I'm moving Global Warming into its own thread

[Guest]

There is a discussion in another one of bytor's thread that is turning into a global warming discussion. I'm starting a new thread because I would like to put forth my ideas on this one without the need for the "Republican versus Democrat" goopla that is going on.

If you want to contribute to this thread, you need to drop the Republican/Democrat/whatever hat before you join. You need to weigh in the issue by thinking about what it truly means and not what you heard some d00de said in some radio/tv show...

You don't need to cite sources unless it's a big statement that requires reliable source to be valid.

Fair enough?

[Guest]

My opinion:

1.) I can believe that the Earth is undergoing a global climate change. This has happened many times in the history of the Earth, therefore, there is no reason why it couldn't happen again. Therefore, when some scientist tells me Global Warming is happening, I say, yep, that could very well be.

2.) I cannot believe that the main cause of such a change is the carbon waste released into the atmosphere by man-made machinery. The reason I do not believe this is because the Earth underwent climate changes in it's history without the benefit of man-made machinery. Also, nature produces much more carbon waste than all of man-made machinery combined. Therefore, when Al Gore or the President of the United States says Arctic ice is melting because of Boston or China, I have no other option but to look at the political motivation of such a statement.

3.) The Kyoto protocol is bad. Not because I don't care about the planet, but because it is a political push that does not answer the intended problem of Global Warming. Instead, it gives economic advantage to those who cannot get the advantage any other way. Here is why:

The Kyoto protocol creates international laws that imposes standards onto sovereign nations. This is like the Federal government imposing standards on States but magnified to 10. I am against this as I am opposed to the Federal government trumping State laws. I, for sure, wouldn't want Russia, China, Italy, etc. telling us how to run our country.

These international environment protection standards only apply to first world industrialized nations like the United States and UK. Developing nations are exempt. Guess who they are - China and India for one. China and India are one of the worst offenders when it comes to pollution. Yet they are exempt.

So, I have Houston Pencil Company who makes pencils. Houston Pencil Co has to comply with US EPA standards, therefore, it costs him 10 cents to make pencils. He sells it to Wal-mart for 25 cents. Good business.

Shanghai Pencil Company makes pencils too. There's no such thing as EPA in China, therefore, it costs them only a penny to make a pencil. With international customs and shipping, it costs him 10 cents to get it to the US. He sells it to Wal-mart for 25 cents. Good business.

Shanghai and Houston Pencil Companies are on an even playing field competing for Wal-mart business.

Now, Kyoto comes in and mandates international environmental standards. Houston has to comply, Shanghai doesn't. So, instead of Houston pencils consting 10 cents, it now costs him 20 cents to make the pencil. It doesn't improve the environment because Houston is already EPA compliant. He cannot make enough profit if he sells it only for 25 cents to Wal-mart because his stockholders can make more money investing in Shanghai. So, what does he do? He then packs up his company and move to Hong Kong! The environment is still trashed... just because your dog pees on the neighbor's yard doesn't mean you took care of the grass!

Now think about it. Why would ANYBODY in America sign the Kyoto treaty? The only reason would be a.) economic ignorance, b.) you want America to go down the tubes in flames...

[DigitalShadow]

My opinion:

1.) I can believe that the Earth is undergoing a global climate change. This has happened many times in the history of the Earth, therefore, there is no reason why it couldn't happen again. Therefore, when some scientist tells me Global Warming is happening, I say, yep, that could very well be.

2.) I cannot believe that the main cause of such a change is the carbon waste released into the atmosphere by man-made machinery. The reason I do not believe this is because the Earth underwent climate changes in it's history without the benefit of man-made machinery. Also, nature produces much more carbon waste than all of man-made machinery combined. Therefore, when Al Gore or the President of the United States says Arctic ice is melting because of Boston or China, I have no other option but to look at the political motivation of such a statement.

Climate change has happened over many times in the course of Earth's history, but that does not mean it is impossible for the current changes to be influenced by man. I'm certainly not saying it is proved or even likely that we are heavily influencing the climate change, but I do think your logic is flawed. While it's true nature produces much more carbon waste than we do, is it not possible that the combined natural carbon waste, plus our "artificial" carbon waste is accelerating the normal process of climate change?

I'd also like to point out that while climate change is a "natural" part of the earth, so are the mass extinctions that go along with it. While human technology has come a long way, we are still very much reliant on the environment remaining relatively constant and while massive climate change would probably not wipe us out all together, it is certainly not something we would want to hasten if possible and I think it is definitely worth looking in to.

[Guest]

Climate change has happened over many times in the course of Earth's history, but that does not mean it is impossible for the current changes to be influenced by man. I'm certainly not saying it is proved or even likely that we are heavily influencing the climate change, but I do think your logic is flawed. While it's true nature produces much more carbon waste than we do, is it not possible that the combined natural carbon waste, plus our "artificial" carbon waste is accelerating the normal process of climate change?

