[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]A 10 degree increase doesn't sound like much...but what about the polar ice caps? Ten degrees might be enough to cause something as small as a third of them to melt...well, if that happens, what do you think happens to the bodies of water that surround them?
Not that I'm alarmist, believe me, I'm not. In fact, I don't think humans are responsible for global warming; I think we are exacerbating the problem yes, but I don't think we caused it. [/QUOTE]
But you see what I mean, now? Your opinion is pretty moderate, and there are opinions both professional and not that are more extreme, in both directions.
From Wikipedia:
"If all glaciers and ice caps melt, the projected rise in sea level will be around 0.5 m. Melting of the Greenland ice sheet would produce 7.2 m of sea level rise, and melting of the Antarctic ice sheet would produce 61.1 m of sea level rise.[3] The collapse of the grounded interior reservoir of the West Antarctic ice sheet would raise sea level by 5-6 m.[4]"
"As most of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets lie above the snowline and/or base of the permafrost zone, they cannot melt in a timeframe much less than several millennia; therefore it is likely that they will not contribute significantly to sea level rise in the coming century. They can however do so through acceleration in flow and enhanced iceberg calving."
So how much do we have to worry about? Well, once again, it's a bit inconclusive...
I just think at this point and time, the economy of both the United States and the world is more important than a problem that not everyone can even agree is a problem...
===
I don't think I am the only one who thinks the greatest priority of the world is to develop and industrialize the entire world, therefore creating wealth and resources for all. Then, when we can finally globalize the economies of the world, trade will be ubiquitous, and wealth will grow abundantly for everyone.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
'So how much do we have to worry about?"
I'm of the school of thought that 'we' won't have much to worry about. I'll be dead before the shit really hits the fan, if indeed it is going to. It's our kids and their kids and so on that we might give a bit of thought to... better to be responsible now and make frigging sure that we're doing the right thing.
I think.
"I don't think I am the only one who thinks the greatest priority of the world is to develop and industrialize the entire world, therefore creating wealth and resources for all. Then, when we can finally globalize the economies of the world, trade will be ubiquitous, and wealth will grow abundantly for everyone.'
I think your heart's in the right place but I think it's a terrible idea if we go about it as irresponsibly as we have done up till now.
I mean... wealth for everyone; if everyone has it, it's not wealth is it?
(Just an inflation joke there, I get what you're saying).
I'm of the school of thought that 'we' won't have much to worry about. I'll be dead before the shit really hits the fan, if indeed it is going to. It's our kids and their kids and so on that we might give a bit of thought to... better to be responsible now and make frigging sure that we're doing the right thing.
I think.
"I don't think I am the only one who thinks the greatest priority of the world is to develop and industrialize the entire world, therefore creating wealth and resources for all. Then, when we can finally globalize the economies of the world, trade will be ubiquitous, and wealth will grow abundantly for everyone.'
I think your heart's in the right place but I think it's a terrible idea if we go about it as irresponsibly as we have done up till now.
I mean... wealth for everyone; if everyone has it, it's not wealth is it?
(Just an inflation joke there, I get what you're saying).
weather sux. global warming sux. life kinda sux 2. lol :D xxx
On GMTV they said that in 100 years the planet will be 3 degrees higher which will have devastating effects. Even though that doesn't sound alot but it is for the polar ice caps and the planet as a whole.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]you_rock_my_socks06 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]On GMTV they said that in 100 years the planet will be 3 degrees higher which will have devastating effects. Even though that doesn't sound alot but it is for the polar ice caps and the planet as a whole.[/QUOTE]
its just speculation.it could do this,it could that.climate changes all the time even the scientists agree on this.i wouldnt lose any sleep over it.the earths temperature has swayed to and fro for thousands of years.
its just speculation.it could do this,it could that.climate changes all the time even the scientists agree on this.i wouldnt lose any sleep over it.the earths temperature has swayed to and fro for thousands of years.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]joxerthemighty wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]you_rock_my_socks06 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]On GMTV they said that in 100 years the planet will be 3 degrees higher which will have devastating effects. Even though that doesn't sound alot but it is for the polar ice caps and the planet as a whole.[/QUOTE]
its just speculation.it could do this,it could that.climate changes all the time even the scientists agree on this.i wouldnt lose any sleep over it.the earths temperature has swayed to and fro for thousands of years.[/QUOTE]
its a part of life. as you said. its really nothing to fret too much about, we just wont be living the life we know now, if anything. were humans, we adapt, we've done it for millions of years. same for the animals, they adapt, its survival of the fittest. yes some may become extinct or endangered, it sucks, but again, its a sick sad part of life.
