Climate Change Discussion

[hazmat]

THIS is exactly the issue. You presume that you have enlightenment for me....what arrogance. 30 years ago we had to listen to the doom and gloomers who told us the planet would be in nuclear winter by 2000....and that the planet would be overpopulated by now....and on and on and on.

You are free to worry and/or make any changes in your lifestyle that you want. I would NEVER be so presumptious as to tell you that you should not do so. Seriously.

However, you do not seem prepared to afford the same liberty to those who don't see the issue as you do. You seem fully prepared to be so pretentious as to assume that you know something I simply don't grasp (I'd try to enlighten you, etc.) It's not your viewpoint on the climate that bothers me...though I disagree with it, I maintain that you have the right to it...it's the attitude that just screams that those who disagree with you just need enlightenment and don't understand.

I apologize for stating that you need enlightenment, to N80's excellent post, it was close minded of me to consider that those who may not share my belief to be close minded.

 

[Tig]

Mike Z, you've got the right attitude. It's not about being perfect. It's about being a little better today.

 

[EddieWalker]

I apologize for stating that you need enlightenment, to N80's excellent post, it was close minded of me to consider that those who may not share my belief to be close minded.

Very nicely said.

Eddie

 

[hazmat]

Population growth has come up in a couple posts. I thought I'd share this graph. Growth is exponential and comes mostly from "undeveloped" countries.

From wikipedia

 

[EddieWalker]

because we have primed the natural cycle with unprecedented amounts of CO2.
As for "global warming" being caused by man. It would be more accurate to say that some feel that climate change is being accelerated by man. Some feel that we will push it to unprecedented temperatures.
Another link to a NASA scientist's views on the subject and how it has been treated by the politicians and special interest groups. Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him - New York Times
Page 11 of this next presentation is the chart you want to see. It shows todays green house gases compared to the natural cycle as evidenced by gases found in glacial ice cores. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/SierraStorm.09Jan2007.pdf
Dr. James E. Hansen's website has lots of data. Dr. James E. Hansen Makes interesting reading.

Tig,

Thank you for the links. While I agree that it's interesting reading, I also find it hard to take anything in the New York Times seriously.

I realize that we can go back and forth forever listing scientist after scientist who disagree with each other, and why each other is wrong, without even agreeing on anything. I'm not going to try to explain why they are wrong, in fact, I'm sure they are correct in what they have observed.

The difference is that I have no faith at all in there conclusions. Time after time they have been proven wrong. It's nice to think that we should plan for the worse, but when all the do is predict doom and gloom, and it never happens, then I begin to wonder about their motives.

After Katrina, what was the national news about? All these experts told us how global warming was responsible for the huricane season and that the following year was going to be even worse. Did anybody hear one prediction that turned out to be accurate? How many caought that very short lived story that last years hurricane season wasn't even a record breaker and that the worse seasons were in the 1930's and 1940's?

When the experts can accurately tell me what the weather will be like in the next five days, then I'll listen to what they say will happen in the next fifty years. They just don't have any credibility.

As to CO2 levels, you'll find that a single volcano eruption puts out more than what all mankind has. The planet has a way of dealing with it.

I'm all for clean air, water and land. But some people seem to blur polution and global warming into the same thing. I believe these are two seperate issues. Polution is something that we should all work to eliminate.

Eddie

 

[N80]

I agree. And as someone who is conservative by nature I am all for responsible use of resources and I have nothing but respect for those who at least try, and try to set an example. It has to start somewhere.

There is a term for people like me, and probably a lot of people here on TBN, and it is 'crunchy conservative'. It describes people who are politically but also, by nature, conservative who are also concerned about the environment, nature, healthy lifestyles and basic simple living, etc. I think the term 'crunchy conservative' is silly because it doesn't really describe anything new. This type of conservatism has been present in the south, in well documented fashion, since the 1920's and in other parts of the country as well. The southern 'agrarians' coupled this type of world view with wholesome country living and the natural benefits of living in an society dominated by agriculture. I think they were 'right' then and right now. But the prospect of the US being a primarily agrarian society is a ship that sailed a long time ago.

We are now a society dominated by market forces and consumerism. When 9-11 occurred what advice did our president give? First, keep buying stuff. Second, pray. That pretty much puts it all in a nutshell. The reason I'm saying all this is to point out that it is very hard to do what is right regarding the environment because every good, noble or moral thought has to be run through the filter of market forces. No matter how good or right an idea is, it will not fly unless it makes money for someone and doesn't cost the consumer too much.

And that makes it hard on anyone who wants to do the right thing. Because if it costs too much to do it, most of us won't. And as long as we live in a culture that is based on consumerism, it is hard to blame Exxon, DuPont, GM or Joe Blow for following the market and not their consciences. And this is even more true when the issues are watered down and weakened by political and idealogical agendas.

 

[N80]

Population growth has come up in a couple posts. I thought I'd share this graph. Growth is exponential and comes mostly from "undeveloped" countries.

Hazmat, this type of graph is hotly debated by many population experts, at least in terms of what they project. There was a great article in Atlantic Monthly (a very liberal magazine) about 5 years agon that explored the population issue in depth. It suggested that most of the exponential growth that was predicted was wrong and that some experts are even expecting declines in the next 10-20 years. It also mentioned that both opinions where highly politically enfluenced. And it is no surprise that this is because it has a lot to do with distibution of funds from the UN, World Bank etc.

However, the one thing that does seem to be true is that the population increases do seem to be concentrated in the places that can least afford it. Which begs the question, if the wealthy and concerned have fewer children in order to help the population, but the poor and powerless are multiplying like rabbits.......then who is going to 'take care of' the impoverished masses once there are fewer and fewer benevolent wealthy?

 

[Tig]

Please provide links to support your claims. I am not finding any scientific data to dismiss our contribtion to climate change. Here is an explanation of how volcanoes affect the ozone and "green house" effect.
Vic Camp - volcano climate effects
"a far greater amount of CO2 is contributed to the atmosphere by human activities each year than by volcanic eruptions. Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons/year, whereas other sources contribute about 10 billion tons/year"
and also; Past Climate Change | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA
"While volcanoes may have raised pre-historic CO2 levels and temperatures, according to the USGS Volcano Hazards Program, human activities now emit 150 times as much CO2 as volcanoes (whose emissions are relatively modest compared to some earlier times)."

Blue is temperature.
Red is CO2

 

[hazmat]

Hazmat, this type of graph is hotly debated by many population experts, at least in terms of what they project. There was a great article in Atlantic Monthly (a very liberal magazine) about 5 years agon that explored the population issue in depth. It suggested that most of the exponential growth that was predicted was wrong and that some experts are even expecting declines in the next 10-20 years. It also mentioned that both opinions where highly politically enfluenced. And it is no surprise that this is because it has a lot to do with distibution of funds from the UN, World Bank etc.

Additionally, when the population grows beyond the world's farmer's ability to feed us, population will decline.

The huge increase in farming productivity since the industrial revolution is almost all attributable to oil - fertilizers, herbicides, and... gasp... tractors

 

[Chuck52]

Just for the heck ofit, Google "British wines". Means nothing much, but it keeps coming up in this "discussion".

Chuck

Evolve already!