Jump to content

An Inconvenient Truth

Snowguy716

By Snowguy716
in The Coffee House

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 149
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Snowguy716 Burg

Snowguy716

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Am I supposed to take the mindless rants of babbling conservative columnists seriously over people who have spent their entire careers studying our planet's climate and figuring out what is making it heat up?

Arguing that "global warming is good because now Iowa isn't covered in ice" is a horrible argument, and you know it. It'd be like saying "by eating bananas, you increase the potassium in your body, so therefore it is good. Eat as many bananas as you can" until your heart doesn't contract and your brain stops functioning.

The difference between a rather pleasant climate and a mile of ice in Iowa was about 7 or 8*F... imagine what 7 or 8*F further warming will bring? Iowa would have temperatures more like Dallas... and I'm sorry, but Dallas is a big miserable desert.. not exactly something we need in the nation's corn belt. I mean, sure, the farmers of Kansas and Oklahoma, and Nebraska can keep sucking water out of the giant underground aquifer, but once that dries out (and it is at an alarming rate), they'll be high and dry.

I know the global warming deniers would just keep living their wasteful lives in ignorant bliss (as most of these people are at least 35-40, they'll be dead before any real large scale changes occur), but you'll live the rest of us with a planet we no longer recognize.. and we'll be left to try and fix it.

The argument that "since Time argued that there would be an ice age until 1983 means that they're wrong on global warming" is pretty bad. Time had a few articles out in the mid '70s, and apparently in 1983 that talked about the impending ice age, which, if the planet's climate were left to its own devices, would take hold on the planet gradually over the next 1000-2000 years likely caused by a change in the earth's shape and slight changes in our orbit around the sun (recent scientific findings have found that the planet's shape is, in fact, changing rather quickly and abruptly to a more oblong shape rather than spherical, bulging at the equator.)

We're talking a 6-7*F temp drop in 1000 years compared to a 6-7*F rise in 100 years. Forests will die, the plains will dry up, and your cushy apartment in Manhattan might become an island in the Atlantic. It is obvious that George Will has little push when it comes to economics AND climate change. He just likes to jump around and wave his arms about like an attention starved child. And I'm sure you could say the same thing about liberal columnists.

Captain Worley, please provide me with some real scientific evidence that goes against the overwhemingly supported theory of anthropocentric global warming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captain Worley Burg

Captain Worley

Posted
Posted

I really haven't seen much to convince me that it's humanity's fault. I think the earth goes through cycles whether we're hear or not.

I kinda got started off badly with"mindless rants of babbling conservative columnists." You might not agree with their opinions, but that hardly makes them mindless, and their comments are fairly lucid.

I don't think Bedard is a conservative either.

I might also note that certain widely held 'scientific beliefs' have been proven wrong. The Sun orbiting the Earth springs immediately to mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nowensone Burg

nowensone

Posted
Posted

I took the comment about the columnists to mean that they are not quite qualified to make opinions on such things as they are not scientists. A person does not need to be an expert to make valid observations on things, but when there are competing interests at play, such as the fact conservatism in this country is usually in denial of certain environmental issues (and are typically labeled liberal), then suspicion is warranted. Which is a shame. In a place like Vancouver, renown for progressiveness in practically all respects, the current ruling party is a right wing one. But there is a noticeable difference in them compared to US ones - they don't deny or disagree on basic issues like environmentalism, mass transit and protecting community developments/parks. Even if it turns out global warming is not happening, which I feel there is compelling evidence of, it will still be beneficial to end reliance on petroleum and coal burning power plants, deforestation and a variety of other harmful/unnecessary/shortsighted things we do.

By the way, assuming you made a typo above concerning the sun orbiting the earth.. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captain Worley Burg

Captain Worley

Posted
Posted

HAHA I sure did. It is fixed now! Thanks.

Actually, I just through those out as opposing viewpoints. Bedard has a leg to stand on, since I believe he has a Bachelor's, perhaps a Master's in Engineering.

I have a Master's in Engineering, and feel qualified to at least form an opinion on the data I've seen. The short take is that there really isn't enough to make a stand one way or the other. We only have 100 years of semi reliable data, and that's only from a few sites on the planet, not the planet as a whole. Sure, we can make assumptions based on other evidence, such as arctic core samples, but that's really measured just at that point. You really should not assume that point source data represents worldwide conditions.

