|
||||
|
Title: Global warming Post by Paul98 on Jun 14th, 2007, 1:41pm Found this article by Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech republic. I think it is an excellent read on common sense and the hysteria of global warming. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/9deb730a-19ca-11dc-99c5-000b5df10621.html -P. |
||||
|
Title: Re: Global warming Post by Kevin_M on Jun 14th, 2007, 2:14pm I guess I'm missing where the common sense is in the article. Quote:
Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC." Lindzen is one of the most famous paid oil company advocates about global warming |
||||
|
Title: Re: Global warming Post by Paul98 on Jun 14th, 2007, 2:40pm on 06/14/07 at 14:14:44, Kevin_M wrote:
As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning. The environmentalists ask for immediate political action because they do not believe in the long-term positive impact of economic growth and ignore both the technological progress that future generations will undoubtedly enjoy, and the proven fact that the higher the wealth of society, the higher is the quality of the environment. They are Malthusian pessimists. The scientists should help us and take into consideration the political effects of their scientific opinions. They have an obligation to declare their political and value assumptions and how much they have affected their selection and interpretation of scientific evidence. Does it make any sense to speak about warming of the Earth when we see it in the context of the evolution of our planet over hundreds of millions of years? Every child is taught at school about temperature variations, about the ice ages, about the much warmer climate in the Middle Ages. All of us have noticed that even during our life-time temperature changes occur (in both directions). -P. |
||||
|
Title: Re: Global warming Post by Bob P on Jun 14th, 2007, 2:44pm on 06/14/07 at 14:14:44, Kevin_M wrote:
Wow, if they pay him that kind of money, he must know what he's talkin' about! |
||||
|
Title: Re: Global warming Post by john_d on Jun 14th, 2007, 2:56pm Common sense to me is to spend the time, effort and discipline to take care of and conserve the limited resources of our planet such as clean air and water and the ecosystem that keeps them clean- the resources that keep us alive, healthy and free. IMO, the biggest threat to those resources is simply overpopulation. I really hope we as a whole start getting attentive to that looming monster soon. |
||||
|
Title: Re: Global warming Post by Callico on Jun 14th, 2007, 5:01pm John, Please don't take this as an attack, but overpopulation was a myth in the early 60's when the book "The Population Bomb" was written. All of the projections espoused in it have been shown to be erroneous, one of them being the ice age overpopulation was causing. Overpopulation can only be corrected by eliminating part of the population. Whom would you have us start with?Jerry |
||||
|
Title: Re: Global warming Post by john_d on Jun 14th, 2007, 5:45pm J- It's not myth. That book may have made some false assertions. But an exploding population is not one of them. Frankly, I never read the book. Some facts on overpopulation can be found on wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation The fact is most of the population growth is happening in undeveloped countries, and they are experiencing alot of starvation and disease. But they don't happen to be as bathed and educated as we are, so who cares? Of course some of them may be showing up in our country, why are all these droves of illegal immigrants here anyway? Quote:
No, it's not the only correction. Here's a decent postulate- There are two factors in the size of the populations, the number of births and the number of deaths. So if we can exercise some decent birth control in a smart way, that would be a good solution. And no, I don't know how it can be done ethically. But it would be nice if we started thinking about it. |
||||
|
Title: Re: Global warming Post by thebbz on Jun 14th, 2007, 5:49pm ;;DMine the earth first...all the other planets come later. ;;D jb |
||||
|
Title: Re: Global warming Post by Jonny on Jun 14th, 2007, 5:51pm I wouldnt put too much into what wikipedia has to say, they have one of JD Fletchers CH attack drawings on their site and they never got permision to use it! Some guy emailed me and wanted to know if I could get in touch with him for permission, I said I couldnt, but I thought he would not mind......that day the drawing was on their site.....so much for permission, eh? |
||||
|
Title: Re: Global warming Post by john_d on Jun 14th, 2007, 5:57pm Sound like they fucked that up, but the wikipedia system does do a good job of checking facts out and weeding out BS. on 06/14/07 at 17:51:45, Jonny wrote:
|
||||
|
Title: Re: Global warming Post by Kevin_M on Jun 14th, 2007, 6:41pm Quote:
Common sense can be a matter of opinion I guess. This judgment of common sense also from Mr. Klaus: Quote:
How much is Mr. Klaus affected politically in his statements as an economist and president of a country with these needs: Electricity - production by source: fossil fuel: 78% hydro: 3% other: 1% (2000) nuclear: 19% Throw in a high influence by fossil fuel's hired refuter. |
||||
|
Title: Re: Global warming Post by stevegeebe on Jun 14th, 2007, 9:59pm Has population increases followed the same liner path of food production? Maybe. Has mechanical farm equipment been one of the main reasons for historic food production? Maybe Have fertilizers, (a by-product of oil), contributed to these never before seen harvests? Maybe When a species of animal, become many, and the burden that that circumstance places upon the environment in which they survive can no longer sustain them, then they die off. Pretty simple. Inexpensive energy has allowed us Humans, (Monkey Delux), to acheve this current condition. Take oil out of the game and you won't have to worry about overpopulation. Steve G |
