Jump to content
BC Boards
Sign in to follow this  
Hector

OT - Is this an example of "global warming"?

Recommended Posts

We were not destined (as our western religion has pounded into our heads) to dominate this Earth; we were destined to be just a part of it: its stewards, its caretakers ? as if Earth really needed a protector, except to protect itself from us.

 

We have proven ourselves to be unworthy of our position on this planet: to be too greedy, too violent, too short-sighted, and too ignorant to honor the supreme potential for intelligence that we, either through powers greater than we know or through dumb chance, have been given. And we are about to suffer the same fate as other species that either overgrew or overused their environment. Mother Nature will not exact revenge; that is a human trait. Mother Nature will seek balance ? and humanity is now on the heavy side of the equation.

 

What's frustrating is that with all of the intelligence we possess, with all of the technological ability that we have developed, we were too stupid to see and deal with the problem that now threatens to engulf us, preferring instead to squander our ability on techno-toys like I-Pods and on vacuous "entertainment" like the crap that today infects 90% of media production.

 

At this point, the answer may not matter ? to us anyway: the Earth will go spinning on, like it had for 5 billion years without us; the eco-system will eventually repair itself, after a few droughts, ice ages, and other environmental convulsions. It may take a few centuries, or a few millenia; but what's profoundly sad is that we ? humanity, the only way that we know of for the universe to contemplate and wonder at itself ? may not be here to see it by then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will only say this. The earth has been through lots of ice ages, global warmings, season changes, rain forests becoming deserts, deserts becoming rain forests, the sea level rising and the sea level falling. But because we are so full of ourselves, NOW we think we can control it and in order to control it we must control people. I remember when the logging industry was practically distroyed because the alarmist told us in such and such years there would be no forests. Then the report came out that there is actually more forested land than when the country was founded. You don't hear about that anymore. The spotted owl was in terrible danger cuz it would only nest in "old" growth forests. Then they "discovered" it would nest just fine in a new tree. Parts of Montana, Utah, and Wyoming had sea water covering it at one time. At one time, dinasaurs roamed the earth, they became extinct. Did you know the earth does not spin nor orbit on an exact path? That there is a wobble every now an then? And that it affects the weather. There is absolutely no PROOF that what is happening is not suppose to happen. There are therories galore. There are studies galore. And still no definite answers. Just what they "think" will happen. What they suppose will happen. Solar energy is free and can run anything. It isn't develope cuz no one has figured out who will own the sun and collect money from it. Same with wind power.

Some years back a volcano erupted and spewed more polutants into the air than all the industry, cars, etc. did in a year. But, we are recovered from it. I don't advocate dumping crap into water ways. Or anything of that nature. But I don't want the guvment telling me what to drive and how far and at what time.

 

I read somewhere that cows put out more ethane gasses than cars do. I'm doing my part. I'm eating them as fast as I can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very well said, Ironhorse. Thank you.

 

As some say, nature bats last. The earth will go on, humans will be but a blip, when you look at it through the lens of geologic time.

 

Not that I think we should just fiddle as Rome burns. Do what you can, as many have pointed out. Drive less, use compact florescents, support local food and your local farmers, install solar if your in the right type of climate (our meter spins backwards many days and our photovoltaic system will be paid for in less then 8 years at this rate), hug your grandkids if you have them, it's them that will be paying the bills for our shortsightedness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>

 

I don't really know what this means. Suppose you had something wrong with you, and doctors differed about the diagnosis and the treatment. What is actually wrong with you is a fact, and what will happen to you if you are treated in each of the possible ways are facts, but those facts are unknowable to you at the time you have to make your decisions. How do you proceed? If there is a consensus among the best trained and most experienced doctors about the diagnosis and treatment, wouldn't it make more sense to follow their advice than to follow the advice of a relatively few dissenters, whose qualifications were in most cases not as good?

 

>

 

I don't really understand what this means either. The issue is survival. The question of whether increased greenhouse gases are bringing about climate change that threatens survival is not a social or moral question. The social/moral aspect only comes into play after a conclusion is drawn on that question, because some people think it's anti-social and immoral to act in a way that threatens mankind's survival. I don't see the parallel at all to the "White Man's Burden," which was a sort of noblesse oblige assertion used to justify imperialism.

