EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jul 21, 2007 9:38:07 GMT -5
SirSaxa and HiFi- most responsible scientists in related fields today believe global warming exists and it is caused by humans. Some responsible scientists in related fields believe there is insufficient proof that any existing global warming is caused by human beings. Both believe in "scientific studies and analyses", it's just they reach different conclusions. Yet, what I see is an attempt by those who believe it's man-made trying to make fun of those who do not share that belief and to picture them as somewhat looney. And those who don't see sufficient proof that it's man-made cast the others off as wackos. I object to that. Let's have a discussion on the subject without calling names (that goes for either side).
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jul 21, 2007 11:41:53 GMT -5
SirSaxa and HiFi- most responsible scientists in related fields today believe global warming exists and it is caused by humans. Some responsible scientists in related fields believe there is insufficient proof that any existing global warming is caused by human beings. Both believe in "scientific studies and analyses", it's just they reach different conclusions. Yet, what I see is an attempt by those who believe it's man-made trying to make fun of those who do not share that belief and to picture them as somewhat looney. And those who don't see sufficient proof that it's man-made cast the others off as wackos. I object to that. Let's have a discussion on the subject without calling names (that goes for either side). That was basically what I was saying all along. Once again, I think it is prudent and wise to act as if this modern version of global warming is in fact happening. I said as much. All I was criticizing were those who insist that what we are seeing at this point in time can be viewed only in one light, and that is that we are causing a gradual warming of the global climate. With history as a support, we can clearly see that we have been through similar temperature swings in both directions. Are we therefore not affecting the temperature but rather the duration of each swing of the cycle? I don't know nor do you. Yet by and large the most vocal global warming advocates are seemingly 100% convinced and are unwilling to even consider other explanations. Furthermore they twist the issue around and act as if those who question their premises and enquire as to their definitive evidence are the very biased and politically motivated individuals that they themselves are.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Jul 22, 2007 1:14:24 GMT -5
HiFi and Easy,
Your most recent posts are reasonable. Ed, it appears to me at least, that you have moved some distance away from your original post that started this thread. HiFi, I objected to the extreme statement that "the ONLY logical explanation is that personal political gain is the goal."
As I understand it, both of you believe climate change is occurring and that Human activity has some part in it, but you don't know how much. Considering the global risk of not taking action on this issue, it seems like an incredibly irresponsible gamble to suggest we don't need to do anything. Which is exactly what the current administration is doing.
When Bush came to office originally, he said Kyoto was flawed, but the issue was important and merited study. He also campaigned on the promise of cutting CO2 emissions. Once he got into office, he caved, flip flopped, whatever term you wish to use. He did absolutely Zero to study the issue, did a 180 on the CO2 emissions, and proceeded to undermine legitimate efforts on the subject.
Then add in Sen. Inhofe of R of OK (and until recently, Chair of the Senate Committee on the Environment). He is on the record that "Global warming is the greatest Hoax ever perpetrated on the American People.". He has also said that scientists can't possibly know what the temperatures on earth were thousands of years ago, nor can they know the levels of CO2 that have been in the atmosphere.
Meanwhile, scientists and business leaders (hardly wild-eyed wackos) as well as leaders from all around the globe, are coming to their own conclusions that the climate change issues are real, serious, getting more and more critical each year and demand immediate attention.
Looking at the enormous economic growth of the two most populated countries -- India and China -- the CO2 and other emissions problems are growing exponentially over the next decades.
Far from "wrecking our economy"... development of energy alternatives and containing emissions are absolutely crucial to the long term health of our planet AND an investment opportunity of incredible proportions.
Example... the #1 area of investment from the Silicon Valley VCs is "Clean Tech" -- which is their term for clean, efficient and renewable energy.
Here's another thing. Even if one doesn't believe ANYTHING about the climate change issues we are facing, it is still absolutely crucial that we develop energy alternatives because:
1. Global Political security. The majority of proven reserves of oil and gas are in countries and regions known for political instability. Moreover, as the world's economies grow and the fight for limited resources intensifies, the potential for economic blackmail and eventually war escalates to a an even more dangerous level.
