Global Dimming

   / Global Dimming
  • Thread Starter
#21  
I believe we are having a very real impact on the enviroment. Man has only been burning fossil fuels at a considerable volume for the last hundred years or so. I believe this has had a profound effect on the climate of our planet. If you can not see this look at some satellite photographs. We have also been compounding the problem with some very toxic chemicals during this same time frame. This all adds up. You can ignore all the signals and claim it's a cyclical thing if you like. EVERYONE has entitlement to an opinion however misguided.
John
 
   / Global Dimming #22  
<font color="blue"> There was a time when most scientists believed that the earth was flat, too. Or that life could be created from "spontaneous generation". Or that heavier than air flight was impossible. </font>

So, in other words, because of those wrong scientists back when barbers did surgery, that most of the scientists are wrong most of the time?
 
   / Global Dimming #23  
</font><font color="blue" class="small">(
So, in other words, because of those wrong scientists back when barbers did surgery, that most of the scientists are wrong most of the time? )</font>

The difference is, these days everyone, even scientists, have an agenda. Unfortunately, many of them are not above slanting their research to agree with their political agenda.
 
   / Global Dimming #24  
It's flying in the face of scientific opinion and the available evidence to believe that overpopulation, pollution and excessive fossil fuel consumption haven't played a part in climate change. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has firmly established that global warming is with us. Sure, there are a few scientific dissenters who contend otherwise, almost all of whom are funded by the oil lobby and most of whom have swopped scientific credibility for oil dollars.

Read Lovelock's new book, "The Revenge of Gaia" to see how bad we've made things and how much worse they're likely to get. Grim reading indeed. Lovelock, the father of the Gaia movement, was the scientist who originally formulated the Gaia theory which includes the premise that the planet has self regulating mechanisms to control climate. One of these mechanisms is the use of forests to lock up CO2 gases in the form of coal, natural gas and oil, CO2 gases being accepted global warming accelerators.

By cutting down so much of the world's forests and by releasing into the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels quantities of CO2 that it took the planet millenia to lay down, man is removing the very instruments that the planet uses to regulate climate.

Over the next 35 years the world's population is likely to double from around 6 to 12 billion. The additional amount of forests cut down to make farmland to feed twice the population we now have will further incapacitate the earth's ability to stage a recovery. In addition, many of those in developing countries who currently don't use much fossil fuel or add to pollution will have lifestyle expectations matching our own. China, for example, has recently become the second biggest oil consumers on the planet behind the USA. With almost 4X the population of the USA, if they consume at the rate that the USA does, there simply won't be enough oil to go around.

As a point of information, the USA uses 25% of the world's oil for 3% of it's population, a situation that is simply not sustainable. Conservation measures are going to have to be taken by everyone whether we like it or not and alternative fuel sources need to be found.

The sooner we face up to our responsibilities and try to undo some of the damage, or at least make sure we don't continue to make matters worse, the better chance we have that we can still leave some sort of planetary legacy that can reasonably support our descendants.
 
   / Global Dimming #25  
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( As a point of information, the USA uses 25% of the world's oil for 3% of it's population, a situation that is simply not sustainable. )</font>

Sir,

I would like to learn where you come up with this information.

Common sense tells me that this isn't an honest statement, and in fact, it's one that borders on the rediculous to support a point of view.

When one part of an argument is obviously false, it's very hard to support the rest of it.

Eddie
 
   / Global Dimming
  • Thread Starter
#26  
I can believe that statistic. I've read it a different way in the WSJ. They stated that the US is the #1 consumer of oil in the world followed by China at #2. The US uses 300X more oil than China. That stat really shocked me.

John
 
   / Global Dimming #27  
inveresk,

It was brought to my attention through private email that you are indeed correct in your statements and that I responded without knowing the facts. I apologize.

From what I've learned online, the US does in fact use 25 percent of the worlds oil.

Sorry,
Eddie
 
   / Global Dimming #30  
The article on Greenhouse Myth came from a web site called Junkscience. Here is an assessment of the scientific merits of this site from the Center for Media and Democracy. It's further down the article, beginnining The Trashman Speweth . . .

PR Watch
 
   / Global Dimming #31  
The other side of yet another coin.

ActivistCash.com says the The Center For Media & Democracy "isn’t really a center it would be more accurate to call it a partnership, since it is essentially a two-person operation". The Village Voice said “These guys come from the far side of liberal.”

The CMD is primarily funded by the Homeland Foundation, the Educational Foundation of America, the Carolyn Foundation, and the Foundation for Deep Ecology none of which are exactly moderate voices in the global warming debate.

And to be fair ActivistCash.com is funded by The Center for Comsumer Freedom who, in their own right, aren't exactly in the center of the argument either.

Ain't this fun? /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
   / Global Dimming #32  
Ain't this fun?
Curt


It certainly makes for interesting posts and it does emphasise the need to scrutinise sources!!

