Anti global warming

[baggss]

I actually caught a bit of a piece on global warming the other night on, IIRC, The National Geographic channel. What I saw was "Climate expert" telling us that we don't need to understand the process of climate change or what causes it and, we simply need to react now and not wait for further study.

After hearing that babble, I had to change the channel. How can you fix a problem you don't understand?

Hmmm, I flip the switch in my living room and my light doesn't go on, maybe I need to run the dishwasher to fix it....

 

[DSCole312]

How can you fix a problem you don't understand?

By that logic, we should never provide medical treatment to anybody suffering from cancer, AIDS, or Parkinson's because we don't fully understand the disease.

 

[TheCustomer99]

Bottom line is that there is a place for compromise. If the liberals will allow us to seek non-governmental ways to solve it, and if conservatives would simply admit that it is real, then I think we could get a lot more done. I showed a liberal the cover of The Economist a few weeks ago that had a special report on the steps businesses are taking to offset their carbon emissions, and he scoffed at it and said, "The corporations (libs love to treat it as an evil term) won't solve anything since they're the problem." Being green (environmenally) will make you more green (cash, bread, dough, quid, greenbacks) these days (not to mention, get you better PR), so saying that corporations can't help without intrusion by the government is a bit closed-minded, imho.

 

[Village Idiot]

Again, I'm not disagreeing with the fact that pollution is bad. Look at all the cases of health problems and deaths caused by it in one way or another

(Chernobyl?...)

But as Bagggggggggggggsssssssssss hasssss sssssssaid. It's just arrogant to believe that we are the complete an utter cause of climate fluctuation. And also as above, ice ages, hot periods, and perfect weather have all come and gone before our factories and such.

I think there's bigger environmental problems looming that need to be addressed and will lower pollution in the long run and will be a far greater benefit to man kind that having the politicians debate whether or not global warming is being caused by us and/or what to do about it.

1.)The human problem. Over population is a real problem and if it wasn't for over population there would probably be less poor people, larger forest, more food supplies, less hunger, less war, etc. Any one ever think of this? If there wasn't a problem with over population, would there be a need for such large power production facilities that pollute?

2.)Over using the Earth's supplies. I don't know about you guys, but I'd be a tab bit more worried about the day that I can't drive my car or heat my home because there's no more oil vs. the debate on global warming. What about when the supplies of fish and animal and vegetable and food get so scarce that it's now $20 for a loaf of bread. Any one ever see "Soilent Green"?

3.)Polluting the Earth. It doesn't matter what kind of pollutant, but I know I don't want to be eating radiation soaked tomatoes, oil clogged fish, or anything else that's been raised in toxins that's not healthy for them or us.

And there's many more. When some one realizes that those are more important than the debate of global warming and should be taken care of first, then the by product will be less pollution and no need to argue about something that may or may not even be caused by us.

-The end.

 

[mikethepirate]

I hate to sound cynical but I tend to take what I hear from the news with a grain of salt. It upsets me how twisted both sides of the fence are . Debating has gone from intelligently discussing a topic to trying to find something that they can use to prove the other side wrong. As far as global warming goes, I think there are things we can do to help, but the earth will do what it wants no matter what. Should this stop us from trying? No way! It's our duty as humans to take care of eachother and our homes.

The more I watch the events taking place, the more I've come to understand that everyone (including myself)is biased. Even if they do not intend on being biased, they are will always be somewhat jaded by the other side. The best thing the human race can do is apologize to each other and forgive each other.

I'm such a dreamer :-\

 

[PapaNoHair]

.........I'm such a dreamer :-\

But it is such a nice dream! What a great world that would be. Dream on!!

 

[mikethepirate]

But it is such a nice dream! What a great world that would be. Dream on!!

Seriously, that made me smile

 

[baggss]

By that logic, we should never provide medical treatment to anybody suffering from cancer, AIDS, or Parkinson's because we don't fully understand the disease.

