Global Warming

[BigRedBuster]

The facts as we know it is:

 

a) CO2 in the atmosphere warms the planet.

b) burning fossil fuels creates CO2.

c) Many things in nature also creates CO2.

d) The earth has been warming (in general) since the last ice age.

 

Now, I am not going to sit here and say Humans are not part of the problem. BUT, the opposite seems to be the mantra of some people Some people want to say that humans are THE cause of global warming and are willing to go to great extremes to "fix" the problem.

 

I am all for reducing pollution. But, I don't totally trust the side that claims humans cause global warming either. They claim that the non-human global warming crowd is the only side playing politics. That just simply isn't true. What I have found with any "movement" is that I want to know who is behind the movement? Who benefits if the movement is successful and are the claims that the extreme of the movement really believable?

 

A number of years ago Al Gore produced a movie about global warming (An Inconvenient Truth). Heck, I think he even won a Nobel Prize for it. Hmmmm.....really? It took the entire issue to the wildest extreme. Ok....Obviously the film was meant to get everyone extremely concerned about global warming.

 

Let's look a little farther inside though.

 

Al Gore stands to make a huge amount of money IF everyone believes his movie and does what he thinks is right.

 

LINK

 

LINK 2

 

Maurice Strong is another character in this issue. Admittedly, I've read enough about him to not trust him but I don't know enough about him to completely condemn the guy.

 

So, once again, I'm not totally dissing the idea that humans play a roll in this and I'm all for doing reasonably what we can to reduce emmissions. BUT, I don't totally trust the side that supports human involvement in global warming enough to totally support their efforts. We need sustainable environmentalism. Some of these efforts want to basically destroy certain industries that employ people and produce goods for the world. Somewhere there is common sense in the middle.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

WE ARE NOT DINOSAURS!!!!!!

 

 

 

Some of us can almost be classified as this.

[knapplc]

 

 

WE ARE NOT DINOSAURS!!!!!!

 

 

 

Some of us can almost be classified as this.

 

I told you, I'M NOT OLD. Where is Moiraine these days, anyway? She loads up on this knapplc-is-old agenda and then walks away? Bush league, sister. BUSH LEAGUE.

 

Witness.

 

[BigRedBuster]

This global warming issue is getting serious.

 

NO MORE PASTA!

[BigRedBuster]

WE ARE NOT DINOSAURS!!!!!!

Some of us can almost be classified as this.

I told you, I'M NOT OLD. Where is Moiraine these days, anyway? She loads up on this knapplc-is-old agenda and then walks away? Bush league, sister. BUSH LEAGUE. Witness.

 

LOL.....I didn't even mention your name.

[NUance]

What ever happened to the Ozone layer? When I was a young lad attending a Millard Public School all we were ever told is that we were destroying the Ozone layer by using hair spray. I haven't heard anything about it in 15+ years.

The 70s ended. Hair went back to normal. And the ozone was saved.

[knapplc]

The 70s ended. Hair went back to normal. And the ozone was saved.

 

You better check yourself, son. Hair Bands of the 80s accounted for 79.3% of all aerosol usage in that decade. The other 29.5% was Tammy Faye Baker.

 

[carlfense]

And the solution is to tax American business into oblivion? The only person making money on this deal is Al Gore.

Eh? I think the solution would be to try to reduce our adverse environmental impact.

 

Oblivion shouldn't be the goal. Similarly, the problem is a lot bigger than worrying about who is going to earn the biggest profits.

[carlfense]

What ever happened to the Ozone layer? When I was a young lad attending a Millard Public School all we were ever told is that we were destroying the Ozone layer by using hair spray. I haven't heard anything about it in 15+ years.

This might refresh your memory as to why you haven't heard about it in 15+ years. Cliff notes: we changed our behavior.

 

By 1987, 24 nations had ratified the Montreal Protocol (PDF), a landmark agreement that calls for a ban on producing and using nearly 100 of the most important ozone-depleting chemicals. As of this month, with the addition of East Timor, the protocol has been ratified by every member of the United Nations.

