no, it isn't.

Truely a political discussion which is normelly the nexus of any arguement from education to proper diets. It doesn't matter the reason, we should reduce the bad gases and bad liquids and the bad solids from our environs.

You want political? How about 100 Billion for a war? Do you know how much 100 billion could do in the private sector to not only clean up but to tighten up?

I am really starting to believe that if the war was go by a private concern they could do so more effectively - no disrespect to our brave soliders but they will all agree that every aspect could be tighter.

The answer - privitize every freaking thing. Thats neo-capitalism.

Insects are much tinier, don't produce toxic waste like humans do, don't deforest half the planet like humans do, don't develop technologies that pollute the planet like humans do and aren't at the top of the food chain acting as consumers only (like humans) without giving anything back to the ecosystem.

These comparisons between insects and humans are extremely amateur. Six BILLION humans is the problem. Not ants, not natural cycles, not delusional fantasies that a rapid warming trend of the last 100-150 years is somehow "natural" or that humans have no appreciable impact or that the planet isn't overpopulated.

Give. Me. A. F*cking. Break. Already.

I thought some of you people were smarter than that.

Insects produced 100's of times the so-called green house gases than humans and domesticated animals do. It's a fact, and saying that a single termite is too small to pollute isn't science.

Quote:

These comparisons between insects and humans are extremely amateur. Six BILLION humans is the problem. Not ants, not natural cycles, not delusional fantasies that a rapid warming trend of the last 100-150 years is somehow "natural" or that humans have no appreciable impact or that the planet isn't overpopulated. Give. Me. A. F*cking. Break. Already. I thought some of you people were smarter than that.

I deal in science, not alchemy. What you've posted above is alchemy, it's bunk posing as fact. I'd suggest you do research on the subject.

Start with The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World by Professor Bjorn Lomborg, University of Aarhus, Denmark, published by the Cambridge University press. Though it's about 6 years out of date, it's information is still quite accurate. You'll find that most of your "knowledge" about the environment is wrong.

View a few pages of this book here:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0521010683/ref=sib_dp_pt/002-7378288-4547244#reader-link

Yeah, they are granted by the gay left mafia which ultimate goal is to replace each beautiful petrol gurgling V8 pickup with a Prius, gives me the chill :eek:

Well, I have to disagree with you on that one. Life on this planet was largely changed due to organizims. The original makeup of our atmosphere did not contain large amounts of free oxygen. Somewhere around 3 billions years ago, the "plants" started producing oxygen, and "polluted" the otherwise pristine atmosphere. Interesting things happen when you get the partial pressure of oxygen above about 2.3 psi. Flames can occur naturally. Those stupid plants made a whole world where things can burn.

Decaying organic matter produces, among other things, Carbon Dioxide.

Back on discussion...

Warming is occuring. There is no question of this. How much warming is occuring is still under debate. What is the mechanism behind the warming is also still under debate. The graphs provided earlier in this discussion show that warming and cooling occurs in cycles. The present cycle doesn't look any different than the previous ones.

If, then, what...

If warming occurs, then, what will be the result? I know this one is up for debate. I can tell you one thing that seems to get missed. As the global temperature rises, the amount of moisture that the air can hold also rises. More moisture = less deserts. Higher temps will also mean that crops can grow farther north than they do now, and for longer periods of time.

Economically, during the mideval warm period (1100-1500 AD), life was much better. When the "Little Ice age" from 1530-1850 occured, disease, crop failures and other disasters followed. Since 1850, the world economy has grown more than ever before in history.

And the sea level changes? Hasn't the sea level been rising already for about 18K years? Since the last ice age, the sea level has risen about 400 feet (130 meters). This is about 2 feet per 100 years. And what is now being predicted for the next 100 years?

2-3 feet.

SmileWavy

If you'll take a look at legislation passed in California, that's exactly what will happen. It's the stated goal of the sociofascist luddites in that state to have a huge fleet of electric or hybrid powered cars, by force.

