- This topic has 5 voices and 29 replies.
-
Posts
-
I saw links to two different stories on Drudge just now which are related to global warming:Eco-Extremist Wants World Population to Drop below 1 Billion Children 'bad for planet'These kinds of stories would almost be comical if the people who claim these ideas weren't serious, and I'm afraid that with today's global warming hype these radical ideas might catch on to bigger crowds. There's a real sense of man = enemy in some environmental voices and their ultimate values place their perception of a "healty earth" above the value of mankind. It is truly backwards, and if you follow their logic you can come to some scary scenarios, such as legal limitations on the number of children people can have; perhaps widescale forced abortions; refusal to give medical aid to the dying; and so forth. I read Tom Clancy's book Rainbow Six years ago and I'm reminded of it from time to time when I hear about environmental radicals. If you are going to read the book you may want to avoid reading this because it may be a spoiler, but the essential storyline is about a master plan to kill off the global population with a lethal, contagious disease. The only people left alive are the select few who are behind the plan and perhaps their families. The mastermind in part is some very wealthy, environmental radical who has bought up lots of land and has his private complex somewhere in middle America and also in the jungles of Brazil.It is a scary scenario but when I read about someone comparing mankind to a "virus" then Clancy's work of fiction doesn't seem so far off after all.
Back in college I took classes in environmental science; the world picture was very grim… the population bomb, world wide famine, deforestation, expanding deserts and such. while some of the scenarios are playing out they are on a scale no where nearly approaching the scale predicted. Technology has exceeded predictions in holding off these things; the same technology that is being raked over the coals for global warming… 😕We also, in geology, learned that the earth produces a steady stream of emissions through volcanic action and the chemical breakdown of minerals... in meteorology and climatology we looked at the cyclic nature of climatic patterns, both long term and short term. Man does add to the problem and we do need to adjust what we do but the contribution we make isn't going to snuff us out as soon or as catastrophically as Al Gore would have us believe... IMHO.My Envi Sci prof was first rate and knew that the mad scientist stereotype wasn't going to get the message across; to convince people would require a calm and rational, reasoned approach with ideas for solutions. Today we get the likes of Michael Moore and Al Gore preaching doom and death if we don't listen to them and craw into a hole somewhere. Too bad. We do need to conserve resources and look for better ways to do things but as long as we preach to the developing world and don't change our style we just look foolish and continue the problems.China and the rest need power and raw materials, so do we. The technology is there and has been for some time to reduce emissions from coal fired plants... it's expensive but it's there. We need to quit looking for pie in the sky and just go with the cookies we've already got in the jar.Wally,PS Thanks Phid, for opening up the reply tab; hope this little science rant doesn't make you regret it!CheersW.
Can you imagine what would have happened had those views about the population bomb, expanding deserts, etc caught on in the mainstream media and become fads for politicians to take advantage of? I believe those views were being put out in the 1960s, although we may have Malthus' age old views as roots of even some of these. What if the United States and other developed countries were to have dedicated a significant portion of its revenues and placed self-imposed restrictions based on industry because of those predictions? How would the world be better today? How would power be shifted?I think one thing may be mis-portrayed here; I think all people, of whatever political persuasion, prefer less pollution to more pollution. Clean air and clean water are fundamental items that anyone can see is clearly beneficial. I think the problem with the recent GW controversy is that one point of view, which is loaded with political implications, has self-proclaimed itself to be the de facto truth about some uncertain, complex phenomena. I don't think it takes a genius to see how red flags should automatically go up when this happens. And when we see people talking like those I've pointed out in this thread, we should really pause to ask some serious questions, like what are the real motivations of the proponents of the global warming scare? What are their priorities?
At that time the country was busy with Civil Rights and the Cambodian invasion… I agree totally with your position on less pollution is better and also that we need to look at who is pushing what agenda and what is in it for them.Wally
I saw more stories on Drudge today which are relevant to this issue.The first is the "ark" being built by Greenpeace. Who says the GW scare doesn't echo of "religious" fervor?The second is a story of increased numbers of scientists backing down from anthropomorphic blame for GW. What I thought was interesting about the article is that it mentions the media's role in this whole matter, which I think ought to be explored in greater depth.
