page thirteen
bob - Muzha Man wrote:
Cut bob some slack.
Thanks Muzha man but honestly I'd rather that OOC and fred both continue with their ravings. I enjoy seeing how hysterical they become when they know they are losing an argument. This thread has seen very good arguements made for the reality of global warming and man's role in that process. Any day of the week we can step outside and see the traffic jams. We can read about the number of human beings killed or maimed in auto accidents each year, smell the exhaust as the cars roll by. When the transit systems break down due to typhoons those of us living in Taipei can see what life in the city would be like without mass transit systems. What some of us are missing apparently is the ability to imagine how much more livable the city will be when that system is improved. How much more livable most cities would be with improved transit and greater disincentives to operating motor vehicles.
Fred criticizes me for loving nature and calls this my religion as if this were some kind of insult. What I wonder is how does a person get so disconnected from the earth that sustains him.
bob - Quote OCC:
When your economics, your history, and your rebuttals are all that bad, it's really quite simple to doubt your science.
Quote fred smith:
Quote:
What makes you think that it is science with people like Bob?
It is a combination of science and values. I value the natural world and science makes it quite clear that over consumption is destroying it.
Quote fred smith: The true word here should be religion. We are being asked, no we are being forced to accept a lot of this on faith.
No, we are being forced to adopt the suburban K-mart two cars in the garage model of development. That's the real religion. Or at least the alter we are conned into flocking towards.
Quote fred smith: This is not a new phenomenon. Like the pasturalists of the 18th century, the Luddites of the 19th and now the environmentalits, we have people who are foaming at the mouth about change and modernity and loss of innocence for which nasty consumers without the appropriate "sensitivities" simply do not understand.
Talk about frothing at the mouth. I just want to enjoy the convenience and stimulation of city life without being forced to endure the hazards and annoyances of so many automobiles.
Quote fred smith: These immoral people with no sense of taste merely have higher consumption power which they waste on plastic!!! items at KMart! Have they no taste! and they live in tract housing! and go to shopping malls! and want food fast and cheap! and that is reprehensible and repulsive. These people should be sent with their credit cards to concentration camps and gassed or to re-education camps in the countryside until they learn. Get it? Until they "learn."
Stand back everybody. The froth is really flying now!
Quote fred smith: Of course, the historical record of these kinds of prejudices and the disasters they led to is something that is not "learned" and that is what continually disappoints me about the human condition.
bob - A little economics from The New York Times....
Quote:
Big Rise in Profit Puts Oil Giants on Defensive
...Exxon Mobil, the world's largest oil company, said yesterday that its third-quarter net income jumped 75 percent, to $9.92 billion. Its profit in the first nine months of this year - $25.42 billion - already equals its full-year earnings for 2004. This year's sales, which topped $100 billion in the last quarter, are expected to exceed those of Wal-Mart.
Another oil giant, Royal Dutch Shell, reported a 68 percent jump in profits yesterday, to $9.03 billion. Chevron is expected to post a profit of more than $4 billion today.
....While the idea that the Bush administration was considering imposing a windfall profits tax was knocked down yesterday by officials, longstanding resentments against Big Oil are resurfacing and could end up imposing some additional burdens on the industry.
The sense that government should step in to curb the phenomenal wealth and power often enjoyed by oil companies goes back to Exxon Mobil's corporate ancestor from the late 19th century, the Rockefeller oil trust known as Standard Oil.
Today, Republicans and Democrats alike, aware of the politically sensitive issue of high energy prices, are putting increasing pressure on the oil and gas industry to return some of its profits. The ideas include forcing the industry to invest in more refining capacity, to increase inventories to cushion energy shocks, or to provide money directly to the government program that helps low-income people pay heating bills.
....
Senator Bill Frist, the Republican leader, said yesterday that executives of major oil companies will be summoned to Capitol Hill to testify about high energy prices. Some of Mr. Frist's language harked back to the 1970's and early 1980's when cries of price gouging at gasoline pumps were common.
