A Sensible Article About Global Warming

[Xiahou]

But it is true what you say. And I really can't see why we have to stress about something scientists are still debating how it affects the environment, when we could instead focus on the things we KNOW destroys our environment and we see every day?

In my opinion, the CO2-thingy is hyped way too much, and it draws attention away from things we know is bad, and it also makes people skeptical, even to "normal" pollution.

You've just about nailed it.

[BDC]

How did Quick Reply manage to double post this? Bah.

[BDC]

There isn't much 'dirty' pollution in the west anymore though. Unlike in China and India...

[HoreTore]

There isn't much 'dirty' pollution in the west anymore though. Unlike in China and India...

It isn't? Have you looked beside a road? The grass is completely filled with dust...

The river going through the town I live was dangerous to swim in until they cleared it up about 5 years ago... And there still isn't a lot of fish in it. Acidic rain(is that the term in english?) is still a big problem....

And of course, nuclear plants... I don't want to think about what happens if one of them blow up...

[Del Arroyo]

I think that the only true fallacy in this discussion is the one which Xiahou has duped everyone into accepting-- that the measures the author proposes are somehow a "compromise", or a "middle ground", or that they found their origin in some desire for consensus. On the contrary, what the author is proposing is that we pace ourselves, while taking deliberate steps that will not only very likely have a positive impact on the global warming issue but will have other tangible positive effects as well. It's like the difference between firing from the hip and taking a good position, careful aim, and squeezing the trigger. Just hiding behind a wall because the shooter is pretty far away and probably won't hit anything anyway isn't a good option either.

[ShadeHonestus]

I much prefer to charge head first without regards for anything but rhetoric.

Me: "Where are we going?"
You: "I don't know but we're getting there fast"
Me: "Aye, good thing we are taking action"
You: "Yep, I think it was all laid out in that movie by Al Gore"

*machine gun opens up on us both as we suddenly come to a sad realization that we're following political rhetoric, with some selective scientific evidence*

My Ghost: "Why didn't we know the machine gun was there?"
Your Ghost: "Wasn't in the movie..."

[Lemur]

I think that the only true fallacy in this discussion is the one which Xiahou has duped everyone into accepting-- that the measures the author proposes are somehow a "compromise", or a "middle ground", or that they found their origin in some desire for consensus. On the contrary, what the author is proposing is that we pace ourselves, while taking deliberate steps that will not only very likely have a positive impact on the global warming issue but will have other tangible positive effects as well.

Unfortunately, for some people the concept of gradualism and prudence are anathema. You are either with us or against us, that sort of thing.

[Xiahou]

On the contrary, what the author is proposing is that we pace ourselves, while taking deliberate steps that will not only very likely have a positive impact on the global warming issue but will have other tangible positive effects as well.

What? Positive impact on the global warming issue? You probably missed the bit where the IPCC said nothing we could do would have any impact on global warming in the near/mid-term. That's one of the things I agree with them on.

It's like the difference between firing from the hip and taking a good position, careful aim, and squeezing the trigger. Just hiding behind a wall because the shooter is pretty far away and probably won't hit anything anyway isn't a good option either.

Did you get that simile from Ross Perot? Sure sounds like one of his...

[Del Arroyo]

Did you get that simile from Ross Perot? Sure sounds like one of his...

Alright smart guy, it's like the difference between running five miles and sprinting five miles. If you sprint you won't make it. What you want to do is just sit on the couch and eat cheetos because this one little run will have little to no immediate impact on your fitness.

[Fisherking]

Our current rush to do something about climate change is interesting. The heating is said to have started in 1978, before that it was cooling…(remember the new ice-age thingy)

Climate studies are normally a measure over a 30 year period. We have been warming now for 29 years.

It is only a guess on my part but I think we might be jumping the gun on this one.
Also we have done a good job of reducing sulphur dioxide which is a cooling agent. Also the way we measure temperature is flawed in that we track them in Cities which tend to be warm bubbles that generate a lot of heat.

We also know that we are at a peak in the Sun spot cycle and that it should end soon…just a guess of course but a scientific one.

The debate seems to be heating up as to whether CO2 has any part in overall warming and requires more investigation.

But Hay! It makes a wonderful political football, it is very polarizing and best of all the politicians can thing of lots of ways to use it to get more involved in peoples lives and implement a lot of new taxing schemes.

I think we can wait until we actually have more than 30 years of data and look for more accurate means of collecting and collating it.

But that is just me…

[English assassin]

Also the way we measure temperature is flawed in that we track them in Cities which tend to be warm bubbles that generate a lot of heat.

Gee wizz, I bet dem scientists are feeling pretty dumb for not having thunk of that...

A scientist yesterday

The heating is said to have started in 1978, before that it was cooling…(remember the new ice-age thingy)

This bit I never get. 400 years ago the height of medical science for a headache was to drill a hole in your skull. Do you refuse to take aspirin because doctors in the past had mistaken ideas about headaches?

It was reasonable to proceed with some caution, certainly. But when everyone is telling you one thing, and, most tellingly, when the oil companies are spending big bucks under the counter to tell you the opposite, well, the time for all this on the one hand on the other hand stuff is over.

I'm just sorry there is no chance that the PR merchants who took the oil company dollar to spread their lies aren't going to get theirs when it all goes tits up. Defend the free market: shoot a lobbyist.

[Ironside]

We also know that we are at a peak in the Sun spot cycle and that it should end soon…just a guess of course but a scientific one.

The latest thing I've red about the solar spot cycle and it's activity is that the peak was going to end a few years after 2000, and shock and horror, it has!!
The chapter on Solar variation theory is also quite interesting (I've been reading sources that basically says the same thing, but not as throughly). I know it's annoying to keep up in the subject as it keeps changing over the years.

Well I saw it on the history channel . But i couldnt find a link. There are many however on how 450 million years ago the CO2 level was 10 times higher and we were in a real iceage.

One of the issues today has to do with coming up with a another idea of why there's a global warming. The other ones has started to run out of ideas that correlates to the meassurments.

For example (pure speculation here), a massive meteor hitting earth and causing shockwaves that gives birth to several vulcanos could cause a cold period (due to dust a la "nuclear winter" while the vulcanoes caused a major rise in CO2 levels) and together with that earth climate seems to have been stabilsed a bit since that (no more global snowballs), can explain the whole phenomena.

Now to the actual point: we don't know something that can have caused the current global warming that isn't man made.