Global Warming

[thetheo]

What do you think, other than global warming itself, would be so big so as to stop and or reduce people's carbon emissions?

[PLAYER57832]

Total and complete economic collapse and inability to sustain technology.

[thegreekdog]

What do you think, other than global warming itself, would be so big so as to stop and or reduce people's carbon emissions?

Economic incentives for companies that do not use fossil fuels. For example, if wind power is cheaper than oil/gas/coal power, companies will use wind power.

The lack of fossil fuels - can't burn coal when there is no coal.

[thetheo]

problem is not all countries have wind all the time, not all countries have a lot of money to spare, etc. Apparently fossil fuels are way cheaper... Hey wait! if we use more fossil fuels, the earth's supply of it will deplete, and once that happens, prices risce as the amount will not meet people's demands, but coal can still go on for another century or 2, i suppose, unless more of it is used. More we use fossil fuels, less they have.

[The Neon Peon]

Globing Warming is a load of BS. We would have a lot more problems if we kept on cutting down forests and producing as much trash a we do now than if we continued putting carbon in the air.

I personally think that it would be worse to live in a trash heap with hardly any non-polluted water than to have a few degrees higher temperature and submerge 1% of the world under water.

[thetheo]

problem is not all countries have wind all the time, not all countries have a lot of money to spare, etc. Apparently fossil fuels are way cheaper... Hey wait! if we use more fossil fuels, the earth's supply of it will deplete, and once that happens, prices risce as the amount will not meet people's demands, but coal can still go on for another century or 2, i suppose, unless more of it is used. More we use fossil fuels, less they have.

[PLAYER57832]

Globing Warming is a load of BS. We would have a lot more problems if we kept on cutting down forests and producing as much trash a we do now than if we continued putting carbon in the air.

I personally think that it would be worse to live in a trash heap with hardly any non-polluted water than to have a few degrees higher temperature and submerge 1% of the world under water.

Except those will all occur together, because the causes are interrelated.

[thetheo]

Indeed. However, this has become part of our daily habbit. It's like smoking, u start, cant stop. Except, we depend on electricity for our survival, we're very dependant.

[PLAYER57832]

watch that double posting, but--

problem is not all countries have wind all the time, not all countries have a lot of money to spare, etc. Apparently fossil fuels are way cheaper... Hey wait!

Developing countries actually have a slight advantage in that they have so little infrastructure, whatever they do will be new. Also, with the costs of fossil fuels rising and the uncertain supply for new consumers, looking at alternative sources is cost-effective, when they have any money at all to invest in anything.

if we use more fossil fuels, the earth's supply of it will deplete, and once that happens, prices risce as the amount will not meet people's demands, but coal can still go on for another century or 2, i suppose, unless more of it is used. More we use fossil fuels, less they have.

No, no, no you see, according to folks like Sarah Palin, etc. that whole idea of fossil fuels being limited is completely erroneous. They are created by bacteria and therefore there is no reason to worry at all!

[thetheo]

Sry, I accidentally posted twice and-yes there is a problem. If bacteria keep creating fossil fuels, we will never run out, we will be frying eggs on sidewalks in the middle of winter, have an increase in cancer rates, and burried in 10 feet of snow in places where it hasn't snowed for like er... I don't know.

[The Neon Peon]

Globing Warming is a load of BS. We would have a lot more problems if we kept on cutting down forests and producing as much trash a we do now than if we continued putting carbon in the air.

I personally think that it would be worse to live in a trash heap with hardly any non-polluted water than to have a few degrees higher temperature and submerge 1% of the world under water.

Except those will all occur together, because the causes are interrelated.

Not at all.

There is a big difference between putting your focus into making a more efficient engine for a car than to make the car out of recycled parts. If we focus on stopping "Global Warming" then we will do nothing for the environment, however... if we focus on preserving the environment and things such as forests, we might find that the abundance of trees performing photosynthesis gets rid of some of the carbon dioxide that we produce.

[thetheo]

Globing Warming is a load of BS. We would have a lot more problems if we kept on cutting down forests and producing as much trash a we do now than if we continued putting carbon in the air.

I personally think that it would be worse to live in a trash heap with hardly any non-polluted water than to have a few degrees higher temperature and submerge 1% of the world under water.

Except those will all occur together, because the causes are interrelated.

Not at all.