like you said, the earth has changed for many years, were just the ones thats have to put up with the change. some is really just sped up by us, but a healthy amount is just nature taking its course.
its just speculation.it could do this,it could that.climate changes all the time even the scientists agree on this.i wouldnt lose any sleep over it.the earths temperature has swayed to and fro for thousands of years.[/QUOTE]
its a part of life. as you said. its really nothing to fret too much about, we just wont be living the life we know now, if anything. were humans, we adapt, we've done it for millions of years. same for the animals, they adapt, its survival of the fittest. yes some may become extinct or endangered, it sucks, but again, its a sick sad part of life.
like you said, the earth has changed for many years, were just the ones thats have to put up with the change. some is really just sped up by us, but a healthy amount is just nature taking its course.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]'So how much do we have to worry about?"
I'm of the school of thought that 'we' won't have much to worry about. I'll be dead before the shit really hits the fan, if indeed it is going to. It's our kids and their kids and so on that we might give a bit of thought to... better to be responsible now and make frigging sure that we're doing the right thing.
I think. [/QUOTE]
But the thing is, will any shit hit the fan? Nobody knows yet. We can all agree that global warming isn't going to turn the world into a global wasteland, but what will it do? We don't know yet, nor do we know if abating greenhouse gas emissions will do much, if anything about it. But you're right, we better be damned sure we're doing the right thing. The problem is that we don't really know what that is right now.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
"I don't think I am the only one who thinks the greatest priority of the world is to develop and industrialize the entire world, therefore creating wealth and resources for all. Then, when we can finally globalize the economies of the world, trade will be ubiquitous, and wealth will grow abundantly for everyone.'
I think your heart's in the right place but I think it's a terrible idea if we go about it as irresponsibly as we have done up till now.
I mean... wealth for everyone; if everyone has it, it's not wealth is it?
(Just an inflation joke there, I get what you're saying).[/QUOTE]
Haha, well, you get what I'm saying, but I'm sure that some people don't.
Whenever two commodities are traded willfully, or a commodity for a service, etc., wealth is therefore created. Therefore, in a free market, every single trade creates wealth. That is because whenever a person or entity willfully engages in a trade, it is because he values the thing he is trading for more than what he is giving up to obtain it. Therefore, the more free trading in the world, the more total wealth will be created. The ideal would to be a completely globalized economy with complete information, where we can maximize wealth.
Another thing is quality of life. Quality of life is increasing consistently. We have it better now than we did 20 years ago, and better then than we did 20 years before that. Regardless of inequality, or whatnot, the poorest person now still has a much higher quality of life than the wealthiest person 100 years ago. This is a direct result of the constant increase in wealth, as well as advances in science and technology which are prevalent in a free market society.
Also, I might note that the past century or so has seen more corporate social responsibility than ever before. In fact, a lot of environmental issues are completely fabricated.
Did you know that there are three times as many trees in the United States today as there were in 1920? There is no tree crisis, and no reason to "save the trees" by recycling. In fact, recycling anything other than aluminum has a NEGATIVE impact on the environment.
====
We all want to save the world, and preserve it for future generations. However, we can't buy into the environmental hysteria that is perpetuated by politicians looking for an easy vote. Remember, if you don't buy into fear and sensationalism of terrorism that is constantly presented to us, then you shouldn't buy into the fear and sensationalism of environmentalism. We all need to think critically on all issues. We can't get sucked into mindless groupthink, and we should take everything our politicians say with a grain of salt. They're not necessarily lying to you, but they're just like you and me: gullible.
I'm of the school of thought that 'we' won't have much to worry about. I'll be dead before the shit really hits the fan, if indeed it is going to. It's our kids and their kids and so on that we might give a bit of thought to... better to be responsible now and make frigging sure that we're doing the right thing.
I think. [/QUOTE]
But the thing is, will any shit hit the fan? Nobody knows yet. We can all agree that global warming isn't going to turn the world into a global wasteland, but what will it do? We don't know yet, nor do we know if abating greenhouse gas emissions will do much, if anything about it. But you're right, we better be damned sure we're doing the right thing. The problem is that we don't really know what that is right now.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
"I don't think I am the only one who thinks the greatest priority of the world is to develop and industrialize the entire world, therefore creating wealth and resources for all. Then, when we can finally globalize the economies of the world, trade will be ubiquitous, and wealth will grow abundantly for everyone.'