 

Ninety-seven percent of the substances regulated under the Montreal Protocol have now been phased out and replaced in manufacturing with more ozone-friendly alternatives, like hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). The remaining gases will be phased out globally by 2040. According to the United Nations Environmental Programme, enactment of the protocol has prevented some 20 million cases of skin cancer and 130 million cases of eye cataracts. Since many ozone-depleting substances are also greenhouse gases (PDF), the treaty has also helped with global warming: A 2007 paper estimated that over the past 20 years, the protocol has prevented the emission of 10.7 to 13.8 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalent annually.

 

Even so, it's going to take several decades for the Antarctic hole to close up for good. That's because the ozone-depleting gases we emitted before the Montreal Protocol are still floating around the stratosphere or making their way in that direction. Some of these gases can circulate for a century before their molecules break apart or air currents remove them from the sky.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/the_green_lantern/2009/09/what_ever_happened_to_the_ozone_layer.html

 

If you're trying to use your example as a reason why we shouldn't do anything to reduce C02 emissions . . . well, you chose a particularly poor example.

[NUance]

The 70s ended. Hair went back to normal. And the ozone was saved.

 

You better check yourself, son. Hair Bands of the 80s accounted for 79.3% of all aerosol usage in that decade. The other 29.5% was Tammy Faye Baker.

 

Say, are you related to our bookkeeper by chance?

[carlfense]

BUT, the opposite seems to be the mantra of some people Some people want to say that humans are THE cause of global warming and are willing to go to great extremes to "fix" the problem.

Your assumptions are . . . strange. I think that literally everyone agrees that many things in nature emit C02. I'd happily examine any example of someone who denies this that you can provide.

 

The strange part is the conclusions that you're drawing. You admit that human activity and other things in nature emit C02. Which do you think is more likely to reduce atmospheric C02?

 

a. Asking and/or requiring a factory to reduce C02 emissions.

b. Asking and/or requiring a volcano to reduce C02 emissions.

 

Short version: We can control our emissions. We can't really control natural emissions.

 

They claim that the non-human global warming crowd is the only side playing politics.

One side is backed by facts and the scientific community . . . the other is backed by industries that emit enormous quantities of C02.

 

I don't give a damn about the politics of the issue. Any person or party who is willing to mitigate the problem has my support.

 

Who benefits if the movement is successful and are the claims that the extreme of the movement really believable?

Similarly, do you care about who benefits (short-term financially, anyways) if the scientific consensus is ignored?

 

So, once again, I'm not totally dissing the idea that humans play a roll in this and I'm all for doing reasonably what we can to reduce emmissions.

What do you consider reasonable?

[BigRedBuster]

And the solution is to tax American business into oblivion? The only person making money on this deal is Al Gore.

Eh? I think the solution would be to try to reduce our adverse environmental impact.

 

Oblivion shouldn't be the goal. Similarly, the problem is a lot bigger than worrying about who is going to earn the biggest profits.

 

 

Unless their quest for bigger profits influences their version of the facts they convince people of.

[gobiggergoredder]

 

If you're trying to use your example as a reason why we shouldn't do anything to reduce C02 emissions . . . well, you chose a particularly poor example.

 

1987 was a powerful year, but I was in Kindergarten and the Ozone was a huge topic well into High School for me. My example more illustrated the 'flavor of the month' mentality around global warming. I'm not saying we should be pumping pollution into the air, but climate change is largely a shakedown. I worked in the Auto industry when the CAFE standards went through. It is another tax that will just get passed on to us.

 

This is a so called science where we are trying base everything upon a snapshot. You can't paint a picture for a planet that has been around forever and a day with a 50 year brush. 2011 was one of the coldest winters in recorded history for all of Eastern Europe, but no one cares.

 

The Eastern Europe example is one of many reasons the name has shifted from global warming to 'Climate Change'. These racketeers can now claim everything from no snow in Chicago for 250+ days to a tornado hitting Joplin, MO.

[Conga3]

There isn't that much water on the planet. Check it:

 

All the water on the earth collected in one spot.

 

 

LINK

 

Waterworld lied to you. They lied.

 

I'm out.

 

 

 

I just died a little inside.

[carlfense]

And the solution is to tax American business into oblivion? The only person making money on this deal is Al Gore.

Eh? I think the solution would be to try to reduce our adverse environmental impact.

 

Oblivion shouldn't be the goal. Similarly, the problem is a lot bigger than worrying about who is going to earn the biggest profits.

Unless their quest for bigger profits influences their version of the facts they convince people of.

That's why I'll side with science over politicians/businesses.