There is a big difference between putting your focus into making a more efficient engine for a car than to make the car out of recycled parts. If we focus on stopping "Global Warming" then we will do nothing for the environment, however... if we focus on preserving the environment and things such as forests, we might find that the abundance of trees performing photosynthesis gets rid of some of the carbon dioxide that we produce.

Makes sense, so if we preserve nature, it also helps us...

[captain.crazy]

I think that this "Clean Coal" incentive is a crock! You can expend a bunch of energy to remove the carbon from coal, only to have a bunch of CO2 to have to store somewhere... potentially leak out and for what? its just another problem.

As for Global warming, I want to see the Global Warming community permit some sound debate as to the cause of Global Warming. so far, they cling to the green house gas theory like white on rice, even thought there is clear evidence that global warming is actually happening on other planets in our solar system. Perhaps there is an external factor... and honestly, so what if the globe is warming. I believe that the earth has been a lot warmer in history than it is now...

[thetheo]

oh yeah the earth was cooler than 65 million yrs ago but not as cold as the 1st ice age

[thetheo]

Oh, and the greenhouse effect is cost by gases trapping heat from the sun, emmit less harmful gasses, u get less effect from the greenhouse effect.

[PLAYER57832]

Globing Warming is a load of BS. We would have a lot more problems if we kept on cutting down forests and producing as much trash a we do now than if we continued putting carbon in the air.

I personally think that it would be worse to live in a trash heap with hardly any non-polluted water than to have a few degrees higher temperature and submerge 1% of the world under water.

Except those will all occur together, because the causes are interrelated.

Not at all.

There is a big difference between putting your focus into making a more efficient engine for a car than to make the car out of recycled parts. If we focus on stopping "Global Warming" then we will do nothing for the environment, however... if we focus on preserving the environment and things such as forests, we might find that the abundance of trees performing photosynthesis gets rid of some of the carbon dioxide that we produce.

You missed the point.

Cutting down forests is very much a part of why we have global warming. So is using too many of all sorts of resources without regard to consequence or even intelligent use for our huge industrial complex.

In other words, there IS NO "either or". Its all the same problem...and that problem is not so bad that we need to take every little step we can.

Further, that 1% temperature increase is supposed to be above the "environmental tipping point" -- a point past which our earth's ecology will have so changed that huge die-offs, changes in land availability (flooding, etc) is proposed to be past the point of no return. That is, an entirely new ecology will emerge, one that may well not include human beings.. or at least not comfortably.

[PLAYER57832]

As for Global warming, I want to see the Global Warming community permit some sound debate as to the cause of Global Warming. so far, they cling to the green house gas theory like white on rice, even thought there is clear evidence that global warming is actually happening on other planets in our solar system. Perhaps there is an external factor... and honestly, so what if the globe is warming. I believe that the earth has been a lot warmer in history than it is now...

The debate and facts are most certainly out there. Some of it happened before the internet, but there is enough out there for anyone to find who wishes to take the time.

However, you apparently would rather do as the majority of conservatives and merely copy the top few Google posts that happen to agree with their own position.
Too bad you weren't educated to know what real critical thinking means. It's not just leaping on the nearest unpopular (or popular) idea, its actually comparing facts and who is putting forward those facts.

If you do that, you will find in the "Global climate change is happening" camp to be almost every credible climatologist in the world, along with a good number of othe individuals with varying other areas of related expertise. This, by-the-way INCLUDES a lot of large companies that prefer to keep making money over a complete economic collapse.


In the opposition-- a smattering of Christian Conservatives, many of whom claim expertise in areas they have never even studied, others who have been utterly and thoroughly discredited for NOT using good scientific methods

-- some business leaders who prefer to ignore the future in favor of getting whatever advantage they can today (they can, after all simply go buy a mountain top or even a submarine )

--- Many politicians funded by the above

--- a whole host of people who just plain cannot be bothered to study the science and who find it much easier to simply pretend nothing bad is happening.

[PLAYER57832]

Here is the truly most TERRIFYING IDEA yet:

We might have to give up the INTERNET!

(hmm.. no "screaming in terror" similie.. )

With more than 1.5 billion people online around the world, scientists estimate that the energy footprint of the net is growing by more than 10% each year. ...
And while the demand for electricity is a primary concern, a secondary result of the explosion of internet use is that the computer industry's carbon debt is increasing drastically. From having a relatively small impact just a few years ago, it is now leapfrogging other sectors like the airline industry that are more widely known for their negative environmental impact.

[TheProwler]

I personally hope there is a drastic increase in fees to use the Internet. Higher data transfer fees.

