Global Warming Debate

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel, rohirrim TR and hectorberlioz

Nurv: So why is it that these guys make reference to a human creation (the domestication of cattle and mass aggregation thereof), when they are arguing that people did not contribute to global warming.

Rohirrim: Nurv- Its called irony, possibly a slight touch of sarcasm. Its also a fact, the cow thing, you'll find it in any number of science textbooks.

Hector: Nurv, it was in the frickin' news in 2006. And Earniel herself explained it to me quite a few pages ago...

Rohirrim and Hector, you didn't really answer Nurv's question. You both mentioned that cattle contribute to global warming and you both agree that it is a fact. Yet you both argue that humans do not contribute to climate change.

Do you see the incompatibility of these two views? Because surely you must both agree that the livestock sector is a human creation and thus, if livestock produce greenhouse gases it is the responsability of the human breeders.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

if your future requires I give up these, include me out.

I don't like the idea any more than you do, but when you start thinking of the future as thousands of years as opposed to hundreds, human population growth has to come into the equation. It simply dwarfs any conservation methods we can reasonably apply.

In a few hundred years or less, it will be the biggest issue facing the world, whether we choose to admit it now or not.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

If I had to name the biggest issue facing the world right now it would be hubris. people see themselves as above the rest of creation. All the rest just flows from that.

But if, 100s of years from now, mankind is restricted to this planet, well, the coackroach has more than earned her turn.

The Economist recently had an article about the number of times improvement in wheat had come in time to eliminate famine that was absolutely due, by population measurements. Humans are clever and most of them committed to surviving. We haven't played all our cards yet.

Just as part of my job as on-line shrink, brownjenkins, I'm going to say here that I don't think you're as lacking in optimism as you may believe. Educated western male pessimists just don't reproduce at that rate. I know quite a few of them. If you haven't read Silvia Louise Engdahl, you should.

Only 3 days until the equinox. Spring is coming.

[brownjenkins]

I'm optimistic that we'll eventually rise to the challenge of overpopulation. I'm just pointing out that it is a huge factor in the global warming debate that neither side likes to think about all that much. But eventually, we will.

[The Gaffer]

Well, I think both issues (interrelated as they are) boil down to one thing, one acid test of humanity's rationality: are we as a species capable of organising ourselves and shaping our own destiny, or are we just a bunch of bacteria, mindlessly multiplying until we run out of resource?

The pessimists would say "no": free markets will rule the outcomes, as the strongest/luckiest survive and the weakest die in their billions. Lots of them even think the free market SHOULD rule the outcome and we shouldn't try to intervene as we'll just make a hash of it.

The optimists would say "yes", necessity is the mother of invention after all, and sooner or later people WILL wake up to the realities. Whether this is soon enough to prevent millions of people from dying is another question.

Personally, I'm an optimist. Sadly, however, pessimism tends to be a self-fulfilling prophesy in such things.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

How about the Gaia Theory?

Which would translate more or less as "We may not smarten up, but it won't matter, something will get us."

And as for millions dying. As the poet said, (keep your quibbles to yourself, folks, there are LOTS of poets, and they're all eligible for "as the poet said," )

No one here gets out alive.

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Rohirrim and Hector, you didn't really answer Nurv's question. You both mentioned that cattle contribute to global warming and you both agree that it is a fact. Yet you both argue that humans do not contribute to climate change.

Do you see the incompatibility of these two views? Because surely you must both agree that the livestock sector is a human creation and thus, if livestock produce greenhouse gases it is the responsability of the human breeders.

Correction, my good friend, I never said cows contibute to global warming I said they put out more gas than we do, so presumedly according Nurv's theory, cows (hypothetically) could, would, should, be what they should focus on exterminating (or making them even more eco-friendly).

[Daisy Baggins]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I'm optimistic that we'll eventually rise to the challenge of overpopulation. I'm just pointing out that it is a huge factor in the global warming debate that neither side likes to think about all that much. But eventually, we will.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

From everything I've read, the world's population is should peak by mid century. For many countries, the problem is not over but under population. Most of Europe, Japan, Canada, and Russia plus many other countries are simply not replacing themselves. Russia is aborting more children than are being born each year and it's population is shrinking by at least half a million per year. Putin has said that having more children is a national priority.

http://www.voanews.com/english/archi...3-08-voa29.cfm


Germany's birth rates are so low that wolves are returning to some areas.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8359066/site/newsweek/

How this decrease in population especially in the industrialized world will influence history is unknown, but things will change.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

Correction, my good friend, I never said cows contibute to global warming I said they put out more gas than we do, so presumedly according Nurv's theory, cows (hypothetically) could, would, should, be what they should focus on exterminating (or making them even more eco-friendly).