I think your heart's in the right place but I think it's a terrible idea if we go about it as irresponsibly as we have done up till now.
I mean... wealth for everyone; if everyone has it, it's not wealth is it?
(Just an inflation joke there, I get what you're saying).[/QUOTE]
Haha, well, you get what I'm saying, but I'm sure that some people don't.
Whenever two commodities are traded willfully, or a commodity for a service, etc., wealth is therefore created. Therefore, in a free market, every single trade creates wealth. That is because whenever a person or entity willfully engages in a trade, it is because he values the thing he is trading for more than what he is giving up to obtain it. Therefore, the more free trading in the world, the more total wealth will be created. The ideal would to be a completely globalized economy with complete information, where we can maximize wealth.
Another thing is quality of life. Quality of life is increasing consistently. We have it better now than we did 20 years ago, and better then than we did 20 years before that. Regardless of inequality, or whatnot, the poorest person now still has a much higher quality of life than the wealthiest person 100 years ago. This is a direct result of the constant increase in wealth, as well as advances in science and technology which are prevalent in a free market society.
Also, I might note that the past century or so has seen more corporate social responsibility than ever before. In fact, a lot of environmental issues are completely fabricated.
Did you know that there are three times as many trees in the United States today as there were in 1920? There is no tree crisis, and no reason to "save the trees" by recycling. In fact, recycling anything other than aluminum has a NEGATIVE impact on the environment.
====
We all want to save the world, and preserve it for future generations. However, we can't buy into the environmental hysteria that is perpetuated by politicians looking for an easy vote. Remember, if you don't buy into fear and sensationalism of terrorism that is constantly presented to us, then you shouldn't buy into the fear and sensationalism of environmentalism. We all need to think critically on all issues. We can't get sucked into mindless groupthink, and we should take everything our politicians say with a grain of salt. They're not necessarily lying to you, but they're just like you and me: gullible.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Did you know that there are three times as many trees in the United States today as there were in 1920?[/QUOTE]
Sure, but the demand for paper these days is much more than 3x of what it was in 1920.
[QUOTE]In fact, recycling anything other than aluminum has a NEGATIVE impact on the environment.[/QUOTE]
This is quite the statement. Could you elaborate on it? Being a relatively green person, I'm genuinely interested.
Sure, but the demand for paper these days is much more than 3x of what it was in 1920.
[QUOTE]In fact, recycling anything other than aluminum has a NEGATIVE impact on the environment.[/QUOTE]
This is quite the statement. Could you elaborate on it? Being a relatively green person, I'm genuinely interested.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Did you know that there are three times as many trees in the United States today as there were in 1920?[/QUOTE]
Sure, but the demand for paper these days is much more than 3x of what it was in 1920.
[QUOTE]In fact, recycling anything other than aluminum has a NEGATIVE impact on the environment.[/QUOTE]
This is quite the statement. Could you elaborate on it? Being a relatively green person, I'm genuinely interested.
[/QUOTE]
The trees from which paper is derived is sustainable because for every tree that is logged, another (or many others) is/are planted in their place. That is why every decade, the United States' tree population grows.
As for recycling:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recycling_criticism
Essentially, it takes more energy to recycle products than it takes to dispose of them in landfills. Despite popular belief, we are NOT running out of landfill area, and we probably never will.
I don't mean to step on anybody's toes, but I feel that these are important things to consider. Recycling is perhaps one of the largest social movements in the country, and it's such a shame how inefficient it is. I always believed in recycling, and it took a lot of sources to tell me I was wrong before I believed it. In college, my roommate and I now have two garbage cans, instead of dedicating one of them to recycling. However, we will always recycle aluminum, since aluminum costs more to produce than to recycle (as opposed to everything else).
Sure, but the demand for paper these days is much more than 3x of what it was in 1920.
[QUOTE]In fact, recycling anything other than aluminum has a NEGATIVE impact on the environment.[/QUOTE]
This is quite the statement. Could you elaborate on it? Being a relatively green person, I'm genuinely interested.
[/QUOTE]
The trees from which paper is derived is sustainable because for every tree that is logged, another (or many others) is/are planted in their place. That is why every decade, the United States' tree population grows.
As for recycling:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recycling_criticism
Essentially, it takes more energy to recycle products than it takes to dispose of them in landfills. Despite popular belief, we are NOT running out of landfill area, and we probably never will.