Look out everyone, red-beard's being rational again. :cool:

I am always rational...in an irrational world

I don't have a problem with hybrid or electric cars. They just aren't the answer, yet. The largest problem with a hybrid is that the extra cost of the car is not justified by enough savings in fuel to pay for that extra cost. Eventually, hybrids will cost no more than, or mayhbe less than, standard cars. At that point, everyone will be driving them.

right now, the only way to "justify" hybrids is to either artificially raise the price of gasoline or to create a "tax" on lower MPG cars to even out the prices. Both of these are happening in Commiefornia.

Gasoline vs. hybrids.....( actually, any alternatives to fossil fuels, including those not thought of yet!!)

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasnt there also considerable resistance to automobiles when they were first introduced into society?

Seems as it there are always those unwilling to consider doing things in a different manner.

Yep, Schwarzenegger the typical crypto communist! http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/.../coffeecup.gif

The point I was making wasn't in opposition to alternative automobile types, it's in opposition to forced adoption of them. When cars came out, no one forced anyone to buy them.

Further, if reducing the use of fossil fuels in the desired goal, more ought to be done on fuel cell development. They're so efficient (though currently expensive) that you could have one in each neighborhood to generate electricity, eliminating the power grid as we know it in many cities.

No. Cars came into use when it was economic. Early adopters were "rich", that could afford the "luxury". The masses didn't get cars until they were production lined by Ford.

My great-grandfather owned one of the first powered tractors in North Texas/Oklahoma Territory. While it was expensive for the day, he sold the service of field plowing which allowed himself and other farmers in the area to grow more food and make more money. Early steam powered tractors (think Train Locomotives) were far too expensive to be be used by farmers. With the introduction of the Otto-cycle engines, the cost of the engines and the fuel were low enough to be used by many farmers.

We can leave the argument about the global warming hypothesis to the various independent, government, and industry supported researchers. After all, some still insist on debating Darwin. The current research seems pretty solid and the recent IIPC report "16 different models from different countries and scientists - all with the same result" point to mankind's industrial activity having an impact on the environment. That seems pretty obvious, to me.

In the meantime, I think we need to support and reinforce those changes that we can agree upon to reduce the effect industrialization has on the planet. To deny we need to change seems self-destructive.

What about electron theory? Like Plums in a pudding. Some theories are correct and others are wrong. Trying to compare global warming skeptics to flat earthers and anti-Darwin is pretty sad.

I am a skeptic because I can read. I am a skeptic on "Organic food." I am a skeptic on vitamin supplements. I am a skeptic on medical studies since most are reversed not long later. I am a skeptic on most news stories since I can multiply and understand what a Part Per Billion means. I can also understand that correlation and causation are 2 entirely different things.

There were people, thousands in fact, that believed duodenal ulcers were caused by stress and diet, an idea that was in vogue for many decades and still has a tiny handful of adherants. Millions of dollars was spent on research in the field, too. They were wrong. The ulcers were and are caused by an infection with Helicobacter pylori.

The proof that the IIPC Report isn't reliable is that it contains virtually no dissenting views, though they abound in the scientific community. It contains virtually no research or comments on how best to take advantage of temperature increases, such as crop changes, and farming method changes.

Its sole aim is to act as a fig leaf for modern Luddites.

Additional reference: A Global Warming Primer
Global Warming Bugaboo

I'm skeptical about your position.

No action is necessary because there is - IN YOUR OPINION - no proof of global warming is beyond the skeptical and in the realm of denial. But, that doesn't really matter to me. I respect your opinion. What matters to me is, "are there actions an intelligent society can and should take to reduce the impact of industrialization". Do you deny the benefit to such actions?

I deny that Global Warming is caused by the daily activities of humans.

If you want to discuss localized air pollution in Beijing, which is horrendous, then we can start a thread on that.

Mixing the two together for the purposes of obfuscating the issue isn't beneficial.

Maybe you could answer a question, for a change. Do you (or those who deny man's participation in global warming) deny overall benefit to reducing the effect of industrialization on the planet ?