 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Japher
|
 |
Ook! Ook! Ack! Ack! Ack!
Jun 2002
time: 05:31
|
|
quote:
Go look on the internet, and see how many people here concur with that position.
|
Don't believe everything you read on the internet.
Besides, not too long ago people said the world was flat - they were wrong. Not too long ago people said the moon was made of cheese and that we would never get to the moon - they were wrong.
Environmentalist are quacks. They will always cry foul before analysing the facts, and even then they will misconstrue the facts in their favor. Whether it is intentionally or not is up for you to decide.
CO2 is up. Big whoop! Could it be the increase in people on the planet? Deforestation? The number of cows?
Temperatures are up. Oh no! It must be due to emissions. As far as I know the winds determine the temperatures in specific reasons. As deforestation and other erosional conditions continue the winds change causing a seemingly increase or decrease in temperatures..
The problem does not lie in industrial nations. The solution or short term fix may lie in these nations, but that still won't stop the bleeding. Seeing how most of the deforestation occurs in S. America, best we hollar at them instead of Russia and the US...
So, people "interpreting" facts is one thing. Misreading the facts is another, and has happened many times with all these environmental quacks. "I have been measuring the ocean temperature around Seattle, and low and behold it has risen!" Of course we aren't going to take into account that a brewry opened up down the way and is dumping it's water into the ocean illegally again for those 6 months of readings!
On top of people who mis-interpret and mis-read facts you also have the doomsdayist. Those who marvel at Nostradumbass, have bunker in their backyard, and fear the great quake that will end us all... Even these "impartial" idiots can be called scientists. Yet, no one has ever bothered to check out their methods which may involve a medal dector and a hat made of tin foil...
What am I saying?
Environmentalist don't know what they are talking about, and generally resort to whinning instead of addressing either the problem or the solution.
If they really wanted to tackle something of note they should bother themsleves with water polution, watersheds, and erosion issues. These things, not air polution, will be the downfall of man...
Just my two-cents...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Giant_Squid
|
 |
Fun Guy from Yuggoth
Jan 1970
time: 00:31
|
|
Japher, that seems to me like a pretty dangerous way of ignoring anything your political opponents say. Yes, a lot of environmentalists will seize on anything they can use, but just like the old phrase that "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you", just because something fits the political agenda of your opponents doesn't mean it has to be untrue. If I were you I would look up the scientific research done on this phenomenon rather than dismissing it all as stupid scientists who don't know what they're doing without reading their studies. Some of the scientists doing the research are definitely not radical environmentalists - many are people who scoffed at global warming before but now have changed their minds after new evidence has come in. I could give you links, but since apparently the Internet is apparently infested with the liberal conspiracy to hide the truth and therefore not a valid source, go check out a book or something.
Or go talk to the Kiribatians, many of whom are now underwater (yes, I realize that saying global warming exists is different from saying humans cause it, but your brewery example seems to imply you doubt both points)
PS: Winds? Causing temperature? We're talking about long-term global temperature here, which is more a function of how much sunlight hits the Earth.
PPS: Maybe the reason we're ignoring all this deforestation is that people keep saying environmentalists are self-serving quacks, eh?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
Anyone who claims there is no serious dispute whether humans are the cause of global warming is kidding themselves. Instead of trying to impliment a treaty that would be economically destroy the west, shouldn't we make sure the science is sound first?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
But what, if it later becms clar that te human Pollution is de acto the cause for global warming and you haven´t even tried to reduce polution till this time (but in the contrary have caused an ever risign polution due to expanding economy)?
I suspect it would be much more difficult at this point to lower polution, on the one Hand, because Polution Levels would have to lowered in a much shorter Time-Priod (as you are nearer to an Ecologicaly Catasrophe) on the other hand more Difficlt, because the expandng Economy would also have caused much higher CO2-Levels in the Air, which would mean that (at this pont in the futue) you should even be more aware of reducing CO2-Production and even would have to bring CO2-Production to lower Levels than you wuld ned to do today.
So I think, that lowering CO2-Production in the future (if you wait for Science to establish a Proof, that it is de Facto the Human Polution which causes the Rise in Temperatures) wo9uld hurt the Economy much more, than it would do, if you begin today with lowering the CO2-Production and maybe later, (if a Link between Humankind and rising Temperatures is disproven might be able to start again with blowing CO2 up into the air 
There is a saying:
Hope the best, but prepare for the worst.
Humankind today rather acts like: Hope the Best and ignore the Worst
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-10-2003 01:37
We are just in a warm period between glaciations, the earth has been in an "ice house" climate for the past 30 million years, with the current ice age starting 1.8 million years ago. Global Warming may actually trigger the glaciers to advance, global warming may shut off the Gulf Stream by the input of glacial melt from Greenland, disturbing the delicate salt balance that controls the deep-ocean currents that ultimately influence the Gulf Stream. Europe will freeze! 
I read this in Discover Magazine and saw it on a show on the current ice age on the Discovery channel.
|