I don't mean to step on anybody's toes, but I feel that these are important things to consider. Recycling is perhaps one of the largest social movements in the country, and it's such a shame how inefficient it is. I always believed in recycling, and it took a lot of sources to tell me I was wrong before I believed it. In college, my roommate and I now have two garbage cans, instead of dedicating one of them to recycling. However, we will always recycle aluminum, since aluminum costs more to produce than to recycle (as opposed to everything else).
"Did you know that there are three times as many trees in the United States today as there were in 1920? There is no tree crisis, and no reason to "save the trees" by recycling. In fact, recycling anything other than aluminum has a NEGATIVE impact on the environment."
Indeed?
I don't know how it is in your part of the world... part of the trouble where I live is that people basically went 'lets replace the trees!!' and created a monoculture. They didn't really make an effort to replenish the old ecosystem - rather they just went and put down one kind of tree... kinda irresponsible!
"But you're right, we better be damned sure we're doing the right thing. The problem is that we don't really know what that is right now."
It's kinda hard to figure it out.... basically, the climate has always been changing, and always will. It makes it very tricky for us to figure out how much of the change is due to human intervention.
I can't honestly believe that a few hundred years of industrial activity is having no effect at all. But the question is, of course ; how much effect, and if we cut it down, are we actually going to stop anything bad from happening??
"However, we will always recycle aluminum, since aluminum costs more to produce than to recycle (as opposed to everything else)."
Interesting. I didn't know that.
Indeed?
I don't know how it is in your part of the world... part of the trouble where I live is that people basically went 'lets replace the trees!!' and created a monoculture. They didn't really make an effort to replenish the old ecosystem - rather they just went and put down one kind of tree... kinda irresponsible!
"But you're right, we better be damned sure we're doing the right thing. The problem is that we don't really know what that is right now."
It's kinda hard to figure it out.... basically, the climate has always been changing, and always will. It makes it very tricky for us to figure out how much of the change is due to human intervention.
I can't honestly believe that a few hundred years of industrial activity is having no effect at all. But the question is, of course ; how much effect, and if we cut it down, are we actually going to stop anything bad from happening??
"However, we will always recycle aluminum, since aluminum costs more to produce than to recycle (as opposed to everything else)."
Interesting. I didn't know that.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Undetermined wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I enjoyed the Al Gore movie. I believe most of the scientific facts are accurate.. there's just one major problem...
Where is the proof that our CO2 is actually being trapped by the atmosphere and causing the increase? [/QUOTE]
Can you point me to some of these scientific facts without me having to purchase a movie to fund someone's political agenda?
Are there environmental problems? Sure. Are most environmental issues rooted in politics, rather than the environment? Hell yes! Modern environmentalism is based on sensationalism and fear - not science.[/QUOTE]
You are one embittered bastard.
Gore isn't even RUNNING for any office, and, NEWSFLASH: you can watch the movie for free in a great many cinemas.
Where is the proof that our CO2 is actually being trapped by the atmosphere and causing the increase? [/QUOTE]
Can you point me to some of these scientific facts without me having to purchase a movie to fund someone's political agenda?
Are there environmental problems? Sure. Are most environmental issues rooted in politics, rather than the environment? Hell yes! Modern environmentalism is based on sensationalism and fear - not science.[/QUOTE]
You are one embittered bastard.
Gore isn't even RUNNING for any office, and, NEWSFLASH: you can watch the movie for free in a great many cinemas.
People who don't believe humans are a cause of Global Warming are a-scientific, completely senseless and pose a grave danger.
During the last few years, several extremely careful, extremely complete surveys have been released, many respectable scientists have looked into it, and all have come to the same conclusion:
We are as near to certain as is scientifically possible that mankind is greatly accelerating global warming.
If you refuse to believe it, you are
1) in denial
2) pose a (potential) threat to the world
3) need to get an education
During the last few years, several extremely careful, extremely complete surveys have been released, many respectable scientists have looked into it, and all have come to the same conclusion:
We are as near to certain as is scientifically possible that mankind is greatly accelerating global warming.
If you refuse to believe it, you are
1) in denial
2) pose a (potential) threat to the world
3) need to get an education
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]People who don't believe humans are a cause of Global Warming are a-scientific, completely senseless and pose a grave danger.
During the last few years, several extremely careful, extremely complete surveys have been released, many respectable scientists have looked into it, and all have come to the same conclusion:
We are as near to certain as is scientifically possible that mankind is greatly accelerating global warming.