"If there are those who abuse the free enterprise system to advantage themselves and their businesses at the expense of all Americans," he said, "they ought to be exposed, and they ought to be ashamed."
fred smith - BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Can you hear the killer bees coming? haha
Richardm - I challenge you to find where scientists warned about dire consequences from the killer bees. From what I remember they said they will spread as far as Texas, Oklahoma, and California, but not much farther and they have.
It was the press who love to exaggerate things. And movies. And movies of the week.
Perhaps the killer bees would be a lot worse now if scientists had not alerted people to the potential problems.
Perhaps global warming would be a lot worse now if scientists had not alerted people to the potential problems.
bob - Richard m wrote:
I challenge you to find where scientists warned about dire consequences from the killer bees.
Actually richard we just dodged the bullet on that one thanks to the Osaka Protocol on Killer Bees. Of course the US refused to sign on due to fears of heavy losses in it's honey business, but thanks to the efforts of the world community, especially our neighbours to the south, a catastrophe was averted.
Fred smith wrote - Ravings? Seems we are the only two to actually link to anything relevant regarding this matter. You on the other hand keep linking to sites showing high profits at oil companies. Hence my point earlier that this is a bit of a religion with you people. Corporate profits are not contributing to global warming. Got that?
Quote bob: I enjoy seeing how hysterical they become when they know they are losing an argument.
Who would like to vote on this that either of us is hysterical? or losing an argument for that matter? Alternatively, link to a few sites and prove that the points that we have made are not correct or relevant.
Quote bob: This thread has seen very good arguements made for the reality of global warming and man's role in that process.
Such as? Should we take your statement on faith? I think rather that just as many if not more arguments have been made here why global warming may not be caused by man.
Quote bob: Any day of the week we can step outside and see the traffic jams. We can read about the number of human beings killed or maimed in auto accidents each year, smell the exhaust as the cars roll by. When the transit systems break down due to typhoons those of us living in Taipei can see what life in the city would be like without mass transit systems. What some of us are missing apparently is the ability to imagine how much more livable the city will be when that system is improved. How much more livable most cities would be with improved transit and greater disincentives to operating motor vehicles.
Ah the pasturalist approach. The evil city. Evil cars. Evil consumption, BUT have you proved that any of this is relevant to global warming? And also what do you have to say about the substantially reduced emissions per vehicle over the years. I believe that one pre-1974 car pollutes at rates of about 80 times that of today's cars. Sorry, I do not have the exact link handy, but regardless of the actual numbers, the difference is substantial.
Quote bob:
Fred criticizes me for loving nature and calls this my religion as if this were some kind of insult. What I wonder is how does a person get so disconnected from the earth that sustains him.
I have never criticized you for Loving Nature. I have criticized you for letting your beliefs and your religious fervor regarding the subject cloud your ability to think rationally about it. Disconnected? When I was growing up my father hand several farms in central Minnesota and he was repeatedly recognized for his conservation efforts. I know all about ecology perhaps to far greater degree than you do. I have never said we should not fight pollution or environmental contamination. What I am saying is that I do not believe Kyoto is the best solution or even a good solution. I believe that we can and will deal with these problems but not in the hysterically mandated ways that would be required under Kyoto and for what benefit? Staving off global warming AT BEST by six years in the next 100?
Given the evidence to the contrary that seems to suggest that these cycles are in fact more natural than you seem to imply, given the possibility that increased solar activity may be partially responsible and given the fact that I do not see any convincing evidence that suggests that man can do anything meaningful about stopping this anyway, I believe that the Kyoto Treaty is a failed approach. Stamping your foot and demanding that we pay attention or else must hate nature is not going to win anyone over to your cause. AND your knee-jerk hatred of "profit-making" corporations is perhaps yet another plank in the symptomatic paranoia that seems to characterize your views on the environment. Sorry, but BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ the killer bees are coming! The Killer Bees are coming. What? You missed all the headlines warning of their arrival 20 years ago? This was not a subject that was played up in the media as a major danger? Gosh. Could have fooled me but then perhaps it was because I was young and impressionable back then. haha
spook - "I cannot imagine any condition which would cause a ship to founder. I cannot conceive of any vital disaster happening to this vessel. Modern shipbuilding has gone beyond that . . ."