||||
|
Title: Re: Global warming Post by andrewjb on Jun 14th, 2007, 11:16pm on 06/14/07 at 14:44:58, Bob P wrote:
;), not if hes in politics. preserve the flowers and take time to enjoy them. andrew. |
||||
|
Title: Re: Global warming Post by Charlie on Jun 15th, 2007, 12:27am It isn't fun to admit but just about everyone that howls that global warming is BS either has vested interest in energy or transportation. It's like reading that drug companies are on our side. Charlie |
||||
|
Title: Re: Global warming Post by burnt-toast on Jun 15th, 2007, 10:01am I disagree with this puppet and believe we are on an unchangeable course to environmental disaster. Here’s my worthless input. The chemical and fossil fuel industries ruled the 40’s through 70's until the Global Cooling crowd and energy crisis fueled demands for cleaner/renewable energy sources, efficiency standards, cleaner air and water standards, tough environmental laws and strict enforcement to avoid pending doom. Legislators rallied around the cause, generated lots of legislation and standards, officially established the EPA on December 2, 1970 and began feeding its relentless expansion. Every state established/grew its environmental protection agencies. The air and water soon looked and smelled cleaner but this was mostly just appearance. With new laws/EPA standards/state agencies - government appeared diligent but these industries continued expanding and polluting. Daily dependence on fossil fuels and chemicals skyrocketed. Lawmakers grew wealthy on industry expansion fueled by a dispersing population generating insatiable demand for newer and cheaper chemical products, pesticides and personal transportation. Dispersing populations soon spread vast amounts of refuge across broad areas and filled secondary waterways and small streams with sewerage and chemical laced runoff. The buzz cause for the early 21st century is Global Warming, we still have an energy crisis and chemical/fossil fuels industries are now in absolute control. Nothing’s changed since the 70’s except massive growth in government’s environmental bureaucracy and the financial influence industry has in government. Layer upon layer of pollution and efficiency standards, worthless laws, cleaner/renewable energy sources/technologies and personal responsibility for preserving the environment have all been ignored. Grand visions of progress, an expanding economy, greener grass, controlling critters, magic waste disposal somewhere downstream, and personal mobility take precedence over the environment – in everyone’s mind. Either everyone agrees to a more resticted lifestyle and support development/conversion to renewable/alternative energy technologies while the environment is given a chance to bounce back - or - accept the industries fueling every aspect of our grand visions of progress, live in the waste/filth we generate, and accept whatever fate awaits us somewhere down the road. We can’t demand that government/industry resolve problems to which our modern lifestyles are the major contributing factor. It’s not an industry change, it’s a cultural change that I don’t believe anyone has the desire or ability to make. |
||||
|
Title: Re: Global warming Post by Wayne on Jun 15th, 2007, 10:27am on 06/14/07 at 17:45:16, john_d wrote:
Here is the catch 22, the high birth rates in the third world will reduce as the general standard of living, education levels etc are uplifted. that is going to take massive development which cannot take place without cheap energy, and fossil fuels are still the cheapest by far. Now I may be wrong but I don't believe that those people give a rats arse about global warming while they have no food and precious little shelter. I also believe that the global warming thing is overdone a bit. We had very high rainfall during the first week of June here in Johannesburg, unusual because its winter and this is a summer rainfall area. The first wail was "global warming, climate change bla bla" until a little research showed that we experienced higher rainfall in June 1963. I'm not saying its a complete myth but rational thought must be applied at all times. |
||||
|
Title: Re: Global warming Post by seasonalboomer on Jun 15th, 2007, 11:00am sounds like you guys all stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night. 8) Scott [smiley=laugh.gif] |
||||
|
Title: Re: Global warming Post by LeLimey on Jun 15th, 2007, 11:07am Well I'm sitting here with torrential flippin' rain and right now I'd like some bloody global warming before I go rusty! |
||||
|
Title: Re: Global warming Post by john_d on Jun 15th, 2007, 11:27am on 06/15/07 at 10:27:42, Wayne wrote:
High birth rates will decrease with raised standard of living...a good theory and it seems to play out. This is total conjecture but I am predicting we will find a source of clean, very cheap energy someday soon. It's not that there is not enough energy, it's that we have not figured an easier, cleaner way to tap it. As far as the third world citizens concern for global warming, I was not making any point or connection to that- I went slightly off-topic with overpopulation. |
||||
|
Title: Re: Global warming Post by Wayne on Jun 15th, 2007, 11:49am Howzit John You were on the money though. Any reduction in co2 emissions in Europe and the States is going to be replaced by increased emissions from Africa, asia and S America as they drag their people into the 20th century. This is not going to happen quickly so high birth rates are going to be around for a while meaning more energy for more people = more co2. A question for my info, are large families (4 kids or more) still prevalent in the USA or are they more the exception than the rule? |
