The Great Arctic Thaw

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

For what its worth I think Global warming as a direct effect of human living is a crock of shit. Firstly our planet has a certain volume of water be it in liquid form or frozen. Now I remember when was in primary school we did an experiment in which we placed water and ice in a cup so that it was on the brink of overflowing (all it needed was one more drop). anyway we had some paper underneath the cup to catch any water that may have spilled and guess what … No water spilled over the edge of the glass.

No when I think back I also remember reading that the sun was always expanding and would eventually engulf the earth (I believe TC also touched on this in one of his columns) so could it be that the increase in the suns size, however small the increments, might be at least part of teh cause of the increasing temperature?

Carbon and that whole trend is starting to get beyond a joke here in Australia. There is a push to ban bottled water because of the carbon footprint being too big. If we are going to change the apparent Carbon Problem then a massive lifestyle change is needed but maybe we are too late (if you believe it anyway), I don’t think the world is ready for it…

Here is one question regarding Global Warming that no-one has answered for me… Why is it that Australia has a bigger hole in the ozone than china and America? Why is one of the biggest holes above Antarctica?

There are too many questions and no real solid proof in my opinion… Here is how it will pan out… The world will sort itself out kinda like the day after tomorrow minus Dennis Quaid.

Anyway I will write more on this and please if I am wrong then tell me. I am off to bed so I will get back to this in the morning.

I am sure the key to a good life is moderation not over indulgence anyway. I am comfortable with my theories so I don’t see that anyone will disprove them here but by all means try

22

[quote]lucasa wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:

The moon landing comparison is spot-on.

Not even close. The moon landing consumed a relatively small part of our economy, had very specific and direct goals, and was based on well-developed sciences.

Kyoto and ‘fixing global warming’ encompasses the world economy, has goals that are loosely associated with “success”, and is based on science that repeatedly invalidates or corrects itself.

More akin to us “defeating” communism.[/quote]

And the moon landing didn’t require everyone in the world to sign on and change behaviors.

23

[quote]Simon Forsyth wrote:
For what its worth I think Global warming as a direct effect of human living is a crock of shit. Firstly our planet has a certain volume of water be it in liquid form or frozen. Now I remember when was in primary school we did an experiment in which we placed water and ice in a cup so that it was on the brink of overflowing (all it needed was one more drop). anyway we had some paper underneath the cup to catch any water that may have spilled and guess what … No water spilled over the edge of the glass.

No when I think back I also remember reading that the sun was always expanding and would eventually engulf the earth (I believe TC also touched on this in one of his columns) so could it be that the increase in the suns size, however small the increments, might be at least part of teh cause of the increasing temperature?

Carbon and that whole trend is starting to get beyond a joke here in Australia. There is a push to ban bottled water because of the carbon footprint being too big. If we are going to change the apparent Carbon Problem then a massive lifestyle change is needed but maybe we are too late (if you believe it anyway), I don’t think the world is ready for it…

Here is one question regarding Global Warming that no-one has answered for me… Why is it that Australia has a bigger hole in the ozone than china and America? Why is one of the biggest holes above Antarctica?

There are too many questions and no real solid proof in my opinion… Here is how it will pan out… The world will sort itself out kinda like the day after tomorrow minus Dennis Quaid.

Anyway I will write more on this and please if I am wrong then tell me. I am off to bed so I will get back to this in the morning.

I am sure the key to a good life is moderation not over indulgence anyway. I am comfortable with my theories so I don’t see that anyone will disprove them here but by all means try[/quote]

How old are you, twelve? It’s a good thing when someone young wants to talk/grasp politics, but the issue is WAY over your head.

24

[quote]lucasa wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:

The moon landing comparison is spot-on.

Not even close. The moon landing consumed a relatively small part of our economy, had very specific and direct goals, and was based on well-developed sciences.

Kyoto and ‘fixing global warming’ encompasses the world economy, has goals that are loosely associated with “success”, and is based on science that repeatedly invalidates or corrects itself.

More akin to us “defeating” communism.[/quote]

There was no mention of fixing global warming. There was a very clearly defined goal of developing a cleaner, more efficient energy source (i.e. sustainable).

25

[quote]lucasa wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:

The moon landing comparison is spot-on.

Not even close. The moon landing consumed a relatively small part of our economy, had very specific and direct goals, and was based on well-developed sciences.

Kyoto and ‘fixing global warming’ encompasses the world economy, has goals that are loosely associated with “success”, and is based on science that repeatedly invalidates or corrects itself.

More akin to us “defeating” communism.[/quote]

I’m not a fan of Kyoto and I’m certainly not a global warming fanboy. Kyoto was more a diplomatic first approach. It shouldn’t be viewed as a solution.

I agree with you that a direct comparison is hard to find. Apollo was different like you say. But it is spot on in essence because a whole nation pursued and achieved a non militaristic scientific breakthrough, which ultimately served mankind.
It certainly is a pity that researching GW won’t produce any laser weapons.

Like I said before, it is largely uninteresting if it is our fault (which is VERY probable) that it is getting warmer, it will get warmer and water levels will rise.
It’s debatable if it’s gonna be 3° or 6° Celsius in seventy years, or it’s 3 or 7 meters of water and that is where most scientists don’t agree. But it’s clearly not the point of concern. A lot of scientists even today disagree that the moon landing was possible. So what?

26

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
I know exactly what the argument is.

That being said, I still believe that it’s ignorant and delusional to think that humans have NO effect on it.

It is ridiculous.

It is also ridiculous to think we can make drastic cuts to our carbon emissions without massive lifestyle changes.

And drastic cuts are required if we are responsible for warming.[/quote]

This argument is kinda weak. We WILL make drastic cuts, one way or the other.
The issue of responsibility is also neglectable. If the planet would be getting cooler, I somehow doubt that nations would refuse to prepare themselves for icier times, because “it wasn’t them”.

27

[quote]The Mage wrote:
Actually we will change our oil consumption when something cheaper comes about.
[/quote]
No, you will change your habits when oil is getting taxed the shit out of it. But to be honest, I don’t think that a massive reducing of consumption can be forced from above, especially in America. High Tech is the key here (that is why I like the Apollo Program comparison)

No, we already know enough. I agree insofar, that aimless activism won’t help us and that it’s a complicated matter.

Kyoto is somewhat half assed, and America is not particularly successful. You can do a lot through forging numbers and bringing forth statistical half-truths.

That is the major problem. To tell the chinese and indian people not to buy a second or third car won’t do the trick. Cleaner products have to be found. A lot of the seemingly better technologies are in reality just as bad. Human development should not be stopped (hard enough to do that!) but it has to be channeled differently. Do you honestly think that big companies will try to find a solution themselves? For example, japanese car corporations are the leaders in hybrid car tech, because the japanese are fond of sophisticated and cleaner energy solutions. American companies happily sell their SUVs.
Without some form of direction, I don’t see much happening there.

I know, it’s absurd. Nuclear power is cool with me.

Nope, it’s totally meaningless

right

28

[quote]
The Mage wrote:
Actually we will change our oil consumption when something cheaper comes about.

Schwarzfahrer wrote:
No, you will change your habits when oil is getting taxed the shit out of it. But to be honest, I don’t think that a massive reducing of consumption can be forced from above, especially in America. High Tech is the key here (that is why I like the Apollo Program comparison)[/quote]

But not necessarily the way you might hope: I knew sooner or later someone would write this paper - Marginal REVOLUTION

29

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
I know exactly what the argument is.

That being said, I still believe that it’s ignorant and delusional to think that humans have NO effect on it.

It is ridiculous.

It is also ridiculous to think we can make drastic cuts to our carbon emissions without massive lifestyle changes.

And drastic cuts are required if we are responsible for warming.

This argument is kinda weak. We WILL make drastic cuts, one way or the other.
The issue of responsibility is also neglectable. If the planet would be getting cooler, I somehow doubt that nations would refuse to prepare themselves for icier times, because “it wasn’t them”.
[/quote]

The only two ways we will make drastic cuts is if we have a totalitarian one world government committed to do so or if we wipe out much of humanity.

This is assuming we do not find a practically free energy source we can utilize in massive quantities.

30

Or,

Oil could become so scarce and expensive that people would be forced to use smaller cars and use them less.

We could probably reduced our ecological footprint by 30-50% in about a decade without having to give up much in terms of real comfort. I don’t think not having a suv and a motorcycle, driving a smaller car and not flying to the south to spend my holidays would make me an unhappy person.

31

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
I know exactly what the argument is.

That being said, I still believe that it’s ignorant and delusional to think that humans have NO effect on it.

It is ridiculous.

It is also ridiculous to think we can make drastic cuts to our carbon emissions without massive lifestyle changes.

And drastic cuts are required if we are responsible for warming.

�??What’s the use of a fine house if you haven’t got a tolerable planet to put it on?�?? - Thoreau

I hate to say it… but sacrifice might be in the cards. I know that’s a four letter word in America, but… what can you do.

The level of sacrifice is massive. I am not talking about smaller cars. I am tallking about no cars, no gas, no diesel, no coal etc.[/quote]

So you only see 2 options:
Either carbon emissions don’t have any effect AT ALL
OR, the slightest carbon emission has a devestating effect.