-- Captain Edward "Fred" Smith, RMS Titanic
fred smith -
Let's examine the facts.
1. Global warming is occurring. The results are not all bad.
2. There are questions as to what is causing global warming. The possibility that man is responsible is hotly debated.
3. There is doubt that any action can avert this.
4. The Kyoto Treaty envisions great economic dislocation and costs for what? Staving off global warming by six years in the next 100 and that is the optimum result.
5. Exaggerations have been made among environmentalists which is why scientists admit that overstating the case has resulted in skepticism.
6. Antarctic peninsula is warmer, mainland is colder.
7. Greenland is warmer, ice melting off, but warmer temperatures resulting in greater precipitation so ice cap actually getting thicker.
8. Ice sheet over north pole melting but since ice suspended in water, no change to sea levels.
spook - Aye, aye, captain. Damn the global warming and full speed ahead.
bob - Fred you basically just keep rehashing the same tired bullshit regardless of whether it was successfully countered in earlier posts and you then go on to ascribe attributes to people that they don't possess. I may be single minded in my belief that high gasoline taxes are a good thing because they limit to some extent the number of cars on the road and encourage more sustainable living arrangements. They also keep a certain amount of money out of the hands of governments that support terrorism and out of the pockets of companies like Shell who spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year convincing of us that they are looking after the environment but who are mostly selling a lot of oil. And I may also believe that the money from gas tax should pay for improvements in the transit system creating a carrot and stick approach; but at no point did I say that global warming was absolutely 100% the result of man's actions. I'll say it sure as hell looks that way to lot of informed people though. Neither did I say that the Kyoto agreement was a perfect document. In fact I feel that it let developing countries off the hook and that is perhaps a serious mistake.
bob - fred smith wrote: Ravings? Seems we are the only two to actually link to anything relevant regarding this matter. You on the other hand keep linking to sites showing high profits at oil companies. Hence my point earlier that this is a bit of a religion with you people. Corporate profits are not contributing to global warming. Got that?
"Keep linking?" I listed one site. And yes I realize that corporate profits themselves are not contributing to global warming. It is the sale and subsequent use of oil upon which those profits depend that is contributing to global warming. What is the use of that distinction exactly?
Quote fred smith: Who would like to vote on this that either of us is hysterical? or losing an argument for that matter? Alternatively, link to a few sites and prove that the points that we have made are not correct or relevant.
I don't feel that you have made any points at all. Earlier in this thread though there was an interesting link to some good "science" on global warming. You should read it.
Quote fred smith: Ah the pasturalist approach. The evil city. Evil cars. Evil consumption, BUT have you proved that any of this is relevant to global warming? And also what do you have to say about the substantially reduced emissions per vehicle over the years. I believe that one pre-1974 car pollutes at rates of about 80 times that of today's cars. Sorry, I do not have the exact link handy, but regardless of the actual numbers, the difference is substantial.
If you have travelled a lot you are aware how much of people's living space is occupied by cars, you know how much of the earth has been paved under and the problems this creates with soil errosion and flooding. You know how much time people spend sitting in traffic jams. If all of that is OK with you then I guess there is nothing more for us to talk about. Yes improved fuel effeciency is a godsend. We have high oil prices and presure from environmentalists to thank for that.
Quote fred smith: Stamping your foot and demanding that we pay attention or else must hate nature is not going to win anyone over to your cause. AND your knee-jerk hatred of "profit-making" corporations is perhaps yet another plank in the symptomatic paranoia that seems to characterize your views on the environment.
Paranoia? You have got to be kidding. I see huge problems: urban sprawl, global warming, loss of habitat, flooding, soil errosion, air pollution, terrorism.... And I see one solution that would to some extent help to solve all of these things - increased gas taxes. If gasoline is kept expensive people will look for alternative living arrangements that don't leave such a scar on the earth. Less money would go to Saudia Arabia and to companies that could give a shit about anything but profits. Improved mass transit frees up land for green space, cuts down on air pollution, reduces the amount of land devoted to roads, and leaves the consumer with MORE money to spend on other things besides his car.