 

>

 

Well, I guess one can hope that the overwhelming majority of scientists engaged in this area are misrepresenting their findings and conclusions because they think that's the best way to get grant money. It seems unlikely, though. And given the weight of the evidence that has now become so pronounced on one side, and the interests which would like to discourage major changes in our consumption of fossil fuels, and the current administration's position in support of those interests, it seems likely that a scientist could enhance his chances of moving up the grant food chain by taking up the opposing side. But that's not the way it seems to be going.

 

>

 

Um, I think they're the leading scientists because they're the ones who have been doing work in this area. And it so happens that most of the scientists doing work in this area have come to the inconvenient conclusion. Sort of like if you formed a panel of distinguished biologists to look at the evidence regarding evolution you would end up with the vast majority of them subscribing to the theory of evolution -- not because you chose them for that reason, but because that's the conclusion that biologists who examine the evidence do come to.

 

 

Seems kind of arrogant to me. >>

 

Or it might be arrogant to say the hell with what the evidence shows or the scientists think, I want my SUV and my ATV and my dirt bike and my motor home and nobody telling me what I can and can't do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You think I am being arrogant?
Well, yes, rather. See quote below for example.

 

A significant portion of Bangladesh (population 147 million) -- (have you ever heard of this country?)
I have a very dear friend who is a peace minister serving the poor in Dhaka, at great risk to his life as a non-Muslim. I have another friend who is a doctor serving the poor in the neighboring country of Myanmar. We donate monthly to their work. What are you doing to help the disadvantaged in those countries RIGHT NOW?

 

With all due respect, it does not appear that you understand the problem.
I wonder whether you realize, Hector, how little you gain by taking such a condescending tone? I understand the problem very well. Thanks for the article but that is kindergarten stuff. I prefer primary sources.

 

Where is your empathy and compassion for your fellow humans around the world who made the mistake of being born into a low-lying country?
In fact, I spent a lot of time today while I was going about my farm, where we are working towards an entirely sustainable lifestyle - imagining what would happen if a significant warming were in the immediate future. While large areas that are habitable now would be lost, consider the areas that would suddenly become agricultural paradise.

 

The Inuit, for instance, would be in possession of prime real estate (I'm slated to go serve abused Inuit children in Alaska this summer, by the way, how about you?). Ditto some of the aboriginal peoples in other countries who right now live in arid, inland areas. Desertification which occured in the last 500 years would be reversed as glacial water is released into the hydrologic cycle - barring of course that which we HAVE caused (I won't deny it).

 

The shakeup that would occur seems to me, would significantly empower many people who right now suffer from being geographically or geologically disadvantaged. I think we should focus more on locating those areas and ensuring that those people get their rights. We do not want a repeat of the great migrations of the last warmup, when civilization was set back to the Dark Ages all over the planet.

 

Ironhorse, I do not possess either an I-pod, or any way to access cable/satellite TV. We see a movie about once a year. I watch two TV shows a week, if that. What is corrupting MY mind?

 

Western religion? Well, I'm a westerner - what kind of religion would you like me to embrace? Please tell me because I am pretty lost without a spiritual center to my life. God stood me in pretty good stead when I almost killed my kids in a car wreck, I lost my ability to walk for half a year, nearly lost my farm, and then lost a dear friend to cancer. I need to tell Him He's fired now because He doesn't inspire me to embrace the manmade global warming theory. Tell me what to replace Him with. Earth worship?

 

It's really starting to bother me when people say I have to be tolerant, open minded, and relativistic, but in the same breath want to enforce their values, religion, and socio-political viewpoints on ME.

 

/rant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<< Science shouldn't be a consensus, it's either a fact or not. >>

 

I don't really know what this means.

well the consensus view can be wrong. science should be based on facts. just because there is a consensus doesn't make it right. so far there is no proof that the current warming trend is man made and not caused by some other means. it may very well be man made but there should be more study and some proof instead of just trying to scare everyone. I remeber back in the 70's it was the next ice age that was going to do us all in now it's global warming. I am not saying that people should stop caring about what they are doing or not try and conserve energy, but please enough with "the sky is falling"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To Jim2000 and others that question if Global Climate Change is human-caused -- read this:

 

From the London Times (Feb. 18, 2005)

 

New proof that man has caused global warming

From Mark Henderson, Science Correspondent, in Washington

 

The strongest evidence yet that global warming has been triggered by human activity has emerged from a major study of rising temperatures in the world?s oceans.

 

The present trend of warmer sea temperatures, which have risen by an average of half a degree Celsius (0.9F) over the past 40 years, can be explained only if greenhouse gas emissions are responsible, new research has revealed.

