Global Warming Debate

[Nurvingiel]

El Tel aka The Telcontorian I read all your links and your whole post. (Also "Some Nurv = awesome.)

Originally Posted by The Telcontorian

This is why I said it was merely interesting; I wanted to give background info which was mild on the points I brought up (for a broader view of the issue) the other link was the kicker. I find it extremely strange that the ooch link won't open, I can't even find it again. No matter, I have many others, hre they are:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/article...armingfacts.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.com/article...0107Warming.htm

very cool additional links within the article itself.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/article...6suvjupiter.htm

The third one was a bit reactionary, but the first two were pretty good. The very first link, especialy, got me thinking. (Also, for the third link, it's SUVs on Jupiter, not SUV's.)

I wonder how we can study the Sun and its effect on the Earth more? What if it really is the Sun? At least we can do something about our own emissions.

However, I found the Gaffer's counter-arguments to be more convincing than the articles.

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

El Tel ...
...However, I found the Gaffer's counter-arguments to be more convincing than the articles.

Follow the Fiddler , heh?

For he fiddles us merrily through the fanning flames!

[Nurvingiel]

Erm, yes?

[rohirrim TR]

Hey this is my 1800'th post.

So what is this thread about I seem to have lost track..the gaffer and the violin while around a campfire er something.?

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

EDIT: Going back to global warming. The fight against CO2 emissions seem to have given a new impulse to the push for nuclear energy, as the CO2 emissions there are far less significant, but then you'd still have the 200 000 year active radioactive waste. What do you all think of this dilemma, fight global warming, or fight nuclear waste?

It varies from country to country, but if we genuinely want to reduce our CO2 emissions, I see no choice but to go nuclear, if only to plug the gap until renewables are more efficient.

Also I don't fancy being dependent on Russia for energy (gas). They've proved that they are only too happy to use gas supplies to blackmail countries.

We've kinda got the waste problem anyway, whether or not we build a new generation of reactors.

[hectorberlioz]

Not all of us are quite so hung up on credentialization. But, if you are, you might want to read the December issue of the Journal Of Atmospheric And Solar-Terrestrial Physics in which Cornelis de Jager of the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research and Ilya Usoskin of the Sodankyla Geophysical Observatory in Finland test the validity of two current hypotheses on the dependence of climate change on solar energy -- the first being that variations in the tropospheric temperature are caused directly by changes of the solar radiance (total or spectral), the other that cosmic ray fluctuations, caused by the solar/heliospheric modulation, affect the climate via cloud formation. The Finn and the Dutch guy from the A-list institutions with the fancypants monikers writing in the peer-reviewed journal conclude that the former is more likely -- that tropospheric temperatures are more likely affected by variations in the UV radiation flux rather than by those in the CR flux.

Are you thinking maybe it's time to turn over the page to the Anna Nicole Smith "A life in pictures" double spread? Well, that's my point. Most of us aren't reading the science, or even a precis of the science. We're just reading a constant din from the press that "the science is settled," and therefore we no longer need to think about it: The thinking has been done for us. Last week's U.N. IPCC "report," for example, is not the report, but a political summary thereof. As David Warren wrote in the Ottawa Citizen...

The rest of which can be found HERE

[The Gaffer]

This guy seems to suggest that each of us should read all of the climate science articles for ourselves and make up our own mind. Is that right?

[hectorberlioz]

Why, you wouldn't like to be misinformed like those whacko religious doubters of global warming would you?

Did you read all of it?

His article, if you read all of it, is actually saying that if Global Warming is real, it's no use trying to mess up the economy over it...

What you would call "An Agent of the Evil Oil Industries", I suppose. Or "The Agent of Satan".

But read the whole thing, the quote I put up was just the eye-grabber

[The Gaffer]

I did read the whole thing. He's saying IF it's real, there's no point in doing anything about it. It would cost too much. Right? Is that something you go along with?

[hectorberlioz]

If it's real, and I think it is, the question is CAN we fix it? We should try, if we really think it's that drastic. Though since I believe we didn't make global warming happen in the first place, I'm not sure anything we do could stop it.