There is not an ounce of paranoia in any of this.
bob - fred smith wrote:
1. Global warming is occurring. The results are not all bad.
Coral bleaching, melting permafrost, retreating glaciers (inevitably leading to a upsets in river cycles and subsequently to floods and droughts) larger and more frequent El Nino phenomenon, larger and more frequent hurricanes, various and sundry upsets in weather patterns that will have a negative impact on most of the life forms existing today.
fred smith wrote: There are questions as to what is causing global warming. The possibility that man is responsible is hotly debated.
Not according to the US National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration Paleoclimatology Program and the UK Climatic Research Institute. The following quotes and the ones above are from their website.
Quote:
Are greenhouse gases increasing?
At the end of the last ice age, the concentration of CO2 increased by around 100 ppm (parts per million) over around 8,000 years, or around 1.25 ppm per century. Since the start of the industrial revolution, the rate of increase has accelerated markedly: since 1860, the concentration of CO2 has increased by around 80 ppm, just over 50 ppm per century. The rate of CO2 accumulation has continued to increase, and it currently stands at around 150 ppm/century – over 200 times faster than the background rate for the past 15,000 years.
.
Quote:
"While the natural (solar and volcanic) forcings appear to be important factors governing the natural variations of temperatures in past centuries, only human greenhouse gas forcing alone ... can statistically explain the unusual warmth of the past few decades". A similar analysis by Crowley et al concludes that there is "a very large late 20th century warming that closely agrees with the response predicted from greenhouse gas forcing.”
fred smith wrote: 3. There is doubt that any action can avert this.
The CO2 and methane that we pump into the atmosphere is causing this thing but you are waiting for evidence to prove that continuing to pump it at the same or increasing rates is a bad idea?
fred smith wrote: 4. The Kyoto Treaty envisions great economic dislocation and costs for what? Staving off global warming by six years in the next 100 and that is the optimum result
I'll admit the Kyoto Treaty was far from being a perfect document.
fred smith wrote: 5. Exaggerations have been made among environmentalists which is why scientists admit that overstating the case has resulted in skepticism.
Extremists exagerated so now you won't listen to the scientists?
fred smith wrote: 6. Antarctic peninsula is warmer, mainland is colder.
Quote EPA:
Climate models in general suggest that Antarctica will take longer to warm than the Arctic, primarily because the Antarctic is surrounded by oceans, which tend to absorb excess heat. A detailed analysis has shown that the cooling of central Antarctica is probably a result of ozone depletion, which has affected a pattern of atmospheric circulation called the Southern Annular Mode. The Antarctic Ocean is warming faster than expected.
fred smith wrote :
7. Greenland is warmer, ice melting off, but warmer temperatures resulting in greater precipitation so ice cap actually getting thicker.
What you meant of course was that warmer temperatures are resulting in greater "snowfalls". What happens when it warms up a bit more and a lot of that snow turns to rain. Fairly realistic scenario wouldn't you think as the earth "is" warming up after all?
fred smith wrote: 8. Ice sheet over north pole melting but since ice suspended in water, no change to sea levels.
The melting ice sheets will contribute to a further warming off the worlds oceans. As they warm they will expand and the oceans will rise.
Quote EPA: But there might be a less dramatic reason than polar ice melting for the higher ocean level -- the higher temperature of the water. Water is most dense at 4 degrees Celsius. Above and below this temperature, the density of water decreases (the same weight of water occupies a bigger space). So as the overall temperature of the water increases it naturally expands a little bit making the oceans rise.
In 1995 the International Panel on Climate Change issued a report which contained various projections of the sea level change by the year 2100. They estimate that the sea will rise 50 centimeters (20 inches) with the lowest estimates at 15 centimeters (6 inches) and the highest at 95 centimeters (37 inches). The rise will come from thermal expansion of the ocean and from melting glaciers and ice sheets. Twenty inches is no small amount -- it could have a big effect on coastal cities, especially during storms.
