Whistle blowing on Global Warming

[Shuffler]

Its just stuff that woories me for our children and grandchildrens lives - it is not that the actual thing happening now - glacier melting - but how that affects everything else. Whether it is a natural occurence that happens every couple million years or whatever is not the point. it is how do we deal with it now to ensure that people have a home in a hundred years. to just shake your head and say it is natural lets ignore it is not going to help your grandchildren. Ther are consequences to every action or inaction.

http://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749625/17239365

Your unborn already will pay a high price for all the money being spent today to fight mother nature.

[Chalenge]

Just ask yourself what 'them' taking 'your' money and giving it to 'others' is going to do to change 'climate.' 

[Penguin]

That last word in quotations seems strange.

I think that you are debating the effectiveness of wealth transferr, if I am correct.

I agree, but here is why 2-3 degrees (globally) can make or break our species:

1. Not everyone in this world is getting the food they need

2. Our crops and ecosystems involving them are approaching the peak of their optimum temperature range

3. Therefore, 2-3 degrees makes a huge difference, especially since this affects staple crops greatly


And if we are talking about degrees celcius, that's a whole other area.  Anyway, climate change is irrelavent once we run out of fossil fuels.  After that point, we will be living in a world where many of our once beautiful land has been obliderated.  To head off the problem now will give us a better world now and later.

We have already determined our accelerating temperature increase, as soon as we started using coal, we have been blasting the temperature up.  At this rate, 50 years from now we will have almost no ice left on the planet.  One may argue, why worry that far ahead? 

Because between 2060 and today, there will be problems facing our world that we cannot begin to comprehend.  We have 7,000,000,000 people on this planet today.  And that number will continue to increase exponentially until a saturation point is reached.

We as a species must be able to live within our planet's capability to sustain us if we are to remain here.  I am not saying that this is the end of the world, but if we keep on going at this rate, we will literally run out of gas.  No matter what your argument on climate change is, we need to develop new energy resources to power our planet.

Think about it...

-Penguin   

[Chalenge]

1. Not everyone in this world is getting the food they need...

How many of the people that are making the decisions concerning 'climate change' (which I dispute is a problem at all) have ever worked manual labor at all? How many of them have ever worked at farming food?

How many of them have offered farmers money to NOT grow food. How many of them make decisions every year to let food go to waste rather than flood the market with it?

Think about THAT!

[Penguin]

To refute your point:

a.) The people who are at the forefront of this issue are the agricultural scientists who stand the most to lose from temperature increases.  To put it in your words, their entire life revolves around making the most food possible for the longest time

b.) Working manual labor is completely irrelevant, what does it have to do with figuring out what we can do to limit our emissions

c.) If you offer them not to grow food, you must match the price of their crop, and if you do that, un-farming will become the biggest fiscal debacle ever to face this country.  In example, one could always say that one is not growing food on one's land, and therefore qualify for the money

d.) If you "flood the market" you have three new problems, you are:
    
    1. Underselling the farmers, putting them out of buisness
    2. Where will it be grown?
    3. (Most importantly) Where the heck is all that food going to come from, since you are already offering
        money not to grow it!

-Penguin

 

[saggs]

That last word in quotations seems strange.

I think that you are debating the effectiveness of wealth transferr, if I am correct.

I agree, but here is why 2-3 degrees (globally) can make or break our species:

Bullpucky, we are the most advanced species on the planet, we can and will adapt, if Polar Bears can do it why the heck can't we.

1. Not everyone in this world is getting the food they need

Exactly, so why don't we spend money teaching better agriculture to developing nations, instead of spending that money fighting against nature.

2. Our crops and ecosystems involving them are approaching the peak of their optimum temperature range

Yes, if the GW predictions are true some land will become more arid and less will grow there.  However as the temp goes up other land which was to cold before, would now produce better crops, and some places which were arid, would see more rain.  Far more people die in this world due to cold then heat, think about that.

3. Therefore, 2-3 degrees makes a huge difference, especially since this affects staple crops greatly

The crop belt will just shift farther north and south out of the temperate zones.  Sure the US would be growing less, but Canada would be growing more, and see a longer growing season.


And if we are talking about degrees celcius, that's a whole other area.  Anyway, climate change is irrelavent once we run out of fossil fuels.  After that point, we will be living in a world where many of our once beautiful land has been obliderated.  To head off the problem now will give us a better world now and later.

Your confusing the issue here, climate change, our energy resources, two separate issues.  So again why don't we spent the money and energy with R&D of more efficient energy sources, instead of penalizing job creating businesses with cap and trade, and carbon taxes.

We have already determined our accelerating temperature increase, as soon as we started using coal, we have been blasting the temperature up.  At this rate, 50 years from now we will have almost no ice left on the planet.  One may argue, why worry that far ahead?  

Bullpucky, I'm sure it was those Australopithecus guys burning their coal that warmed them out of the last ice age.  The data shows the earth goes through a 150,000 year warming/cooling cycle, guess what? it's that time again.  We are OBSERVING changes in the climate not CAUSING them.

Because between 2060 and today, there will be problems facing our world that we cannot begin to comprehend.  We have 7,000,000,000 people on this planet today.  And that number will continue to increase exponentially until a saturation point is reached.

So what's your answer?  Eugenics, population control, forced abortion.  Is that why the UN worries about GW instead of saving the millions who die from AIDS or malaria every year?  Some people said clear back in the 50s, that we would have a population crash before the year 1990, Ummm... yea... NOPE!   

We as a species must be able to live within our planet's capability to sustain us if we are to remain here.  I am not saying that this is the end of the world, but if we keep on going at this rate, we will literally run out of gas.  No matter what your argument on climate change is, we need to develop new energy resources to power our planet.

