Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Subdude

Global Warming Impact on Houston

Recommended Posts

What do you mean consensus? There was no consensus about global cooling in the 70s, only a few articles in the popular press and a one scientific papers published (that I know of) on the issue. That doesn't mean there was a consensus.

How about you go search some journals and tell me how many articles you can find on global cooling, then do the same thing for global warming, and tell me which subject has more of a scientific consensus, which has more papers published? I seriously doubt you'll actually do that though because most people who post on this forum fail to do their own research on these issues.

I'd rather see you attack modern climatology than cite an old article (which is not even in a scientific journal) as evidence of a scientific consensus, which is supposed to invalidate the current scientific consensus. That's like saying that because the scientific consensus in the 1800s was that light behaved like a wave, that the current wave particle duality theory of light must be wrong.

What do you mean I've just read a few articles on the internet? I am a regular reader of multiple scientific journals (I'm a Rice grad student). That doesn't make me an expert climatologist, but I am insulted that you assume I've only read a few articles on the internet. How many articles on this issue have you read outside of the popular press and media? Which journals do you subscribe to?

P.S. I'm not a Communist.

The scientific community has excruciatingly endured several major paradigm shifts through the ages. It is in my mind highly unlikely that we've seen the last one. ...not saying that GW will be 'it'. Only that scientific consensuses aren't invulnerable to attacks of extreme reason and logic...and of course their extreme counterparts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Global cooling was taught as fact to me in jr. high in the 70s. That's what I mean by "consensus". I put the consensus in quotes because global cooling was no more of a consensus then than man made global warming is now. Yet it was still referred to as fact in the Time article as well as to 12 year old kids that were scared witless for no reason.

As soon as environmentalists stop focusing on energy conservation and start focusing on energy production then I'll beleieve that their motives are sincere.

The fact that India and China are largely left out of the Kyoto protocol shows that the environmentalist lobby is more about taking from the rich and giving to the poor than it is about the environment. Under Kyoto the U.S. would be punished more than any other nation yet it is the U.S. that has lead the world on environmental issues. Do you remember in the 70s when we were all required to get cataylitic converters? Europe went on for years without them. They still have not gotten their domestic market automobiles up to U.S. pollution standards.

It's funny how environmentalists beleive that man is so powerful that we can damage the entire planet but all the plans they come up with to fix are passive and involve us getting by with less. If we are so powerful why don't we build giant nuclear powered plants to remove C02 from the atmosphere all over the world? If an environmentalist suggested that I might be more inclined to belevie he's serious about the problem. I guess that doesn't fit in with the "everything man does is evil" belief of modern environmentalists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The global cooling thing may have been taught as a current event (ie: reading newspaper articles), but I am almost positive it was not a part of the curriculum. Maybe your teacher just wasn't a good enough teacher to tell his students that there wasn't a widespread consensus on this issue, only a few articles in the popular press / media. Just because your teacher made you think there was a scientific consensus, that doesn't mean that there was.

I agree that any environmentalist who believes in 100% conservation and 0% production is stupid, but I've never met an environmentalist with that type of view. We couldn't support our growing population without any new energy production anyways. There may be some extremists out there who think we should abandon modern technology altogether and live in caves, but I don't know of any. I also agree that there's no reason to be wasteful or excessive. I don't drive an SUV, and I try to walk when I have the time and I don't have too far to go.

I think most people from all ends of the political spectrum can agree that we should spend more money researching new forms of clean renewable energy (and not only for environmental reasons). If all environmentalists believe that "everything man does is evil", then why do so many of them support scientific research into better forms of energy? Nobody wants to abandon modern conveniences, they just want to make them cleaner and more efficient. That comment about environmentalists almost makes you seen like more of an extremist... but I'll take for granted you just have a weird sense of humor.

Don't forget that current nuclear energy doesn't solve all of our problems unless we can figure out what to do with the waste.

Edited by Jax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i would love, more than anything, to get off "the grid".

anyone notice the huge, propeller looking things heading up I-45 on a regular basis? those babies are for wind farms in central texas. alternative forms of energy are gaining ground in many sectors. my opinion is that even energy companies are interested in cleaner (profitable) forms of energy. everyone has kids and grandkids. no one really wants a polluted planet. global warming or not, people want less "ugly" types of energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it utterly AMAZING that this big liar,

514665632_dc4e04a5d6_m.jpg

WINS the Nobel Prize over this superhero woman ?

070314_irena_sendler_vlrg_8awidec.jpg

Irena Sendler

Somebody please stop the world and let me off !

Edited by TJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I find it utterly AMAZING that this big liar,

514665632_dc4e04a5d6_m.jpg

WINS the Nobel Prize over this superhero woman ?

070314_irena_sendler_vlrg_8awidec.jpg

Irena Sendler

Somebody please stop the world and let me off !

It's a political award nowadays. Nothing more, nothing less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would be much more inclined to beleive global warming "experts" if they didn't always come up with solutions that require handing over money and control to giant government bureaucracies, or solving technical problems with social engineering. Build me a $50 billion dollar solar array in space and I'll be on-board with you. Tell me to stop driving my sports car or SUV and you start sounding like a communist to me. I'd rather live with global warming than communism.

If you've got a solution to global warming that doesn't involve giant government bureaucracies or social engineering and lets us keep driving sports cars and SUVs, bring it on. The problem is in what economists call "externalities". The total cost of using fossil fuels isn't currently reflected in the market costs. If you can figure out a way to move that cost into the market without taxation or regulation, I can guarantee you a Nobel prize for economics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you can figure out a way to move that cost into the market without taxation or regulation, I can guarantee you a Nobel prize for economics.

That's largely what taxes are for, to impose costs for what are perceived as negative externalities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's largely what taxes are for, to impose costs for what are perceived as negative externalities.

Yeah, but jgriff seems to think there's a way out of this that doesn't involve taxes or regulation.

The best idea I've heard is a global carbon tax. Any carbon removed from the ground gets taxed at the first sale. The cost is absorbed by the entire market. The tax starts off low and ramps up to match the cost of removing that carbon from the atmosphere. The taxes are used to develop alternative technologies, but even if they aren't, they move the market in that direction.

It will never happen, but it's still the best idea I've heard so far.

Edited by memebag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, but jgriff seems to think there's a way out of this that doesn't involve taxes or regulation.

It is entirely debatable that there needs to be a way out of "this."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
complete hooey? Maybe. Maybe not. Nature will survive humanity.

Without taking a position one way or the other on global warming, I have a question for us to ponder.

IF the world is going to be warming up as much as the Church of Global Warming hysterics say, I think there's a lot of money to be made by those with money to invest in companies and industries that will benefit from the warming.

Think about it. No matter how the paradigms change, some companies are harmed and go under, while other companies make money and grow.

The trick is knowing which is which, but it's not rocket science. Those that will make money are those with products and services designed to make people comfortable in warming weather.

The secret to getting rich is simple. Throughout history, countless individuals have made their fortunes by identifying a need that's not being met, and finding efficient inexpensive ways to meet that need. If global warming is real, it's going to create a host of new needs that someone will have to find ways to meet. Count on it.

If you can't start a company to fill that need, buy stock in companies that are already doing it. Wouldn't we all love to have bought Texas Instruments or Intel when they were selling at five dollars a share. Nobody thought those companies had a ghost of a chance of succeeding.

Edited by FilioScotia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is entirely debatable that there needs to be a way out of "this."

I suppose, but I don't think this is the place for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, we went from global warming science to global Marxist conspiracy theories!

EDIT: The global marxist conspiracy theory in the above thread has now been deleted (just posting that so people don't think I'm crazy)

Edited by Jax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At the personal and individual level, they also want to control just about every aspect of our lives, from the cars we drive to the appliances we have in our homes, to the food they allow us to eat. They also want to control what we see, hear and read.

I am curious as to who you think controls this now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soylent Green is good for you. There are more Soylent varieties coming soon.

soylent_pink.jpg

Red, nevermind the man behind the curtain, please avert your eyes and eat your Soylent.

Filio, you only get rich 3 ways, either inventing or stealing the idea for a product that we do not have and desperately need, or improving on an already existing product. i.e. Microsoft Windows.

Edited by TJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Soylent Green is good for you. There are more Soylent varieties coming soon.

Red, nevermind the man behind the curtain, please avert your eyes and eat your Soylent.

Huh? What are you talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Soylent Green is good for you. There are more Soylent varieties coming soon.

soylent_pink.jpg

Red, nevermind the man behind the curtain, please avert your eyes and eat your Soylent.

Filio, you only get rich 3 ways, either inventing or stealing the idea for a product that we do not have and desperately need, or improving on an already existing product. i.e. Microsoft Windows.

I'd put Microsoft in the "stealing" category, but then again, I'm a Bill hater from way back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fact is, for all of the study and debate, we do not know with certainty the cause of global climate change. If you choose to confidently cry "Hooey!", surely you would not fault me for laughing derisively at you...for it would be as well deserved as you laughing at me for claiming the debate has ended.

While we're arguing over what is causing global warming, or if it exists, we're still filling the water and air with poison. I really don't care about global warming, it's not going to have much of an effect in my lifetime. I do know that the exhaust coming from my car and industrial sites is extremely unhealthy and we should do everything in our power to reduce the amount of crap we expel.

Global warming or not, we're doing a massive amount of damage to the place we want to live on.

edit

And enough with the attacks on Gore. At least he's trying to do something positive. I personally thought the Clinton administration screwed the environment just as much as every other president, but he seems to really care about this issue and is putting alot of effort into supporting the side he believes in. And really, if people do what he says what will happen? We'll use less gas? We'll not need to go to Iraq to protect our resources? Exxon won't post the highest quarterly profits ever? Again?