Cut bob some slack.
Thanks Muzha man but honestly I'd rather that OOC and fred both continue with their ravings. I enjoy seeing how hysterical they become when they know they are losing an argument. This thread has seen very good arguements made for the reality of global warming and man's role in that process. Any day of the week we can step outside and see the traffic jams. We can read about the number of human beings killed or maimed in auto accidents each year, smell the exhaust as the cars roll by. When the transit systems break down due to typhoons those of us living in Taipei can see what life in the city would be like without mass transit systems. What some of us are missing apparently is the ability to imagine how much more livable the city will be when that system is improved. How much more livable most cities would be with improved transit and greater disincentives to operating motor vehicles.
Fred criticizes me for loving nature and calls this my religion as if this were some kind of insult. What I wonder is how does a person get so disconnected from the earth that sustains him.
bob - Quote OCC:
When your economics, your history, and your rebuttals are all that bad, it's really quite simple to doubt your science.
Quote fred smith:
Quote:
What makes you think that it is science with people like Bob?
It is a combination of science and values. I value the natural world and science makes it quite clear that over consumption is destroying it.
Quote fred smith: The true word here should be religion. We are being asked, no we are being forced to accept a lot of this on faith.
No, we are being forced to adopt the suburban K-mart two cars in the garage model of development. That's the real religion. Or at least the alter we are conned into flocking towards.
Quote fred smith: This is not a new phenomenon. Like the pasturalists of the 18th century, the Luddites of the 19th and now the environmentalits, we have people who are foaming at the mouth about change and modernity and loss of innocence for which nasty consumers without the appropriate "sensitivities" simply do not understand.
Talk about frothing at the mouth. I just want to enjoy the convenience and stimulation of city life without being forced to endure the hazards and annoyances of so many automobiles.
Quote fred smith: These immoral people with no sense of taste merely have higher consumption power which they waste on plastic!!! items at KMart! Have they no taste! and they live in tract housing! and go to shopping malls! and want food fast and cheap! and that is reprehensible and repulsive. These people should be sent with their credit cards to concentration camps and gassed or to re-education camps in the countryside until they learn. Get it? Until they "learn."
Stand back everybody. The froth is really flying now!
Quote fred smith: Of course, the historical record of these kinds of prejudices and the disasters they led to is something that is not "learned" and that is what continually disappoints me about the human condition.
bob - A little economics from The New York Times....
Quote:
Big Rise in Profit Puts Oil Giants on Defensive
...Exxon Mobil, the world's largest oil company, said yesterday that its third-quarter net income jumped 75 percent, to $9.92 billion. Its profit in the first nine months of this year - $25.42 billion - already equals its full-year earnings for 2004. This year's sales, which topped $100 billion in the last quarter, are expected to exceed those of Wal-Mart.
Another oil giant, Royal Dutch Shell, reported a 68 percent jump in profits yesterday, to $9.03 billion. Chevron is expected to post a profit of more than $4 billion today.
....While the idea that the Bush administration was considering imposing a windfall profits tax was knocked down yesterday by officials, longstanding resentments against Big Oil are resurfacing and could end up imposing some additional burdens on the industry.
The sense that government should step in to curb the phenomenal wealth and power often enjoyed by oil companies goes back to Exxon Mobil's corporate ancestor from the late 19th century, the Rockefeller oil trust known as Standard Oil.
Today, Republicans and Democrats alike, aware of the politically sensitive issue of high energy prices, are putting increasing pressure on the oil and gas industry to return some of its profits. The ideas include forcing the industry to invest in more refining capacity, to increase inventories to cushion energy shocks, or to provide money directly to the government program that helps low-income people pay heating bills.
....
Senator Bill Frist, the Republican leader, said yesterday that executives of major oil companies will be summoned to Capitol Hill to testify about high energy prices. Some of Mr. Frist's language harked back to the 1970's and early 1980's when cries of price gouging at gasoline pumps were common.
"If there are those who abuse the free enterprise system to advantage themselves and their businesses at the expense of all Americans," he said, "they ought to be exposed, and they ought to be ashamed."
fred smith - BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Can you hear the killer bees coming? haha
Richardm - I challenge you to find where scientists warned about dire consequences from the killer bees. From what I remember they said they will spread as far as Texas, Oklahoma, and California, but not much farther and they have.
It was the press who love to exaggerate things. And movies. And movies of the week.
Perhaps the killer bees would be a lot worse now if scientists had not alerted people to the potential problems.
Perhaps global warming would be a lot worse now if scientists had not alerted people to the potential problems.
bob - Richard m wrote:
I challenge you to find where scientists warned about dire consequences from the killer bees.
Actually richard we just dodged the bullet on that one thanks to the Osaka Protocol on Killer Bees. Of course the US refused to sign on due to fears of heavy losses in it's honey business, but thanks to the efforts of the world community, especially our neighbours to the south, a catastrophe was averted.
Fred smith wrote - Ravings? Seems we are the only two to actually link to anything relevant regarding this matter. You on the other hand keep linking to sites showing high profits at oil companies. Hence my point earlier that this is a bit of a religion with you people. Corporate profits are not contributing to global warming. Got that?
Quote bob: I enjoy seeing how hysterical they become when they know they are losing an argument.
Who would like to vote on this that either of us is hysterical? or losing an argument for that matter? Alternatively, link to a few sites and prove that the points that we have made are not correct or relevant.
Quote bob: This thread has seen very good arguements made for the reality of global warming and man's role in that process.
Such as? Should we take your statement on faith? I think rather that just as many if not more arguments have been made here why global warming may not be caused by man.
Quote bob: Any day of the week we can step outside and see the traffic jams. We can read about the number of human beings killed or maimed in auto accidents each year, smell the exhaust as the cars roll by. When the transit systems break down due to typhoons those of us living in Taipei can see what life in the city would be like without mass transit systems. What some of us are missing apparently is the ability to imagine how much more livable the city will be when that system is improved. How much more livable most cities would be with improved transit and greater disincentives to operating motor vehicles.
Ah the pasturalist approach. The evil city. Evil cars. Evil consumption, BUT have you proved that any of this is relevant to global warming? And also what do you have to say about the substantially reduced emissions per vehicle over the years. I believe that one pre-1974 car pollutes at rates of about 80 times that of today's cars. Sorry, I do not have the exact link handy, but regardless of the actual numbers, the difference is substantial.
Quote bob:
Fred criticizes me for loving nature and calls this my religion as if this were some kind of insult. What I wonder is how does a person get so disconnected from the earth that sustains him.
I have never criticized you for Loving Nature. I have criticized you for letting your beliefs and your religious fervor regarding the subject cloud your ability to think rationally about it. Disconnected? When I was growing up my father hand several farms in central Minnesota and he was repeatedly recognized for his conservation efforts. I know all about ecology perhaps to far greater degree than you do. I have never said we should not fight pollution or environmental contamination. What I am saying is that I do not believe Kyoto is the best solution or even a good solution. I believe that we can and will deal with these problems but not in the hysterically mandated ways that would be required under Kyoto and for what benefit? Staving off global warming AT BEST by six years in the next 100?
Given the evidence to the contrary that seems to suggest that these cycles are in fact more natural than you seem to imply, given the possibility that increased solar activity may be partially responsible and given the fact that I do not see any convincing evidence that suggests that man can do anything meaningful about stopping this anyway, I believe that the Kyoto Treaty is a failed approach. Stamping your foot and demanding that we pay attention or else must hate nature is not going to win anyone over to your cause. AND your knee-jerk hatred of "profit-making" corporations is perhaps yet another plank in the symptomatic paranoia that seems to characterize your views on the environment. Sorry, but BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ the killer bees are coming! The Killer Bees are coming. What? You missed all the headlines warning of their arrival 20 years ago? This was not a subject that was played up in the media as a major danger? Gosh. Could have fooled me but then perhaps it was because I was young and impressionable back then. haha
spook - "I cannot imagine any condition which would cause a ship to founder. I cannot conceive of any vital disaster happening to this vessel. Modern shipbuilding has gone beyond that . . ."