If you refuse to believe it, you are
1) in denial
2) pose a (potential) threat to the world
3) need to get an education[/QUOTE]
I was gunna call you out on this, but then I saw that you did say "a" cause of Global Warming, not "the" cause. Even the extremist scientists who tout global warming admit that humans aren't the soul cause...they are just greatly accelerating the problem. So, you are safe on that count.
But, do you really need to place a value judgement on everyone all of the time? You do realize how uneducated and fanatical you look when you start slamming people who don't believe the exact same things you do and make judgements about their worthiness to live or their education. (This puts you close to the terrorists and fascists you denounce so much) You may want to try taking a chill pill. People are different, people think differently and in different ways about different things, and we will NEVER get to a point where everone agrees with one thing. Ever. So relax!
During the last few years, several extremely careful, extremely complete surveys have been released, many respectable scientists have looked into it, and all have come to the same conclusion:
We are as near to certain as is scientifically possible that mankind is greatly accelerating global warming.
If you refuse to believe it, you are
1) in denial
2) pose a (potential) threat to the world
3) need to get an education[/QUOTE]
I was gunna call you out on this, but then I saw that you did say "a" cause of Global Warming, not "the" cause. Even the extremist scientists who tout global warming admit that humans aren't the soul cause...they are just greatly accelerating the problem. So, you are safe on that count.
But, do you really need to place a value judgement on everyone all of the time? You do realize how uneducated and fanatical you look when you start slamming people who don't believe the exact same things you do and make judgements about their worthiness to live or their education. (This puts you close to the terrorists and fascists you denounce so much) You may want to try taking a chill pill. People are different, people think differently and in different ways about different things, and we will NEVER get to a point where everone agrees with one thing. Ever. So relax!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]The trees from which paper is derived is sustainable because for every tree that is logged, another (or many others) is/are planted in their place. That is why every decade, the United States' tree population grows.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough, but can you say the same thing for the Brazilian rainforests?
[QUOTE]As for recycling:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recycling_criticism
[/QUOTE]
Ouch...
This is something I'll have to consider!
So, what's next... home-filtered water gives you cancer?
Fair enough, but can you say the same thing for the Brazilian rainforests?
[QUOTE]As for recycling:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recycling_criticism
[/QUOTE]
Ouch...
This is something I'll have to consider!
So, what's next... home-filtered water gives you cancer?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]The trees from which paper is derived is sustainable because for every tree that is logged, another (or many others) is/are planted in their place. That is why every decade, the United States' tree population grows.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough, but can you say the same thing for the Brazilian rainforests?
[QUOTE]As for recycling:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recycling_criticism
[/QUOTE]
Ouch...
This is something I'll have to consider!
So, what's next... home-filtered water gives you cancer?
[/QUOTE]
Meh, what doesn't give you cancer?
Anyway, from what I understand, the major (or perhaps sole) source of paper in the United States is from secondary forests (the ones we replenish). As far as paper production elsewhere, I'm not sure.
Rainforest destruction is a cause for some alarm, but from what I understand, the major cause of it is this: poor people of the world need arable land to cultivate, and thus turn to rainforest land to feed themselves and their communities.
This leads to an even bigger issue of world hunger, which is the primary factor in this. Hopefully, through science, we will one day be able to feed the entire world through genetically modified crops. Hopefully, in this respect, Greenpeace (who is against the genetic modification of foods) does not get their way, and therefore cause millions or billions of people around the world to suffer through starvation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug
Fair enough, but can you say the same thing for the Brazilian rainforests?
[QUOTE]As for recycling:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recycling_criticism
[/QUOTE]
Ouch...
This is something I'll have to consider!
So, what's next... home-filtered water gives you cancer?
[/QUOTE]
Meh, what doesn't give you cancer?
Anyway, from what I understand, the major (or perhaps sole) source of paper in the United States is from secondary forests (the ones we replenish). As far as paper production elsewhere, I'm not sure.
Rainforest destruction is a cause for some alarm, but from what I understand, the major cause of it is this: poor people of the world need arable land to cultivate, and thus turn to rainforest land to feed themselves and their communities.
This leads to an even bigger issue of world hunger, which is the primary factor in this. Hopefully, through science, we will one day be able to feed the entire world through genetically modified crops. Hopefully, in this respect, Greenpeace (who is against the genetic modification of foods) does not get their way, and therefore cause millions or billions of people around the world to suffer through starvation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug