Global Warming
The global warming farce just keeps getting exposed. Not only in Green Bay, but in Dickinson, N.D. as well.
Just an observation.
posted by Ol' BC @ 9:58 PM
32 comments
Ol' BC
- Random thoughts and observations
Sunday, June 07, 2009
Just an observation.
32 Comments:
Global warming is not about two random isolate incidents, BC. I would almost accuse you of playing the fool here. Two temperatures don't make an argument.
There were hundreds of stories like this, from all around the world, all last winter and through the spring. And, right up to now, apparently.
One of the stories was about the Nat'l Weather people carelessly setting temperature monitoring sensors near asphalt parking lots and at HVAC exhausts--or not moving them when construction changed the character of the area. Deliberate? Maybe not. Careless? Obviously. Government as usual.
There are hundreds and thousands of stories to support global warming to. What is your point?
My point is this: There is plenty of evidence to support both. Stop dismissing one side completely. Entertain the notion that it might be one or the other. If you can do this, you have come a long way!
I will admit that I lean toward believing manmade pollution is harming our ecosystems and causing global warming, but I am not afraid to say that I could be wrong. The truth is I don't know. The truth is: neither do you. So stop posturing as if you are an authority. You are not. Admit that you are ignorant and move on.
There are a couple of things about "global warming that I have observed. First, a vast majority of studies supporting it position of warming are government funded or from organizations with government grants. Secondly, it's not a serious enough threat for Europe or Asia to give a shit as their practices go. Combined with the fact that the planet has healed itself marvelously since the beginning of time, I tend to thing the alarmist talk of warming is way overblown and those spouting it probably have other motives. Now, do I thing paying attention to emissions and waste is a good idea? I'm with you there. Just not from a governmently regulated standpoint. Hell, I even recycle. I just think it's a good idea.
Well, the actual truth of the matter is that it doesn't matter what we do. We'll either survive it or we won't. In the grande scheme of things our existence is completely meaningless.
Governments might have secondary motivations. It could be another form of fear mongering to stimulate certain beahviors. The truth about this, however, is that I don't really know. And, neither do you. So, it is really rather silly to pick a side and stick to it in the face of evidence that exists on both sides of the issue.
Also, BC, I like that you recycle. I would point out, however, that education about recycling, and the recycling that many of us do is supported and funded by governmental agencies. So, I fail to see how government intervention in these issues is always bad.
Sole reliance on the private sector is not wise either. Without regulation, greed and pollution would likely skyrocket.
Like always, I call for a healthy dash of both. Answers to our problems are never one sided.
There are hundreds and thousands of stories to support global warming to. What is your point?
There are not, at least not that are supported with actual data gathered with actual instruments.
Seems the warmest place on earth is right in front of Al Gore when he opens his monkey-trap.
RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com
Recycle all you want. You're wasting your money unless you're recycling aluminum cans.
For everything else, the costs far outweigh the benefits, including the damage to "the environment" caused by the recycling process.
RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com
Well, you can't say I tried, but here we are:
"There are not [data on climage change], at least not that are supported with actual data gathered with actual instruments."
Another completely baseless claim made by RWR. I guess if you are so convinced of your own righteousness, you have no need of facts.
The fact is that we can measure the effects of global climate change with very simple instruments, including a ruler! A ruler? Yes, a ruler, as one of the main indicators is rising sea levels.
Sea levels across the world are rising. This is a FACT. Were the conditions that caused this man-made? Maybe, maybe not.
As for your recycling argument. Here are some facts from the following reputable sources:
(1) Office of the Federal Environmental Executive, (2) Environmental Defense, (3) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
(4) Natural Resources Defense Council, (5) Aluminum Association, (6) Biocycle Magazine, (7) Steel Recycling Institute, (8) American
Plastics Council, (9) American Forest & Paper Association, (10) Resource Recycling Magazine
· Well-run recycling programs cost less than landfills and incinerators.
· The more people recycle, the cheaper it gets.
· Recycling helps families save money, especially in communities with
pay-as-you-throw programs.
· Recycling generates revenue to help pay for itself, while incineration
and landfilling do not.
· Recycling creates more than one million U.S. jobs in recycled product
manufacturing alone.1
· Hundreds of companies, including Hewlett Packard, Bank of America,
and the U.S. Postal Service, have saved millions of dollars through their
recycling programs.
· Through recycling, the U.S. is saving enough energy to provide
electricity for 9 million homes per year.2
· Recycling results in a net reduction in ten major categories of air
pollutants and eight major categories of water pollutants.3
· Manufacturing with recycled materials, with very few exceptions, saves
energy and water and produces less air and water pollution than
manufacturing with virgin materials.
· Recycling trucks often generate less pollution than garbage trucks
because they do not idle as long at the curb. If you add recycling trucks,
you should be able to subtract garbage trucks.4
· By 2005, recycling will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 48 million
tons, the equivalent of the amount emitted by 36 million cars.1
· 94% of the natural resources America uses are non-renewable (up from
59% in 1900 and 88% in 1945). Recycling saves these non-renewable
resources.1
· With recycling, 20% more wood will need to be harvested by 2010 to
keep up with demand. Without recycling, 80% more wood would need to
be harvested.4
· 95% of our nation’s virgin forests have been cut down and less than
20% of paper manufactured in the U.S. comes from tree farms.4
· It takes 95% less energy to recycle aluminum than it does to make it
from raw materials.5 Making recycled steel saves 60%, recycled
newspaper 40%, recycled plastics 70%, and recycled glass 40%.
Landfilling never saves energy.4
· Recycling saves 3.6 times the amount of energy generated by
incineration and 11 times the amount generated by methane recovery at
a landfill.2
· Using scrap steel instead of virgin ore to make new steel takes 40%
less water and creates 97% less mining waste.3
· Tree farms and reclaimed mines are not ecologically equivalent to
natural forests and ecosystems. Recycling prevents habitat destruction,
loss of biodiversity, and soil erosion associated with logging and mining.
Of course, reading this will require some effort. It will also demand a certain level of open-mindedness. Do you have what is required?
...and like I've said time and time again, I don't have a problem with government educating or encouraging. My problem is with legislating behavior and exercising power in areas of oversight not granted to the federal government. If a state or locality wanted to do it I may not agree, but they would be within their right to do so (Tenth amendment)
Well, you are changing the argument now. I can only assume you are doing so because you cannot argue about the validity of global warming in and intelligent and informed manner.
Remember: The argument is about the validity of global warming and its causes, not who gets to solve the problem. You are derailing the topic into an area that has nothing to do with that actual issue.
It always helps to stay on topic when you are trying to rebutt.
I would also argue that your thinking about states rights is in some ways out-dated. With the advent of modern communication, travel, and international commerce, nations are the new states, in the sense that we can travel between place much quicker and our populations are much closer to one another now. And since the issue of global warming implies a world problem, leaving the problem to states is akin to leaving the problem of disease control to the states. It is not just a local concern. It is a global one. Yes, states have rights and should have rights apart from the Fed. However, in matters of international and global concern, we must acknowledge that a national and global entity must step up to the plate.
I don't think states rights is outdated. It is the foundation of the union. This country was founded as a union of states. It wasn't until Abraham Lincoln drastically expanded the reach of the federal government that the union became a "nation". Then along the way,(i.e. Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, LBJ, etc) the federal government got bigger and more intrusive. I think closer to the origin is preferable. My problem with the global warming farce is that it is being used to enable more government intrusion. The fact that some think normal cycles are catastrophic really isn't of much significance.
Well, once again you call it a farce. I am not arguing whether or not the issue is being used to manipuate people. I am trying to stick to the original topic: whether global warming is manmade or not.
You continue to drift into other realms and, in the course of so doing, have offered nothing within this entire thread to substantiate your claim that it is a farce.
As for states rights. I already acknowledged that importance of states rights. I am simply saying that with global problems come global solutions. And the entities that need to lead that are national governments.
OK, let's try this one more time. If global warming doesn't exist (thus "farce"), how can it be man made? I'm not seeing the lack of consistency. The imaginary "problem" is being used as justification for government to expand its reach and dictate behavior and I feel we would be better off without the government intrusion. Just my opinion.
Global warming, or climate change if you like that term better, does exist. Melting glaciers, rising sea levels, and droughts are documented facts. If you want sources I will give them to you. Claiming that it "does not exist" is the height of willful ignorance.
I would love to see you actually dispute rising sea levels, melting ice and glaciers and the existence of droughts worldwide. Let's see you disprove these first. Then, we can go onto their causes. Something tells me that if glaciers and ice on the poles is melting, something must be causing it... let's see--- could it be that it is getting warmer? Hmm. If it is getting warmer, then one must conclude that, well, the climate is changing. It is getting WARMER! For god's sake, it doesn't take a rocket scientist.
Your stubborn refusal to even acknowledge the most observable effects of climate change is astounding! How can anyone argue with a guy whose head is so entrenched in the sand?
Answer this, BC--- Why are the glaciers melting? If you can answer this without using the word "warming" or "heat" or "rise in temperature" I'll entertain continuing this farce with you.
When we argue, it is always best that both sides be informed. Only then can we have informed discussion. Here is a very simple and decent site on global warming:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/global-warming.htm
It explains enough to give the lay person a little fodder for his cannon. I recommend it highly.
Excellent link, Mark. It certainly gives common ground to begin an intelligible discussion.
I liked this little segment:
Dr. Peter Tsigaris, an economist at Thompson Rivers University, says that taking steps to curb global warming makes sense from both an environmental and an economic standpoint. He estimates that addressing global warming by changing our dependency on fossil fuels and other behavior would cost an estimated one percent of global Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per year, while taking no action could cost 5 percent of global GDP each year. Extreme climate change could result in a cost of 20 percent GDP or greater.
Exactly. Here is a little tidbit to consider:
Mercury is closer to the sun than Venus. However, Venus is hotter. Guess what Venus's atmosphere primarily consists of! CO2.
I don't expect replies now. In every argument to date, when links, information, and substance is presented to these guys as evidence to back up arguments, they fail to reply! :)
http://blog.heritage.org/2008/12/11/scientists-make-their-anti-global-warming-case/
This is one site that references the growing number of scientists who realize that it doesn't exist. BTW, they don't talk about Mercury, or Pluto.
That is also an interesting article. I still think cutting down on pollution is a good idea - global warming or not. I like where I live to be clean.
Really, you article, BC, only says some scientists are skeptical. Your article provides no data beyond some predicted economic impacts.
Data and fact: The average global temperature has risen nearly one degree C in the last 100 years. Historically speaking this is a large jump. The jump is evidenced by melting polar ice, melting glaciers, and rising sea levels.
I see nothing in your link that provides anything but skepticism. This is not an argument. Your link only shows that there are people who believe as you do. I already knew that.
You will have to do better.
Here's another. There are a ton media reports both ways.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
He is Canadian, but he does have credentials.
Well, I still see little data and nothing but opinion. Let me get back to my original question:
Why is the polar ice cap melting? Why are sea levels rising?
I still have not heard you weigh in on this. These conditions are facts. The man who wrote the article does not dispute these. He only says that it is not man made. I wish you would stop harping on this point. I have repeatedly admitted that it could or could not be man made. All I want you to do is admit that conditions exist that indicate warming of the climate, which is factual. You have yet to do this.
Please respond to this one simple question.