I guess it comes down to whether we can afford to be wrong. If we believe the doubters and carry on as we are, consuming and polluting, and it emerges in time that we are, indeed, soiling our own nests, by the time the evidence is beyond dispute it could well be too late to do anything about it.

That's why I'm inclined to err on the side of caution and would like to see more affirmative action. If we do so and the safety margin on climate change is discovered to be larger than we initially believed, we'll have polluted less and we'll have exercised prudence in conserving the natural resources which we all have to share.
 
   / Global Dimming #33  
<font color="blue"> Ain't this fun?
</font>
That is what makes these type arguments/discussions so pointless. Each entity picks and chooses their sources and data to support their own agenda and ignores all other to the point that you can't tell who is actually trying to take a neutral stance and present accurate information from both viewpoints. Assuming there is some neutral party out there somewhere. /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
 
   / Global Dimming #34  
Bill,

These types of posts can be a waste of time if they end up as pi**ing contests.

But if we believe there's a common danger to our collective welfare, to discuss it openly and explore whether it's real or imaginary is important, provided we do it in the framework of exchanging ideas and views, and provided we remember to respect others right to hold and to express their opinions.
 
   / Global Dimming #35  
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( to discuss it openly and explore whether it's real or imaginary is important, provided we do it in the framework of exchanging ideas and views, )</font>


That's not what's happening in the major media. Those who disagree with the party line are either ignored or attacked.


Here's ONE place to get started on hearing the other side:

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
 
   / Global Dimming
  • Thread Starter
#36  
This debate has been politicized for years. You can pretty much tell which side of the aisle one sits by their position on this topic. Once again, this is only MY opinion.

John
 
   / Global Dimming #37  
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( <font color="blue"> Ain't this fun?
</font>
That is what makes these type arguments/discussions so pointless. Each entity picks and chooses their sources and data to support their own agenda and ignores all other to the point that you can't tell who is actually trying to take a neutral stance and present accurate information from both viewpoints. Assuming there is some neutral party out there somewhere. /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif )</font>

Too bad politics get mixed into these arguments. Our earth is way too important for that.

One can present perfectly valid and persuasive scientific evidence that X is going to happen if we don't stop doing Y. But when the presenter says that we should stop boiling lobsters because they scream; or we should burn all SUV's, it taints their credibility and damages their cause. Weird spices can spoil an otherwise great sauce.

Unfortunately, most top-notch scientists attended universities that indoctrinate them with large doses of radical politics along with physics and chemistry.
 
   / Global Dimming #38  
I'm no scientist. Not even all that smart. But.

Who says the world we live on has to stay the same? Why would nature spend BILLIONS of years evolving, then stop in its tracks once we get what we like?

Global warming, global dimming, weather changes, polar shifts, ect, ect, and so on, MIGHT just be the natural progression of things. In my years on earth, I've noticed spring/summer weather arriving sooner in the calender, summers getting drier, winters becoming shorter and more "abrupt". That's in comparison to my youth. Would I be an idiot if I assumed the weatner was ALWAYS like that BEFORE I came along? Or could it have possibly changed some before then too?

I'd like to see man quit destroying our environment. But "in a perfect world" should we quit polluting, do you seriously think things will stay the same for all of eternity?

Every special interest group, every "Greenpeace wanna-be" has their agenda. They publish their "facts" with all the conclusive evidence they need. Then the next group challenges that info. On and on.

All I know for certain is it's 62 degrees and raining right now. I planned on working in the garden saturday, so it'll rain then too. I try not to worry about things I can't change.
 
   / Global Dimming #39  
Farmwithjunk,

Very interesting perspective. I had never quite considered it in your terms, but agree with you one hundred percent.

Thank you,
Eddie
 
   / Global Dimming
  • Thread Starter
#40  
I agree that there may be natural occurances that have an effect on the climate. But, I also believe that the 80 million+ barrels of oil consumed daily around the globe has an effect as well. This is in addition to all the coal, natural gas and anything else burned for fuel. This releases a tremendous amount of greenhouse gasses as well as the particulate pollution. I believe we are altering the climate more in the last 100+ years than any other period in the planets history.

John
 

Tractor & Equipment Auctions

2017 FREIGHTLINER M2 26FT NON CDL BOX TRUCK (A59905)
2017 FREIGHTLINER...
2018 CATERPILLAR 320 EXCAVATOR (A60429)
2018 CATERPILLAR...
2004 Ford E-350 Bus -6.0 Powerstroke Diesel - 55k Miles - Inoperable/Non-Running (A56438)
2004 Ford E-350...
iDrive TDS-2010H ProJack M2 Electric Trailer Dolly (A59228)
iDrive TDS-2010H...
2007 JLG E400AJP TELESCOPIC/SCISSORING MANLIFT (A52709)
2007 JLG E400AJP...
2019 PJ  40FT GOOSENECK TRAILER (A58214)
2019 PJ 40FT...
 
Top