No, not at all. With diseases like that you run clinical trials on a small group of volunteers to see if the treatment works as predicted, you don't just willy-nilly give experimental drugs out wholesale to anyone who might need them. You research - test- research - test...until you find a better answer. The wholesale "lets change everything about how we as a society live" crowd, lead by Al Gore, are extremists and alarmists instead of preaching to proceed with caution. Knee jerk reactions rarely work for the best. Their solutions is research - theorize - over react - theorize - over react - theorize - refine theorization because it's not working that way - over react...

We understand a lot about AIDS and Parkinson's, but do you see wide spread drugs available for the? Why not? Because the medical community knows that doing so would be extreme and irresponsible, something the environmental crowd has yet to learn.

1.)The human problem. Over population is a real problem and if it wasn't for over population there would probably be less poor people, larger forest, more food supplies, less hunger, less war, etc. Any one ever think of this? If there wasn't a problem with over population, would there be a need for such large power production facilities that pollute?

Actually global overpopulation is not a problem, but regionally it is. You have a large chunk of the worlds population living in areas that can not sustain them as a body, while areas that could are often underpopulated. The real problem is simply distribution. It's a strait foreword problem and solution which inevitably gets mired in politics on many different levels and many different landscapes. The problem itself is easy to solve and we have the technology to solve it fairly easily and cheaply. We, as a species, simply don't want to.

 

[WakeCarver]

I would just like to see civil discussion with both sides listening to each other and "junk" science being thrown out of the picture. Examples: 1) the polar bears are going to be wiped out. Actually at the current time it appears they are actually increasing. 2) Global warming is occurring (man made) because huge chunks of ice are breaking off of Antarctica. Hate to tell everyone but those same chunks were falling off when I was down there 1964-1968. It is an annual event. That is why there is permanent ice and annual ice.

Whatever happened to scientist actually using the scientific method?

 

[baggss]

Whatever happened to scientist actually using the scientific method?

One word: Money.

 

[WakeCarver]

One word: Money.

Indeed.

 

[Village Idiot]

Actually global overpopulation is not a problem, but regionally it is. You have a large chunk of the worlds population living in areas that can not sustain them as a body, while areas that could are often underpopulated. The real problem is simply distribution. It's a strait foreword problem and solution which inevitably gets mired in politics on many different levels and many different landscapes. The problem itself is easy to solve and we have the technology to solve it fairly easily and cheaply. We, as a species, simply don't want to.

You can't really argue that if the world's population was only half of what it is, that the need for wood, oil, coal, food, etc... would still be as great. We wouldn't be stripping down rain forest and strip mining mountains and everything else to the extreme that we are now.

 

[mikethepirate]

Actually global overpopulation is not a problem, but regionally it is. You have a large chunk of the worlds population living in areas that can not sustain them as a body, while areas that could are often underpopulated. The real problem is simply distribution. It's a strait foreword problem and solution which inevitably gets mired in politics on many different levels and many different landscapes. The problem itself is easy to solve and we have the technology to solve it fairly easily and cheaply. We, as a species, simply don't want to.

I agree with this. I read some where that the entire population of the world can fit into Jacksonville Florida and I used to live in the midwest so I know what open spaces look like

Village Idiot, I see what you are saying, but to me it seems like it is caused more by greedy desicions made by corporations and governments than the actual number of people on the earth. If we all pushed for a better form of energy we could still have the population we have now and burn less non-renewable resources.

 

[baggss]

You can't really argue that if the world's population was only half of what it is, that the need for wood, oil, coal, food, etc... would still be as great. We wouldn't be stripping down rain forest and strip mining mountains and everything else to the extreme that we are now.

All we need is on good plague and the problem would be solved. Sometimes nature has a way of taking care of things for us.

 

[TheCustomer99]

All we need is on good plague and the problem would be solved. Sometimes nature has a way of taking care of things for us.

Well, at least in an environmental science course I took 2 years ago, the estimate was that we'd peak at around 9 billion and then the population would naturally recede to a stable level. The model we looked at kind of looked like a production function in economics, so it kind of made sense.