2004 Report Share Posted November 8, 2004 Before taking up some of these myths one by one, let me share with you a brief example. It comes from the Wall Street Journal. I have to say that on its news pages the Journal does a very good job with this issue. Its reporting on climate change is fair and it's insightful. But when it comes to the editorial page, I am afraid the Journal has distinguished itself as one of the most persistent and most powerful purveyors of climate change mythology. My example comes from an editorial that ran last July. It takes the form of a question. "Why," the Journal asks, "Why require the nations of this planet to spend the hundreds of billions of dollars necessary to reduce carbon dioxide and other emissions when we don't even know if the earth's climate is getting permanently hotter or if that temperature change is caused by human activity or if that change is even dangerous?" Before reading this, I didn't know it was possible to squeeze so many myths into a single sentence.So allow me to begin unpacking them. Our first myth: We don't really know if the climate is changing or, if so, why. Here's the reality: there is overwhelming scientific consensus that the earth is warming, that this warming trend will worsen, and that human activity is largely to blame. Certainly you can find scientists who will argue otherwise. But these are the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N. body that draws on the expertise of hundreds of climate scientists around the world. President Bush was among those who doubted the science, so he asked the National Academy of Sciences to undertake a special review. The NAS established a very well balanced panel, including some well-known skeptical scientists, and then came back with the very same conclusions: the planet is warming and we are largely responsible. Climate Change: Myths and Realities Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caesar Posted November 8, 2004 Report Share Posted November 8, 2004 After reading a recent issue of the economist, I would rather breathe the air in the U.S. than the air in China. Fine; start in smoggy LA. You are easily influenced; reading one article when there are millions more warning us of the error of our ways. Why does everyone these days have allergies??? Americans produce the biggest amount of pollution, but they try to clean the air. China people don't do that stuff. The only try when forced and doesn't cost a lot. I'm not going to mow my lawn cause my neighbour doesn't (he put in pavingstones) makes about the same common sense Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stamps Posted November 8, 2004 Report Share Posted November 8, 2004 What percentage of CO2 in our atmosphere is the result of the industrial revolution.. I do agree that we should clean up our act in the fossil fuel emission department but this guy still did'nt prove his point with any cold hard facts.... the only problem I have with these types is that they are really just basing this whole climate change CO2 in our atmosphere thing on theory.. climate change is a reality and there is circumstancial evidence saying the Gulf stream shut down in I think the 16 or1700's.. you look at paintings of England from that era and there are many depicting a much different climate than they have today... snow covered scenes and ice... also potraits from America of the river in Washington DC (Patomic spl?), frozen with huge chunks of ice.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eureka Posted November 8, 2004 Report Share Posted November 8, 2004 Boondoggle! Thanks for giving that link. I had tried to do so earlier but I am afraid that my computer skills are sadly lacking. It is worth noting that the PEW centre is business supported: supported by those businesses that have accepted the reality and wish to do something about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remus Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 Why does everyone these days have allergies??? Yeah why is that. Why don't you tell us, and explain why? Hopefully in the millions of articles you read the authors included the mechanisms which cause allergies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remus Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 Why are so many people willing to put so much faith in these computer climate models. There has yet to be any solid experimental verification of these models predicting past climates. I can not imagine how many parameters would be needed to model such a complicated system such as global climate. All of these parameters if they are included at all bring many sources of error into the model in that many are not yet fully understood alone or how exactly they couple with each other. Also the equations that govern these models must be non-linear or some approximation is made. I my self do not put much faith local weather fortcast of any day beyond next and they have real time data. Mind you it may be easier to find average temperatures. Still before I begin to believe any data coming out of these models I would like to see a good explaination of past climate change when the impact of humans was only slightly greater than the impact of elk or bison, like the mini ice age of around 1600 or the climate optimum of the middle ages. Along with that I would like to see the these climate models agree with these past events and others. Another reason why I do not put much faith in climate models is the fact that it is a hot topic in the media and it is highly political. I guess it is a good thing when applying for grants but I wonder if there is pressure to get certain results. Also I think to many people get their science from newspapers and in general non scientific publications and television programs this leads to a semi informed public who have to then make political decisions based on sensationalized stories writen by journalists who more often then not know nothing of the science they write about. I would like to ask the readers of this post to write a reply if the wish indicating the reasons why they do or do not have faith in the current climate models? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted November 9, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 I would like to ask the readers of this post to write a reply if the wish indicating the reasons why they do or do not have faith in the current climate models?Faith? I will argue using probability and something called the "Tragedy of the Commons".Go to Google and paste "Tragedy of the Commons" (with the quotation marks) in Google's search box. Then, click on different results until you find a link that makes sense to you. What does probability have to do with this? Our planet is a Commons. The tragedy will occur, it's just a question of time. ---- Much better question: What should we do about this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stamps Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 I was wondering how much CO2 is produced and put into our atmosphere by natural causes.. and if a naturally warming climate helps to increase these naturally occuring CO2 emissions..... and what is the impact of deforestation and the amount of CO2 released by this as opposed to fossil fuel emissions... I tend to agree with the previous concern in that politics is also at work here..my person opinion is that from the little I have read on the subject is that these scientists really do'nt know anything other than climate change does occur and will occur again and then they offer their opinions based on what they think.... ask any scientist this question, is the increase of CO2 in our atmosphere the byproduct of a warming climate or is it the cause, they do not have that answer... and if someone else can answer this question would you please do so and back it up with a link..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blue Machine Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 Our arctic will all be gone soon if we don't stop global warming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remus Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 The arctic was much different 1000 years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remus Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 I would like to ask the readers of this post to write a reply if the wish indicating the reasons why they do or do not have faith in the current climate models?Faith? I will argue using probability and something called the "Tragedy of the Commons".Go to Google and paste "Tragedy of the Commons" (with the quotation marks) in Google's search box. Then, click on different results until you find a link that makes sense to you. What does probability have to do with this? Our planet is a Commons. The tragedy will occur, it's just a question of time. ---- Much better question: What should we do about this? So is CO2 definitely a bad as opposed to a good? Also your comments have nothing to do with the climate models that predict the what tragedy will occur if any. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maplesyrup Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 I doubt anyone here is a scientific expert in this field. The only reason to oppose what the overwhelming majority in the scientific community says on this issue is the greed factor. If that is your reason fine, but at least be friggin' honest about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.