[thegreekdog]

As for Global warming, I want to see the Global Warming community permit some sound debate as to the cause of Global Warming. so far, they cling to the green house gas theory like white on rice, even thought there is clear evidence that global warming is actually happening on other planets in our solar system. Perhaps there is an external factor... and honestly, so what if the globe is warming. I believe that the earth has been a lot warmer in history than it is now...

The debate and facts are most certainly out there. Some of it happened before the internet, but there is enough out there for anyone to find who wishes to take the time.

However, you apparently would rather do as the majority of conservatives and merely copy the top few Google posts that happen to agree with their own position.
Too bad you weren't educated to know what real critical thinking means. It's not just leaping on the nearest unpopular (or popular) idea, its actually comparing facts and who is putting forward those facts.

If you do that, you will find in the "Global climate change is happening" camp to be almost every credible climatologist in the world, along with a good number of othe individuals with varying other areas of related expertise. This, by-the-way INCLUDES a lot of large companies that prefer to keep making money over a complete economic collapse.


In the opposition-- a smattering of Christian Conservatives, many of whom claim expertise in areas they have never even studied, others who have been utterly and thoroughly discredited for NOT using good scientific methods

-- some business leaders who prefer to ignore the future in favor of getting whatever advantage they can today (they can, after all simply go buy a mountain top or even a submarine )

--- Many politicians funded by the above

--- a whole host of people who just plain cannot be bothered to study the science and who find it much easier to simply pretend nothing bad is happening.

Wasn't this all argued in another forum? I recall commenting that any debate is good. I also recall reading a number of quotes and links from scientists. In any event, it doesn't matter. The debate is over because, currently, people say it's over. It's just that easy any more, sadly.

[Neoteny]

It's over because climate scientists say it's over? It's not still ongoing because physicists of tunneling phenomena and engineers can't understand it.

[PLAYER57832]

Wasn't this all argued in another forum? I recall commenting that any debate is good. I also recall reading a number of quotes and links from scientists. In any event, it doesn't matter. The debate is over because, currently, people say it's over. It's just that easy any more, sadly.

... as opposed to it being over because the preponderance of evidence in support is so vast?

That is the problem. Anyone can step up and say "I don't agree" or "show me more evidence". If they do that on the internet, they will likely wind up near the top of the Google search list, because its always more interesting to read articles about "space aliens land on the white house lawn" than "no aliens landed anywhere today".

But true debate means looking at evidence that exists. Ther just is NO real, credible, scientifically based evidence that the climate change is not happening or is not being made worse by human impacts.

While there is debate, varying and conflicting ideas and theories about what the impacts of global climate change will be, what exactly it entails, its occurance is fact, not theory. NOR is there much debate about some solutions, such as the need to reduce CO2 emissions, plant more trees, etc.

[thegreekdog]

Wasn't this all argued in another forum? I recall commenting that any debate is good. I also recall reading a number of quotes and links from scientists. In any event, it doesn't matter. The debate is over because, currently, people say it's over. It's just that easy any more, sadly.

... as opposed to it being over because the preponderance of evidence in support is so vast?

That is the problem. Anyone can step up and say "I don't agree" or "show me more evidence". If they do that on the internet, they will likely wind up near the top of the Google search list, because its always more interesting to read articles about "space aliens land on the white house lawn" than "no aliens landed anywhere today".

But true debate means looking at evidence that exists. Ther just is NO real, credible, scientifically based evidence that the climate change is not happening or is not being made worse by human impacts.

While there is debate, varying and conflicting ideas and theories about what the impacts of global climate change will be, what exactly it entails, its occurance is fact, not theory. NOR is there much debate about some solutions, such as the need to reduce CO2 emissions, plant more trees, etc.

So the links to studies and other data posted by Gabon X (I think) in another forum are not based on real, credible, or scientifically based evidence? Are you saying it's made up? If it is made up, could you provide sources? I'm not trying to be combatative here. I really and honestly am confused by this issue. I don't understand why so many (apparent) scientists have come forward saying that man-made global warming cannot be supported by scientific data, while at the same time so many scientists have come forward saying that man-made global warming can be supported by scientific data.

[Neoteny]

Are you asking PLAYER to reference articles refuting sources that you aren't providing?

[thegreekdog]

Are you asking PLAYER to reference articles refuting sources that you aren't providing?

Yes. I thought maybe she would have a nice link to a general refutation of sources that refute sources that support man-made global warming. I could refernce the other thread, but I can't find it.