2. US Economy. We are stealing billions and billions of dollars from our economy to send overseas for oil which hinders economic growth at home, lowers the value of the dollar, and puts us in hock to foreign powers.
3. Already, there is insufficient energy to support the world's populations. If you believe the world would be better off with a more equitable distribution of wealth and greater access to health care, nutrition and education, then energy availability would clearly be a top priority.
4. Technology Investment. Rather than "wrecking" our economy as Bush has told us, investing in Clean Tech and instituting a carbon tax and a cap and trade system would put the US on track to be the world's technology leader for the next century -- making the US far more wealthy, economically and politically secure, and simultaneously raising "all boats" --- economies around the globe.
So yes, when I see people in positions of major responsibility blithely dismissing climate change, or trying to make this into a partisan issue and all the while refusing to do anything about it -- it strikes me as the ultimate in irresponsible behavior.
When Business leadership groups and evangelical Christians BOTH start saying we need to care for the planet and they start doing something about it, it is very clear the Republican party has wandered far off track and desperately needs to change course. This problem is not going to be solved without bi-partisan and international cooperation.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jul 22, 2007 10:37:51 GMT -5
SirSaxa - first I do not accept that man is causing global warming. I think that is not clear as there are other possible explanations that make as much sense, or more, as the theory behind the man-cause. So don't misunderstand me. I want the opportunity for the other side to be heard without being labeled looney (or silenced). Just because a lot of people are saying it does not make it true. Second, you put forth some scary positions such as a more equitable distribution of wealth, formerly labeled as socialism or communism. I, instead, want people to have the opportunity to gain wealth. Third, you have a lot of ideas about what you want government or OTHERS to do to solve the global warming problem. How about telling us what YOU are prepared to do? Are you willing to give up your computer and internet access which require the use of power generated by, gasp, oil, gas, nuclear power, etc.? Or your i-pod or i-phone which requires recharging? Or your use of a car which uses oil products? Or your electric razor? Or your beer which uses power to produce and transport? Or heat and air-conditioning in your place of residence? Or your digital camera (recharging required)? Or meat and all the power required to feed, transport, etc., not to mention the flatulence contribution to environmental decay? Or vegetables that must be sown, cultivated, fertilized, irrigated, picked and transported? I could go on and on. Obviously I'm being a bit overboard but my message is: don't just call on someone else to do something without being willing to contribute yourself. Lastly, who is not in favor of energy independence? I'm old enough to remember President Jimmy Carter calling it the moral equivalence of war! That was 30 years ago and we're worse off now thanks to Democratic and Republican administrations - and the American people - unwilling to do anything about it. Let's face it, "there ain't no magic bullet". Are you willing to consider nuclear power? How about windmills off the coast of California or Martha's Vinyard or Florida? Or in your back yard? How about the technology for clean coal-burning? How about pure ethanol engines? How about drilling in Alaska? Or off the coast of California? If no to most of these things, you are waiting for a technological breakthrough which may or may not come. Lastly, you object to HiFi's saying much of the global warming debate is for political purposes but you don't hesitate to blast the Bush administration and Republicans while saying nothing about the 8 years of the Clinton administration. Do you, perhaps, have a political agenda? Sorry to be so long.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Jul 22, 2007 11:50:07 GMT -5
SirSaxa - first I do not accept that man is causing global warming. I think that is not clear as there are other possible explanations that make as much sense, or more, as the theory behind the man-cause. So don't misunderstand me. I want the opportunity for the other side to be heard without being labeled looney (or silenced). Just because a lot of people are saying it does not make it true. Second, you put forth some scary positions such as a more equitable distribution of wealth, formerly labeled as socialism or communism. I, instead, want people to have the opportunity to gain wealth. Third, you have a lot of ideas about what you want government or OTHERS to do to solve the global warming problem. How about telling us what YOU are prepared to do? Are you willing to give up your computer and internet access which require the use of power generated by, gasp, oil, gas, nuclear power, etc.? Or your i-pod or i-phone which requires recharging? Or your use of a car which uses oil products? Or your electric razor? Or your beer which uses power to produce and transport? Or heat and air-conditioning in your place of residence? Or your digital camera (recharging required)? Or meat and all the power