I think I see what you're saying now.
Yes, we should focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the livestock sector but also in transportation since both are responsible for a significant part of the total amount of gas. We can't overlook other areas (like transportation) simply because one area (the livestock sector) contributes with a bit more gas than the others.

(This is Nurv's theory now? )

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Rohirrim and Hector, you didn't really answer Nurv's question. You both mentioned that cattle contribute to global warming and you both agree that it is a fact. Yet you both argue that humans do not contribute to climate change.

No I didn't say they did...my implied argument is that if cows really do emit that much, then the problem is not simply extra greenhous gases, but breathing in general. Life is the problem. We need to all die so that there won't be anymore global warming to worry about...

And if we don't watch it, the earth is going to become overpopulated. Nevermind that we won't have enough food to sustain ourselves, never mind that we'll become cannibals in the process...the earth is getting too heavy! With overpopulation, the earth is going to fall out of gravity!

Don't get me started on the dangers on bottled water. Never before in history have we ever had so much water OUT of the ocean at one time...
Without this extra water in the ocean to juice up the ground, the earth will shrink like a sponge, and then we'll be flooded over by the oceans!

Do you see the incompatibility of these two views? Because surely you must both agree that the livestock sector is a human creation and thus, if livestock produce greenhouse gases it is the responsability of the human breeders.

Earniel did explain to me the idea of the overbreeding of cows; however, I find it hard to believe that this is the first time in history that there have been this large a percentage of animals on the planet. Aren't humans always blamed for eliminating millions of different species?

Did Dinosaurs cause global warming in their day by breathing too much, and thus bring about their own destruction? It's worth considering....

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

for those of you not keeping up, has a huge, and on the whole negative, impact on the planet. When you cut down rain forests to grow hamburgers, you change the balance of that ecology in many ways. When you grow chickens in highrise cages and feed them corn, you have run-off problems from the manure disposal AS WELL AS the problems of monocropping corn. And, as everyone should know by now, a diet of factory farmed animals results in a net protein loss over a diet of vegetables supplemented by more humanely farmed animals.

So, in answer to your question, hector, while modern farming techniques have resulted in enabling human populations to expand beyond what was previously considered 'natural limits' in some areas, they have often done so at the expense of at least the local, and sometimes the global, balance in the ecology. I don't know if anyone has calculated "metric tonnage of stegasaurs VS metric tonnage of moocows", but even if such a number could reasonably be produced (and I don't think it could) it wouldn't cover all the impact.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

for those of you not keeping up, has a huge, and on the whole negative, impact on the planet. When you cut down rain forests to grow hamburgers, you change the balance of that ecology in many ways. When you grow chickens in highrise cages and feed them corn, you have run-off problems from the manure disposal AS WELL AS the problems of monocropping corn. And, as everyone should know by now, a diet of factory farmed animals results in a net protein loss over a diet of vegetables supplemented by more humanely farmed animals.

As far as I know Sis, Central and South America haven't exactly progressed too far beyond electing pre-mordial minded communist leaders, and therefore haven't had a big chance to slough down all the rainforests.

I do know that we in the U.S. have used prairie land to our advantage though...
As for chicken raising methods....I wish just like everyone else that they weren't treated so harshly...I've seen plenty of viedos etc on how disgusting thier conditions are, and thats why I don't eat chicken. Besides, I'm afraid of avian flue...
Hey, I'm not super pro-everything that businesses do is good, but neither do I think that a global warming scare is the way to stop them or change their ways.
Isn't this what this is all about? A chance for the Dems and the environmentalists to point fingers and say "I told you so"?

So, in answer to your question, hector, while modern farming techniques have resulted in enabling human populations to expand beyond what was previously considered 'natural limits' in some areas, they have often done so at the expense of at least the local, and sometimes the global, balance in the ecology.

That is if you think "balance" stays the same. New balances arise. Adaptation. Isn't that the grounds of "survival of the fittest"?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

is a short walk.

