Moderator: Nicole Marie
Can you give me some scenarios on the loss of human life? That is a long stretch at this point.
I don't deny that global warming is upon us, although to what extent and from what causes I cannot say. I don't know if it's a long term effect brought about by the production of greenhouse gases, or a simply the natural cycle following a period of global cooling. I don't deny that people will be affected by it, some positively, some negatively.
I'm not knowledgeable enough to say what effect human activity is having on global warmng. I have the opinion that its significant but not major, but that's just from what I've been able to read, and even the authors aren't all that certain. So it's a WAG, not even a SWAG.BigJon@Work wrote:If the climate changes we are observing are a result of 100% natural cycles, we would have to adapt and survive anyhow. In my opinion, the effects are almost 100% natural, therefore the best course of action is to put our money into adaption plans, not prevention plans. It's going to be cheaper in the long run.
The natural world has survived these (even wider) swings without our intervention before. Why would this be any different? Some nature will win, some will lose, but that is nature.
BigJon@Work wrote:In my opinion, the effects are almost 100% natural,...
OperaTenor wrote:BigJon@Work wrote:In my opinion, the effects are almost 100% natural,...
Does that go for that big hole in the ozone layer?
I don't know if it's a long term effect brought about by the production of greenhouse gases, or a simply the natural cycle following a period of global cooling.
BigJon@Work wrote:We are fighting Physics and Economics here Barf. The sciences show that fossil fuels are still the most economical by a long stretch even when you count in possible remediation. The miracle car you desire just doesn't exist. We are nibbling around the edges of some seemingly amazing energy breakthroughs, but we are not close to a practical application yet. And some of the hurdles are emotional and political when you speak of using nuclear or using genetically modified organisms to make fuel.
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It never was, never will be. Keep saying that over and over when you read about global warming. If the article you are reading calls it a pollutant, you know you are dealing with someone who has an agenda instead of science to back him up.
The arguments that still hold scientific and economic water:
-We should reduce our dependence on dirty fossil fuels because they do release real pollutants that are detrimental to everyone. Then we can make rational decisions about the value of reduced pollution to increased costs. You may safely ignore the precautionary principle folks in this argument.
-We need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels sourced from tinpot dictators who don't have our country's best interests at heart and cost us significantly in military spending and the lives of our soldiers.
I can get behind either of these as long as the costs are discussed openly and the national consensus is the costs are worth the benefits..
Patateek wrote:Global warming caused by man? What a crock! I have been spending some time in B.C. Canada and everyone talks about the glaciers melting. "Oh my!" I said. "How long have they been melting?" Answer, "Oh about a 100,000 years" Yeah, the planet is warming up and we are arrogant (or stupid) enough to think it is our fault.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users