-- Captain Edward "Fred" Smith, RMS Titanic
fred smith -
Let's examine the facts.
1. Global warming is occurring. The results are not all bad.
2. There are questions as to what is causing global warming. The possibility that man is responsible is hotly debated.
3. There is doubt that any action can avert this.
4. The Kyoto Treaty envisions great economic dislocation and costs for what? Staving off global warming by six years in the next 100 and that is the optimum result.
5. Exaggerations have been made among environmentalists which is why scientists admit that overstating the case has resulted in skepticism.
6. Antarctic peninsula is warmer, mainland is colder.
7. Greenland is warmer, ice melting off, but warmer temperatures resulting in greater precipitation so ice cap actually getting thicker.
8. Ice sheet over north pole melting but since ice suspended in water, no change to sea levels.
spook - Aye, aye, captain. Damn the global warming and full speed ahead.
bob - Fred you basically just keep rehashing the same tired bullshit regardless of whether it was successfully countered in earlier posts and you then go on to ascribe attributes to people that they don't possess. I may be single minded in my belief that high gasoline taxes are a good thing because they limit to some extent the number of cars on the road and encourage more sustainable living arrangements. They also keep a certain amount of money out of the hands of governments that support terrorism and out of the pockets of companies like Shell who spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year convincing of us that they are looking after the environment but who are mostly selling a lot of oil. And I may also believe that the money from gas tax should pay for improvements in the transit system creating a carrot and stick approach; but at no point did I say that global warming was absolutely 100% the result of man's actions. I'll say it sure as hell looks that way to lot of informed people though. Neither did I say that the Kyoto agreement was a perfect document. In fact I feel that it let developing countries off the hook and that is perhaps a serious mistake.
bob - fred smith wrote: Ravings? Seems we are the only two to actually link to anything relevant regarding this matter. You on the other hand keep linking to sites showing high profits at oil companies. Hence my point earlier that this is a bit of a religion with you people. Corporate profits are not contributing to global warming. Got that?
"Keep linking?" I listed one site. And yes I realize that corporate profits themselves are not contributing to global warming. It is the sale and subsequent use of oil upon which those profits depend that is contributing to global warming. What is the use of that distinction exactly?
Quote fred smith: Who would like to vote on this that either of us is hysterical? or losing an argument for that matter? Alternatively, link to a few sites and prove that the points that we have made are not correct or relevant.
I don't feel that you have made any points at all. Earlier in this thread though there was an interesting link to some good "science" on global warming. You should read it.
Quote fred smith: Ah the pasturalist approach. The evil city. Evil cars. Evil consumption, BUT have you proved that any of this is relevant to global warming? And also what do you have to say about the substantially reduced emissions per vehicle over the years. I believe that one pre-1974 car pollutes at rates of about 80 times that of today's cars. Sorry, I do not have the exact link handy, but regardless of the actual numbers, the difference is substantial.
If you have travelled a lot you are aware how much of people's living space is occupied by cars, you know how much of the earth has been paved under and the problems this creates with soil errosion and flooding. You know how much time people spend sitting in traffic jams. If all of that is OK with you then I guess there is nothing more for us to talk about. Yes improved fuel effeciency is a godsend. We have high oil prices and presure from environmentalists to thank for that.
Quote fred smith: Stamping your foot and demanding that we pay attention or else must hate nature is not going to win anyone over to your cause. AND your knee-jerk hatred of "profit-making" corporations is perhaps yet another plank in the symptomatic paranoia that seems to characterize your views on the environment.
Paranoia? You have got to be kidding. I see huge problems: urban sprawl, global warming, loss of habitat, flooding, soil errosion, air pollution, terrorism.... And I see one solution that would to some extent help to solve all of these things - increased gas taxes. If gasoline is kept expensive people will look for alternative living arrangements that don't leave such a scar on the earth. Less money would go to Saudia Arabia and to companies that could give a shit about anything but profits. Improved mass transit frees up land for green space, cuts down on air pollution, reduces the amount of land devoted to roads, and leaves the consumer with MORE money to spend on other things besides his car.