You don’t believe there’s a middle ground. You don’t believe we can reduce emissions to a level that can be sustained by nature.

That’s stupid, even by your standards.

And why do you pretend there is no middle ground?

Could it be that this is convenient? That it allows you to carry on? That it allows you to pretend that it can’t be helped?

Hmmmm ? ? ?

32

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
I know exactly what the argument is.

That being said, I still believe that it’s ignorant and delusional to think that humans have NO effect on it.

It is ridiculous.

It is also ridiculous to think we can make drastic cuts to our carbon emissions without massive lifestyle changes.

And drastic cuts are required if we are responsible for warming.

�??What’s the use of a fine house if you haven’t got a tolerable planet to put it on?�?? - Thoreau

I hate to say it… but sacrifice might be in the cards. I know that’s a four letter word in America, but… what can you do.

The level of sacrifice is massive. I am not talking about smaller cars. I am tallking about no cars, no gas, no diesel, no coal etc.

So you only see 2 options:
Either carbon emissions don’t have any effect AT ALL
OR, the slightest carbon emission has a devestating effect.

You don’t believe there’s a middle ground. You don’t believe we can reduce emissions to a level that can be sustained by nature.

That’s stupid, even by your standards.

And why do you pretend there is no middle ground?

Could it be that this is convenient? That it allows you to carry on? That it allows you to pretend that it can’t be helped?

Hmmmm ? ? ?[/quote]

There is absolutely no middle ground in this. If global warming is due to human CO2 emissions we have to stop burning fossil fuels for 50 to 100 years in order to get the planet back in line. It may actually be too late if the alarmists are correct.

If global warming is not due to human CO2 emissions (or only a small amount) and we are seeing a natural cycle then we should not go through all the carbon tax nonsense.

If we deem warming is natural but is still a problem we could do any number of crazy schemes to cool the planet.

We should use different methods to encourage energy conservation etc.

Everything the politicians are discussing is feel good nonsense.

Basically either our house is on fire or it is not. If it is we have to take drastic action. If it is not then we don’t.

33

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
I know exactly what the argument is.

That being said, I still believe that it’s ignorant and delusional to think that humans have NO effect on it.

It is ridiculous.

It is also ridiculous to think we can make drastic cuts to our carbon emissions without massive lifestyle changes.

And drastic cuts are required if we are responsible for warming.

�??What’s the use of a fine house if you haven’t got a tolerable planet to put it on?�?? - Thoreau

I hate to say it… but sacrifice might be in the cards. I know that’s a four letter word in America, but… what can you do.

The level of sacrifice is massive. I am not talking about smaller cars. I am tallking about no cars, no gas, no diesel, no coal etc.

So you only see 2 options:
Either carbon emissions don’t have any effect AT ALL
OR, the slightest carbon emission has a devestating effect.

You don’t believe there’s a middle ground. You don’t believe we can reduce emissions to a level that can be sustained by nature.

That’s stupid, even by your standards.

And why do you pretend there is no middle ground?

Could it be that this is convenient? That it allows you to carry on? That it allows you to pretend that it can’t be helped?

Hmmmm ? ? ?

There is absolutely no middle ground in this. If global warming is due to human CO2 emissions we have to stop burning fossil fuels for 50 to 100 years in order to get the planet back in line. It may actually be too late if the alarmists are correct.

If global warming is not due to human CO2 emissions (or only a small amount) and we are seeing a natural cycle then we should not go through all the carbon tax nonsense.

If we deem warming is natural but is still a problem we could do any number of crazy schemes to cool the planet.

We should use different methods to encourage energy conservation etc.

Everything the politicians are discussing is feel good nonsense.

Basically either our house is on fire or it is not. If it is we have to take drastic action. If it is not then we don’t.
[/quote]

Sigh.

So silly, and so painful. Even though folks like Zap are the fringe it’s still so discouraging…

34

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
I know exactly what the argument is.

That being said, I still believe that it’s ignorant and delusional to think that humans have NO effect on it.

It is ridiculous.

It is also ridiculous to think we can make drastic cuts to our carbon emissions without massive lifestyle changes.

And drastic cuts are required if we are responsible for warming.

�??What’s the use of a fine house if you haven’t got a tolerable planet to put it on?�?? - Thoreau

I hate to say it… but sacrifice might be in the cards. I know that’s a four letter word in America, but… what can you do.

The level of sacrifice is massive. I am not talking about smaller cars. I am tallking about no cars, no gas, no diesel, no coal etc.

So you only see 2 options:
Either carbon emissions don’t have any effect AT ALL
OR, the slightest carbon emission has a devestating effect.

You don’t believe there’s a middle ground. You don’t believe we can reduce emissions to a level that can be sustained by nature.