For most of the last 50 years the governments in South and Central America were handpicked by the US. That was the effective impact of the Monroe Doctrine. The Cuban Revolution was very surprised to be treated as the enemy...they thought they were duplicating the US in freeing themselves from Tyranny. However, shoe was on the other foot when we were begining to find ourselves as a Colonial power, and Cuba got its aid where it could.

There are certainly modern examples of Central and Southern American elections that ran left, and of course the Sandinistas, but there's still plenty of capitalistic exploitation for even the finest connoisseur.

[tolkienfan]

Some scientists eye odd climate fixes By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer
When climate scientist Andrew Weaver considers the idea of tinkering with Earth's air, water or sunlight to fight global warming, he remembers the lessons of a favorite children's book.

In the book, a cheese-loving king's castle is infested with mice. So the king brings in cats to get rid of the mice. Then the castle's overrun with cats, so he brings in dogs to get rid of them, then lions to get rid of the dogs, elephants to get rid of the lions, and finally, mice to get rid of the elephants.

That scenario in "The King, the Mice and the Cheese," by Nancy and Eric Gurney, should give scientists pause before taking extreme measures to mess with Mother Nature, says Weaver of the University of Victoria.

However, in recent months, several scientists are considering doing just that.

They are exploring global warming solutions that sound wholly far-fetched, including giant artificial "trees" that would filter carbon dioxide out of the air, a bizarre "solar shade" created by a trillion flying saucers that lower Earth's temperature, and a scheme that mimics a volcano by spewing light-reflecting sulfates high in the sky.

These are costly projects of last resort — in case Earth's citizens don't cut back fast enough on greenhouse gas emissions and the worst of the climate predictions appear not too far away. Unfortunately, the solutions could cause problems of their own — beyond their exorbitant costs — including making the arid Middle East even drier and polluting the air enough to increase respiratory illnesses.

Kevin Trenberth, climate analysis chief at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said mankind already has harmed Earth's climate inadvertently, so it's foolish to think that people can now fix it with a few drastic measures.

But at Trenberth's same Boulder, Colo., research center, climate scientist Tom Wigley is exploring that mock volcano idea.

"It's the lesser of two evils here (the other being doing nothing)," Wigley said. "Whatever we do, there are bad consequences, but you have to judge the relative badness of all the consequences."

Studying the concept of how volcanic pollutants could lessen global warming — the Earth was slightly cooler after the eruption of a Philippine volcano 16 years ago — was brought to the forefront of scientific debate last summer by Nobel Laureate Paul Crutzen.

"It was meant to startle the policymakers," said Crutzen, of Germany's Max Planck Institute for Chemistry. "If they don't take action much more strongly than they have in the past, then in the end, we have to do experiments like this."

In the past, scientists and others have avoided talking publicly about these ideas, known as "geoengineering," even though the concept was first raised in 1965. They worried that the hope of a quick technological fix to global warming would prevent politicians and the public from making the real energy sacrifices that they say are necessary to slow climate change.

David Keith, a University of Calgary engineering professor and one of the world's experts in geoengineering, says that just because tinkering with the air, water and sunlight are possible, they should not be substitutes for cutting emissions just because "we've been politically weak-kneed."

Instead, he said, such options should be researched as an "insurance policy" in case global warming is even worse than forecast. And that prospect has caused climate scientists to talk about the issue more openly in recent months.

There is also a chance that discussion of such radical ideas as a volcano or sun shade could shock the world into acting to reduce fossil fuel emissions, Keith said.

However, White House science adviser Jack Marburger, said spending money on geoengineering doesn't make sense. The federal government, which spends about $2 billion on climate change science, invests nearly all of its research on energy sources that produce fewer or no greenhouse gas emissions.

"I don't think it's scientifically feasible at this time to consider a plan like that (geoengineering)," Marburger told The Associated Press. "The real urgency is to reduce carbon dioxide."

In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change looked at geoengineering as part of its report on how to lessen global warming. It found some promise, worried about unexpected side effects, legal and ethical implications, and concluded that "unlike other strategies, geoengineering addresses the symptoms rather than the causes of climate change."

Even proponents of geoengineering research are wary.

"We are playing with fire here," Keith said. "Those of us suggesting we do something are suggesting it with real nervousness."

___

Associated Press Special Correspondent Charles J. Hanley in New York contributed to this report.