Some are seeing the ice caps freezing in the last couple of years. There are normal cycles and have been since the beginning of time. Personally, I think the guy in Australia that studied the climate and concluded that it is related directly to sun spot activity hit the nail on the head. Obviously, the algorians would rather govern our behavior.
Ice caps thaw and freeze. The rate at which they are thawing, however, has accelerated greatly, and when they refreeze, they are much thinner than normal.
Since 1979, the size of the summer polar ice cap has shrunk more than 20% according to NASA.
Are you dismissing this scientific fact? So far you haven't even admitted that the caps are melting, despite NASA pictures and scientific measuring that says it is.
We aren't talking about theories of global warming, really. I just want you to admit to an observable fact. Can you do that?
Secondly, definitionally speaking, all scientific theory takes into account the possibility of error. However, so far you have not even admitted to the possibility that global warming could be manmade.
How can you be so certain? In truth, you are more certain than even the most dedicated scientists on the planet, who will tell you that even their own theories allow for a margin of error. Therefore you must conclude that there is at least a possibility that global warming is manmade. If you cannot do this, it is evidence of a mind that is so entrenched in ideology that it is essentially caged by it. If you cannot admit to the possibility, I must conclude that you are ignorant and rather proud of it.
I will also have to stop discussing anything with you, as you are incapable of seeing beyond your ideological mindset.
Can you admit to the possibility?
I will also have to stop discussing anything with you, as you are incapable of seeing beyond your ideological mindset.
And we are supposed to submit to your ideological mindset over one stinking degree?
How can you make the case that "historically" that is an astronomical number when the history only goes back that far?
Why am I even bothering here? It always seems that I'm talking to a little kid with you, Mark.
RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com
Sea levels across the world are rising. This is a FACT. Were the conditions that caused this man-made? Maybe, maybe not.
Not a fact at all. In fact, only two things could cause sea levels to rise - 1. The Antarctic Ice Cap would have to be nearly decimated (in fact, it's getting bigger), or (2) we would have to bombarded with comets the size of Alaska for about 6 months straight non-stop.
Since the Arctic Ice Cap is already floating in the sea, it could melt completely without any change in sea levels at all.
There is nothing at all to suggest there is a "global" trend of warming all over the world. There aren't even global conditions that could cause such a thing. Only the sun could do that. Do you seriously believe we can stop the sun from shining or make it brighter? That's a pretty big dimmer switch you've invented there Skippy.
Even your alarmism won't do it.
As for humans, we couldn't cause the planet to warm if we all started our SUVs and gunned the engines simultaneoulsy until the gas ran out. One volcanic eruption pollutes the atmosphere in one shot than humans have in the entire existence of the species, and yet we're still here and healthy.
Any warming would be to our benefit anyway. Have you experienced a Northeast US winter?
RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com
First of all, I am not asking you to submit to my way of thinking. I am only asking you to consider that the caps are melting, as evidenced by data collected by climate scientists and NASA photographs. All I am asking you to do is admit that global warming is possibly created by man. It's really not that great leap. You are only admitting to a possibility. The complete unwillingness to even admit this shred of truth is beyond me. I truly can't grasp the mindset of a person who can't even consider an alternative point of view.
You are mistaken about sea levels. Sea levels are rising. You left out one of the fundamental reasons for why this is happening, once again evidencing your ignorance of the actual matter: sea levels rise because surface temperatures are increasing, causing water to expand.
And, I have been called a child.
Bravo!
So far the only thing you have proven to me is that you are completely unable and unwilling to admit the possibility that an alternate theory might have even a shred of truth to it. You have only offered labels with no meaning, opinion with no factual support, and you have once again resorted to name calling.
I don't see how this is likely to change. I tried.
So far the only thing you have proven to me is that you are completely unable and unwilling to admit the possibility that an alternate theory might have even a shred of truth to it.
There's no reason to believe your idea might have a shred of truth to it, as there isn't even a shred of evidence to support it, let alone proof.
RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com
Post a Comment
<< Home