 

The results are so compelling that they should end controversy about the causes of climate change, one of the scientists who led the study said yesterday.

 

"The debate about whether there is a global warming signal now is over, at least for rational people," said Tim Barnett, of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. "The models got it right. If a politician stands up and says the uncertainty is too great to believe these models, that is no longer tenable."

 

------------------------------------

 

To read the entire article go HERE.

 

-------------------------------------

 

Hector

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rebecca;

 

My post was a precise reflection of my OWN personally opinion on the topic of global warming caused by the human condition.

An execise of my rights according to the 1st amendment of the Constitution.

 

How my statement affects you personally is a matter for you to sort out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"...natural factors alone cannot, repeat cannot, simply explain observed changes that we've seen in the climate system in the second half of the 20th century."

 

A major newspaper (Seattle Post-Intelligencer) editorial dated January 21,2007 on the topic that we are discussing in this thread:

Moving climate debate into solution arena

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a bit long, sorry!

Wow, there has been a lot of good conversation since I stopped by last! Of course, I need to throw in another 2 cents - Hector has provided some interesting "facts". I would also like to point out the Kyoto Protocol - that was supposed to be such a success!

Taken from the Junkscience.com:

Since coming into effect February 16, 2005, the Kyoto Protocol has cost the world about $US 289,873,396,465,000 while the potential temperature saving by the year 2050 so far achieved by Kyoto is 0.003006096C

(to get activity on the clock we had to go to billionths part of one degree, which obviously cannot be measured as a global mean) and yes, that really does represent about $100K per billionth of one degree allegedly "saved." Guess that means for the bargain price of just $100 trillion we could theoretically lower global mean temperature by about 1 ?C.

Also, I noticed the previous link provided by voices4animals (sorry if I have the poster wrong), concerning the suggestion by a Weather Channel meteorologist about stripping the AMS certification from those who do not support the Global Warming caused by man theory. I found some interesting followup to that article, and frankly I found it to be chilling. The following excerpts are from an article posted on the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works web site (epw.senate.gov). There are numerous references at the end of the article which I encourage people to explore.

Posted by Marc Morano ( marc_moran@epw.senate.gov )

Friday January 18, 2007 9:40am

 

While Cullen claims her comments calling on the American Meteorological Society to strip away their "Seal of Approval" from broadcast meteorologists (TV weathermen) who disagree with her brand of global warming alarmism has somehow been ?spun,? we quoted directly from her blog [ See EPW post http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...0a-88824bb8e528 ] and linked to the full text of her remarks so readers could decide for themselves. [ http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11396.html ]

She calls ?freedom of scientific expression? essential, but her proposal for decertification amounts to nothing less than intimidation and suppression of science. ?Many of you have accused me and The Weather Channel of taking a political position on global warming. That is not our intention.?

 

Really? Calling for scientists to be stripped of their certification because they do not agree with your conclusions, is beyond political -- it?s censorship.

 

As for political --what about the Weather Channel?s participation in the Hollywood disaster 2004 film The Day After Tomorrow? Isn?t that a tad political?

 

What about Cullen?s featuring of a guest on her Weather Channel program who has publicly called for Nuremberg-Style trials for climate skeptics? See: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...37-8FF923FD73F8

If it is Cullen?s ?job? to give the Weather Channel viewers the ?facts on global warming? and she is certain she is so correct, why does she fear dissenting voices?

 

The answer is obvious.

 

In the three decades that the global warming alarmists have been hyping the coming ?climate emergency? they have roundly failed to convince policy makers and the public of their cause.

 

Skepticism that human C02 emissions are creating a ?climate catastrophe? has grown in recent times. In September 2006, renowned French geophysicists and Socialist Party member Claude Allegre, reversed himself from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a climate skeptic. Allegre now says the cause of climate change remains ?unknown.? [http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...82-87381DE894CD ]

 

In April 2006, 60 scientists wrote a letter to the Canadian Prime Minister asserting ?Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future? If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary,? the 60 scientists wrote.

[ http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financi...be-4db87559d605 ]

(end of excerpts)

 

As far as what we can do, I do belive in conservation of energy, and exploring alternate fuels and resources. Unfortunately in my area, there seems to be a NIMBY attitude - especially concerning wind farms. There is an ethanol plant going up in the county next to us, and that will be a boon for local farmers. We are doing what we can, but because it makes sense - not because we believe the doomsday prophets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...