That’s stupid, even by your standards.

And why do you pretend there is no middle ground?

Could it be that this is convenient? That it allows you to carry on? That it allows you to pretend that it can’t be helped?

Hmmmm ? ? ?

There is absolutely no middle ground in this. If global warming is due to human CO2 emissions we have to stop burning fossil fuels for 50 to 100 years in order to get the planet back in line. It may actually be too late if the alarmists are correct.

If global warming is not due to human CO2 emissions (or only a small amount) and we are seeing a natural cycle then we should not go through all the carbon tax nonsense.

If we deem warming is natural but is still a problem we could do any number of crazy schemes to cool the planet.

We should use different methods to encourage energy conservation etc.

Everything the politicians are discussing is feel good nonsense.

Basically either our house is on fire or it is not. If it is we have to take drastic action. If it is not then we don’t.

Sigh.

So silly, and so painful. Even though folks like Zap are the fringe it’s still so discouraging…[/quote]

Enlighten me. Tell me how marginally reducing our CO2 output will make a bit of difference.

35

Further, someone tell me how the U.S. and Europe reducing, even at massive levels, will affect things if China, India, Brazil et al do not reduce and continue to increase at their current levels.

36

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Further, someone tell me how the U.S. and Europe reducing, even at massive levels, will affect things if China, India, Brazil et al do not reduce and continue to increase at their current levels.[/quote]

I’d like for someone to tell me how sitting on hands will reduce anything?

37

I just wanted to run something by ya’ll and see what u think about it. It is less a solution for global warming and more as a partial solution for having renewable energy resources.

Anyway I was thinking if the government or even private industries could construct some sort of basic generator bike/treadmill that basically had no sort of fancy accessory bells and whistles but was built soley to be most efficient at changing mechanical energy to electical energy.

And the system would work something like this. Whoever bought one of these bikes from the government or from a private industry whose bike is government certified would receive some sort of immediate incentive in the form of a tax break.

Furthermore depending on how much the bike was used (how much energy u generated) u could get an additional proportional tax refund

Beyond that it has the obvious benefit of having directly saving u energy

So i dont know much about this just kinda throwing the idea out there and wanted to know how ya’ll thought that would work and what the hurdles would be

  1. cost of productio
  2. cost to consumer
  3. is the energy generated by the bike negligible
  4. are ppl too lazy to use it even with monetary incentive
38

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
I know exactly what the argument is.

That being said, I still believe that it’s ignorant and delusional to think that humans have NO effect on it.

It is ridiculous.

It is also ridiculous to think we can make drastic cuts to our carbon emissions without massive lifestyle changes.

And drastic cuts are required if we are responsible for warming.

�??What’s the use of a fine house if you haven’t got a tolerable planet to put it on?�?? - Thoreau

I hate to say it… but sacrifice might be in the cards. I know that’s a four letter word in America, but… what can you do.

The level of sacrifice is massive. I am not talking about smaller cars. I am tallking about no cars, no gas, no diesel, no coal etc.

So you only see 2 options:
Either carbon emissions don’t have any effect AT ALL
OR, the slightest carbon emission has a devestating effect.

You don’t believe there’s a middle ground. You don’t believe we can reduce emissions to a level that can be sustained by nature.

That’s stupid, even by your standards.

And why do you pretend there is no middle ground?

Could it be that this is convenient? That it allows you to carry on? That it allows you to pretend that it can’t be helped?

Hmmmm ? ? ?

There is absolutely no middle ground in this. If global warming is due to human CO2 emissions we have to stop burning fossil fuels for 50 to 100 years in order to get the planet back in line. It may actually be too late if the alarmists are correct.

If global warming is not due to human CO2 emissions (or only a small amount) and we are seeing a natural cycle then we should not go through all the carbon tax nonsense.

If we deem warming is natural but is still a problem we could do any number of crazy schemes to cool the planet.

We should use different methods to encourage energy conservation etc.

Everything the politicians are discussing is feel good nonsense.

Basically either our house is on fire or it is not. If it is we have to take drastic action. If it is not then we don’t.

Sigh.

So silly, and so painful. Even though folks like Zap are the fringe it’s still so discouraging…[/quote]

I think the drapes are on fire. If you pour your beer over it, it will drown the fire.

Why do you just sit there, sipping your beer?

39

What is it that every generation has to have some sort of world ending disaster that never ends up being true. Anyone want to do some research about what these experts where saying 40 years ago? Or anyone want to explain the Middle ages and how they had higher temps then we do know, was it all the SUV’s they where driving back then causing it?

40

And someone tell me how using only one square of toliet paper is gonna give me a clean ass. If I have to choose between global warming and a clean ass then I guess I will see you basards in hell!