required to feed, transport, etc., not to mention the flatulence contribution to environmental decay? Or vegetables that must be sown, cultivated, fertilized, irrigated, picked and transported? I could go on and on. Obviously I'm being a bit overboard but my message is: don't just call on someone else to do something without being willing to contribute yourself. Lastly, who is not in favor of energy independence? I'm old enough to remember President Jimmy Carter calling it the moral equivalence of war! That was 30 years ago and we're worse off now thanks to Democratic and Republican administrations - and the American people - unwilling to do anything about it. Let's face it, "there ain't no magic bullet". Are you willing to consider nuclear power? How about windmills off the coast of California or Martha's Vinyard or Florida? Or in your back yard? How about the technology for clean coal-burning? How about pure ethanol engines? How about drilling in Alaska? Or off the coast of California? If no to most of these things, you are waiting for a technological breakthrough which may or may not come. Lastly, you object to HiFi's saying much of the global warming debate is for political purposes but you don't hesitate to blast the Bush administration and Republicans while saying nothing about the 8 years of the Clinton administration. Do you, perhaps, have a political agenda? Sorry to be so long. The people of Alaska would LOOOOVE to be able to develop their resources (and would do so in an environmentally safe fashion). Representatives and Senators who have never been to AK and don't understand the reality of the state won't let them do it. ANWR's not the answer, but if done right, it'd help and it'd bring much needed capital to the least developed state in the country. And things like Nuclear power & wind farms would be nice as well, but NIMBY keeps preventing them. And let's not forget--the reason we haven't signed on to Kyoto isn't Pres. Bush's fault. Clinton never submitted it to the Senate either, partly b/c the Senate voted 95-0 to pass a resolution saying they wouldn't ratify it unless it included binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations and so long as it did not result in serious harm to the economy of the United States
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,668
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Jul 22, 2007 16:42:12 GMT -5
HiFi and Easy, When Bush came to office originally, he said Kyoto was flawed, but the issue was important and merited study. He also campaigned on the promise of cutting CO2 emissions. Once he got into office, he caved, flip flopped, whatever term you wish to use. He did absolutely Zero to study the issue, did a 180 on the CO2 emissions, and proceeded to undermine legitimate efforts on the subject. The main reason Whitman resigned as administrator of the EPA.
|
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,604
|
Post by hoyatables on Jul 22, 2007 19:41:01 GMT -5
I love how Professor HighFi lectures us as if we didn't know that 30 years is a miniscule period of time in the grand scheme of things. I mean, really. Fourth graders know that. Scoff all you want, but at least a few of you are smart enough to understand the point. Thirty of so years ago, there were a bunch of well renowned scientists who thought the climate was gradually cooling down and that if we didn't have the foresight to act now (then), that we would be facing another ice age. Now the temperatures are going in the other direction and the modern day version of those exact same scientists are telling us that we are warming the earth in a dangerous fashion and if we don't make dramatic changes soon, we will cause irrepairable damages to mother earth. My point isn't to take a side at all, but to point out that it is totally absurd for anyone on either side to suggest that we have a clear cut definitive answer. Yet both sides seem to want to do so. The only logical explanation is that personal political gain is the goal rather than an actual solution to the real problem. I remember learning about global warming and the greenhouse effect as early as 23-24 years ago in elementary school. I don't seem to recall anyone presenting it as a major departure from the fears of an "ice age" theory that you suggest was the prior fad. In fact, I don't think I had ever been presented with this "ice age" theory as a prominent scientific theory with as much credibility or acceptance as the current global warming theory until you suggested to be so. Given your tendency to throw out facts without any basis in order to advance your own posts, I think some skepticism of your basic premise is warranted.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jul 23, 2007 9:38:07 GMT -5
|
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,604
|
Post by hoyatables on Jul 23, 2007 10:45:48 GMT -5
Thanks, EasyEd -- a great find! That was an interesting read, though it's far from the overwhelming evidence/analysis/scientific consensus that surrounds global warming. Indeed, the NAS report concludes that their knowledge is fragmentary and rudimentary. It strikes me that this article presents the scientific facts that were being accumulated at that time regarding temperature, but not necessarily any comprehensive scientific conclusions -- other than the mere conclusion that climate change is going to be tough to analyze and even tougher to push for action in response.