There is not an ounce of paranoia in any of this.
bob - fred smith wrote:
1. Global warming is occurring. The results are not all bad.
Coral bleaching, melting permafrost, retreating glaciers (inevitably leading to a upsets in river cycles and subsequently to floods and droughts) larger and more frequent El Nino phenomenon, larger and more frequent hurricanes, various and sundry upsets in weather patterns that will have a negative impact on most of the life forms existing today.
fred smith wrote: There are questions as to what is causing global warming. The possibility that man is responsible is hotly debated.
Not according to the US National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration Paleoclimatology Program and the UK Climatic Research Institute. The following quotes and the ones above are from their website.
Quote:
Are greenhouse gases increasing?
At the end of the last ice age, the concentration of CO2 increased by around 100 ppm (parts per million) over around 8,000 years, or around 1.25 ppm per century. Since the start of the industrial revolution, the rate of increase has accelerated markedly: since 1860, the concentration of CO2 has increased by around 80 ppm, just over 50 ppm per century. The rate of CO2 accumulation has continued to increase, and it currently stands at around 150 ppm/century – over 200 times faster than the background rate for the past 15,000 years.
.
Quote:
"While the natural (solar and volcanic) forcings appear to be important factors governing the natural variations of temperatures in past centuries, only human greenhouse gas forcing alone ... can statistically explain the unusual warmth of the past few decades". A similar analysis by Crowley et al concludes that there is "a very large late 20th century warming that closely agrees with the response predicted from greenhouse gas forcing.”
fred smith wrote: 3. There is doubt that any action can avert this.
The CO2 and methane that we pump into the atmosphere is causing this thing but you are waiting for evidence to prove that continuing to pump it at the same or increasing rates is a bad idea?
fred smith wrote: 4. The Kyoto Treaty envisions great economic dislocation and costs for what? Staving off global warming by six years in the next 100 and that is the optimum result
I'll admit the Kyoto Treaty was far from being a perfect document.
fred smith wrote: 5. Exaggerations have been made among environmentalists which is why scientists admit that overstating the case has resulted in skepticism.
Extremists exagerated so now you won't listen to the scientists?
fred smith wrote: 6. Antarctic peninsula is warmer, mainland is colder.
Quote EPA:
Climate models in general suggest that Antarctica will take longer to warm than the Arctic, primarily because the Antarctic is surrounded by oceans, which tend to absorb excess heat. A detailed analysis has shown that the cooling of central Antarctica is probably a result of ozone depletion, which has affected a pattern of atmospheric circulation called the Southern Annular Mode. The Antarctic Ocean is warming faster than expected.
fred smith wrote :
7. Greenland is warmer, ice melting off, but warmer temperatures resulting in greater precipitation so ice cap actually getting thicker.
What you meant of course was that warmer temperatures are resulting in greater "snowfalls". What happens when it warms up a bit more and a lot of that snow turns to rain. Fairly realistic scenario wouldn't you think as the earth "is" warming up after all?
fred smith wrote: 8. Ice sheet over north pole melting but since ice suspended in water, no change to sea levels.
The melting ice sheets will contribute to a further warming off the worlds oceans. As they warm they will expand and the oceans will rise.
Quote EPA: But there might be a less dramatic reason than polar ice melting for the higher ocean level -- the higher temperature of the water. Water is most dense at 4 degrees Celsius. Above and below this temperature, the density of water decreases (the same weight of water occupies a bigger space). So as the overall temperature of the water increases it naturally expands a little bit making the oceans rise.
In 1995 the International Panel on Climate Change issued a report which contained various projections of the sea level change by the year 2100. They estimate that the sea will rise 50 centimeters (20 inches) with the lowest estimates at 15 centimeters (6 inches) and the highest at 95 centimeters (37 inches). The rise will come from thermal expansion of the ocean and from melting glaciers and ice sheets. Twenty inches is no small amount -- it could have a big effect on coastal cities, especially during storms.
posted by david at 6:02 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home