Just found this today. Neptune is experiencing GW as well. Look at the chart on the page too. Shows the same climate cycle as ours. (too bad NYG is leaving for the summer)http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/05/08/neptune-news
Just found this today. Neptune is experiencing GW as well. Look at the chart on the page too. Shows the same climate cycle as ours. (too bad NYG is leaving for the summer)http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/05/08/neptune-news
I liked the line from the blog, "As they say on Neptune, global warming has become an inconvenient truth."
I wish I could remember who it was but I was listening to the radio last night and they mentioned that the warming trend was solar system wide. Skiguy's post reminded me of the comment.
I read something somewhere about Mars experiencing it too. Gee, it couldn't be caused by the sun or anything now, could it? 🙄
Here's something interesting:Global warming debunkedThis meteorologist thinks that it will "be a joke" after a few years due to the fact that mankind's activities have so little effect on GW - less than two tenths of a percent in terms of affecting greenhouse gases. Query: what if it's true that the GW craze is truly a myth which is being used to change the face of socio-politics, economies, and so forth over the course of the next five, ten, twenty years? Who stands to gain by this? Who stands to lose? How would politics and economies change? Would global power structure shift because of policy changes?
Oh but your source is not a bonified scientist, just a two bit meteorologist who has only cursory knowledge in climatology…… ::) You know that's what you know who will say. 😀
Oh but your source is not a bonified scientist, just a two bit meteorologist who has only cursory knowledge in climatology...... ::) You know that's what you know who will say. 😀
True, that is likely what he would say. In doing so he tends to construct the rules of the argument in his favor to help him win....not a convincing way to argue IMO. But anyway, one thing I don't understand is that I saw on a GW news report footage of people "fleeing" the coast, which I presume was meant to show that as ocean levels rise there's going to be mass migration away from low lying coasts. Perhaps this is a "warning" that has been published elsewhere as well - it may have originated from Al Gore's movie. But if we're looking at the melting of glaciers - especially glaciers into oceans which take up 2/3 of the earth's surface - this should happen gradually, not "suddenly". If you leave an ice cube in an empty cup the whole thing won't all of a sudden turn into water, filling it to a certain level; rather, you'll have gradual dripping and rising level of water at a slow rate.So if this is true, mass migration along low lying coastal areas would seem like a scare tactic than anything else, would it not? After all, they'd have plenty of warning that there's rising water levels. It's not as if we're at some tsunami-like situation where towns get wiped out with waves of water. Am I right on this?On a side note, I thought I heard recently that one of Al Gore's claims in his movie - that water levels would rise by some 40 feet in so many years - was a claim that even IPPC scientists had dismissed as exaggeration because the real rise would be a mere fraction of this (a foot or perhaps a few feet, I think the number was). Anyone heard this?
On a side note, I thought I heard recently that one of Al Gore's claims in his movie - that water levels would rise by some 40 feet in so many years - was a claim that even IPPC scientists had dismissed as exaggeration because the real rise would be a mere fraction of this (a foot or perhaps a few feet, I think the number was). Anyone heard this?
Yes, but I believe he said 20 feet. Some scientists are saying anywhere from a few inches to no more than 2 feet.Has anyone noticed lately the number of scientists coming and speaking out against this. Nearly all of them say (complain) how political the IPCC process has been. Many even mention that, to achieve our "goal" of curing the planet, you'd have to eliminate 90% of the population. Nice. 😐
Many even mention that, to achieve our “goal” of curing the planet, you'd have to eliminate 90% of the population. Nice. 😐
Interesting, as that was the goal (well, more like 99.9% of the population) of the eco-extremist in Tom Clancy's work of fiction Rainbow Six. I'm sure that there are people seriously entertaining that idea of population elimination at this very moment.
Here is something I saw today via Drudge:They call this a consensus?The author apparently started profiling "deniers" who don't march in step with all that the IPCC has to offer. What he discovered was the "concensus" line was not true.On a side note, I'm of the view that there are advantages from moving away from oil-based energy sources. Other sources may be cheaper, produce less or no pollution, be more accessible, and have less potential to be used as political/economic weapons as energy is today. Some of these energy sources include wind turbines, geothermal, and solar (from what I understand, nuclear energy is also a god alternative but is for some reason objected to by people). Note, however, that not everyone is always in favor of alternative energy - read about the Sierra Club member's concern!My problem is that this issue has the makings of political manipulation - a "my way or the highway" type of attitude. In other words, we clean the environment but only on MY terms. This is the danger I see occuring today.