Also, environmental science and study has advanced significantly in thirty years, such that I don't think it is fair to say that today's scientists are merely modern versions of the 1970s-folks quoted in this article.
Still, I take your point. Thanks for the link.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jul 23, 2007 12:13:32 GMT -5
I think we are finally getting somewhere in this little discussion. To clarify, I am not and have not ever been denying that global warming is happening. Furthermore I am not suggesting that even if a warming is in progress, we are not at least somewhat responsible in contributing to its effects. What I am saying is that by admissions from those on every single side of the issue, the global climate undergoes cycles and has for hundreds of thousands of years. In fact just some 30 plus years ago, many experts were suggesting an upcoming ice age and then theorizing ways in which we could even be the source.
Most of these experts have now gone full circle in suggesting that now the climate is warming and that it is our "fault." Whether it is a mysterious coincidence or not, a large percentage of those with such a view fall on a certain political side of the aisle with regard to most issues. Not surprisingly, it would appear that a signifincant percentage of those with differing views also fall together on the other side of the political aisle as well. Like Arnold and Gov. Crist suggested, global warming isn't a "democrat" issue or a "republican" isssue. Personally I think that makes a great deal of sense. I also think that many others are of such an opinion. But I also think that there is a third group of individuals who are simply unconvinced one way or the other. When we hear the "experts" telling us that the earth is getting colder and it's because of what we are doing and then years later but still clearly in the same cycle with respect to normal earlhly volatilities suggest that the earth is getting warmer but it is still what we are doing, it is only natural to stop for a second and ask, "wait a minute, what exactly is going on here?" Instead, what we have seen is one side (which like I indicated before) march in step with their fellow comrades on most political platforms. Opponents are then the ones accused of policizing the issue, when in fact both sides are guilty of the same actions.
All that being said, it is wise and prudent to look for more and better energy sources. It is wise and prudent to look to use the energies we have more efficiently. Finally, it is beneficial to strive to be energy independent. I have no problems with any of those suggestions.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jul 23, 2007 14:22:01 GMT -5
ONe more quick point I meant to mention:
I remember hearing a panel discuss this very issue maybe 6 years ago or so. As I recall it was like a Hannity and Colmes format, with a host "from each side" as well as assorted guests representing different points of view. One such guest was a scientist and expert on the atmosphere. He said that the aggregate amount of all of our fuel emissions from all motor vehicles combined was less than those emitted by Mount St. Helens. Then he took it another step and said that virtually any significant eruption of any sort, sends far more of those potentially deadly elements into the sky. My point isn't to suggest that "if volcanos do it" then it's ok for us. Nor am I in any way attempting to diminish the potentially tragic powers of a volcano. I am merely pointing out that if that is an accurate statement, then the magnitude of what we are doing pales in comparison. If the entire amount of man made emissions from motor vehicles if combined still doesn't equal that of an active volcanic eruption, then it is very hard to seriously consider that we are ruining the earth/atmosphere by what we are doing.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jul 23, 2007 15:01:21 GMT -5
To easyed's point, I think this thread should be locked. The electricity required for all of these opinions, not to mention the radiation emissions from computer monitors, and of course the large quantities of burritos eaten -- and subsequent methane emissions -- from posters trying to justify their opinions will have Greenland a swamp and California an underwater wonderland within the year. Just trying to do my part. -- (my best 'Iron Eyes Cody' impression)
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jul 23, 2007 16:25:40 GMT -5
To easyed's point, I think this thread should be locked. The electricity required for all of these opinions, not to mention the radiation emissions from computer monitors, and of course the large quantities of burritos eaten -- and subsequent methane emissions -- from posters trying to justify their opinions will have Greenland a swamp and California an underwater wonderland within the year. Just trying to do my part. -- (my best 'Iron Eyes Cody' impression) Very well said. See, we can agree on SOME things.
|
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,604
|
Post by hoyatables on Jul 23, 2007 17:09:44 GMT -5
HiFi - you are just missing the problem with your broad-brush statements.