Think about it...

You make a decent argument for developing more efficient energy sources, but again, that has nothing to do with climate change.  I AM a conservationist, I work every summer as a backcountry guide in Wyomings Wind River range.  I am certified Leave No Trace instructor.  I'd dare say I've spent more nights deep in the wilderness than 99% of this forum.  I support designated wilderness areas, and National Parks.  I studied wildlife biology as an undergrad, I understand the environment and how delicate ecosystems are.  But "climate change" (notice, they don't call it global warming anymore, since it stopped warming in 1998) has nothing to do with conservation.  It is all about political, and financial power.

-Penguin  

[saggs]

Just ask yourself what 'them' taking 'your' money and giving it to 'others' is going to do to change 'climate.' 

Exactly, this whole Copenhagen treaty is not about saving the planet.  It's about a word I can't say here cause it might get Skuzzified.

hint: It rhymes with Smocialism.

[Motherland]

Bullpucky, we are the most advanced species on the planet, we can and will adapt, if Polar Bears can do it why the heck can't we.

Americans and Europeans maybe... Africans, South Americans, and rural Asians don't seem to be liking it too well though...

Ehh nvm let's not touch that one...

[CAP1]

top gear is coming on at 11pm eastern. it's a re-run from earlier tonight.

watch it. they;re at the north pole. it looks perfectly fine to me.

i think one of em said something about being told they'd never get their trucks there because of things melting, global warming, etc etc.

well....they're kinda like idiots.....like the middle aged british 3 stooges of the car world.....but just by going there i think they've done more than some of these "scientists".

[saggs]

top gear is coming on at 11pm eastern. it's a re-run from earlier tonight.

watch it. they;re at the north pole. it looks perfectly fine to me.

i think one of em said something about being told they'd never get their trucks there because of things melting, global warming, etc etc.

well....they're kinda like idiots.....like the middle aged british 3 stooges of the car world.....but just by going there i think they've done more than some of these "scientists".

One of my favorite episodes, the Yota they got for that is pretty neat!  I remember people were upset with Jeremy for drinking and driving in that episode.  His response "I wasn't driving, I was sailing on the frozen ocean"

[CAP1]

One of my favorite episodes, the Yota they got for that is pretty neat!  I remember people were upset with Jeremy for drinking and driving in that episode.  His response "I wasn't driving, I was sailing on the frozen ocean"

ya....i don't generally care for toyota pickups...but i'd love to see that one sitting in my driveway. 

[SirFrancis]

Here an interesting article in The American Thinker.

Two eminent Professors reveal just one of the many seamy stories that emerge from the Climategate emails. A prejudiced journal editor conspires with senior IPCC scientists to delay and discredit a paper by four distinguished scientists demonstrating that a central part of the IPCC’s scientific argument is erroneous.

-> http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/a_climatology_conspiracy.html

Regards
SF

[Angus]

top gear is coming on at 11pm eastern. it's a re-run from earlier tonight.

watch it. they;re at the north pole. it looks perfectly fine to me.

i think one of em said something about being told they'd never get their trucks there because of things melting, global warming, etc etc.

well....they're kinda like idiots.....like the middle aged british 3 stooges of the car world.....but just by going there i think they've done more than some of these "scientists".

Is the episode on youtube? (drool).
Anyway, you can expect the N-Pole to be completely frozen in December Still....

[Chalenge]

b.) Working manual labor is completely irrelevant, what does it have to do with figuring out what we can do to limit our emissions

I would submit that the people that are making these decisions are poorly suited for any manual labor and in fact their positions more closely resemble that of thieves.

Since the 1930s agricultural price support programs have led to vast amounts of food being deliberately destroyed even when malnutrition was a serious problem in America and even when hunger marches were occuring in cities across the country. This still goes on today. This goes on in countries around the world.

These 'scientists' that you suggest are helping to determine the fair market value by destroying crops that could be used to feed the hungry? They need to keep their noses out of the situation and allow the market to determine the value. Anyone that understand just the smallest amount of economics understand that this approach to 'fix prices' has always led to solutions that only cause more problems whether it be housing automobiles or food. If you doubt this go to New York City and hunt up 'affordable housing' and see what you get.

Free markets need to remain free and unregulated in order to function correctly. Regulation and price fixing only adds waste and leads to higher costs (eventually making the situation untenable).

[CAP1]

That last word in quotations seems strange.

I think that you are debating the effectiveness of wealth transferr, if I am correct.

I agree, but here is why 2-3 degrees (globally) can make or break our species:

1. Not everyone in this world is getting the food they need

2. Our crops and ecosystems involving them are approaching the peak of their optimum temperature range

3. Therefore, 2-3 degrees makes a huge difference, especially since this affects staple crops greatly


And if we are talking about degrees celcius, that's a whole other area.  Anyway, climate change is irrelavent once we run out of fossil fuels.  After that point, we will be living in a world where many of our once beautiful land has been obliderated.  To head off the problem now will give us a better world now and later.

We have already determined our accelerating temperature increase, as soon as we started using coal, we have been blasting the temperature up.  At this rate, 50 years from now we will have almost no ice left on the planet.  One may argue, why worry that far ahead? 

Because between 2060 and today, there will be problems facing our world that we cannot begin to comprehend.  We have 7,000,000,000 people on this planet today.  And that number will continue to increase exponentially until a saturation point is reached.

We as a species must be able to live within our planet's capability to sustain us if we are to remain here.  I am not saying that this is the end of the world, but if we keep on going at this rate, we will literally run out of gas.  No matter what your argument on climate change is, we need to develop new energy resources to power our planet.

Think about it...

-Penguin   

they aren't fossil fuels, and we aren't gonna run out.