||||
|
Title: Re: Global warming Post by john_d on Jun 15th, 2007, 12:25pm on 06/15/07 at 11:49:42, Wayne wrote:
It's not the norm anymore as far as I can tell. Demographics are changing so rapidly it's hard to call anything a norm anymore. Not sure what Latino family sizes are normally. Nuclear family article... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_family |
||||
|
Title: Re: Global warming Post by Maffumatt on Jun 15th, 2007, 1:45pm Birth control has worked so well in Europe that they can't even replace the populations lost naturally. Works out well for those that don't practice birth control that are flooding in. Take the UK for example, whats the most common name given to babies now? |
||||
|
Title: Re: Global warming Post by BMoneeTheMoneeMan on Jun 15th, 2007, 1:50pm on 06/15/07 at 13:45:12, Maffumatt wrote:
Ben Dover? |
||||
|
Title: Re: Global warming Post by LeLimey on Jun 15th, 2007, 1:52pm on 06/15/07 at 13:45:12, Maffumatt wrote:
You-little-bastard-shut-up?! ;;D |
||||
|
Title: Re: Global warming Post by seasonalboomer on Jun 15th, 2007, 1:54pm on 06/15/07 at 13:52:10, LeLimey wrote:
I always thought you called all your kids, "littlebugger" ;) |
||||
|
Title: Re: Global warming Post by LeLimey on Jun 15th, 2007, 2:02pm only if they're twins Scott then one is "bugger" ;;D Of course "come-here-now-til-I-wipe-that-smile-off-your-face" is gaining in popularity as summer holidays draw ever nearer too... |
||||
|
Title: Re: Global warming Post by Maffumatt on Jun 15th, 2007, 2:06pm on 06/15/07 at 13:52:10, LeLimey wrote:
yes ma'am. |
||||
|
Title: Re: Global warming Post by Opus on Jun 16th, 2007, 9:17pm on 06/15/07 at 11:27:17, john_d wrote:
That is one of the common miss conceptions. When fusion or zero point energy is finally perfected our energy use will increase exponentially, producing tons of heat that will heat the ground and oceans causing real global warming. The evidence right now shows the heat increases are near the earth. Green house gases will heat the upper atmosphere first which we are not seeing so we have already started this in a small way by burning crude oil which was probably never made by the sun. Nuclear power is also a big source. The irony is when we finally have a clean, safe power source we probably will be in a race against time to figure out how to cool the Earth. Paul |
||||
|
Title: Re: Global warming Post by Kevin_M on Jun 16th, 2007, 10:32pm on 06/16/07 at 21:17:35, Opus wrote:
I'm not sure about heating the upper atmosphere first, Paul. Greenhouse Gases Carbon dioxide () is one of the greenhouse gases. It consists of one carbon atom with an oxygen atom bonded to each side. When its atoms are bonded tightly together, the carbon dioxide molecule can absorb infrared radiation and the molecule starts to vibrate. Eventually, the vibrating molecule will emit the radiation again, and it will likely be absorbed by yet another greenhouse gas molecule. This absorption-emission-absorption cycle serves to keep the heat near the surface, effectively insulating the surface from the cold of space. http://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_3_1.htm The greenhouse effect, discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1829 and first investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, is the process in which the emission of infrared radiation by the atmosphere warms a planet's surface. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect |
||||
|
Title: Re: Global warming Post by Opus on Jun 17th, 2007, 12:59am on 06/16/07 at 22:32:48, Kevin_M wrote:
Ok I will take that back until I can find the source. It is probably a science journal. It was a study of Venus which lead to a model showing that the green house effect will have a higher temp. in a band of the atmosphere that is higher than the ground temp. There are also so many other factors such as global dimming, and cloud formation by cosmic rays that could actually make the temps go the other way in a hurry. Remember in the 70's the panic was about the coming ice age? Does any of this make sense LOL? If not I will delete it in the morning. Paul |
||||
|
Title: Re: Global warming Post by klusterkopf on Jun 17th, 2007, 3:44am I think that when another giant meteor hits us, like the one that apparently eliminated the dinosaurs, we, along with most mammallian life will be exterminated and the world will once again belong to the insects and small mammals that live underground. We have not been on this planet for very long and geological history shows that we are just "dust in the wind", not to mention that our sun is gradually burning itself out-though that will take about a billion years or so. Life is temporary for all species. |
||||
|
Title: Re: Global warming Post by UN solved on Jun 17th, 2007, 4:02am I believe, if we really want to save this planet, we need to first get rid of the thousands of nuclear weapons. Do you know what just 1 of todays nuclear bombs will do to this planet ? It would be a global catastrophe! Odds of being hit by a doomsday asteroid ? low Odds of terrorist using nuclear weapons ? (?) Odds of a nuclear war ? (?) We're going to run out of oil in about 50 years anyways. We better start thinking of other ways to produce energy, and quick! Maybe we won't all die in a nuclear blast before then. Sorry to sound like such a downer ! :-/ UNsolved |
||||
|
Clusterheadaches.com Message Board » Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.3.1! YaBB © 2000-2003. All Rights Reserved. |