You say "In fact just some 30 plus years ago, many experts were suggesting an upcoming ice age and then theorizing ways in which we could even be the source. Most of these experts have now gone full circle in suggesting that now the climate is warming and that it is our "fault." "
Where is your evidence that "many" experts were saying this years ago? And you imply that these are the same people who are now advocating global warming. You ignore two HUGE points: 1) The scientists advocating climate cooling in 1975 were not necessarily the same individuals, nor were they necessarily from the same organizations advocating global warming in 2007. 2) The scientists in 2007 have a wealth of data, methodology, and analysis to inform their current positions that was unavailable to other scientists in 1975.
EasyEd's article referenced some meteorologists -- were they the only "experts" at the time? Were there other experts also studying climate change? Would meteorologists have certain predilections or agendas that would skew their perspectives on climate change in ways a modern scientist approaching the area from a broader scientific perspective would not?
My point is that scientists in 1975 were looking at data through their existing methods and based on one hypothesis, and tentatively concluded that things were moving one way. With FAR greater amounts of data collected through new technologies (think of, if nothing else, all of the satellites and computers available now), new methodologies informed by broader cross-disciplinary and holistic apporaches to the sciences (rather than just from a meteorological perspective), and new hypotheses, its quite clear to me that you can't simply make statements like "the experts said one thing 30 years ago and then changed their minds." You're assuming that you are comparing apples and apples when you are quite possibly comparing apples and oranges.
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Jul 24, 2007 8:58:35 GMT -5
Apologies in advance for a long post. Here's a quick lesson on the basics of atmospheric gas concentrations that might illuminate some thinking before I get going here: www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentac.htmlAt the outset I'd like to ask Hifi, in the interests of an intelligent conversation, to stop bringing up the global cooling speculation from the 1970s. We know a lot more about ecology, climate change, and other environmental issues than we did even 6 years ago, much less 32 years ago (as Hoyatables pointed out, 1975 was the height of "global cooling" speculation). It's kinda like computer technology or music. There are some fundamentals, but we've come a long way in a short time. Basing comparisons to today's situation on 32-year old speculation about global environmental trends makes about as much sense as basing comparisons of current computers to the Apple II (designed in 1977); or "Global Cooling" :: Climate Change as Disco :: Rock & Roll. One was an ill-advised fad, the other ... well you can draw your own conclusions. In the 70's scientists were only beginning to understand orbital forcing and other natural cycles that bring about successive ice ages and interglacial periods. Some (and it was a minority) took newly-acquired short-term data that showed a cooling trend over a period of years (roughly late 30's to mid-late 60's) and posited that the effects of increased atmospheric albedo could possibly outweight the effects of .... wait for it .... global WARMING. That's right, hifi, scientists were as concerned about global warming at the time as they were about global cooling (maybe moreso overall) and concluded that they didn't know what was happening, but that something was, and that human activities were having and would continue to have an effect. Can you drop the reference now? Thanks. So, to address your last post: First, you fail to specify any kind of contextual data, like what kind of particles you're talking about (CO2, SO2, N2O, CH4, H2O, O3?), how many cars we're talking about (in the US? globally?), and over what period (a year? all of history?). That data is crucial to your point. Second, motor vehicle emissions, while significant, cause only a portion of total human-induced greenhouse gas emissions. Manufacturing, energy production, domesticated animals, etc., also cause greenhouse gas emissions. Tailpipes are only one part of the picture, as are volcanos only one part of the natural greenhouse effect equation. Third, nature has processes that balance the effects of volcanic eruptions to a certain point: natural sinks, prevalence of vegetation, counter-processes, time between eruptions, etc. The rub of human influence is that not only are we both an accute and chronic source of greenhouse gases, we've also destroyed lots and lots of nature's sinks (especially vegetation), and unlike volcanos (which are generally accute events - at least in the sense of "eruptions" as I took you to mean them), our sources are mostly ongoing. Fourth, if we eliminate sinks while increasing sources, we necessarily change the balance. The balance we're talking about here is concentrations of certain atmospheric gases, how earth deals with them. In this case, the consequences of anthropogenic processes since the Industrial Revolution favor an increase in global surface temparature over time, a conclusion backed up by the best available data. As a wise man once said, "in nature there are neither rewards, nor punishments. There are consequences." I think that's true. So really what we're talking about here should NOT be whether volcanos or tailpipes emit more CO2 (or whatever you meant), but instead, the whole picture of trends in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and the effect of those