We have impacted the environment, in both negative and postive ways. I don't deny this. I just don't see very much proof than mankind is making a big impact in this area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gusterfell Burg

Gusterfell

Posted
Posted
Actually, the only way (right now) to reduce CO2 emissions is to decrease the amount burned. The only way to do that is scale back production of goods, and the amount of travel in your cars.

If, as Bedard claims, and I haven't heard anyone dispute his numbers, humans produce 1/30th the CO2 nature does, how much of your lifestyle are you willing to give up? I'm not willing to give up too much for a theory that hasn't produced enough info for me to believe in it one way or the other.

BTW, if you didn't like the Earth/Sun analogy, there were plenty of scientists who 'proved' the ice age was coming in the 70s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nowensone Burg

nowensone

Posted
Posted

15 inches (38.5 cm) is not insignificant even if it is not 20 feet. I can think of a few cities that would have problems with that amount of sea level rise. I do agree with media alarmism, after all media companies do exist to make "sales", and what they are selling is news, but regarding not being able to do anything until 2030, that only means it will take a while to affect change, not that we shouldn't make change. If we wait until 2030 then it would probably be 2060 before anything would change, and so on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gusterfell Burg

Gusterfell

Posted
Posted
Global warming is happening, but the effects have been exaggerated especially by the media and alarmists like Gore. The media alarmism has no basis in reality. The latest IPPC report estimates that sea level rises will be 38.5 centimeters on average, not 20 feet like Gore said. The report also says that "there is virtually nothing we can do that would affect climate change before 2030".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dgreco City

dgreco

Posted
Posted
I don't know what can compel people who are on the fence of this issue. I have been taken aback at the number of my peers who believe that we have in "No Way" contributed to global warming and that this is a normal cycle of our planet. The signs of our involvement are all around us and the vast majority of respectable scientists, politiciants, even religious leaders are all in agreement that we are to blame for what's going on.

Maybe because most people have yet to really suffer any adverse effects besides some slightly warmer temps., they find this hard to believe. I just hope the next generation will be more embracing of this so the planet won't be ruined by our short-sightedness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Snowguy716 Burg

Snowguy716

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Well, the Clinton administration couldn't exactly do anything about global warming with old Newt trying to impeach him...

And I think it speaks loads that it IS the former VP out there talking about all this. I highly doubt that you'll see Dick Cheney out there in 7 years dedicating his life to spreading the message of global warming and trying to instigate change... no no.. Cheney will either be dead, shooting hunting partners and getting them to apologize to him for being in the way, or trying to hoard as much money as he can before his ticker finally gives up the ghost.

Some of you call Al Gore an "alarmist" "extremist"... then what the hell is Dick Cheney? A selfless, altruistic democracy spreader? LOL!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dgreco City

dgreco

Posted
Posted
Indeed. I wasn't going to go there, but it seems that all too often, the people who say that warnings of global warming are a vastly overblown non-issue are the same people who were so quick to accept the Bush administration's outlandish claims about Iraq. Then they deny that partisanship plays any role in their decisions on these issues.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gusterfell Burg

Gusterfell

Posted
Posted
I never doubted that we have a global warming problem, but how can you take that movie seriously when he leaves out 2 huge things. Acknowledge it was your adminstriation who also was a cause in this problem, don't act like it started with the Bush one, and secondly actually explain the paradox to people. Everyone things global warming means its going to be really warm and we die, they don't understand that it causes an ice age.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dgreco City

dgreco

Posted
Posted
I've never seen the film, so I don't know how seriously I would take it, but I don't see how a film that draws attention to the issue can be a bad thing, even if it doesn't cover every detail.

I have never heard anyone claim that global warming is Bush's fault, or that Clinton's administration did little to alleviate it. The roots of the problem go back to the mid 19th century, and no administration, republican or Democrat has yet taken it seriously.

That said, I do hold the Bush administration responsible for ignoring the current scientific evidence, which is much more conclusive than that of 6+ years ago. Worse, until very recently the current administration has actively worked to refute that evidence, which the Clinton administration never did. Clinton left the door unlocked when there were rumors of a serial killer somewhere in town. Bush is leaving the door unlocked when the killer is standing out in the hallway.

Yes, there is speculation that global warming might cause regional mini ice-ages in the eastern US and western Europe. How does that make global warming less of a threat? A decline in temperatures would be at least as devastating, both economically and in therms of lives, as an increase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.