I was wondering what you all think of this...
btw Nurvingiel, at the end of the 5th paragraph of the quote it mentions reflecting light as a possible means of combating global warming. It's not saying it's a good idea , but I thought I'd point it out anyway.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

For most of the last 50 years the governments in South and Central America were handpicked by the US.

Various ones yes, not all. How 'bout Jimmy "I'm-so-innocent" Carta'? He picked a pretty nice guy.

That was the effective impact of the Monroe Doctrine. The Cuban Revolution was very surprised to be treated as the enemy...they thought they were duplicating the US in freeing themselves from Tyranny.

Boy, do I have something to say on this...but this ain't the thread

However, shoe was on the other foot when we were begining to find ourselves as a Colonial power, and Cuba got its aid where it could.

Or where it didn't have to if they [aka Castro] simply would simply give up on the communist tradition of treating their countrymen like scum. Including homosexuals.

There are certainly modern examples of Central and Southern American elections that ran left, and of course the Sandinistas, but there's still plenty of capitalistic exploitation for even the finest connoisseur.

Not nearly enough

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Well, I think both issues (interrelated as they are) boil down to one thing, one acid test of humanity's rationality: are we as a species capable of organising ourselves and shaping our own destiny, or are we just a bunch of bacteria, mindlessly multiplying until we run out of resource?

Why both of course. We will inevitably significantly alter/exhaust our environment and be effected by the resulting repercussions probably to the level of at least mass culling by the billions and at worst near species extinction. But we have a natural instinct to ooze ourselves into every nook and cranny of creation so despite the likely inevitable future tragedies here on our little planet, we will have long since then found our way beyond the cradle of earth and into space and onto other worlds to fester and exploit. Not ALL of us mind you (that’s the tragic part). But “Us�. That’s how we work. That’s our primary purpose. Breed, spread and consume. And we have our brains to help produce the technology we need to build that one-way ladder as we climb it. But indeed, both tragedy and expansion is mathematically inevitable.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Why both of course. We will inevitably significantly alter/exhaust our environment and be effected by the resulting repercussions probably to the level of at least mass culling by the billions and at worst near species extinction. But we have a natural instinct to ooze ourselves into every nook and cranny of creation so despite the likely inevitable future tragedies here on our little planet, we will have long since then found our way beyond the cradle of earth and into space and onto other worlds to fester and exploit. Not ALL of us mind you (that’s the tragic part). But “Us�. That’s how we work. That’s our primary purpose. Breed, spread and consume. And we have our brains to help produce the technology we need to build that one-way ladder as we climb it. But indeed, both tragedy and expansion is mathematically inevitable.

*heading straight for the happy thread*

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Why both of course. We will inevitably significantly alter/exhaust our environment and be effected by the resulting repercussions probably to the level of at least mass culling by the billions and at worst near species extinction. But we have a natural instinct to ooze ourselves into every nook and cranny of creation so despite the likely inevitable future tragedies here on our little planet, we will have long since then found our way beyond the cradle of earth and into space and onto other worlds to fester and exploit. Not ALL of us mind you (that’s the tragic part). But “Us�. That’s how we work. That’s our primary purpose. Breed, spread and consume. And we have our brains to help produce the technology we need to build that one-way ladder as we climb it. But indeed, both tragedy and expansion is mathematically inevitable.

So you agree that LIFE itself is the problem, not just cows.

I can't help but notice the suggestion that we, by merely living, are somehow evil for just existing. And animals and plants would be better off without us.

Nietszche disagrees with you by the way, he thought we were the greatest things because we "willed" ourselves into existence. Naturally it follows that we are God

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

I can't help but notice the suggestion that we, by merely living, are somehow evil for just existing. And animals and plants would be better off without us.

Evil is all a matter of point of view. But since we seem to have the unique ability among the earth's lifeforms to imagine things from the perspective of lifeforms other than our own (or at least some of us ), the other lifeforms would be better off if we used our abilities to their full extent, as opposed to picking and choosing which realties we want to accept and which ones we do not.

If there is any absolute evil (which there isn't), it's self-deception.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Evil is all a matter of point of view. But since we seem to have the unique ability among the earth's lifeforms to imagine things from the perspective of lifeforms other than our own (or at least some of us ), the other lifeforms would be better off if we used our abilities to their full extent, as opposed to picking and choosing which realties we want to accept and which ones we do not.

If there is any absolute evil (which there isn't), it's self-deception.

Putting aside free-f'rall philosophy, what I said was correct in defining the views of many people