concentrations on the overall temperature of the planet, which will inform our understanding of the the consequences those concentrations will produce. Doing the former reminds me of what people used to think of the environment: that it was to "blame" for their discomfort. Doing the latter allows us to decide what we want our comfort level to be, whether earth has the capacity to allow us to have it, how to address the consequences of getting it and keeping it, and what we're willing to give up for it. To wit: balance instead of blame. If you read the EPA page I linked, you'll see that 3 major gases (co2, n2o, and ch4) are at historically high atmospheric levels (between 1,000 and 420,000 years). I doubt volcanos are the culprit. The next question is "so what?" Well, here's an answer to another poster's question about what we're willing to sacrifice: I don't own a car, I turn off all my lights (which are all compact flourescent) when I leave the house, I ride a bike to get around whenever possible (those who have seen me ride to the Phone Booth on gameday can attest), I shut off the faucet while shaving and brushing, I recycle, and I do other little things like that, and I advocate for changing behaviors and mindsets. I'm not an advocate of ascetic minimalism and I don't think we need that (and hopefully we won't). I AM an advocate of not being abusively consumptive or wasteful and of finding ecologically sensible ways to do things. Often, those alternative ways are better anyway! Am I doing enough? No. Do I want to? Yes. Like Coach says, "Baby steps." I think it feels good to do something positive for the environment, which is ultimately positive for humanity and - in my mind - honors God's creation instead of denigrating it.
|
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,604
|
Post by hoyatables on Jul 24, 2007 11:06:20 GMT -5
Coast - you rock.
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Jul 24, 2007 11:21:20 GMT -5
Gracias, mi amigo I'd also like to point out that "global warming" doesn't mean it'll get warmer everywhere. This graphic is a little snapshot of that: www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recenttc_tempanom.html (and I'll leave the social commentary about the South's unique results to others). Just like how when the water off Peru gets warmer in a summer, it gets wetter in California during that winter, and it gets drier elsewhere, we call it an El Nino, nature has ways of compensating for stimuli that humans are only just beginning to understand. I think it's important to be able to distinguish regional variations from global trends from local events and place them in a context that recognizes ecological relationships and geologic timescales. I did want to address one of hifi's more cogent points, but my post was getting too long, so here it is. He said that " Like Arnold and Gov. Crist suggested, global warming isn't a "democrat" issue or a "republican" isssue. Personally I think that makes a great deal of sense. I also think that many others are of such an opinion.I wholeheartedly agree. But I also think that there is a third group of individuals who are simply unconvinced one way or the other. When we hear the "experts" telling us that the earth is getting colder and it's because of what we are doing and then years later but still clearly in the same cycle with respect to normal earlhly volatilities suggest that the earth is getting warmer but it is still what we are doing, it is only natural to stop for a second and ask, "wait a minute, what exactly is going on here?" The key there is exactly what you said: "because of what we are doing." Instead, what we have seen is one side (which like I indicated before) march in step with their fellow comrades on most political platforms. Opponents are then the ones accused of policizing the issue, when in fact both sides are guilty of the same actions." There's a lot of truth in there; I think most people would agree that politics-as-usual is messing up what should be an honest, democratic, pragmatic, science-based discussion of what's going on what we should do about it. The key to all of this is that something is going on and that modern human Industrial and post-Industrial activities and processes are - at the very least - contributing to it. So we know the cause, but people are still arguing about the effects. That's ok, so long as we don't lose sight of the fact that ultimately, we need to figure out how to change. I'm hopeful that it'll be a change for the better, a change that will benefit the environment, economies, people's health, and people's spirituality, which has always in some way been tied to a sense of belonging to the lands, forests, and seas. The key for all of us, then, is to examine those "modern" activities & processes and their underpinnings, take into account their effects, consider the consequences of those effects, and decide which ones are worth it, which ones aren't, and which ones produce some results we like and other we don't and modify them (or not) accordingly. At least, that's my point of view. I'm pretty sure that kind of thinking has worked to solve other big problems facing humanity before. I invite your commentary.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jul 24, 2007 15:31:01 GMT -5
Coast, I won't comment on the other points of your posts but I want to congratulate you on trying to live your beliefs unlike so many others I will not mention. You believe in something and you adjust your lifestyle to back up your convictions. I commend you.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jul 24, 2007 15:37:10 GMT -5
Damn it, I typed a very eloquent expose' addressing these points only to have it lost in the black hole when the board crashed earlier.