And I don't believe it's the end of the world yet, either...not until we find out that Al Gore is from another planet

[Insidious Rex]

In the end, ironically enough, we will find that man made global warming will be part of the evolution of life on earth. And of course it will directly affect man's status as a thriving species on earth to some radical degree. But then if all humans were to die next week because of a wild killer super virus would the earth not be better off in the long run? I think we are way too selfish and short sighted as a species to avoid real self imposed hardship. And this may be it. So bring it on. We deserve it. Near extinction may do us all some good. And certainly would be helpful for old mother earth…

-much love form the Global Pessimists Club

[hectorberlioz]

I would say that the craziest part of the Man-made Global Warming theory is the "solution" for it..."get rid of everything, and everything will suddenly be fine."

At least Gaffer admits that we could switch to nuclear power...for some people, thats almost as bad.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

I would say that the craziest part of the Man-made Global Warming theory is the "solution" for it..."get rid of everything, and everything will suddenly be fine."

I see the winking smilie, but honestly, what is this joke based on, exactly? Nobody makes this argument, or anything close. Jokes are great, but they are a lot funnier if they are accompanied by a comment that indicates some small understanding of the situation. Have you read any of my posts?

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

At least Gaffer admits that we could switch to nuclear power...for some people, thats almost as bad.

I think we should study nuclear reactor technology, with a focus on safety and efficieny, in order to make the possibility of more wide-spread use of nuclear energy more realistic.

To reduce global CO2 emissions, one important step is diversifing our energy sources into wind farms, hydroelectric power, biofuels, and nuclear energy. Not all areas are suitable for hydro, wind power, or nuclear energy, but that's why diverse energy resources are important - overall, we must not rely too heavily one one form of power generation.

As it stands, the world relies too heavily on coal-burning power plants, which is a major contributor to global warming whether you like it or not.

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

-much love form the Global Pessimists Club

- Groucho Marx?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

In the end, ironically enough, we will find that man made global warming will be part of the evolution of life on earth. And of course it will directly affect man's status as a thriving species on earth to some radical degree. But then if all humans were to die next week because of a wild killer super virus would the earth not be better off in the long run? I think we are way too selfish and short sighted as a species to avoid real self imposed hardship. And this may be it. So bring it on. We deserve it. Near extinction may do us all some good. And certainly would be helpful for old mother earth…

-much love form the Global Pessimists Club

A Malthusian moment in the Gaia Theory?

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I see the winking smilie, but honestly, what is this joke based on, exactly? Nobody makes this argument, or anything close. Jokes are great, but they are a lot funnier if they are accompanied by a comment that indicates some small understanding of the situation. Have you read any of my posts?

I'm sorry Nurv...yes, I have read your posts .


I am going to read THIS book...

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

-much love form the Global Pessimists Club

Congratulations Rex, you sound like a doomsday-talkin' fundamentalist, and instead of being compared to Hitler or someone worse, you get compared to Groucho

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

A Malthusian moment in the Gaia Theory?

Definitely. But IR is spot on: the planet will carry on in one way or another. Humanity's ultimate test (Will we self-destruct like some sort of macro-level bacteria that blooms rapidly, consumes all of its resources and then dies out? Or are we rational beings that can mould our own destiny?) has been in the post for some time.

There is clearly going to be a combination of dealing with the consequences and changing our ways. Obviously, no-one can say for sure how much we can achieve, but what we CAN say for sure is that if we do nothing, things are only going to be worse.

I don't fancy having to explain that to my grandchildren.

So yes, all sorts of things need to be tried, and that's gotta mean nuclear. Apart from hydro, it is the only technology that's tried and tested on a large scale.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

I am going to read THIS book...

Loved this review of it:

They haven't been able to make money denying tobacco is dangerous for several years. Now they are gonna lose out on all that sweet Exxon cash too.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Loved this review of it:

I also loved that that review's title was the usual lame "it's a bad time to be a climate denier"...

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Congratulations Rex, you sound like a doomsday-talkin' fundamentalist, and instead of being compared to Hitler or someone worse, you get compared to Groucho

Thats because I have principles. And if you dont like em well I have others... *wiggles cigar*