Edited by SirTonk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While we're arguing over what is causing global warming, or if it exists, we're still filling the water and air with poison. I really don't care about global warming, it's not going to have much of an effect in my lifetime. I do know that the exhaust coming from my car and industrial sites is extremely unhealthy and we should do everything in our power to reduce the amount of crap we expel.

Global warming or not, we're doing a massive amount of damage to the place we want to live on.

edit

And enough with the attacks on Gore. At least he's trying to do something positive. I personally thought the Clinton administration screwed the environment just as much as every other president, but he seems to really care about this issue and is putting alot of effort into supporting the side he believes in. And really, if people do what he says what will happen? We'll use less gas? We'll not need to go to Iraq to protect our resources? Exxon won't post the highest quarterly profits ever? Again?

seeing that you're 28, sirtonk, you may not be aware of the "environmental decade", the 1970s. i would like to see data on how much pollutants have decreased since the seventies. the epa has 10-20 years of data. do we know if catalytic converters have made a difference? what about the clean air act of 1970? what about cleaner burning fuels and recycling? there have been new environmental costs since the seventies, are they working? where's the data? IMO things are better than they were in the 70s as far as emissions are concerned, remember freon and certain aerosols? there are all kinds of pollution regulations that have increased the cost of oil products, manufacturing in general, cleaning products, fertilizer, tires and so on. i'd like to see the benefits of these things (regulations) before we make other, costly, commitments.

gore said "the global warming debate is over!". the cause of global warming and the long term effects of it is certainly not over. he is getting mileage from this issue. if there is any real debate on the issue, his books and movies can become (and will IMO) irrelevant.

seeing as we elect our leaders, it is we who screw the planet, not an administration. lets see, how would we pay for government officials to fully inspect every factory or refinery in the country? even the companies themselves cannot fully inspect all of their sites. see how many people the IRS come down on who are avoiding taxes? it's less than 1% (if i remember correctly). government bureaucracy cannot solve environmental issues, there must be financial incentives and potential profit. government cannot police on a national level.

camille paglia answers letter from salon.com

I too grew up in upstate New York. I am an environmental groundwater geologist (who almost majored in fine arts). Your take on the Al Gore/global warming pseudo-catastrophe was right on target. Anyone can read up on Holocene geology and see that climate changes are caused by polar wandering and magnetic reversals. It is entertaining, yet sad to read bloviage from Leonardo DiCaprio, who is so self-centered that he thinks the earth's history and climate is a function of his short personal stay on this planet. Still he, Al Gore, Prince Charles and so on, ad nauseam, continue with their jet-set lifestyles. What hypocrisy!

Hanson

Thank you for your input on the mass hysteria over global warming. The simplest facts about geology seem to be missing from the mental equipment of many highly educated people these days. There is far too much credulity placed in fancy-pants, speculative computer modeling about future climate change. Furthermore, hand-wringing media reports about hotter temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere are rarely balanced by acknowledgment of the recent cold waves in South Africa and Australia, the most severe in 30 years.

Where are the intellectuals in this massive attack of groupthink? Inert, passive and cowardly, the lot of them. True intellectuals would be alarmed and repelled by the heavy fog of dogma that now hangs over the debate about climate change. More skeptical voices need to be heard. Why are liberals abandoning this issue to the right wing, which is successfully using it to contrast conservative rationality with liberal emotionalism? The environmental movement, whose roots are in nature-worshipping Romanticism, is vitally important to humanity, but it can only be undermined by rampant propaganda and half-truths.-camille paglia

webpage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
complete hooey.

as i've suspected for some time, the earth's atmosphere regulates heat. energy from the sun supplies a system that regulates itself within our atmosphere. the power of this system far outweighs the negative aspects of human pollution.

this is not simply my opinion, i've confirmed this ideology with scientists in geology and astrophysics.

note: shorelines have historically receded, the planet has cooled and warmed, the atmosphere ebbs and flows as do oceans and other "controlled" systems. to think that man can influence the massive system that is the earth's atmosphere is as naive as thinking the earth is the center of the universe! we could blow up ten nuclear bombs, a hundred nuclear bombs, and not permanently change the atmospheric system we need to survive. the volcanic eruption of mount pinatubo (sp?) released more "greenhouse" gases than the entire industrial revolution.

nature will survive humanity.

exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...IMO things are better than they were in the 70s as far as emissions are concerned, remember freon and certain aerosols? there are all kinds of pollution regulations that have increased the cost of oil products, manufacturing in general, cleaning products, fertilizer, tires and so on. i'd like to see the benefits of these things (regulations) before we make other, costly, commitments...

You're right. All those regulations we put in place to limit certain types of freon and aerosols have increased the cost of some items, marginally (I would argue). But you know what else those regulations are doing? - closing the ozone hole (link). You can

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, I was always under the impression that the whole earth won't just heat up like an oven, but that it will get warmer overall. Also, the biggest threat will come from abnormal weather all over the place.

Something we are already seeing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...