I'd also like to point out that while climate change is a "natural" part of the earth, so are the mass extinctions that go along with it. While human technology has come a long way, we are still very much reliant on the environment remaining relatively constant and while massive climate change would probably not wipe us out all together, it is certainly not something we would want to hasten if possible and I think it is definitely worth looking in to.

You make good points. I agree that the addition of human footprint could contribute. It is worth looking into. But, the Kyoto treaty is not "looking into" it. And surely politicizing it is not "looking into" it either. Drastic government action based on un-proven science is just bad policy. Because, after all is said and done, you could wipe out all the industries in the planet and you could still end up harvesting rice in Antarctica.

Unfortunately, a lot of people buy into the scare tactics without thoroughly thinking it through.

[DigitalShadow]

You make good points. I agree that the addition of human footprint could contribute. It is worth looking into. But, the Kyoto treaty is not "looking into" it. And surely politicizing it is not "looking into" it either. Drastic government action based on un-proven science is just bad policy. Because, after all is said and done, you could wipe out all the industries in the planet and you could still end up harvesting rice in Antarctica.

Unfortunately, a lot of people buy into the scare tactics without thoroughly thinking it through.

I have not looked in to the Kyoto treaty in depth, but from what you posted it sounds like another worthless political move. I disagree with your presumed stance against even the concept of such a treaty though. As technology increases, the actions of a society are having more and more of an impact on the world, not just the particular piece of land claimed by a country.

[Guest]

I have not looked in to the Kyoto treaty in depth, but from what you posted it sounds like another worthless political move. I disagree with your presumed stance against even the concept of such a treaty though. As technology increases, the actions of a society are having more and more of an impact on the world, not just the particular piece of land claimed by a country.

Oh no, you misunderstand me. I am not against the concept of such a treaty. Not at all. I have a healthy respect for UN or NATO as a governing body (I can explain if you need me to but it has nothing to do with global warming). But, like the Federal government, I believe they have their role and the States have theirs.

I am against drastic measures based on un-proven science though. And I am against competitive disadvantage using said science as an excuse.

[DigitalShadow]

Oh no, you misunderstand me. I am not against the concept of such a treaty. Not at all. I have a healthy respect for UN or NATO as a governing body (I can explain if you need me to but it has nothing to do with global warming). But, like the Federal government, I believe they have their role and the States have theirs.

I am against drastic measures based on un-proven science though. And I am against competitive disadvantage using said science as an excuse.

I think we're in agreement on this then.

[Traveler]

Climate change has happened over many times in the course of Earth's history, but that does not mean it is impossible for the current changes to be influenced by man. I'm certainly not saying it is proved or even likely that we are heavily influencing the climate change, but I do think your logic is flawed. While it's true nature produces much more carbon waste than we do, is it not possible that the combined natural carbon waste, plus our "artificial" carbon waste is accelerating the normal process of climate change?

I'd also like to point out that while climate change is a "natural" part of the earth, so are the mass extinctions that go along with it. While human technology has come a long way, we are still very much reliant on the environment remaining relatively constant and while massive climate change would probably not wipe us out all together, it is certainly not something we would want to hasten if possible and I think it is definitely worth looking in to.

All climate change within the last 1000 years has been tied directly to sun spots. We have known for over 50 years that sun spots are super gigantic electrical magnetic storms based in quantum fluctuations in the sun’s fusion reactions. We have also gotten quite good at calculating the various cycles of the sun that include sun spots.

Does anybody know where we are in relation to “heating” or “cooling” cycles of the sun spots?

Next point – the three greatest places pointed to for problematic climate change are the melting of the polar ice and the glaciers of Icsland. All of which have experienced significant increases in seismicactivity. Seismic activity that releases energy (heat) from the earth’s core explains the melting ice but has given engine to the social-political panic going on.

Final point – carbon in the atmosphere. There is so much conjecture going on it is almost comical. Most man induce carbon in the atmosphere is CO – which is not a green house gas. Carbon based green house gas is less than 2% of the green house gas in the atmosphere. Did you know that breathing animals give off more green house carbon gas than cars? Maybe we should get rid of pets! The primary green house gas is water vapor which fluctuates far beyond the 2% levels of carbon. Seen any reports from our climate friends that indicate changes in water vapor in the atmosphere?

The concern that does exist is based on the Chaos Theory mathematical models. Such models have proven to be accurate in many complex systems but not one climate model has ever proven to be accurate within the parameters that predict CO2 as problematic. Therefore the mantra has become – “Can we take that chance? Let’s do something while we can.” Wonderful idea – but remember the increased seismic activity I mentioned earlier? That increase alone will cancel out the total effect should mankind stop putting any carbon in the atmosphere. Looks like a perfect political panic storm to me.

The Traveler

[Just_A_Guy]

I'm not sufficiently aware of the ins and outs of the debate to make an informed comment about this article. Any takers?