I will try to recreate those oh so masterful words.
As for the "experts" from 30 years ago being "the same" as those of today, I was speaking in hyperbole. I'm sure that there are some still around who were ice age advocates in the seventies, but global warming proponents now. But what I was really meaning was that it was the prevalent opinion of the experts de jeur. I remember it. I was in school then and it was presented as a very real threat. It wasn't just one crackpot scientist. That isn't to say that it was unanimous, but it was certainly common amongst the "authorities." Having said that, I understand that technology changes and that our modern analysis and interpretation are more advanced and more accurate than those of 30 plus years ago. That being said, my point is that it is reasonable to question these new conclusions. Yes, there is more data, but neither you nor I can accurately foresee what the prevailing view will be in another 30 plus years. That is all that I am saying. Like I pointed out, I think what we have to go on would suggest a gradual warming up right now, but it is hard to positively conclude that it is the result of our actions and not part of a cycle since history has shown us periods of time significantly warming than now as well as colder.
As for the volcanic eruption comment, you will just have to trust me on that one. I have no idea who the particular expert was, but I promise you he made that assertion. Additionally all the panel was accepted as experts by the others, even though they had differring opinions on certain issues. The specific statement was basically that all of the emissions from motor vehicles combined have less effect than just one volcanic eruption. I understand that motor vehicle exhaust is only part of the equation but still I find it hard to not at least question the veracity of an implied certainty that we are causing this or that or the other, when just one more volcanic eruption in the history of the planet would have made more of an impact.
Lastly, your description of the environmentally friendly actions you have taken remind me of my cousin. She came down to visit several weeks ago. We watched a lot of Live Earth together and she asked me what my environmental pledge was. She said that hers was to even further eliminate her waste.
Now understand this: she is basically a farmer. She has a garden with tomatos as well as a bunch of different herbs. She has chickens as well as goats. She "mows" her yard by moving a cinder block around her property with a goat tied to it. And I kid you not, she has a deal worked out with an amish family near her. She will borrow several hogs and puts them in a pen area. She says they basically till the ground for her better than she could do. After 3-4 months she returns the fattened up hogs back to the amish for slaughter. Ironically she doesn't eat red meat, although she does eat chicken and fish.
She told me she washes all her clothes in cold water and uses a clothesline to dry them. She claims that all of her food scraps go either to the chickens the pigs or the goats. And all of her newspapers, junk mail and assorted other paper products are recycled as mixed paper. The point in all this is that she is an ultra environmentally friendly individual. Her pledge was to make a point of taking her own supplies (plates/containers/etc...) whenever she gets to go food. She said that since she has no food waste or paper trash, the only thing that ever ends up in her trash can is styrofoam from to go food. I didn't have the heart to tell her that the health department won't allow outside supplies into a cooking area.
I got off on a tangent but what you said reminded me of her.
In any case, I want to make it clear that I am not denying global warming. With only what we know now, I would say that it is a likely possibility but that is not the same as saying a proven certainty. My main beef is that many advocates of this or that cause are speaking as if it is a proven fact that not only is the average temperature steadily rising, but that they know for sure that it is because of our unenvironmentally friendly actions. It just isn't that clear cut yet.
All of that being said, I still think that acting as if the progression of global warming is happening is the wise thing to do.
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Jul 24, 2007 16:13:11 GMT -5
Coast, I won't comment on the other points of your posts but I want to congratulate you on trying to live your beliefs unlike so many others I will not mention. You believe in something and you adjust your lifestyle to back up your convictions. I commend you. Thank you very much, ed.
|
|